Madison was wrong.

Well, he was "only" the guy, who was writing down the items, as they were discussed during the convention. Surely, he had some insights. Maybe, you — in the 21st century — know more about the intent of those ancient legislators, but you aren't sharing... You just flatly say "wrong" — like a good little tyrant you secretly wish to be... Sigh, as they say, Statists gonna state.

Other founding fathers such as Hamilton understood the General Welfare provision very broadly.

Some citations would be useful here... As well as arguments for why we should be taking Hamilton's opinion over that of Madison and Jefferson.

But, if he was really so good, why are you proposing we "cherry-pick" Hamilton's ideas — instead of also electing the top executive ("national governor") for life — and have him appoint state governors?

I, for one, dread the thought of how this country would've looked, had that sort of tyranny prevailed — Russia, where the presudent's tenure is de-facto life-long and where he is appointing local governments even de-jure, is a very close example, actually.

Moreover, I suspect, you would've hated it too — had you even known about the man, whose opinion on "General Welfare" you advocate. You are wrong — the interpretation of "General Welfare" pushed by the Statists opens up a whole to drive a freight-train through. This was, of course, obvious for centuries. For example, that same Madison said later (1794):

The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects...If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers but an indefinite one..."

Indeed, whether it is to ban speech, confiscate guns, perform warrantless searches, seize funds and property without trials, eavesdrop on citizens' communications — the government would simply need to claim, those are done "for General Welfare". It would be a dreadfully depressing country to live in... Oh, wait...

He was punished for the *action* of expressing them.

Punished for speech, you mean? Oh, that's so much better!

There's a difference.

There is not. Until we have develop a way to reliably discern thoughts that have not been expressed, the very concept of thoughtcrime is either simply not possible, or must, necessarily, cover expressing the "criminal" thoughts in addition to merely holding them.

I suppose I agree, but in the article itself, it does explain why it's difficult to get an accurate figure.

The difficulty of obtaining accurate figures is no excuse for making shit up. Though, of course, as the Climate Science's lead is showing, the practice is increasingly acceptable...

Words have meanings — some times, they even have consequences. The title says:

79% of Airbnb Listings In Barcelona Are Illegal

The write-up says:

79% could be illegal

The former is a statement of fact and a serious allegation. The latter is just as non-committal and devoid of information as the (in)famous promise of Geico's advertising.

Which is it?

do not apply for a permit, fail to pay insurance and tourist tax, and ignore Catalonian law that forbids short-term rentals of rooms in private homes

Phew... Malum prohibitum crimes: it is only wrong because it is illegal. Screw you, Statists, get back to enforcing the malum in se — you know, the kind of thing, that is illegal because it is wrong.

Was he punished? Yes.

Was the punishment for anything other than his alleged holding an offensive opinion? Yes.

Ergo, he was punished for a thoughtcrime.

That the punishment is light is irrelevant, and the distinction between merely having an opinion and stating it is without difference.

Rather than the low road reponse taken in previous shootings, their's was exemplary in that they clearly identified themselves as better people.

Maybe, that's because none of the earlier dead have, actually, been innocent. Michael Brown in particular deserved to die (even if Eric Garner didn't).

Or, maybe, because these are a church-going folk — you know, the stupid, illogical, bigoted and parochial believers in a sky-god...

I don't know — but you are right in that their tolerance is sincere, and not a result of some "grass-roots" organisation making emphasis on tolerance one of the bullet points on a strategy memo. To be discarded and replaced with the opposite, when the situation changes.

Start by getting the government out of philanthropy and other benevolence. They suck at it, but insist on spending tax-dollars on it anyway.

But be careful — if you find something, that seems useful, the government may decide to impose it on everyone (at gun-point, which is how government does everything.)

Of course, the Statists would lament:

It's bad news when the government is in such disarray that it needs a money from a billionaire to keep providing services to the country's neediest

but don't fall for it. First of all, such statements are self-contradicting — because it is exactly the money from billionaires, that the government spends on "the country's neediest" even when it is not shut down. Top 20% of the earners pay 84% of the income tax today... But, when a philanthropist chooses to spend his money this way, it is noble and legal, whereas for the government it is a patently unconstitutional thing to do:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

— James Madison

Yes, boys and girls, "helping the needy" is just as illegal for the state to do as is eavesdropping on your communications or searching your house without a warrant...

Whether the reaction is "too quick" or not is the wrong question to ask. It is wrong to prosecute thoughtcrimes at all. Whether or not he is "sexist", he is still a brilliant scientist and a credit to whatever stations he was fired from.

Such prosecutions are not only unfair — and offensive to everyone, who values the First Amendment — they are also ineffective and counter-productive: people will not change their minds this way, they'll just learn to keep their mouths shut.

