Hacker News Reader

> If you are a hard-core Liberal it is time you wake up and realize the monster your party has created.

Pardon, but this is not a partisan issue. I do not mean to derail this discussion, but these programs have been in place since the 1970's (with mail covers before that) and both sides of the aisle are equally culpable. The programs themselves are now just receiving their proper public reveal and the fact that they have existed for so long suggests that the Pandora's Box has been opened and the only way to shut is to bring the programs to the forefront of the national conversation and demand, as a people, that it come to a halt.

Splitting it into a partisan bickering match is exactly what the politicians want because it confuses the real issue at hand. Do not play into their hand.

The 'monster' of our government is probably not a partisan issue in this particular case, but the growth in government size and power, and the erosion of individual civil liberties have always been done via large steps done by, predominately, liberals (most notably FDR, in my opinion).

That isn't to say that the Republicans aren't culpable, but in implementing the tools used to carve out more power for the government (abuse of the commerce clause, general welfare clause, contracts clause, etc.), you can almost exclusively look to the liberals for blame.

I should also point out that while I'll pile equal amounts of blame (but for different reasons) to both liberals and conservatives, I lay the blame at the feet of the citizenry pretty squarely, for not knowing what they're voting for, not bothering to check on who they're voting in, and for routinely voting in the better looking candidate, or believing rhetoric without comparing to voting records, and for continually violating Tytler's dilemma, which suggests that a democracy can only last so long as the citizenry doesn't realize it can vote itself favors from the public largesse.

Do you have a specific example of liberal policy eroding civil liberties?

Your final point is dead on. The populace needs to wake up and realize what a terrifying course we are currently on and do something to change it.

Obamacare is an easy one, as the government is leveraging the tax code to mandate that citizens obtain health insurance. Exacerbated somewhat by the idea that the health insurance is now a government-supplied good, and that they will have an effect on controlling its prices and such.

This was enabled by a couple of Supreme Cases under FDR - which, while I'm usually wary of attributing SCOTUS actions to the president of the time, FDR was responsible for the appointment of EIGHT Supreme Court Justices, stacking the deck - Wickard v. Filburn eroded all libertarian meaning of the Commerce Clause. Helvering v. Davis eroded the concept of personal economic liberty, in that since its interpretation, the government is allowed to take money from you and give it to others, as part of the New Deal push for Social Security.

These two cases are also considered, generally, to be some of the worst decisions by the Supreme Court, and both of which led to vast expansion in government powers. As those expansions were used primarily to take away from the citizenry, they subsequently eroded civil liberties.

The commerce clause is now what is used to allow the federal government to arrest California medical marijuana proprietors, even though it is perfectly legal in the state of California, which means that the impact of the clause has effectively eliminated the idea of states' rights. If the states have no sovereign rights from the federal government, then you can rest assured that the people don't either.

> These two cases are also considered, generally, to be some of the worst decisions by the Supreme Court

Funny, I would think that some of the worst decisions are generally considered to be Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Bush vs. Gore (the last of which a former SCOTUS Justice has even said they regret granting certiorari to the case).

> some of the worst decisions by the Supreme Court

whose impact is still being felt.

There, I've fixed it. The cases you referenced have clearly been course corrected by amendments to the Constitution and subsequent cases. It would be foolish to suggest now that black people can't exercise judicial standing, or have access to the same water fountains as white people.

It would be equally foolish now to suggest that the government doesn't have the right to take your money and give it to someone else, though that was the case before the New Deal appointments to SCOTUS.

As for Bush v Gore, I understand that O'Connor has regretted granting cert, but not the decision on the whole. Beyond that, I haven't studied the case so I can't speak for its merits (or lack thereof), but either way, my citation of very bad Supreme Court cases is obviously a very incomplete list, but I thought the cases I referenced were particularly appropriate given the question asked.

Well, I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I'm a good bit more liberal than bmelton and I think Wickard v. Filburn is an absolutely awful decision, as are a lot of the decisions than rest on it. I'm baffled that it hasn't been overturned since, though perhaps that's the hubris of someone who enjoys making up con law arguments without having to submit them to an actual court for examination.

Stare Decisis is a bitch, and the Supreme Court's broad regard for it, and especially their unwillingness to overturn it except where absolutely fucking necessary in order to render judgement, effectively turns bad precedent into law.

