4 ms·

Insane. 1. The US government now isn't even trying to pretend it doesn't only work for obsolete corporations. This is all make-work crap. They know the streams

by aj700 16y ago

Insane. 1. The US government now isn't even trying to pretend it doesn't only work for obsolete corporations. This is all make-work crap. They know the streams will be published somehow. 1a Until the supremes work out and declare that (soft) money is not protected speech, America will be an absolute, undemocratic plutocracy. 2. Why allow someone to register a domain that is obviously to be used for exactly this purpose in the first place? 3. The penalty for using frames on a site is now 5 years in prison.

jcromartie 16y ago
It's pretty transparent. http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1007/100702hollywood.htm http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1007/100702hollywood.htm > At a sound stage at Walt Disney Studios in Southern California, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton announced to movie industry representatives how the agency is "turning the table on thieves" by combating movie piracy. "Working with industry, we will systematically target websites that offer counterfeit or pirated products. We will seize websites, prosecute the owners and forfeit proceeds." This is from an ICE press release. No secrets here.
CWuestefeld 16y ago
Until the supremes work out and declare that (soft) money is not protected speech, America will be an absolute, undemocratic plutocracy. Sigh. I can use my money for political speech as I see fit. You and I could pool our money for political speech as we jointly see fit. At what point do you advocate that we should lose our right to cooperate, pooling our money to reach more of the electorate? Sure, it's a cliche by now, but America isn't designed to be a democracy[1]. It's overarching architecture is that of a constitutional republic, only granting limited powers to the government. It just uses democracy to fill in the details. The problem is that the people have complacently ceded to the government too much power (and you're advocating that we cede even more![2]). The government now has the power to determine who is going to succeed, who is going to get rich, and who is going to be destroyed. But, as I've said elsewhere, the problem is with public choice economics, and rationally-irrational voters. Because we've allowed the government's power to grow so greatly, it now wields sufficient power that it's (very) cost effective to woo the legislators for special privileges and rent seeking. On the other hand, while voters collectively could wield power to counter this, it's diffuse, and any one particular voter has approximately zero influence, and thus has little incentive to make the significant investment in educating himself about what's going on. Thus, the electorate is generally ignorant (and rationally so), and does not know about (most of) the shenanigans going on with their government. [1] There are 3 equal branches to the US federal government. The SCOTUS is appointed, not democratically elected, so that's 1/3. The President is elected by the electoral college, not the populace, that's another 1/3. The legislature is made up of two houses. The Representatives are elected democratically, but until the 17th Amendment, the Senate was appointed by the State legislatures -- not democratic. So that's another 1/6. Thus, 5/6ths of the US government's power was determined non-democratically as designed at the time the Constitution was ratified. Only 1/6 was democratic. So it's tough to say that we're supposed to be a democracy. [2] Indeed, you seem to be trying to give the government more power, not keep it for the liberty of the people. In (1a) you advocate controlling speech, which obviously entails having the goverment decide whose speech is legal and whose isn't. And in (2) you further advocate prior restraint on speech, deciding in advance that someone seems to have the intent to say something bad. It looks to me like you're trying to build a "democracy" with absolute control over us. (I'll leave the ultimate invocation of Godwin to the reader)
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  Downvotes are fine, but please give me the courtesy of explaining your disagreement, rather than just whacking me over the head.
  - aj700 16y ago
    The system is a two party stable oligarchy anyway. We more or less publically fund parties in Europe. Why does the private sector, whether individuals or co-operating individuals have a right to fund/corrupt officials and influence policy? If hard money is wrong, soft money should be too. Making it an issue ad is a stupid, inconsistent loophole. Toby Ziegler's been through all this anyway. It's simply not normal for corporations to give millions to parties and issue groups outside America. And the principle may be arguable, but the effects are clearly appalling. on point 2, I'm not saying there should be enforced, pre-emptive speech control. But if the system were human instead of automated, someone could have pointed out to the domain owner that they'll probably have to seize it anyway if they use it for that purpose. Of course, I'm expecting far too much intelligence and concern for the customer from a dumb (ie efficient) system.
    - CWuestefeld 16y ago
      A fair reply, thanks. Maybe we're not so different as the initial disagreement would show. The system is a two party stable oligarchy anyway. I've been saying this forever. DEM and GOP are just two sides of the same coin, with barely a hair's breadth of difference between them. If hard money is wrong, soft money should be too. Logically that makes sense, but I'm arriving at a different solution than you. I think that the freedom of speech (together with some others, like self-defense, property rights, and freedom to engage in contracts) are paramount. Because our system is fundamentally designed to guarantee natural rights, but only incidentally democratic, when rights and voting are in tension, it should be the freedom of speech that wins over electoral procedures.