And, of course, it also exposes the preachers of tolerance and crusaders against bigotry as intolerant bigots. Some silver lining, I suppose...

neighbors thinking they have the right to shoot things out of the sky.

Well, sadly, they don't have that right.

But, as long as the projectiles do not land on the neighbors' properties, it certainly ought to be legal:

Drone regulations are being written by lobbyists for drone manufacturers and other companies. You’re going to wake up one day, and there’s going to be a drone outside your bedroom window writing you a ticket for sodomy.

The above suggestion may seem frivolous, but it is scarier, than you might think — a major part of the argument to abolish laws outlawing particular sexual "deviations" was that in order to enforce them, police must invade the privacy of everyone.

Well, if a robotic "officer" can do the job on its own, that major pillar goes away and the law can come right back into your house. Whether it catches you sodomizing your (happily moaning and otherwise consenting) partner, or flushing your toilet more times than the governor thinks is good for the Collective is irrelevant. As long as no human officer is needed, no privacy invasion has occurred.

Now, today no computers yet exist, that can distinguish legal penetration from illegal. But that's no going to last long — red-light cameras are everybody's favorite already. Though my ticket from such a device claimed, that "an officer reviewed the recording" — and maybe he did, I don't know, because he never showed up in court — I am quite sure, police don't stare at the camera-feeds themselves all day. Some algorithm must already be in place to flag suspicious cases for a human's review.

These systems will become more sophisticated very soon — and suggestions will be made to trust them to issue summons automatically too. Fortunately, making an argument for shooting an invading robot is much easier than it is to advocate shooting policemen, however nosy...

Tsk, tsk, tsk... So much hatred poured instead of simply offering a single example. Just ONE argument, that could be used to support gay marriage without also supporting incest — and my post, that troubled you, haters, so much, would've been defeated on its obvious merit...

Instead, I reduced you all to imagining these vile things about my person (and non-existing relatives) — because putting together a reasonable rebuttal just is not an Illiberals' forte, is it? Like (very smart) squirrels, you just feel it, but — faculties required for putting a coherent argument replaced with those of group-think — can't put into words...

Fail...

Yes, actually. I fully agree. But I am a Libertarian raging against Statism daily... All citizens ought to be equal before the law. How they want to associate with each other, calling it "marriage" or "union" or whatever is up to them and should have no legal meaning.

Maybe, there can be some justification for legally recognizing groups of people raising children together (their own or adopted) — but I am not sure about that either...

It's about damn time.

Time? No, it is long overdue. Now it is time for incest.

There is no argument for making acceptance of gay marriage mandatory, that would not also apply to making sex between and marriage of parent and (adult) child or between siblings legal. "Troll" my foot — do try to come up with one...

This is hardly news — and some legal professionals have said so. And the fight for Full Marriage Equality is already ongoing. All over.

Oh, and before you say "Think of the (malformed) children of such unions!" — sorry, that's not enough. First of all, they don't have to have children with each other — like gay couples, they can adopt. Second, most of the existing laws banning incest make no difference between actual close blood-relatives "in laws" — it is equally illegal for a step-father to marry his adopted daughter (Woody Allen got away with it, because he never formally adopted his wife's child).

And third, the courts have ruled for years (here is a "1948 decision for example!), that any concerns for the health of the offspring are not sufficient grounds for denying the right to marry.

Within a generation the term "motherfucker" will become a disparaging sign of bigoted microaggression — which is, of course, much worse than the actual bona-fide aggression it manifests in our parochial times.

So providing education for poor people and recognising gay marriage lead inevitably to the Khmer Rouge?

First of all, corrections:

• Not "providing education for poor people", but "forcing taxpayers to provide education for poor people". Tax-collection happens at gun-point — using thus-collected monies for benevolence is tyranny — and decidedly against the intent of Constitution-framers.
• Not "recognizing gay marriage", but "forcing people to consider gay unions equivalent to married couples".

And now, yes, the above are made possible by the Collectivist sentiment — that the Individual's interests and desires are inferior to those of the Collective. Once that sentiment is adopted, there is no longer a legal barrier to prevent some future Khmer Rouge from killing millions. All they have to be able to claim is, it is done for "General Welfare".

If millions of victims is too stunning for you to be believable, try to think, how is Lynching somebody not a manifestation of "the will of the people"?

"COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD" — sounds familiar? Godwin's Law my tail — you aren't the first Collectivist in history...

ultra right wing paranoid stupid

Please, don't hate.

Rather they stole them

What?!?! Information can be stolen? Somebody lost their own copy? Oh, no... How can it happen, that the same site, that diligently insists on correcting any attempts to accuse pirates of music and movies of "theft", have moderated a post containing the same misapplication of the Eighth Commandment so highly?