The difficulty with which to find a case to directly challenge it on the merits you want it to be challenged, and have that case escalated to SCOTUS, and have that case be heard, and then receive a ruling clearly in your favor without some other myriad legal issues clouding it from the main point? The odds are infinitesimal.

Are there any governments that require the legislature to address ambiguities or other issues with laws raised by the courts, in a sort of common/civil law hybrid? Having a significant chunk of a country's laws based on obscure court precedents rather than deliberately worded legislation seems harmful to the goal of a legally accountable and educated populace.

Not that I know of (assuming I've understood you correctly), and coming from a common-law country myself I'd be very reluctant to give up that system in favor of a more civil one, warts and all.

It is a real problem though. One book that addresses these problems well is Robert Kagan's Adversarial Legalism. As for the situation in the US, there's a school of thought that argues sufficient resolutions have been lodged with Congress to warrant a Constitutional Convention, and last Spring, Indiana, Georgia, and Kansas passed fresh resolutions in hopes of getting some momentum behind the process. Of course the problem is the mutual suspicion and factional acrimony that would inevitably characterize such an undertaking, but then that was true of the first one as well. I'm with Prof Sanford Levinson of UT in thinking that it would a good idea to give the nation a legal tune-up, but my political views are, ah, eccentric.

I like the idea of courts being able to raise legal issues in a way that is binding on more than just the case at hand, but as a non-lawyer, I also want a centralized repository of law that I can be reasonably confident I understand. There are a number of other process changes I would propose to help the public be more informed (e.g. publishing laws as colored unified diffs rather than prosaic descriptions of word-by-word changes), but I doubt anybody who can change them is listening ;-).

> As those expansions were used primarily to take away from the citizenry, they subsequently eroded civil liberties.

Perhaps I have a different definition of civil liberties than you. I subscribe to the following definition, as proposed in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties)

> Civil liberties are civil rights and freedoms that provide an individual specific rights. Though the scope of the term differs amongst various countries, some examples of civil liberties include the freedom from slavery and forced labor, freedom from torture and death, the right to liberty and security, freedom of conscience, religion, expression, press, assembly and association, speech, the right to privacy, the right to equal treatment and due process and the right to a fair trial, as well as the right to life. Other civil liberties may also include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity.

What do you consider your civil liberties to be?

2nd Amendment.

Liberals may vote for favors, but mainstream so-called conservatives vote for "security" on the public credit card, as well as unfunded tax cuts for the very wealthy. (Look at the debt explosion under Reagan and Bush II.)

Making this about parties misses the point: they're playing for the same team and serving the same masters. All else is theater.

I don't exempt Republicans from my scorn, but the quoted text seemed to be an excuse to let the liberals off the hook in the name of non-partisanship.

I could cite plenty of examples in which the Republicans eroded our civil liberties and grew the military machine as well, but that didn't seem to be what the grand-parent was objecting to.

The OP included three party-focused paragraphs, one for liberals, one for conservatives, one for libertarians. Only the first one, trying to motivate liberals, was quoted.

I believe that's the same thing I just said.

I totally agree; the constant partisan bickering match is exactly how politicians continue to stay in power, despite acting against the people's interests.

Furthermore, you can go back a little bit further in history to the regime of George W. Bush who stole the election and point out how his programs set the ground for this type of surveillance. Then you can go back further and point out the Echelon program under Clinton (and Waco and Ruby Ridge), etc. etc.

The point is we can continue this partisan bickering match from behind our keyboards ad infinitum and never take to the streets and work on building a movement.

How are broad based coalitions that demand change and get it built? By people setting aside their differences and working towards a common goal.

So the next time you see someone who's all herp-derp Ron Paul or an Obamazombie Libtard (I'm using inflammatory language here to make a point), instead of arguing with them to try and assign blame, why not invite them to the next Linux Users Group meeting and show them how to install crypto software? Or the next planning meeting for the next demo?

It's only by setting aside our political differences and taking small, baby steps working with a diverse group of people can we build a strong coalition that can't be divided by petty bickering as it starts to gain political power.

I never thought I'd have this thoughts in the US. Never.

You need to read more books. Start with something about coal mine strikes, or the general history of the labor rights movement.

The reality is, nobody is going to shoot you and your friends in the head for marching around chanting about NSA surveillance. They won't even point firehoses at you, or sic dogs on you. You are freer than Americans have been at virtually any other point in our country's history.

Indeed. Labor history in the US is riddled with some very scary things.

