I do color you jaded, sir. My points are not crocks trotted out, nor are they non sequitors as others have said, designed to take anything away from anyone. I want you to have and enjoy as much freedom as is reasonable/possible in a broken world. However, I also believe in basic human rights (for which I think we are all *gasp-shock* responsible), a summary of which would probably be close to the following:

Clean Water
Food
Clothing
Heated Shelter
Education
Basic and Emergency Health Care (absolutely not Obamacare, don't even think that, reason out for yourself what would be 'right' and 'just' and 'good')
Freedom of Opinion (speech, text, whatever)
Freedom of Religion


Heck, I'd even maybe go so far as to insert:
Electricity and you know what, heck maybe even
Computers and Internet (educationally anyway)

You seem to think I'm deceiving you, so that I can help institute some tyrannical ship of state that tells you what you can and can't do? Either that or you think I've so swallowed completely other peoples opinions that I am only parroting what I heard, so they can institute some tyrannical ship of state. I assure you, neither is true. I don't care what you do, provided that it does not impinge on my liberties (wink). My opinion is that, from an economic perspective, most of the above things are part of a system so freaking broken (unjust, and simply not right), and everything is so much about money, and peoples attitudes are so wrapped up in their money, that all above priorities are just way the hell out of whack.

You got no mercy for the poor? Then say just that. Accept it and live with it. Don't clothe it in other guise. And don't tell me that my love for the poor has anything to do with what I want to take from you. You got nothing I want. You don't feel you're part of society and should therefore meet society's due? Maybe someday I'll be in a position contribute your share. And I will, because it will be right.

/Conservative

Pretty interesting. Just looked up the twelfth, regarding apportionment. Wiki says almost 5700 representatives by this amendment (as of 2000). I guess I can see the logic behind guaranteeing representation, but this seems to have been the only one of the twelve that include hard numbers, except the 7th... Which I guess I don't really understand... is it like a combination of 5th and 6th regarding civil cases (right to trial by jury + double jeopardy)? That or it seems to eliminate appeals...

In that case, I admit I completely misunderstood

I am fine with the idea of minimalist government. I guess 'minimalist' art a matter for further debate, though.

I fully agree with the seatbelt deal (and other more onerous examples). Since when has our justice been about justice or moral rectitude? I don't think every little dumb-arsed thing needs to be legislated to death. You want model rockets? You're probably not a terrorist. You want a chem lab? You're probably not going to make meth. You want to make meth for your own purposes? You're a jackass, but it isn't my business.

The problem, as I see it (my opinion), is that Libertarianism, while striving for minimalism, backs itself into the corner of nebulousity. Where is the line drawn for spending on national defense? It's your right to think 0%. It's my right to think 15% (or whatever). But neither of us should be able to decide, as it is a critical need, and our right to refuse would infringe on everyone's right to be protected (from actual threats, not the War on Whatever is Popular/Scary ATM). So too education, interstate commerce, public infrastructure.

Personally, I think the government needs to have its hands deep into education because so many of us don't (though I fully believe in a parents right to home-school, legislation against that p's me off to no end).

What about feeding the poor? You may think they need to get off the teat, but I think not letting people starve to death is worth a pittance of my taxes. I believe in the whole "Poor, tired, oppressed...huddled masses yearning to breath free..." That's my American, too.

Where are the lines drawn for prosecution? Capital offenses? Sure. Felonious criminal? Yeah, maybe... Misdemeanor criminal? Ummm... well, I should be able to jaywalk if I want, it is my risk (I agree with that).

Like I said, I misunderstood his argument in the beginning... but with so many justifiably liberty based viewpoints.... you know, it seems like only chaos would result. I also think 'everyone does what they want' would work either, because "men are not angels."

Disclaimers: I am not a fan of our current system. I promote downsizing the government by at least (insert some huge percentage)%. Additionally, I'm a huge fan of the flat sales only tax. Bet like 5% could do it fine we cut a great huge deal of fat.

While I have been aware that there are more than 10 amendments (since 2nd grade or so), I was not aware that 11 of them were now considered the Bill of Rights. In that case 12th or 13th. I was opposed to eliminating one freedom in favor of another basically unrelated freedom. Posters bias against said 'right' seemed worthy of challenge, as we are not all hillbillies. I'd venture a POTA guess that 80% of the exceptionally intelligent people I know are in favor of the second amendment.

But I do agree with nearly unrestricted access to information, though FOIA didn't seem to help too much with that.

Do you remember the commercial with the guy buying stocks on the glasses/projector that looked like no more than a BT earbud? I believe the tagline was: It's Coming. Is it? When? They should stop advertising futuretech and then dumping it because it's currently unfeasible. That does wonders for their company image. Though I have long since forgot WTH company that was. Probably not IBM, though my memory seems to be adding their logo to the end of the commercial.

Isn't that sort of what Ross Perot wanted? If only someone would have let him finish, or get a word in edge-wise... I like it, especially the 5 page part, but you forgot "standard 3.99 text charges apply." so you could Crow it up a bit.

Because 'will' is all q-hats. I'm big on pseudo-intelligent problem solving. I think the idea that AI will ever become a member of society is ludicrous sci-fantasy.

If I am wrong, and some day machine-intelligences began to assert themselves, we'd probably shut them down. Or better yet, change their code. Because we can, and they can't. We are automatically the boss of them.

