End the N.S.A. Dragnet, Now

Your understanding of what is meant by "free enterprise" is false. Source: I have a degree in Economics and wrote my senior's thesis on this subject.

"Free enterprise" in this context means the enterprise has internal freedom - i.e. it is owned and controlled by non-state actors, as in people like you and me. These non-state actors can do whatever they want. Yes, there are still rules and regulations they operate under, but this does not mean that they are not free.

The language "free enterprise" is specifically used to distinguish capitalism from communism, where the state controls the means of production, i.e. the enterprises (e.g. factories) are owned by the government, which typically exerts authoritarian control over them and determines what should be produced and how. The enterprises in communism have no internal freedom: they follow the government's orders. If the government says the factory should produce computers, that's what the factory produces. If the governments says it should produce tanks, that's what it produces. Whereas in capitalism, enterprises can produce whatever they want as long as they do it legally. They are still free.

I do think that unlike Roe there is some room in the Fourth Amendment for finding that bulk storage of all electronic communications, regardless if they are being investigated for content or not, results in an unreasonable search. The Fourth Amendment has been found since Katz to cover more than just physical searches.

My main issue is that this has not become a debate, it's still an order. And it's an order that violates our fourth amendment right. This right was part of handshake for a new system, and it cannot be violated save for some rare situation we could all agree is reasonable.

No one should think this is reasonable... security is lax, control of the data is lax ("corporate store"? Are you kidding me?). The situation is flipped here. Without leaks, we would actually be suffering more. Security clearance is not protecting us, it's using and abusing us. It's being used to hide things that would harm us more if they were never leaked. And FISA courts are used to give us some illusion that rules will be followed while having it waved in our face that we're lucky to have them. This is crazy.

Try to accommodate any warrantless surveillance in the fourth amendment's text without creating either a comical contradiction that violates its entire spirit or removes it entirely. We know that being ok with these citizen data programs amounts to being ok with not having this right, but we're still talking about it. I want to keep my right. And since the amendment was added in response to writs of assistance, unchecked delegation of authority so scarily similar to this reasonable articulable suspicion thing we are seeing today in both this and Stop and Frisk, i think we'd all be better suited to start with our right and add any exceptions as-needed, not have them added for us. I'm assigned a threat score even before i'm suspicious? To find out whether i'm suspicious? To then act on me because of this suspicion? All while making money off of me based on my actions? You want to buy my actions? Ok, name a price, i'll consider it.

I don't want to start this privacy war this gang wants me to. I'd rather we follow the law and consider those who don't criminal. Privacy is a buffer against abuse, not a place to hide dirty secrets. We can't predict or even see or notice all of the horrible loss of self control that might come about because of this collection. The chorus of "Nothing to Hide" in response rings eery in my ears.

Under rules and regulations, an enterprise is not free to allocate its capital at it desires, produce the products it desires, market them in the way it desires, and sell them to who it desires.

The degree to which that is true depends on the scope of the rules and regulations. If the only one is that there is a 5% income tax, the enterprise loses 5% of its freedom to allocate its capital. In reality, in our mixed economy, companies operate under many, many restrictions. In areas like finance and telecom, we have full-on regulatory monopolies: an enterprise has no freedom without permission, and new permissions are not being granted.

I am fully aware that academic economists consistently define things according to non-essentials, and the only thing I can do is reject that. A "free enterprise" must mean what the words "free" and "enterprise" mean in the English language. Anything else is a barrier to rational thinking.

If economists want a word for an enterprise that can "do whatever it wants, but still operates under rules and regulations," they (properly) have to make a new word for it, not re-use existing words that mean something different.

Actually, though, there already is a word for that: a "contradiction." An enterprise cannot be free and not-free.

Unfortunately, many academic economists want to "earn" their bread and butter by peddling contradictions to students and the public, and they deserve the very highest moral condemnation for it.

Why? Because that kind of behavior leads to recessions (such as the perma-recession we are currently in), depressions, and the rise of authoritarianism (fascism being one example from recent history). It leads to suffering and mass-killing.

Source: Reality.

To the degree that you are a victim of this, you should rethink your views. To the degree that you are a perpetrator (if at all), you should be ashamed of yourself.

I have my doubts that it was ever the way you described it. But given these discussions are often rhetorical I don't think that detracts all that much from the concept.