SO can we just throw the senate and congress out on their asses already?

[StonedApe]

I've just become aware of SOPA(didn't see any threads about it), which is a bill in the house that would effectively allow the government to censor the internet in order to prevent internet piracy. The senate has a similar bill. This bill would close down half of youtube. It's not like this is the first bad law they've come up with lately. I'm serious, all these people occupying wall street should just march on congress and physically throw them out. http://cdt.org/files/pdfs/SOPA%202-pager%20final.pdf http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s968rs/pdf/BILLS-112s968rs.pdf

[Seroquel]

I'm serious, all these people occupying wall street should just march on congress and physically throw them out. This would only result in a lot of dead hippies.

[cmind]

StonedApe, although I agree that the congress are just as evil as the Empire in Star Wars (seriously), I don't think mob rule would solve anything. Such a notion only leads to more powerful governments (see Russia c. 1917).

[Marvo]

I've been reading a lot about this all evening. It's pretty fucked up. I can't really do anything about it, since I'm Danish, but such a law will definitely have some consequences, both in long and short run, for the rest of the internet. Please, if you're an American, try to stir up some shit, post this on facebook, contact your representatives or whatever. This will actually hurt the internet, for everyone, in a noticable way, and the only purpose of it is for the entertainment industry to grab more money (although it'll probably hurt them, since they will be losing all that free advertising, word of mouth and so on).

[tommo]

The people on Wall St. should have physically thrown them out already. This is just the icing on the cake. Open letter from several companies regarding the bill. http://politechbot.com/docs/sopa.goo...ter.111511.pdf SOPA would also grant the Justice Department the right to target internationally operated websites, as well as domestic ones. Tell me, how does America honestly think they can pass a law which applies to every other country as well? How the fuck does that even work?

[Never]

The people must get back control of their state legislatures. It is the local vote that counts the most. Once this is done, the states can nullify all unconstitutional federal laws. This is the only peaceful way to shrink the government once again. Once enough states have done this, the bad amendments can be repealed and the criminals thrown out. If war must result, it will be at the decision of the fed and not the people. See the Kentucky resolutions of 1798 for more info. Of course, people need to educate themselves in liberty before doing anything; but I guess I am expecting too much there. It is much easier to stand in the middle of the road with an Ipod and stamp your feet.

[Laughing Man]

The people must get back control of their state legislatures. It is the local vote that counts the most. Once this is done, the states can nullify all unconstitutional federal laws. This is the only peaceful way to shrink the government once again. Once enough states have done this, the bad amendments can be repealed and the criminals thrown out. If war must result, it will be at the decision of the fed and not the people. See the Kentucky resolutions of 1798 for more info. Of course, people need to educate themselves in liberty before doing anything; but I guess I am expecting too much there. It is much easier to stand in the middle of the road with an Ipod and stamp your feet. Really, how much longer are we going to be subjected to "if only we get the right people in government, then everything will be fine!" notion? Disinterest in governmental power is something even the "Founding Fathers" were incapable of having and conservatives like to tout them as demigods.

[Supernova]

Tell me, how does America honestly think they can pass a law which applies to every other country as well? How the fuck does that even work?

[tommo]

lol No but, seriously.... do they just do it because no one stops them? Or is there some actual law allowing them to do so?

[Supernova]

They do it because they can. Because the US hasn't yet lost its "wooooo #1" status in the world, though we will eventually (I'm not trying to be negative or anti-American, but let's face it, no society stays on top forever).

[Never]

Really, how much longer are we going to be subjected to "if only we get the right people in government, then everything will be fine!" notion? Disinterest in governmental power is something even the "Founding Fathers" were incapable of having and conservatives like to tout them as demigods. I didn't quite say those things, but that's okay.

[Laughing Man]

I didn't quite say those things, but that's okay. The people must get back control of their state legislatures. Did you not by saying this?

[Never]

I did not mean to imply that it was a cure-all. It may not pan out so well, or it might go an entirely different and unforeseen direction. The point is to get people to think smaller than the congress, as local officials are more accessible to the people, and taking it one step higher, it is way easier to win a state than the central power, which runs itself at this stage.

[Laughing Man]

I did not mean to imply that it was a cure-all. It may not pan out so well, or it might go an entirely different and unforeseen direction. The point is to get people to think smaller than the congress, as local officials are more accessible to the people, and taking it one step higher, it is way easier to win a state than the central power, which runs itself at this stage. How about secession down to the individual level?

[tommo]

It's more likely that we're gonna end up having a world government. Good luck getting any change through them.