As a side note: If you ever wrote an intelligence simulation that could rewrite its own code, would you not include protected, inaccessible safeguards? If no, then A) that's ridiculous and dangerous and B) it would be moot since the sim would shut itself down thanks to random chance anyway.

Then it's Tyranny or Anarchy? The above seems to assume the operative

applies to everybody. It doesn't. If it did, Marx would have been right, and the state would have "withered away." Is a "liberty" guy, responsible for his own actions, going to charge himself with murder? Where also is the forum for honest, legal disputes? Pistols at dawn (provided both consenting parties agreed to it)?

I'm extraordinarily against the govt taking what it wants, but crap, do we not need highways and interstate travel? Cell towers, utilities, and all of the infrastructure that government installs and maintains (til it sells out to monopolistic PI at least)?

I'm also there with you on the 'less number of stupid restrictive laws,' but we just haven't reached Roddenberry-an Utopia-ism just yet.

Exactly. As the Astronaut Farmer said, "...We've got laws that protects us from other laws. We've got more laws telling us what we can't do than what we can." Hopefully this open system might cut some of that crap down. Additionally, you are so right about SIGs that it makes me sick. To extend your example: I hate cruelty to animals more than the next guy, but should ASPCA 'officers' really be carrying guns around, and have broad, discretionary, executive powers?

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said, "Govt. is necessary because men are not angels" (or close). As long as governments are run by people, it'll always be this way. But real democracy (rather than representative) might help to minimize, or at least curtail that. "Ask the Audience" on Millionaire is right, what, like 60-70% of them time?

We had one, William Natcher. Missed like two votes in 41 years, one was while he was on his deathbed. He 'claimed' to have always voted conscience, and probably almost always did. He was so respected, that we temporarily lifted the "contiguous and compact" restrictions on districts so he could represent his hometown, as well as the district he served for so long.

but it's moot anyway, as anything that was inflammatory or weakened the regime of the wealthy would be deem state-secret, or ongoing investigation. Or some other danged loophole.

PS: Not everyone who agrees with the second amendment and owns a firearm is a hillbilly. I don't disagree that we'd lose. But it's been misread as 'right.' It is not 'right,' it is 'duty.'

I was saying this just the other day. It sort of makes me a hypocrite, since I'm such an advocate of privacy, but crap. It was recommended to me that it's a great idea, as long as it's only the "workday" that is bugged, and not their private lives. But then the backdoor deals would be taking place during someone's birthday party.

oh, and bots could ruin it...

The solution I was thinking of a few years back seems even better. Not a law history type of law wiki, but a bill wiki.

Picture It: Any number of proposed bills, weighted by community voting, then split directly in half for dissent. The dissent would take the form of comments... lolcats and flamers would be suspended, but not forever. Comments would also be weighted by community voting. We would need some impartial moderators to summarize. That would be very hard to get, but I think people would be willing, if it meant a more effective, efficient, transparent means of legislation.

So the important bills are discussed, split, combined, perhaps dumped all together, discussed again, *condensed* and finally approved (by some vote margin), all by the community. Then forwarded on to Washington (or your capital of choice) with the digital signature of all the participants. They can't necessarily ignore us (the people) forever, not if we have a forum that reaches a wide enough audience. I don't, obviously, suggest this as the sole method of legislation, but as a supplement to a laboriously slow and innefficient system that we have in place. Plus by the end, it would not be lawyer speak, but human speak. I'm a smart dude, but I cannot slog through most of it, heck neither can politicians. They pay advisers to summarize. We shouldn't have to, not if we are a government of the people.

This would also help us scream "absolutely not" loud enough for someone to hear. Not sure about other places, but Washington seems to laugh off absolutely nots (the system was designed to prevent this, but the people have short memories). Additionally, this could be done for all levels of government, from city through national (or international maybe?)

Several weaknesses that I see: People tend to polarize 50-50. I don't know why that is, maybe its worthy of a psych experiment, but it would be tough to get anything done.

An online legal discussion proposition forum would, by definition, exclude vast segments of the population. Perhaps newspaper posting in the final stages might help, but vote counting there would take a massive infrastructure. Additionally, it would be a certain demographic (tech/geeks) that had a disproportionate weight for this forum. What is rule by the 'smart?' Oligarchy? Or something... I don't recall, but I'm against it.

Websites that can rally vast numbers of people could offset disporportionatly on single issues (like the Colbert toilet). I can't see any way to get around it. Maybe we shouldn't even try, I guess.

Non Participation. Just like voting, people would biznitch about what was done, but not take the few minutes to participate on the bills they care about. Emailing Washington does not work, but no one writes letters. A five hundred page letter (mit abstract), with 60,000 signatures, though should garner some attention.

Any thought/suggestions/criticisms would be most welcome... that's what this whole comment was about.

I think it is possible using the widely believed resonance (or "Doomsday") Device that Tesla may have built, if he really did. But off the top of my head... If a year is 31 million seconds, and an earthquake lasts maybe 3 minutes, and you need to do 1,000,000 mag 4's to relieve the stress that an 8 would... Is that 6 years of a constant earthquake? To avoid a mag 8 event every 40-60 years? It seems more temporally unsound than financially unsound.