To add to that, I'd also recommend Eight Hours For What We Will. It's an excellent look at another aspect of labor history--the history of working class leisure. Very fascinating and insightful.

Thomas, have you ever done work for the NSA?

Don't be a tool.

I'm not trying to be, I'm simply trying to gain an understanding of whether your statements may come from a place of bias. I am sorry if it came off offensive.

Even if his comments were as an NSA employee, the comments still stand.

And it's really not that hard to look up a user's profile to see where they work if they put that sort of information there.

It wasn't your question that was offensive, but his rude response.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5992358

> You too can go fuck yourself.

You know, a lot of people here look up to you. When you write stuff like that it has a lot more influence than when some newbie account does. I would probably say that the influence is negative, assuming HN is a thing that you care about.

After submitting I see that you changed your post. The link is not much better.

> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5992358

> I'm glad you approve. No, wait, I don't give a shit.

So someone asked if you've done work for the NSA. Who cares? Clearly you have the ability, it's not the most offensive thing in the world even if it's a bit naive. The person doesn't necessarily know that it's totally against your values, assuming that this is the source of the offense.

Good. I think this place would be better if we all had a more appropriate level of contempt for comments accusing people of being shills.

I'm not offended at someone suggesting I might have worked for NSA. You still don't get it.

(I changed the parent not because I'm uncomfortable with it, but because I wrote it before I saw the comment below that I ended up replying to; either "go fuck yourself" or the response I wrote downthread work for me, but both together seemed pointless).

You're offended because of the suggestion that your comment about the extent of free speech we have with respect to protesting the NSA might be motivated by your own previous work experience with the NSA.

Even if true, I wouldn't say this indicated you were a shill, because shills are generally paid to push propaganda.

People are naturally biased by their experiences in positive or negative ways. You made what could be construed as a pro-NSA comment in an environment dominated by anti-NSA sentiment, and somebody made an assumption that maybe you had a good experience working at the NSA and wanted to clarify it.

For what it's worth, it never occurred to me that you were a shill or a former employee, the suggestion is absurd and totally out of left-field.

Look at the comment at the root of this thread that kicked it off. No, that commenter did not infer that maybe I had an interesting experience at NSA that I wanted to share. My comment had nothing whatsoever to do with NSA. It's pretty clear what that commenter was trying to say. They can go fuck theirself.

Respectfully, not because I'm fed up talking about this but because I don't want to be one of those threads where 'pg has to comment and say "will you guys please stop", I'm going to leave it at that.

Yeah alright, take care.

Well, yes, no, or no comment?

I recall you checking me on a similar point once upon a time.

Edit: for what it's worth, I agree with your observation that things aren't as bad as, say, they were with the Pinkertons breaking strikes up.

Probably not: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4768008.

Still, don't be a tool.

Interesting advice.

As for being a tool, well, it wasn't an awful question. For what it's worth I never worked with them either.

It is an awful question. It assumes bad faith on the part of the commenter. It's extraordinarily rude.

Responding like this is preferable to calling someone else a tool.

I'm glad you approve. No, wait, I don't give a shit.

HN has too much tolerance for this 1000% totally bogus intellectually insulting rhetorical tactic. It demeans everyone.

The people writing these idiotic "you must be a shill for {Microsoft,Mozilla,NSA}" comments think they're clever, but what they're really saying is "not only do I not understand what the Fundamental Attribution Error is, but I can't even comprehend the idea of someone disagreeing with me or even presenting a fact or idea that challenges my preconceptions; no, it's much more likely that this is a bad faith comment than that I don't know everything there is to know about every topic".

And then other people cheer them on!

There is no online community anywhere on the Internet less capable of spotting a shill than Hacker News. Any competent shill could immediately see how to game the site.

Heh. I wasn't offering my approval so don't go jumping the gun there and assuming things.

I was just offering a perspective on effective methods of communication. Whether it means anything to anyone other than myself, it has no effect on my continued meager offerings in the future.

Anyways...

I'm not sure I would've interpreted it that way were I in your position, but fair enough.

Do be a tool.

Today at noon, I hope to see tptacek-class crypto experts at our Seattle Westlake Mall, I hope to see some crypto hackavists providing popular personal security advice and tools.

A readable introduction to the bits of US history that high-school textbooks delicately gloss over is Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me.

Includes not only an intro to labor history, but also to civil rights history, and American Indian war-of-extermination history, and of course the charming US imperial history of the 20th century. (Not that any other country's imperial history is much prettier.)

