a release in 120 days is immediate (those days are to begin a transition to post-prision life, not punishment)
I am certain that there are many private citizens and organizations that are willing to help Chelsea Manning transition to private life outside of the prison system and can do so better and more humanely than the prison system can. I am sure many people would be willing to donate to such a cause. If a reputable private organization gathering funds for that cause emerges, I will contribute Bitcoin immediately to help out.
And the government wonders why there's a fake news problem?
They don't, of course, but good post.
It's Free Software ("Open Source"). After a project becomes a GNU project (or an IBM project, or a Microsoft project, or whatever), the license allows GNU to continue working on the project whether the original maintainer likes it or not. That's not abusive.
The original maintainer can quit working with GNU, the original maintainer can keep working on the original branch of the software, both sides can claim they are the original and the other is the fork, and there's nothing wrong with any of that. In fact it's beautiful and wonderful and helps us all.
$950 as of this comment. These articles are always out of date.
But what this law is effectively doing is removing ownership of the deceased person from the family and passing it to the state.
Exactly! And while I'm sure we all know some people who have terrible families, I think the state is all too happy to play on fears of individual families making the "wrong" decision and to present itself as the enlightened benevolent decision maker who should have the right to decide.
Just to throw out some "slippery slope" possibilities -- could the government also decide that you are "opt-in" to a DNR order by default?
That is the specific slippery slope scenario I have in mind. And I've actually worried about that since the late 1980s.
This gets very, very tricky. I don't think presumed consent in this particular area bothers me per se, but I can imagine a lot of other issues where presumed consent would scare the living daylights out of me. Sounds like a very slippery slope.
The federal gov't were the ones that put a stop to the farce that was "Separate but Equal". They broke up the Trusts. They enabled the Unions that created the middle class. They bring in real and effective disaster relief and keep our shipping ports open. The State governments have proven themselves powerless to stand against even the smallest tyrannies time and time again. Look at Flint, Mi's Water supply (that Gov Snyder is still fighter the cleanup of) and the complete breakdown in Democracy it represented.
And they established a fantastically effective and expensive compulsory school system to teach all this stuff so that would noone would ever question the need for a strong federal government
I suppose you could get together with some of your neighbors and set up some sort of collective arrangement where everybody agrees on rules for appropriate behaviour and collectively uses force to make sure that outsiders do not violate these agreements, but that that point you've basically reinvented government.
No, at that point what you have is one possible service provider in a potentially competitive market - as opposed to the monopoly system we have now.
But someone has to set policy for all of you, otherwise you just have anarchy
Anarchy would be awesome. That's the state of not having parasites (rulers). Or as I like to call it, being grown up. Setting rules simply for the sake of having rules is ridiculous.
Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced -- even a proverb is no proverb to you till your life has illustrated it. -- John Keats