[Never]

[laughing man] I'm not sure if I follow you, or if you were being sarcastic. You don't give me much to go on. I live in the woods much of the time on principle; it doesn't get much more stubborn than that, and still I have to take part in the system to some degree, or I die or go insane; well too late on the last bit. You sacrifice everything, gain nothing, and nobody will ever know or care; in fact they usually think you are stupid. We need communities; if you can get states to go Anarcho-capitalist, well then okay, I'll take that over the guaranteed oppression of the current state, but I think it more likely to attain "minarchy" before anarchy. Moreover, I feel it is a much safer mode of improvement, as we have something to fall back on; something that has been done before and can be done better this time around. What do you think? Or am I way off on your perspective?

[ThePreserver]

I'm not exactly in my right mind tonight... so yeah. O.o

[Never]

I think you are off. Disinterest in government power is unsustainable. You may start off with a small government but I believe it will not have an incentive to stay that way. You would need a static political society in which everyone has the same conception of the role of government and no one can deviant beyond that role because you would need a constant majority to maintain the role. You would need constant watchmen over bills to make sure it does not extend the powers of the state. I just do not see that happening. It will grow. Strike the root and it will whither. It is true that the general mass would have to understand that big government destroys freedom, and since there are people still rooting for terrible systems today even though they have failed many times throughout history, and are also flawed logically, I cannot argue that if we returned to a small government republic, that people would remember the mistakes of the current epoch. People are not and probably never will be willing to put in the hundreds of hours of study required to properly understand the history of politics and liberty. Some are lazy, some don't care, and some are simply too busy being productive in other ways. However, hypothetically speaking, I believe a can argue that such a majority can be maintained. In the early days of the republic, people had no desire to change what was working well for them. The government expansion through ignorance that we see in the twentieth century was not possible back then, and when it did happen it was an extremely slow process, only allowed for by the problems I will mention here. To start with, the constitution has loopholes, and since it was partially influenced by Hamilton, who was a monarchist, one could argue that these loopholes were deliberate. Hamilton was using lawyer talk to fool the population even then. The supreme court clearly had too much power, but nothing was done about this. I would argue that this was the main cause for the usurpation of rights up until the war between the states. However, Jefferson, who was not present at the signing of the constitution, continued to push for states' rights even though it is an idea these days considered extremist. The idea is that you have all these districts competing for power, which keeps the central power in check better than which was customary (allowing the federal government to decide for itself what was constitutional through the judicial branch). Now, even though this huge loophole existed, the rights of the states could still not be taken away until the federal government finally decided to take them by force of arms, and so Lincoln sent troops to murder the secessionists and force them to capitulate. The 14th amendment was even signed under coercion and outright hostage taking. Since then, we have the mass ignorance that you speak of, but I think it's important to understand that this was simply not possible until after the federal government used outright force; and since the rights were no longer manifest, the people eventually forgot them and Hamiltonianism and subsequently progressivism was allowed to flourish. I believe that in the presence of states' rights, which were not largely endorsed by the federalists, but rather by the anti-federalists, such a situation could only be achieved through victory in war, as the people generally liked the idea of free states in a compact. It is difficult to convince someone the world is flat if they know the science, but if you kill them you can tell their children and grandchildren the lie and they will believe it, so long as you hide the science. Even though many states even disagreed with the idea of nullification by virtue of the fact that it was simply not a major consideration in many areas, with the notable exception of Virginia, it still took a war to wrench the power away from those states that did understand the division of power. Now imagine had we started out with a strict understanding of states' rights across the board, and a "repaired" constitution, with amendments specifically outlining certain areas that need attention. Perhaps it is a dream, but no more a dream than anarchy, and I think more likely. Now, from here, we can experiment with anarchy if certain states wish to. This is the beauty of states' rights and the tenth amendment, which Jefferson called "the cornerstone of the constitution", the very area that came under direct attack and is still considered treasonous to consider.

[Xei]

Naturally following the NAP to its logical conclusion is absurd, however, because you remove any practical means to enforce said NAP.

[Descensus]

Naturally following the NAP to its logical conclusion is absurd, however, because you remove any practical means to enforce said NAP. How so?

[Xei]

Non-aggression principle. Simple term meaning one should not initiate force on another. Or threaten to. Here is a great video to elaborate: How so? Because you need a justice system and security force. Enforcing = aggressively beating them in to submission. Coo.... 1. I don't have a clue what you're talking about, but whatever you are talking about is wrong. 2. You're not remotely a libertarian, therefore you personally support the breaking of the NAP far more than I do.

[Descensus]

Because you need a justice system and security force. No one concludes that every human that exists now and in the future will be a perfect creature. Use of the NAP (or "acceptance" if you wish to call it that. I personally don't) is not required for everybody. The NAP doesn't preclude or ignore a justice system or security force.

[tommo]

1. I don't have a clue what you're talking about, but whatever you are talking about is wrong. I'm saying you don't need to be aggressive to enforce something.

[tommo]

Naturally following the NAP to its logical conclusion is absurd, however, because you remove any practical means to enforce said NAP. Enforcing = aggressively beating them in to submission. Coo....

[IndieAnthias]

what does NAP mean?