"Lies My Teacher Told Me" is a good book if you don't have much time or if you don't have a decent background in US history. I think Zinn's "A People's History of the US" is a much better book for the HN reader who is interested in the subject and willing to sit down with a longer book.

I agree. I always keep my copy with me when I fly.

Zinn's book is worth reading, but shouldn't be your only source. E.g. it just skips over everything that couldn't be considered "A People's History", like pretty much all international politics; even if you like Zinn's (clearly-laid-out) biases just fine, it's rather incomplete as a general history book.

If you want to fill in some gaps, and want to ensure you don't end up as some kind of do-gooder, add Kissinger's Diplomacy. It's very interesting, and the ideas in it probably won't leave you wanted for war crimes in several first-world countries.

It seems that tptacek was specifically talking about history that would be considered "a people's history." The comment I was replying to was a recommendation about a book that fills in the gaps of US history textbooks. It seems like this subthread is concerned with US history, especially with the history of the actions/policies of the government+ruling class.

Did I miss something?

No, you didn't miss anything. I just felt the thread had drifted more than you appear to feel. ;-)

Joachim, I apologize for being snippy in my comment. It was late at night and I should have just gone to bed. Lets agree to disagree on the level of drift in the discussion and agree that I could have been much more civil in my reply.

No harm, no foul.

"Freer"? The number of citizens in prison has vastly accelerated in the last 20 years [1]. This alone is proof that we are not freer. No need to shoot someone in the head when you can throw them in jail for a joke on facebook [2], and best of all, hand the bill back to taxpayers.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_Sta...

[2] http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/07/03/198129...

That kid doesn't deserve what happened to him. That being said, what do you think the response should be for publicly threatening to kill school children? Remember, threats of violence have never been protected speech.

His statements were plainly nothing of the sort.

Yeah, but thats the weird thing. Sarcasm is obvious, until it isn't. In 2013, is it reasonable to systematically ignore someone who says "i think imma shoot up a kindergarten?" I guess what I'm asking is what's the criteria you and I are using to determine he wasn't serious? I intuitively know he almost certainly wasn't going to act on that statement, but assuming I'm a law enforcement officer, how do I justify ignoring it?

The sarcasm was obvious from the comment alone, the sarcasm was doubly obvious when the statement is taken in the correct context, and the sarcasm is particularly obvious since the kid fucking said he was joking.

Discretion and basic human intelligence is a vital part of the system, and in that case it is not being used.

Hey, just so I don't get lumped in here: the Facebook felony charge thing is a travesty.

Good man.

Along these lines (and without disagreeing with most of the grandparent post), I think it's good to look outside US borders as well as within them.

For example, a frequent objection to the government of today is its willingness to engage in drone strikes. It's true that these represent a significant change in battle, since US is risking only some flying hardware but no longer a pilot. It's also true that whenever we attack someone elsewhere we risk creating a new enemy who wishes to avenge the first target.

On the other hand, this has to be viewed in the context of diminishing casualties over time. Drone strikes are far more discriminating than cruise missile attacks, which were the preferred means of retaliation 20-30 years ago; and cruise missile strikes are in turn more discriminating than tactics like carpet bombing of 40-50 years ago. It's instructive to compare this with America's first outing on the international stage, the Spanish-American war (1895-98), which was rapidly followed by the Philippine-American war (1899-1902), when the newly-acquired territory of the Philippines promptly rebelled. The latter conflict was truly horrific, with the US engaging in what would be indisputably classed as genocide today. Moral low points of the 'war on terror' have involved US soldiers photographed in mocking poses with prisoners of war or dead bodies. Back then, veterans were proud to pose atop the massed bones of thousands, in scenes as gruesome as anything from WW2. If you can overlook the messy design and are interested in the history, this is about the most comprehensive resource online: http://moviephilippines.blogspot.com/2013/04/documentary-phi... ...but given that these events took place over a century ago, books are still a better resource (which was how I learned about it).

My point here is not to say there's 'nothing to see here,' but to warn against a kind of historical revisionism that paints the past in idealistic terms as some sort of Eden from which we have since fallen, because appeals to the idea of a noble past to which we must turn back can be leveraged to resurrect injustice as easily as ideals.

