131–140 of 281 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insightful. ;) Yes, I was surprised by his responses, I thought his initial remark was great, but people mean quite different things by those lofty abstractions.
How about the both of you rub those brain cells together and see if you can organize a cogent point. Otherwise, piss off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait...so your two options are buy from Amazon or pirate? Amazon is basically the worst corporation on the face of the earth. Supporting a small publisher -- especially a small publisher willing to publish Julian Assange, books about Bradley Manning, and books about Wikileaks, is basically a decent thing to do.
Yeah, it's not so much a moral argument as that I'm willing to pay ~10 seconds and up to $20 (and ideally, $10) for a book.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Can you imagine a state that doesn't wield violence? That's what a state is. That's part of what a state is, but it's more than that. A state is a violent organization that has managed to convince the vast majority of society that its violent actions are acceptable. In any conceivable society (state or no state), you will have violence. The difference between "criminals" (druglords, thieves, rapists, etc.) and "gov…
> A state is a violent organization that has managed to convince the vast majority of society that its violent actions are acceptable. Got that a bit backwards there. A state is a violent organization formed by society meant to enforce the rules of said society. We prefer the state to criminals generally because we have some say in how the state works or find its rules preferrable to the criminals.
This xkcd strip was never more on-topic than now. http://xkcd.com/538/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forget about the Constitution. Rather, they should respect basic human rights and the principles of the Enlightenment. All this focus Americans put on their Constitution makes it easier for their government to become oppressive, because it encourages complacency. As though you could write the perfect set of laws, that you could define the perfect set of operating principles for your government, and in that way free y…
I don't disagree, but courts are much more likely to enforce laws that are written down and (implicitly) agreed to by US agencies.
It's quite easy for a Supreme Court to rationalize the disposal of civil liberties. Look at air travel. The argument is that people are consenting to the invasive searches because they are choosing to fly; never mind that flying is basically the only reasonable way of getting across this giant country. They can say the same thing about the internet. "You are consenting to use the option of internet based communication. If you want privacy, speak in person."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. The Constitution defines the proper form and responsibility of American government. If the Constitution falls, we no longer have legitimate government. That's historical fact. Other governments' law enforcement agencies follow the laws of their own countries (or don't). Are you saying they shouldn't do that?
Right. The point of a Constitution or whatever is to have some kind of law to follow. You don't need to worship it, it's just your axioms of government. That's your "rational way" of specifying priority #1.
To protect the constitution (and it's application within it's jurisdiction), the president (ie. the government) has the right AND the duty to violate ANY American law except clause 1 and 2 of the constitution. To put it plainly : the ONLY thing the president cannot do to defend the constitution is to mess with elections. That's it. It also states that the president is the person making the assessment if an action is necessary (and thus, not the courts, though of course, the president can be removed from office for making a decision that either congress or the courts think was not reasonable. That does not change the fact that the president cannot be punished for implementing that action. The maximum penalty for any crime for the president is impeachment, unless this is specifically extended by congress).
This is because article 2 of the constitution overrides every other law in the US, except article 1, including all following articles and amendments.
If you think this sequence is by accident, you should talk to a lawyer about things like this. Sequence in laws, and the principle that earlier rules override later ones is extremely well established technique of law.
What everybody seems to think these laws state, that you have extensive rights without any qualifications whatsoever, is just plainly not true. If you are a danger to the application of the US constitution within US borders, the president is not bound to any standard, nor does he have to respect any form of human rights in his attempts to stop you from doing so.
If you think it is better in European states, think again. Specifically, read what the Dutch monarch is allowed to do (e.g. she can have someone killed - both her and the actual murderer go free, she can confiscate any amount of property - with no legal recourse for anyone, etc.). Similar things are true for other Euro countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For this reason I am fond of Jonathan Zittrain. Not that he particularly aligns with Assange but he is very good at presenting these issues in a compelling manner.
Eben Moglen has also made several good talks about the abolishment of privacy, and its effects. I would especially suggest listening to the Berlin talk made this year called "Why Freedom of Thought Requires Free Media and Why Free Media Require Free Technology".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Assange is still preparing for fascism." You mean the guy who is in internal exile in Britain because as a journalist he revealed war crimes committed by Britain's partner the United States? He's the guy who is delusional about the form of government that surrounds him, huh? Glad it's as simple as that.
To add some more complexity: the reason he is in a dodgy situation in the first place are rape allegations. Looking at some "leaked" parts of his biography this doesn't sound too far-fetched to me. I definitely appreciate his engagement in disclosing many interesting documents about the micro-social diplomatic environment. But after all, what about the more interesting stuff? Leaked documents from the center of the t…
The truth is that the only reasonable thing to do is to become politically active.
If you can't beat them, join them.