Put it this way, Obama can't fire Wheeler without just cause.
He does not need to fire him — he just hired him in the first place. FCC is part of the Executive branch and the commissioners are appointed by the President.
Do you not think, full agreement with the President is one of the job-requirements for the Chairman? It better be, or else the President is not doing his job...
WE DONT trust them
Ah, but you do! The well-moderated comment I quoted states, that the Federal Government is the most trust-worthy institution in America...
It must take some special kind of schizophrenia to trust FCC and not trust NSA or the Marshas Service at the same time...
If the Federal Government can't determine what's fair, then who can?
why don't we trust the Marshals Service to be fair as well? Are they being controlled by a different President or something?
nobody can refute your argument without being attacked by feminists
Yes, we have so many of them here on
regardless of how poor an analogy it is.
Fortunately, it is not poor at all. Own mistakes, that lead one into trouble, are rarely an excuse for those, who cause the actual trouble itself.
It does not matter, whether the "trouble" is rape or unjust incarceration.
I don't know how it works in the US, but the Canadian government cannot refuse a Canadian citizen entry into the country. That's a very good thing.
If the only destination in Canada, that such a citizen is allowed to go to, is prison, I doubt, many would prefer that to the (hypothetical) alternative of flying back.
The person in question is a Canadian citizen
Thanks, that's informative.
cannot be denied reentry into Canada or sent back
Why can he not? I'd certainly rather return to Dominican Republic, then go to Canadian prison (in winter!).
Has there been an Israeli citizen arrested over such a refusal to open up his e-mail when returning to his country?
The practice of Israeli border-guards of demanding access to e-mail of some people wishing to cross into the country is rather disliked by
But the worst, that a non-cooperation would result in there would be an interrogation and a flight back to whence you came from. To actually be arrested and prosecuted for a crime over such a refusal is new... Should we begin divesting from Canada's corporations?
Walking and (to a lesser extent) bicycling are inherently less hazardous to other people
So, where is that "clear bright line" you claimed existed?
That said, there are also regulations governing walking and bicycling
Of course! But that's red-herring — I'm not against driving laws. I'm against the licensing requirement — which turned the right of free movement into a privilege.
You seem to think that if there is a right to do something, then that activity cannot be regulated by the government for safety reasons
My whole point is that the right to drive a motorized vehicle on a public road has disappeared while we weren't paying attention. It is not a right any longer. It is a privilege.
This has nothing to do with whether or not it can be regulated.
He has no one to blame but himself.
He must blame himself for voluntarily accepting UAE jurisdiction, yes — much as a raped girl must blame herself for accepting a spiked drink from a stranger.
That UAE incarcerates people for opinions expressed online is still an outrage, however — much as a rape is regardless of the mistakes made by the victim.
Well, as we are often reminded by various Illiberals here at home:
Given the "pragmatic" approach to rights even in the country, which explicitly puts them in writing, should we be surprised, other places are even more restrictive?
The pragmatic answer is that some regulation of the roads is necessary in order to avoid bloodshed and chaos.
Which bloodshed and chaos is avoided by making driving a privilege? We still have reckless drivers. All that the licensing gives us is that dealing with them is made a little easier for the Executive government — it is easier to withdraw a privilege than deprive someone of a right.
But that ease is abuse-prone. We deliberately make it harder for the government to fight other "bloodshed and chaos" — consider the 4th and 5th Amendments, the Miranda rights, etc. Generally, we'd rather have a bona-fide criminal go free on occasion, than endanger freedom of the rest of us.
Why don't we apply the same principle to driving? You are, I'm sure, up in arms against NSA eavesdropping — and you would not buy the "it helps prevent bloodshed and chaos" argument in that case. Why the inconsistency?
As you've probably noticed, the real world is driven more by necessity, than by abstract ideological principles
Yes, I have noticed, that the term "pragmatic" is often used where "unprincipled" would've better described the approach.
Actually, there is a clear bright line, and that line is the "public" in "public roads". [...] The public road system, on the other hand, is not your personal plaything.
And that's different from walking and bicycling on the same roads how?
Or are those activities not rights either?
Driving a vehicle falls well within the regulatory bounds of commerce
No, it does not. Not any more than walking does. Commercial driving today requires commercial licenses and that might be acceptable... But pleasure driving — taking kids to see grandma? No way...
Do you have anything that supports your claims?
I do not — nor do I need it. Unless you are going to claim, walking or riding a bicycle may also — some day — become a privilege... Because there is no "clear bright line" between driving, which is a privilege already, and those other activities, which are still rights...
This restaurant was advertising breakfast any time. So I ordered french toast in the renaissance. - Steven Wright, comedian
