someone234's comments

Hong Kong, as the most recent example, has once again shown us that whenever "the voters" demand something, the government's response is tear-gas and batons.

But hey, governments are "by the people" and "for the people" of course, and to think otherwise would be tantamount to.. actually seeing what's happening!

Well, the Constitution says everyone has the right to say anything they want. That's what "free speech" means, and that includes things that someone thinks are "obscene".

Not that the government gives a fuck, but still, just to be clear about what we're discussing here. But yeah, "obscenities laws" are most certainly unconstitutional.

In Germany and Spain, there's a state-maintained taxi cartel. They don't want any competition - that's the point of a cartel to begin with - and so, their friends in the government are working to prevent it. All the bullshit regulation is just part of maintaining the cartel.

Apparently they don't have this problem in Poland, and rather unsurprisingly, taxis are cheap and competing by having nicer cars etc.

Just keep answering these questions as appropriate:

  - What is this?
  - What is it for?
  - How do you use it?

And/or maybe:

  - What's going on?
  - Where do we go from here?
  - What are we trying to accomplish?
  - How do we accomplish it?

In other words, think about everything from the user's perspective.

You seem to be overlooking the point. Would it be morally permissible for me to scribble down arbitrary rules and enforce them on you if I had an army with which to ensure your compliance?

Laws are just arbitrary rules decided on by a small group of people, much like they were with Kings and their inner circles. Laws are enforced in much the same way too - there's no practical difference between getting assaulted by the King's Guard and getting assaulted by men in blue costumes.

> A law is a written order, adding the remainder is just an inflammatory accusation that undermines the public at large.

Undermines the public how?

> A particular rule of law may be arduous today

"Rule of law" is a misnomer. It's actually rule by those who decide what the laws are. That would be the "elected representatives", ie. politicians of course.

In other words, politicians are our rulers because they make the rules that are ultimately enforced at gunpoint, if you don't feel like obeying at first.

But a law is just text somewhere. But even if the text contains a decree on what everyone must or must not do, that alone does not change people's behaviour one bit.

For example, if I write down on a piece of paper that you have to give 30% of your income to me, will you do it? OK, what if I threaten you with imprisonment if you don't?

What will really blow your mind is that Snowden is a PsyOp.

If Snowden is saying things governments don't want you to hear, it's highly strange that the government-controlled mainstream media keeps yapping on and on about Snowden and publishing "his" material.

Cue shadowban in 3.. 2.. 1..

> But the article isn't just talking about the NSA and National Security Letters - this is about law enforcement.

No it's not. It's just that "law enforcement" sounds more comforting than "tyranny".

Here's how to interpret "law":

    Law = A written order issued by your rulers. 
    Lawful = Good = Anything your rulers want you to do.
    Unlawful = Bad = Anything your rulers don't want you to do.
    Law enforcement, verb = Forcing you to do what they want you to.
    Law enforcement, noun = People whom laws don't apply to.

Are you suggesting that the Russian "Empire" is more influential in Ukraine than the US Empire? :P

Or maybe that the West doesn't spew propaganda too? :)

> I believe you have been downvoted because instead of quoting general economist mottos about the misuse of public money, you could have cited factual examples.

I just presented some obviously factual statements. Would you demand an example if I said there's no such thing as a round rectangle?

I'm advocating for everything to be private. But not advocating for the US system, which is far from a free market.

> it still transfers more responsibility to the student than subsidizing education to make it free

Nothing can be made free by subsidizing it. The cost is hidden, but it's certainly still there. When a government subsidizes something, it's just transferring wealth from some people to others.

The end result is much worse, because no one uses other people's money in a prudent way, and no one knows what the best use for your money is to you personally - only you do.

Wow. You just can't make that shit up.. unless, of course, you're the government and making it all up :)

> This observation reveals the mentality of cynicism which infests the US Federal control structures, and the reality that these structures regard the American people with total contempt.

Yeah, I wouldn't call plans to brainwash and mind-fuck 330 million people a "mentality of cynicism". Contempt is not quite enough either. How about "evil, malicious hostility"?

Prevented by complying, ie. selling out his customers' privacy?

Or Cook could just reap some PR-points with a convincingly stated flat out lie. It's not like anyone will remember it in a couple of weeks anyway.

> you have to go for an in-person "interview", which is really just so that they can fingerprint you...

Well, in Finland, we have to submit to fingerprinting to get a new passport these days..

Oh, and Japan started fingerprinting all foreigners a few years ago. You just can't get into the country without it.