I strongly recommend looking for the Penguin Classics edition of the Federalist Papers, which contains an outstanding introduction of ~70 pages by historian Isaac Kramnick which delineates the factors and factions that gave birth to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The actual positions of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists still echo through American politics today, and it's worth remembering that the (many) opponents of the Constitution considered it a tyrannical imposition on what had up to then been a confederacy of free States. Whether that change in the form of government made Americans more or less free remains a matter of intense dispute.

> They won't even point firehoses at you, or sic dogs on you.

The'll just round you up like cattle in big orange nets and arrest you. Guess that's a little better though.

Depends upon whether or not they pepper-spray you in the face first.

You can also look at recent history and see the progression in the last 10 years. Although I believe you're right nobody will shoot you in the head tomorrow, we don't know how worse this is going to get in the next 10 or 20 years.

With due respect, I believe this is exactly the wrong interpretation of our present circumstances in the context of history. In the events you cite (and for most of this country's history prior to now), people actually had the power to organize and effect change, which at the time, could only ever be met with brute force by the powers-that-be.

The government didn't have the capability of near-omniscience, down to the level of an individual. They couldn't video-surveil entire cities in real time. They couldn't execute military action at massive scale. They didn't operate in a climate of such overwhelming political apathy that allowing military forces to operate domestically, seize people off the street, and throw them in a hole, forever, generates little more than an online petition and a few calls to Congress.

In short, we are orders of magnitude less free than we have ever been, simply by virtue of the incomprehensible power of the federal government. Just because they have not deigned to exercise it on a large scale (up till now), doesn't mean they can't, or won't. It just means they haven't needed to (yet). As is the case on many topics, I believe Frank Zappa summed it up best:

“The illusion of freedom will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater.”

> You need to read more books. Start with something about coal mine strikes, or the general history of the labor rights movement. The reality is, nobody is going to shoot you and your friends in the head for marching around chanting about NSA surveillance.

Hmmm. That feels a little condescending. I could be wrong.

At any rate, I didn't say that they'd shoot, firehose or otherwise physically interface with you in any way. There are far more effective ways to cause pain in the modern age than to actually touch someone. For example, the IRS could harass the shit out of you for the next ten years. That'd be life changing. Or how about your boss and co-workers get phone calls asking about your "suspicious activities".

Yet again, here's the link from another thread on HN:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352432/free-justin-car...

How about them apples? They might not shoot you, but they can sure as hell ruin your life.

My point is that the regime we seem to be constructing --a system where we are all naked and exposed in front of our government at many levels-- is one where we become their property to do with as they wish. They gather data on you at every level and can then turn your own life against you.

The point is that our government should not have the power to do this. Period.

You need to read more books. Start with something about coal mine strikes, or the general history of the labor rights movement.

Or look at the LGBT history. For example, the modern gay rights movement in USA, started with the Stonewall riots in 1969. At the time cross-dressing or drag was illegal, you have to wear enough items of "gender appropriate" clothing, if you're a man wearing make up, you were arrested! Dancing with members of the same sex was illegal and an arrestable offence. So much for their constitutional rights.

The unfortunate reality today is that we are living in a country where you really have to be afraid of the consequences of exercising your Constitutional right of free speech and assembly.

I never thought I'd have this thoughts in the US. Never.

Then you either haven't been in the US very long or aren't a student of history.

Not that it makes it right, but this has always been the case. Whether you were a suffragette, a unionist, a war protester, a civil rights protestor, an anti-abortion/pro-life protestor, occupy, etc. The list goes on and will always go on.

When you fight 'the man' you can (and should) expect him to fight back - sometimes unfairly.

The unfortunate reality today is that we are living in a country where you really have to be afraid of the consequences of exercising your Constitutional right of free speech and assembly.

I am going to exercise my right of free speech right here by strenuously disagreeing with this comment, and point to my comment posted at the same comment level

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5988216

in this thread in which I announce that I am unafraid to protest publicly with my wife the first-generation immigrant naturalized American citizen and with my minor children.

I still believe we can fix this within the legal and political framework already in place. Next election be very careful about who you vote for.

I'll quote this part of your longer comment too, for agreement. Yes, vote carefully (that's why I'm a ticket-splitting voter, because I vote carefully). On the other hand, don't be afraid to protest as part of the Restore the Fourth protests. We can all express our opinions openly, early and often. I'm not afraid of exercising my right to free speech--not here on HN, and not anywhere else.

I appreciate your optimism, but the reality is we don't have a choice on the issues that matter the most. The issue of NSA surveillance, the War on Terror, the Ware on Drugs, the deterioration of our civil liberties, and a lot more issues that directly affect every person in the USA are supported by both parties and by every major candidate.

