In other discussions on HN I’ve had responses suggesting that it’s simply to ensure that e.g. kids don’t disrupt emergency bands.
It seems similar to anti-gun legislation which also appears to a type of anti-revolution legislation despite being positioned as a measure to reduce school shootings.
It just all seems so unrealistic to me. This video shows Cuba, a country with practically no military budget compared to the US, jamming hams without problem - but the fantasy goes that somehow it would be the last bastion of free communication in the event of a American revolution?
The same with gun control, that the fact you can only get a 12 round magazine instead of the 30 round magazine is going to make a difference in "the revolution"?
Not even getting to the point that if by focusing on preparing for a destructive revolution you begin to give up on fixing things through the political process.
Every organism has the right for self defense and communication, whether you or a government agrees with it.
Rights are not a human construct; they are inalienable, given by a Creator, and we will be accountable to Him for stepping on the rights of others, and He expects us to do what we can to preserve the rights of others as well.
No, it doesn't. Language is a human construct,¹ and yet there's yaught bleep mÜOL87 øō°0o. So something being a human construct doesn't mean you can safely ignore it.
¹: Esperanto, at least, is a human construct.
But even if there are human constructs that cannot be ignored, my example with police still stands because since the police are the power, they can "construct" rights or deconstruct them still, which means they can ignore rights if they are just a human construct, a construct that they themselves supposedly helped build.
In fact, your argument is really in favor of the ideology that the strongest deserve to rule the weak. That is not the case.
That's kind of irrelevant. Ideologies are great, manipulative things, seizing every argument and foothold they can to support themselves. Saying “nobody actually exists” counters “the strongest deserve to rule the weak” quite nicely, but it isn't true; arguing “people really exist” is an argument in favour of that ideology, but that doesn't make it false.
The idea of God-given rights has, historically, been the major justification behind “the strongest deserve to rule the weak”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings Does that make you less inclined to believe it? (The answer should be no.)
Ignore manipulative, harmful ideologies until you can shun or counter them. If the Evil Ideology monopolises certain truths, and is the only set of philosophy (that purports to be) grounded in those truths, it seems to all but philosophers like the Evil Ideology is a consequence of those truths.
In fact, if humanism is about human agency, then I am saying that police officers who give themselves the right to shoot people are violating humanism because they violate the agency of others.
That said, rejecting God, rather His principles, will lead to authoritarianism because as man turns away from the principles of correct living, he becomes more of an animal and must be governed. Thus, authoritarianism arises.
I've always wondered why the "Him", "He", turns "Cap H Christians" do it out of respect, not grammar. I've been reading about Haile Selassie, often referred to as "HIM" or His Imperial Majesty.
And yes, I do it out of respect and would never capitalize those pronouns for a mere human, king or not.
there's what people can do, and the consequences of it. rights are just a statement about consequences, but just a statement, which is why cops don't have the right to kill without consequences, but in practice they kill without consequences.
Yet the fact that we still say it's wrong shows that no, rights are not a human construct.
I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.
Okay, do you have a point?
Are you saying we should just throw rights out the window?
Astan seems to have done well in proving an illegitimate state can’t be imposed on an independent polity with ample small arms.
Prior to the revolution the regulations give you ample freedom to use the radio to become expert at using it.
This is doubly true because ham licensees are permitted to build their own equipment or modify their equipment and use the modified equipment on the air.
>Prior to the revolution the regulations give you ample freedom to use the radio to become expert at using it.
So long as you do it on their terms. And their terms include barriers to entry which tend to prevent the parts of society with the least to use from participating.
If there's not a bunch of people with little to lose sitting around with the means to revolt it's much less likely that there will be a revolt. And making sure people don't have the means is a lot easier than making sure people have something to lose.
I think the most support I could give your argument is that convicted felons are barred from getting licensed. I think that is an unnecessary and inappropriate restriction -- and ones with obvious discriminatory consequences considering the race/gender/economic biases in who gets charged and convicted of crimes. But it's a bit hard to lobby against because there are creeps that try to use the radio to meet kids and that felon restriction is one of the tools people use against that.
Encryption not allowed on ham bands because it makes enforcing non-commercial use impossible. It's as simple as that, no conspiracy theory about "suppressing revolution" is necessary to explain it.
https://hackaday.com/2018/11/26/fcc-gets-complaint-proposed-...
Furthermore, the encryption ban is not specific to ham radio. The guvmin't just wants to be able to listen in, and do so easily.
Not /s btw, completely serious.
I will be home schooling my children.
Also, gotta lova Bo Burnham