"...expands the rights of corporations at the expense of individuals."
Wrong. It limits the rights of everyone, period. Why do people so consistently miss the fact that less government involvement neatly solves problems like these?
I have to agree here, and this is one of the areas that Libertarians have it right-and both of the other parties are so far off base it is frightening. BOTH Dems and Reps are for big brother, and that is what scares me.
Laws like this are pathetic, and should be axed before they even get on the books. My personal policy is that if you are voting, look up who votes for laws of this and DON'T support them. This is the ONLY way that we Americans will be able to maintain a reasonably free society--by removing those politicians who repeatedly support government intervention in areas that don't need it (which by the way is the vast majority of our lives).
I will probably vote Libertarian in the next election. The only thing that turns me off is the Libertarian polits whose main platform is the legalization of marijuana as a recreational drug. This platform, although popular in certain subcultures, scares the daylights out of so many people that it will never be a winning platform.
Personally, I would rather see an emphasis placed on deregulation of many things, lowered (or eliminated) taxes, and increased fiscal responsibility. This of course means reducing and/or cutting certain programs, but many of these should be removed from the gov't's hands in any case.
As for ownership of data, it is my personal opinion that ANY data belongs to the person or entity which it describes. Therefore, if a company has data which describes me, I should be considered the sole OWNER, and they are permitted to use such data only insofar as I deem it permissable.
This gets tricky, such as in the case of surveys, but essentially, if data is not traceable to a particular individual (as should be the case in surveys), then it belongs to the entity that generated such data--until such a time as they make it public. Once data is aired to the public as a fact (as in a news report, or whatnot), it should now be considered public domain, and freely usable by any who are interested.
This does not mean that one should not cite sources, or that we should be able to access any database, but that we should have the opportunity to use information that is available.
(As a note, I just took a Loritab and a Skelaxin(?sp), so if this doesn't make any sense or is totally crazy, just ignore me--it's the medicine talking.)
You say it's immpossible to vote against the pols who support this because of the voice vote process. Some people in this country, though, do already have a chance to express some outrage because there is a list on the bill of 9 cosponsors: COSPONSORS(9), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Delahunt, William D. - 11/20/2003 [MA-10]
Rep Greenwood, James C. - 10/8/2003 [PA-8]
Rep Hobson, David L. - 10/8/2003 [OH-7]
Rep Portman, Rob - 11/20/2003 [OH
As for ownership of data, it is my personal opinion that ANY data belongs to the person or entity which it describes. Therefore, if a company has data which describes me, I should be considered the sole OWNER, and they are permitted to use such data only insofar as I deem it permissable.
On what do you base this opinion?
I mean that's a serious claim you're making; you should have some rock solid argument to back it up.
it's my opinion, so I don't really have a great answer for that. However, I personally think of it as the right to privacy. Many people would disagree, but if you accept that we have a right to be private people (which most people seem to think we do, unless we are deliberately public, such as is the case with politicians), then you should logically have control over anything that compromises this privacy, such as data that describes you.
of course, this opinion is not likely to be popular with certain orga
it's my opinion, so I don't really have a great answer for that.
If you cannot backup your opinion you should seriously reconsider it, especially when the opinion has such large implications.
but if you accept that we have a right to be private people [...], then you should logically have control over anything that compromises this privacy, such as data that describes you.
First you need to justify your statement that "we have a right to be private people" with respect to this situation. I mean, where i
as i said, this right (to be private people) is not specified anywhere, but I do believe that it is a right that we should have.
the reasoning behind this could take hundreds of pages to justify, and I'm not certain that I have thought it through enough to justify it (and maybe I should reconsider it--there are certainly reasons to do so).
I understand your position, and I think it is a smart one. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to implement my idea without serious consideration of the implications--I,
I will probably vote Libertarian in the next election. The only thing that turns me off is the Libertarian polits whose main platform is the legalization of marijuana as a recreational drug. This platform, although popular in certain subcultures, scares the daylights out of so many people that it will never be a winning platform.
I know it's offtopic (mods, hammer away), but SO MANY PEOPLE smoke marijuana (and so many people use other drugs (many illegal) too), that it really ought not be a losing platform. The liberals are already for decriminalization, mostly; the conservatives ought to give it whirl based on the tax savings alone.
Are you mad? Everyone knows drug users are addicts and are all sociopaths that will kill you in your sleep and rape your wife and sell your tv for crack (unless that drug addict is White & wealthy, in wich case He's just misunderstood victim of what's really a desiease and we should support him as he works through rehab and returns to the AM airwaves). Besides, it's not like those taxes are coming out of their pockets, most of it comes from those they're throwing in jail for non-violent crimes. Fucking
You think modern conservatives give a rats ass about fiscal policy? Man, hell no. They only care about (a) maintaining power, (b) preparing for the imminent return of Jesus Christ, (c) making sure gays don't marry, and (d) abolishing taxes and the government and government programs which those taxes support. Everything else can go fuck itself.
