Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Starting to unravel? It never was raveled. (Score 1) 4

by smitty_one_each (#48954127) Attached to: Free Trade starting to unravel.
So, what's your remedy? Would you support a single world government to implement OSHA and wage standards globally?
Or are you saying, like damn_registrars might, that "This is a job for Super Union!"
Possibly a good first step is to stipulate that "There is no One True Answer", and move toward seeking a least-worst operating point.

Comment: We're getting somewhere useful here (Score 1) 56

by smitty_one_each (#48954071) Attached to: Props to William Jacobson
The libertarian refrain that "The only cure for bad free speech is more free speech."
It does not seem to follow that the only cure for bad laws is more laws.
Maybe, just maybe, the case is that there is some "optimal legislation" line, past which, like a rose bush gone wild, the only remedy is to prune.
I don't grasp exactly what you mean by "two step". There are false ideas that I cannot support, irrespective of the propaganda in circulation today. You seem to be trying to pin a flavor of hypocrisy on me.

Comment: Re:No (Score 1) 56

by smitty_one_each (#48953975) Attached to: Props to William Jacobson

You and many others pretend that there is, but that won't make it so.

Roughly to the extent that you willfully deny any idea not promulgated by Media Matters.

. . .but the fact of the matter is that there is no mention of self defense in the text that they wrote.

Sure, it's a literal fact of the text at hand that "self defense" was such a given in the 1787 context that it need only be implied by "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
One can hardly blame the Founders for failing to foresee the invertebrate Left, and its craving for bondage to the kind of Statism that they were so thoroughly refuting in pretty much everything they did.
There is an Orwellian hilarity running through just about argument you offer, sir.
Common sense tells us that, if the gungrabber arguments had any basis, the vast uptick in weapons sales should have long since triggered a bloodbath and depopulated this country. See my earlier remark about Orwellian hilarity.

Comment: Re:Word on the street is that SW rocked (Score 1) 26

by smitty_one_each (#48953951) Attached to: The Kevlar Kandidate Starts Kampaigning

We have 40 hour work weeks because of organized labor. We have worker's compensation for injuries on the job because of organized labor. We have a minimum wage and rights to file grievances because of organized labor. We have occupational safety standards because of organized labor.
You focus only on the things that your political heroes blame on organized labor, regardless of whether or not those things are rooted in reality.

Two points:
- NOT public sector; you're making a valid historical point that ignores significant subsequent developments, e.g. OSHA.
- OK, let's have another golf clap for the 40-hour work week, and ignore the tendency for all solutions like organized labor to become a solution in search of a problem.

So you wouldn't want someone working for the DMV for 10 years? What about police and fire?

Yes, what?

A higher turnover in congress I would generally endorse. The problem though is that the overwhelming opinion of the American voter follows the line of "congress is bad, buy my guy is GREAT". So good luck getting traction on and kind of term limit for them.

Convention of States.

Comment: Re:So your point then... (Score 1) 56

by smitty_one_each (#48949139) Attached to: Props to William Jacobson
I'm able to agree on getting the government out of marriage. I can no more accede to the contemporary, diabolical lies about marriage that I can the Satanic falsehood of life beginning at some random point past conception.
God have mercy on the constellation of liars busily attempting to make these fish pedal a bicycle.

Comment: Re:No (Score 1) 56

by smitty_one_each (#48949063) Attached to: Props to William Jacobson
Um, no. Look at the context. The 2A was born in the wake of the Revolution, when the States were delegating power to a Federal government that was needful for protecting the States against the likes of King George III, without giving it so much power that it could become as tyrannical as King George III, disarming the populace, as tyrants will.
The Bill of Rights undergirds the notion that the unit of analysis in the document beginning "We the People. . ." is in fact the person.
Why you can't understand that "the security of a free State" is about the absolute right of self defense, and instead want to call it "a product manufactured by the gun lobby" (I do not even own a gun; this is a matter of common sense) is both worrisome and a pretext for some really dodgy decision making.

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann