msiegel Star

Tags  →  liberties

Purpose: to set limits on government actions in regard to personal liberties.
i'm surprised how level-headed and articulate poole is... maybe it's his stability that provides a safe environment for the chaos of 4chan
"The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to.

Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, law, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself.

It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.

What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body."

- Thomas Jefferson
"Pentagon to Detail Troops to Bolster Domestic Security"

hmm... this sounds suspiciously like someone's planning for citizens to riot :(
priorities :D (hey i don't want to see them either)




maybe the solution is for government to get into the civil-union business and out of the marriage business. that would preserve civil rights, as required by the u.s. constitution
it should never have been put on the ballot. rights can't be denied to a minority of people just because a majority want to.
From the page: "Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was," the San Francisco Democrat said. "I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."
Smells like a rebellion brewing. Give only some people special rights, and you get trouble.

"All men are created equal"... you may remember that from the Declaration of Independence. Yes, "men" refers to human beings, in case you forgot that half the people on this planet are women. And not just *white people* either. Etc.

I'd rather have marriage's exceptional legal status revoked (keeping it strictly a religious affair, not civil at all), than go around giving only some people special rights.
ridicule, the irrepressible weapon of reason; here applied against proposition 8, a patently discriminatory law
The US Constitution specifically forbids discrimination. Let's not forget who was just rightly elected president -- as a perfect example of how that protection works.
I'm thumbing this up to highlight the issue. The US Constitution forbids discrimination based on race, gender etc. We don't have to call it marriage, but clearly if some adult couples are allowed special legal rights, then the federal government must allow all adult couples the same rights -- and states are *required* to comply. Those legal rights are not a religious issue.
Therefore, NO ON PROP 8
now all we have to do is "accidentally" get everyone into one or another database, and ta-da, instant police state
i'm no statistician, but i think doctorow is right. this means our "security" measures, in addition to being extremely expensive, are simply too inefficient to work.
From the page: "How about the Ayatolla of Copyrightolla?"
all the founders seem to be worried about money taking over somehow. hmm...
I like the inference that's drawn. From the page: "Hopefully our Saint Paul leaders and cops will soon reach the same sort of conclusion in standing up in favor of civil liberties as a key part of keeping the peace."
what a mess, but this is always the case when re-interpreting existing laws for new technology... especially in an "extremely primitive and paranoid culture" (James T Kirk ;)
i don't care who brought the lawsuit, this is a victory for the american people. why? let's remember *why* this country was created in the first place: to protect the unalienable rights of each and every individual. infringement upon those rights by the state must be carefully guarded against; and here the rights of the people of california are being protected.
that's odd, a border checkpoint is operating illegally, nowhere near the border




the customer review is the best part :D
From the page: "To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude... I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." - President Thomas Jefferson :)

// thanks to ar0cketman
i can understand why nsa would want to scan all the traffic crossing through main internet hubs... it's a great way to potentially overhear something important. if you look at unencrypted internet traffic as information flowing through a "public space", one might even consider the eavesdropping to be legal and legitimate. unfortunately for most of us citizens, keeping our internet communications and activities private is technically challenging, and in many cases impossible.
"immense powers are being concentrated in the hands of the central government -- a sure path to tyranny"

:(


The U.S. Constitution. This is a good thing to reflect upon today. A few choice parts from the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
interesting opinion... we've gotten ourselves into quite a pickle these days, having placed importance only on making money. thanks for the find, ar0cketman
let's keep the internet open for free speech and innovation
while this sounds like a good simplification, the original designers of the u.s. appear to have intended a small and efficient federal government... and let individual states handle the rest. therefore, continuing to fund a gigantic expensive federal government (that "handles everything") may be a fundamental mistake, and may lead to continued erosion of our constitutional rights.
Theft By Deception - Deciphering The Federal Income Tax - 87 min.

Amazing. Cut through the tedious intricacies, and this is simply amazing.

This excellent documentary shows that the U.S. Constitution denies congress the power to impose federal taxes on our income. When studied closely, the tax codes themselves yield evidence of tampering to obscure this limitation. (Shades of Wikipedia)

According to thorough and methodically presented evidence, U.S. citizens have been illegally paying federal taxes for several decades.

I'm entirely in favor of funding things we as a people deem critical and important... but it appears that federal income taxes are not the means we are supposed to use to raise those funds. Fixing this error will require a lot of further dialog.
Jefferson says, "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

// old-style language, but that's about as clear as the concept gets, IMO