Personally I think our best hope is to try to fix the media. If our media was doing what it was intended to do, keep us informed on the goings on of our representatives, the actions of our government might actually reflect the wishes and best interest of its constituents. Unfortunately that's not the case today.

Sounds like our representation system is entirely broken, I'm not sure how fixing the media would change that.

Because the news media's job is to be a government watchdog. "The concept of the media or press as a fourth branch stems from a belief that the news media's responsibility to inform the populace is essential to the healthy functioning of the democracy" [1]. They haven't been doing their job for a long time.

Edited to explain: Fixing the news media could be viewed as addressing an underlying cause for a dysfunctional representational system.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_branch_of_government

As I understand it, it's the news media's job to sell papers to people or people to advertisers. Presently this has arguably not enough to do with informing the populace, but I don't see that this is substantially more the case now than historically.

> As I understand it, it's the news media's job to sell papers to people or people to advertisers.

If you look at it from a capitalistic perspective, I suppose you're right. I meant it from a civics perspective. For "job," try substituting "importance." You can't have a functioning democracy (or representational government) without an informed electorate.

> Presently this has arguably not enough to do with informing the populace, but I don't see that this is substantially more the case now than historically.

You're right that the motives to sell papers (capitalistic goals) don't require them to fulfil their role as a watchdog (civics goals). I don't think these incentives were ever aligned, and I think that's what you meant by your last statement.

I never said that it was any different in the past. Not being "substantially [different] now than historically" doesn't preclude something from being broken. I was just explaining to the parent commenter who said, "I'm not sure how fixing the media would change that."

All perfectly reasonable. I wholeheartedly agree we need means of being informed; I welcome proposals. I'm always skeptical about stopping the discussion at vague notions of "fix X".

So let's look at the parties. If we run primary candidates, there will be choice in the primaries. If one of our primary candidates wins and the other doesn't, in a given race, then we have choice in the general election. If our candidates win in the primaries of both parties, then again we don't have choice in the general election but that is because we already won.

It's too easy to "steal" a primary by bringing all your friends to the local party caucuses, moving to replace the caucus chair (seconded and voted by your friends), then electing your friends to replace the local delegates to the statewide party.

Well, let's do this then. :-P

Thinking leads to the inevitable conclusion that the laissez-faire policies held by Libertarians are just as flawed as the general policy sets held by D & R.

Gross deregulation leads to monopoly. Please show how this is not the historical fact. Fiscal loss of power leads to the same ends as loss of political and military power.

Absolutely agree. Libertarianism, on a long enough timeline, will lead to anarcho-capitalism.

Highly regulated capitalism seems to be a good mix. It seems like it's too late for the US in this case, since our government is almost entirely flooded by corporate interests. "Democrats vs Republicans" is really "Capitalist-imperialists who support abortion vs Capitalist-imperialists who don't support abortion." Of course, our media doesn't give a damn either, and distracts us with every last fringe issue...or in recent news, "Where's Snowden, LOL?!" vs "HEY your government is fucking treating you like a terror suspect just for using the internet and/or a cell phone!" It's weird that in almost every case, the media tends to whip people into a completely frightened frenzy. Now all we hear are crickets.

I think the first course of action in "fixing" things is a new voting system...one where you don't get two completely ineffectual parties clawing each other eyes out over ridiculous issues. One where if you vote for a third, fourth, or fifth party candidate, they actually have a chance.

We're in a hole, and we've got a lot of digging to do to get ourselves out.

This is just not true. See http://mises.org/daily/5266/

For example:

"Six electric light companies were organized in the one year of 1887 in New York City. Forty-five electric light enterprises had the legal right to operate in Chicago in 1907. Prior to 1895, Duluth, Minnesota, was served by five electric lighting companies, and Scranton, Pennsylvania, had four in 1906. … During the latter part of the 19th century, competition was the usual situation in the gas industry in this country. Before 1884, six competing companies were operating in New York City … competition was common and especially persistent in the telephone industry … Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Kansas City, Minneapolis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, among the larger cities, had at least two telephone services in 1905.

I find your source to be extremely biased.

No one suggests that competition can not or does not exist in areas at times. What I offer is the idea that the emergent (in a completely deregulated environment) outcome is a monopoly (or cartel acting as a a de facto monopoly).