Healthcare and housing are not fundamental rights, although if you want to live somewhere, the government will give you land... on which you can build a house and subsistence farm... Or did you want housing without working for it... basic education is IMO a marginal issue and should be handled by the local community... and if the local commmunity does not value education... so be it. Roads are necessary for commerce.. and so are the purview of the goverernment... ditto for law and order and a small defense
Personally, I would rather see an emphasis placed on deregulation of many things, lowered (or eliminated) taxes, and increased fiscal responsibility. This of course means reducing and/or cutting certain programs, but many of these should be removed from the gov't's hands in any case.
I mean no offense, but this is something I often hear from those with Libertarian leanings... but never with any concrete suggestions as to what should go. If you're going to argue that the Federal government should shrink,
No, the losing parts of the libertarian platform is the sexual worship of private property above life itself so that they hate the environment and all its protections. A libertarian would rather see every forest, river, and the very atmosphere we breath, be destroyed or polluted beyond redemption than have a single persons fictional private property right violated. Yes, fictional, because it is not evolutionarily/biologically encoded. It is purely a social construct, a social idea, not some inherent righ
"Be there. Aloha."
-- Steve McGarret, _Hawaii Five-Oh_
Who's really looses out here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. It limits the rights of everyone, period. Why do people so consistently miss the fact that less government involvement neatly solves problems like these?
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Laws like this are pathetic, and should be axed before they even get on the books. My personal policy is that if you are voting, look up who votes for laws of this and DON'T support them. This is the ONLY way that we Americans will be able to maintain a reasonably free society--by removing those politicians who repeatedly support government intervention in areas that don't need it (which by the way is the vast majority of our lives).
I will probably vote Libertarian in the next election. The only thing that turns me off is the Libertarian polits whose main platform is the legalization of marijuana as a recreational drug. This platform, although popular in certain subcultures, scares the daylights out of so many people that it will never be a winning platform.
Personally, I would rather see an emphasis placed on deregulation of many things, lowered (or eliminated) taxes, and increased fiscal responsibility. This of course means reducing and
As for ownership of data, it is my personal opinion that ANY data belongs to the person or entity which it describes. Therefore, if a company has data which describes me, I should be considered the sole OWNER, and they are permitted to use such data only insofar as I deem it permissable.
This gets tricky, such as in the case of surveys, but essentially, if data is not traceable to a particular individual (as should be the case in surveys), then it belongs to the entity that generated such data--until such a time as they make it public. Once data is aired to the public as a fact (as in a news report, or whatnot), it should now be considered public domain, and freely usable by any who are interested.
This does not mean that one should not cite sources, or that we should be able to access any database, but that we should have the opportunity to use information that is available.
(As a note, I just took a Loritab and a Skelaxin(?sp), so if this doesn't make any sense or is totally crazy, just ignore me--it's the medicine talking.)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
COSPONSORS(9), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Delahunt, William D. - 11/20/2003 [MA-10]
Rep Greenwood, James C. - 10/8/2003 [PA-8]
Rep Hobson, David L. - 10/8/2003 [OH-7]
Rep Portman, Rob - 11/20/2003 [OH
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
On what do you base this opinion?
I mean that's a serious claim you're making; you should have some rock solid argument to back it up.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
However, I personally think of it as the right to privacy. Many people would disagree, but if you accept that we have a right to be private people (which most people seem to think we do, unless we are deliberately public, such as is the case with politicians), then you should logically have control over anything that compromises this privacy, such as data that describes you.
of course, this opinion is not likely to be popular with certain orga
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
If you cannot backup your opinion you should seriously reconsider it, especially when the opinion has such large implications.
but if you accept that we have a right to be private people [...], then you should logically have control over anything that compromises this privacy, such as data that describes you.
First you need to justify your statement that "we have a right to be private people" with respect to this situation. I mean, where i
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
the reasoning behind this could take hundreds of pages to justify, and I'm not certain that I have thought it through enough to justify it (and maybe I should reconsider it--there are certainly reasons to do so).
I understand your position, and I think it is a smart one. I certainly wouldn't expect anyone to implement my idea without serious consideration of the implications--I,
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:4, Interesting)
I know it's offtopic (mods, hammer away), but SO MANY PEOPLE smoke marijuana (and so many people use other drugs (many illegal) too), that it really ought not be a losing platform. The liberals are already for decriminalization, mostly; the conservatives ought to give it whirl based on the tax savings alone.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
You THINK I'm kidding.
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:1)
I mean no offense, but this is something I often hear from those with Libertarian leanings... but never with any concrete suggestions as to what should go. If you're going to argue that the Federal government should shrink,
Re:Who's really looses out here? (Score:2)
No, the losing parts of the libertarian platform is the sexual worship of private property above life itself so that they hate the environment and all its protections. A libertarian would rather see every forest, river, and the very atmosphere we breath, be destroyed or polluted beyond redemption than have a single persons fictional private property right violated. Yes, fictional, because it is not evolutionarily/biologically encoded. It is purely a social construct, a social idea, not some inherent righ