I never said they were unreasonable, per se.

http://www.nacdl.org/CHAMPION/ARTICLES/97jan02.htm

A subpoena may not be issued to collect evidence for a pending case or to help a prosecutor prepare a case for trial.

Neither may a subpoena be issued to collect evidence unrelated to the case.

Such subpoenas would be unreasonable.

Trolling? I asked for you to demonstrate something other than a warrant and you responded with a warrant, albeit one known principally by another legal term.

A subpoena is a warrant to procure testimony, which may not be issued but by a court of law on the standing of sworn testimony describing the person(s) and things (the subject of testimony sought by the court) to be seized.

There would be no other lawful way to seize a person for testimony. It is a warrant.

Subpoenas are subject to the same procedure and limits as the 4th Amendment provides for warrants.

For the purposes of this argument, subpoenas have the same scope and limits as a warrant has, but merely for different purposes. Subpoenas do not give the government an end-run around 4th Amendment, but must be supported by the same standards as warrants are.

Is that clear yet?

Umm, does the process for issuing a subpoena look anything like that for a warrant?

For example, is it issued on the authority of a court of law? After evidence is submitted showing the legal reasoning for the issuing of said subpoena? For the purpose of hearing testimony concerning a particular real or perceived contest of law currently being reviewed in that court?

How do you get from that to justifying warrantless, legally unsupervised raids on data at large? I really don't see any connection.

If my current location is unknown to the government, do they have any right to obtain that information without a warrant?

Yes, that information may belong to another party which may divulge that information, which I may generally have no legal right to demand that they shield that information. But the assumption that the government may intrude on this relationship at will to impose it's demands, whether justified by time or distance, is simply unconstitutional. As far as the Constitution is concerned, this information is CLASSIFIED with respect to government accessibility. No warrant, no data.

Or does my right to the right of my privacy from the warrantless intrusion of government expire upon the passing of a moment? Does that data become declassified, given time or distance? I don't think so.

Show me anything that says that the government may demand testimony from someone regarding my position at any time, without a warrant? Is there anything?

Intent has nothing to do with whether something ins helpful or harmful.

Reality often makes a fool of a man, even if he has the greatest of intentions.

The best practice is just to avoid folly. And this is folly.

This amounts to obstructing a peaceful, technologically advanced means of assembling to conduct regular, private business.

A legal barrier on finding mutually beneficial agreements and conducting speedy business in the information age?

We need to stop legislating disagreements. No prosperity or growth will come out of legislated disagreements, only more division and poverty.

They hate us for our freedoms.

Because your personal data (the information which may indicate the position of your PERSON at a particular time and place) is constitutionally unprotected when it's possessed by a non-person entity? It's suddenly impersonal data?

My right to be secure in my person (which extends to every time and place of my being, past, present and future) and effects is not violated by means of wresting that information unconstitutionally from a business? How is that not two offenses against the law?

If the information sought were regarding that third- non-person "entity", or the business, would they have any right to demand the release of that data without a warrant?

And how can they require you to keep records for their purposes? Isn't it against your 5th Amendment rights to compel you to record or give any testimony? When you make any accounting to the government you are potentially incriminating yourself. The "pre-crime" aspect of this does not in any way change the implications of what it means to be secure in my person.

There is a narrow gap between this reasoning, and reasoning which gives them access to all your data held by third-party "entities". They can have all your passwords, too, with this wave of the hand.

All your base are belong to U.S.

Profit is not limited to monetary terms.

The currency of the state is law and power. The more control they get, the more they thrive.

Meh... planned obsolescence?

How about those things in your house that would be perfectly functional if not for a little stupid broken piece of plastic?

No need to throw away a printer just because one of the paper feed gears stripped a tooth or broke. I can think of about a dozen things I've thrown out over the years, totaling several hundred dollars to replace, that I wouldn't have had to if I could print a piece for a few bucks.

Yeah, it doesn't quite add up to savings if I ran my own 3d printer, but the benefit isn't exactly low.

You can refurbish your own stuff instead of throwing it in a landfill.

Make the idea unlawful. Then you can use all the guns you want to kill the idea.

I'm enjerth.

Why should you care what I think? That's a very good question, especially for starting polite threads of conversation.

So let me turn this around for a moment to consider that question...

No, I got nothing. I don't care what you think, so you can go ahead and give your two shits or less about what I think.

I don't think CO2 is really that significant of a cause in AGW.

How much warming does a slab of concrete or asphalt make, as opposed to the land being covered by green vegetation?

You can turn your cars off, or switch fuels, but these deserts of concrete will warm the earth far more and longer than your carbon-based fuels will burn.

Needs are not artificial.

It's ALL about supply and demand. Your price gouging argument is about a lack of supply in SAVINGS.

You would have no argument if money were not scarce, and the market cannot function if you pretend that money is not scarce.

The gas station needs a new generator to operate while power is out in the area? They found one on craigslist. It was prohibitively expensive, and it's available precisely because of that. The owner sees it as an opportunity to serve his community and potentially come out ahead, but it's a gamble. Why should you shortchange him on his service? Now they can continue operating and sell you gas, albeit for a considerable markup due to the need to recoup the investment on the generator during a short emergency stint which could be resolved in a day or so.

Or, just sit this one out. Let people figure it out on their own.

In all the analyzation about pricing supply and demand, I haven't seen a single comment about the nature of money and it's function in serving this purpose.

What is money? It's a liquid asset.
Why do we keep a liquid asset? For the uncertainty of what you may need or want to acquire in the future.
What happens when you don't have enough liquid assets? Adapt. Aside from fighting each other, that's what we do best. We can survive, if we make good decisions.

Having a reserve of liquid assets is one of those ways we PLAN for survival. But should the market be bent for your benefit if you failed to plan for surviving? No. That affects everyone else and their ability to utilize the market to solve their problems.

And money has a supply and a demand, as well.

In an emergency situation, the need to acquire or hold excess liquidity is suspended, and the VALUE OF MONEY takes a temporary tumble in relation to the need for scarce products and services to relieve the emergency situation.

Anti-price gouging laws is straight up price fixing, and it's immoral. It practically guarantees scarcity, because everyone knows that the money isn't actually worth much under the given conditions. Most people will treat $8/gallon gas with a lot more caution than $4/gallon gas.

Money doesn't fix problems. The market does.

You forgot that the 5-year-olds elect 6-year-olds to control that last 15%, leaving adults with no control.