I suggest events such as the Lincoln County War, or any of a number of company towns from 1890s through 1920s of the United States.

> If you are a Libertarian, wake up and make sure other's understand why this is the best path forward for our country.

Dude, I try. Believe me.

You can lead a human to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Same here. I try, and try, and try, but it's amazingly hard to get people to break out of the mindset of "You're either a Republican or a Democrat" that they've been indoctrinated into accepting.

When I talk to Democrats, they assume that Libertarians are just "the Atheist wing of the Republican Party" and when I talk to Republicans they assume that I'm a Jesus-hating infidel who happens to like guns.

Still, there are encouraging signs of progress here and there... I hear more and more about the rise of "liberaltarians" from the Left, and on some of the pro-gun forums I frequent - where you usually mostly encounter dyed-in-the-wool Republicans - I'm seeing more and more libertarian leaning verbiage.

I think, ultimately, as our government grows larger and larger and more corrupt and more authoritarian, it's going to reach a point where everybody will start to notice that the path we're on is wrong, regardless of their present party affiliation. When that starts to happen (maybe it already is), we may see an opening for more libertarians to enter the mainstream and perhaps even get elected to Federal offices. There's already a huge crack in the GOP between the neocon/theocrat type "conservatives" and the Ron/Rand Paul "small 'l' libertarian" types... Rand himself may stand a decent shot at making some noise in 2016 if he runs for President. And while I'd rather have Michael Badnarik or Mary Ruwart than Rand Paul, I'd damn sure take Rand Paul over GW Bush, Barak Obama, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Hilary Clinton, etc., etc.

My fear is that the masses are not going to wake up to the reality they helped create until it is painfully obvious we went off in the wrong direction. Just playng around with our budget and deficit in Excel it is hard to come up with a reasonable scenario that would fix our problem in twenty five years. If we stay on this tack we'll reach a point from which the turn around will take fifty years or more. I don't know where the point of no return might be. The point beyond which recovery will be virtually impossible. I do know that avoiding that state requires decades of making all the right decisions and operating as a united people with a common set of goals and solid determination. That realization is what makes me lean pessimistic. I see no evidence that suggests we are capable of such unity and focus.

>I still believe we can fix this within the legal and political framework already in place. If we don't stand in the streets with our children, in front of cameras, in front of neighbors, peacefully assembled and prepared to explain our rationale... then we won't accomplish anything. The existing political framework is only sufficient if it is supported by action from the populace.

> * What the IRS did to Tea Party groups is probably just the tip of a very large iceberg.*

And the FBI cracked down on Occupy:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/29/fbi-coor...

Please show me even one example of someone being arrested and successfully charged in the US for exercising free speech.

Hint: If you use Snowden as an example you automatically forfeit your right to participate in any reasonable discussion on the matter.

err is your google broken?

https://www.google.com/search?q=free+speech+arrest

I'd also argue that having speech consigned to these places[1] when the whole country is supposedly a free speech zone doesn't follow the spirit of the 1st Amendment. Also if they setup a free speech zone and you don't use it then you can be arrested for that

Obviously you can't be charged for "exercising free speech rights" since that isn't a crime, the charge is always something else like "disturbing the peace" or "resisting arrest" or some other trumped up nonsense.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

There have been instances of police corruption where someone was wrongfully arrested, but they are almost universally never successfully charged (unless they did something really stupid like assaulting a police officer).

It is required by law to acquire a permit before protesting. This is very easy to do, everyone has permits for the July 4th protest already. The government has not historically blocked protest permit requests

It doesn't really matter if the charges stick, does it? If you arrest 100 people you're sending a message to future protesters.

Also, kind of ridiculous that you need a permit to protest.

It is not at all ridiculous that you need a permit to protest.

Take off the tinfoil for a moment and think rationally. What happens during a protest? Often, huge masses of people gather in a single public area (a street, a park, a government building, etc). While protesters are generally well-intentioned, wherever there are large gatherings of people, there are criminally-minded folk who seek to exploit this via looting, theft, assault, and other wonderful things that the dregs of humanity like to perform. Additionally, it often gums up public works, traffic, etc. It's important that the police (yes, most police officers are just middle class folks like us that are interested in preserving general peace) be aware of these types of things so that they can provide protection for both the protesters and the citizens of the city.