by aj700 16y ago

jcromartie 16y ago

It's pretty transparent. http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1007/100702hollywood.htm http://www.ice.gov/news/releases/1007/100702hollywood.htm > At a sound stage at Walt Disney Studios in Southern California, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director John Morton announced to movie industry representatives how the agency is "turning the table on thieves" by combating movie piracy. "Working with industry, we will systematically target websites that offer counterfeit or pirated products. We will seize websites, prosecute the owners and forfeit proceeds." This is from an ICE press release. No secrets here.

CWuestefeld 16y ago

Until the supremes work out and declare that (soft) money is not protected speech, America will be an absolute, undemocratic plutocracy. Sigh. I can use my money for political speech as I see fit. You and I could pool our money for political speech as we jointly see fit. At what point do you advocate that we should lose our right to cooperate, pooling our money to reach more of the electorate? Sure, it's a cliche by now, but America isn't designed to be a democracy[1]. It's overarching architecture is that of a constitutional republic, only granting limited powers to the government. It just uses democracy to fill in the details. The problem is that the people have complacently ceded to the government too much power (and you're advocating that we cede even more![2]). The government now has the power to determine who is going to succeed, who is going to get rich, and who is going to be destroyed. But, as I've said elsewhere, the problem is with public choice economics, and rationally-irrational voters. Because we've allowed the government's power to grow so greatly, it now wields sufficient power that it's (very) cost effective to woo the legislators for special privileges and rent seeking. On the other hand, while voters collectively could wield power to counter this, it's diffuse, and any one particular voter has approximately zero influence, and thus has little incentive to make the significant investment in educating himself about what's going on. Thus, the electorate is generally ignorant (and rationally so), and does not know about (most of) the shenanigans going on with their government. [1] There are 3 equal branches to the US federal government. The SCOTUS is appointed, not democratically elected, so that's 1/3. The President is elected by the electoral college, not the populace, that's another 1/3. The legislature is made up of two houses. The Representatives are elected democratically, but until the 17th Amendment, the Senate was appointed by the State legislatures -- not democratic. So that's another 1/6. Thus, 5/6ths of the US government's power was determined non-democratically as designed at the time the Constitution was ratified. Only 1/6 was democratic. So it's tough to say that we're supposed to be a democracy. [2] Indeed, you seem to be trying to give the government more power, not keep it for the liberty of the people. In (1a) you advocate controlling speech, which obviously entails having the goverment decide whose speech is legal and whose isn't. And in (2) you further advocate prior restraint on speech, deciding in advance that someone seems to have the intent to say something bad. It looks to me like you're trying to build a "democracy" with absolute control over us. (I'll leave the ultimate invocation of Godwin to the reader)

CWuestefeld 16y ago
Downvotes are fine, but please give me the courtesy of explaining your disagreement, rather than just whacking me over the head.
- aj700 16y ago
  The system is a two party stable oligarchy anyway. We more or less publically fund parties in Europe. Why does the private sector, whether individuals or co-operating individuals have a right to fund/corrupt officials and influence policy? If hard money is wrong, soft money should be too. Making it an issue ad is a stupid, inconsistent loophole. Toby Ziegler's been through all this anyway. It's simply not normal for corporations to give millions to parties and issue groups outside America. And the principle may be arguable, but the effects are clearly appalling. on point 2, I'm not saying there should be enforced, pre-emptive speech control. But if the system were human instead of automated, someone could have pointed out to the domain owner that they'll probably have to seize it anyway if they use it for that purpose. Of course, I'm expecting far too much intelligence and concern for the customer from a dumb (ie efficient) system.
  - CWuestefeld 16y ago
    A fair reply, thanks. Maybe we're not so different as the initial disagreement would show. The system is a two party stable oligarchy anyway. I've been saying this forever. DEM and GOP are just two sides of the same coin, with barely a hair's breadth of difference between them. If hard money is wrong, soft money should be too. Logically that makes sense, but I'm arriving at a different solution than you. I think that the freedom of speech (together with some others, like self-defense, property rights, and freedom to engage in contracts) are paramount. Because our system is fundamentally designed to guarantee natural rights, but only incidentally democratic, when rights and voting are in tension, it should be the freedom of speech that wins over electoral procedures.