Also keep in mind that some of these criminally minded folk could be members of the police acting as Agent Provocateurs, ala the 68 Democratic Convention[0]

[0]http://books.google.com/books?id=8_HWOTtdsMUC&pg=RA1-PA126&l...

you've already made up your mind so I'm not sure there is much point in continuing but feel free to read this.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/police-arrestin...

Despite your rather obnoxious tone, it's quietly becoming the norm in America.

Jared Marcum was arrested in school for wearing an NRA T-Shirt.

The Bank of America graffitist was arrested for using sidewalk chalk.

Occupy protestors in Nashville were arrested, and a judge later proclaimed that their arrests were a violation of their freedom of speech rights.

I watched a video yesterday in which a dog was shot because the dog's owner was recording the police on his cell phone.

Cameron D'Ambrosia was arrested for posting lyrics to a rap song on Facebook.

'even one example of someone being arrested and successfully charged'

Oh, so something more like the conviction of Terak Mehanna, who was convicted for espousing and translating documents about jihad?

Or the Irvine 11, who were convicted (thankfully of pretty minor sentences) for protesting a speech?

Or Walter Bagdasarian, who said that somebody ought to "shoot the nigger" (referring to Obama) who spent years in prison before being released on a circuit court appeal?

In short, the 'successful charge' does add height to the hurdle, but the rampant arresting of people for their exercise of free speech is a problem, whether or not it results in a conviction. For many Americans, a week spent in jail, later to be released, is a very big problem; both from the result of lowered reputation as well as the financial impact.

The right to free speech has never been unlimited - you are not free to make criminal threats, shout fire in a crowded theater and so on.

Walter Bagdasarian not only exhorted readers of a public message board to 'shoot the nig [sic],' he also sent emails containing text such as "Pistol??? Dude, Josh needs to get us one of these, just shoot the nigga’s car and POOF!" with a link to a high-calibre rifle advertisement, among various other even more obnoxious statements. Bagdasarian happened to own a .50 cal rifle at the time he was making predictions that "[Obama] He will have a 50 cal in the head soon."

I encourage you to read the full decision, as well as Wardlaw's dissent (with which I agree - Kosinski's reasoning seems strained, pendant as it is on other people being unaware of Bagdasian's ownership of the kind of gun whose use he was predicting) at http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2011/07/19/09... The government did not appeal the 9th Circuit decision, as far as I know.

Bagdasarian did not spend years in prison, or even go to jail. He was sentenced to time served (when he was detained prior to arraignment, after which he was freed on $100k bail), ordered to spend 60 days in a half-way house, undergo 2 years of supervised release, and fined $500. http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/oct/26/no-prison-la-mesa-man-c...

I'm not sure why you chose this example, but you significantly mischaracterized his remarks and the penalty he suffered.

I don't think the Irvine 11 are are going to see their sentences overturned at appeal, as their protest took place in the context of a private event and they were convicted of disrupting it by repeatedly shouting the speaker down, rather than for the content of their criticism (which I thought was entirely reasonable).

I will look into the Terak Mehenna case, which I'm not familiar with but which comes up for appeal later this month.

I was in something of a hurry, so perhaps I over-nutshelled.

I haven't read the full decision, so I will, and will likely be informed. I also don't claim superior legal knowledge, though I am studying for the bar, but that is despite not having a juris doctorate, so there are large gaps in my knowledge, especially in crim.

I could cite more examples, though perhaps the Mehenna case will be the best example of the ones cited anyway.

Regardless, thanks for the corrections. I'll look into them.

You're welcome, and I should probably know more about the Mehenna case. I wish I was still studying for the bar, I can't afford law school. :-/

Believe it or not I'm more drawn to defense work.

I could probably afford law school at a crappy college, but I'm attempting to pass the bar without law school or even a college education, so conversations like this are truly informative to me.

I've been studying law for some time, but it only recently occurred to me that I should even attempt the bar, at some point in the future. A friend of mine keeps telling me I should blog about it, which I've agreed is a good idea to cement my findings, but I'm debating whether or not anyone would care about a random asshole trying to pass the bar enough to make the blog public.

Here's[1] some aggregated info on Mehanna, and also his wikipedia entry[2], and ACLU's[3] recap.

[1] - http://archive.recapthelaw.org/mad/119881/

[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarek_Mehanna

[3] - http://aclum.org/usa_v_mehanna

you've got mail.

Chalk me up as someone else extremely interested in what you're doing.

This account was created 1 hour ago just to make this comment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

Not an arrest, but pretty fucked up. You seem to lack a lot of historical context.