[FoRK] Misunderestimating "The" Tea Party
dmorton at bitfurnace.com
Tue Mar 16 23:23:40 PDT 2010
Its bullshit - TLDs should represent classes of domains. You should need 100
or 1000 independent entities in order to get a TLD for them
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Stephen Williams <sdw at lig.net> wrote:
> Russell Turpin wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:29 PM, Jeff Bone <jbone at place.org> wrote:
>>> Several of the constituent groups that could fit into the category are
>>> *explicitly* saying that (at least the Federal) government should have no
>>> say in that, or other similar, social-engineering matters.
> Whether that makes sense or not depends. In many cases it does not. In
> the case of abortion, it does not. Blue laws (see below), it does not.
> Copyright/patent, no. Deciding how to pay for local services, sure.
> Healthcare is broken. Fixing it at the state level is still mostly broken
> except for people who happen to live in a functional state and where none of
> them or their family move to or from another state. Healthcare, being tied
> to the person who has the freedom to move throughout the US at will, is
> fundamentally interstate commerce. In other words, a person is an
> interstate entity so any services that travel with that person (as their
> health insurance does) is interstate also.
> There's nothing wrong with state inspection / scrutiny of insurance
> carriers, however the restrictions and requirements should be national. The
> costs of the state-by-state adherence is huge, something I've seen first
>> Yes, of course. Because they want to empower the STATE governments to
>> ban abortion. Need I point out that the repressive effects of that?
>> I don't buy the argument that increasing state autonomy vis-a-vis the
>> federal government automagically increases individual liberty. Yes,
>> the Civil War led to the modern federal government. But remember the
>> first part of the title of Hummel's nice history of that:
>> "emancipating slaves." There's no reason to think those go together in
>> theory. In practice, in actual American history, state governments
>> have not been friendly to civil liberties.
> A very good recent example is Lawrence et al. v. Texas in 2003:
> This is a great paragraph that begins the opinion:
> Liberty protects the person from unwarranted govern-
>> ment intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In
>> our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home.
>> And there are other spheres of our lives and existence,
>> outside the home, where the State should not be a domi-
>> nant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds.
>> Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes free-
>> dom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate
>> conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person
>> both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.
> This is an area that was clearly broken at the state level. That various
> common sex acts were illegal in many places even between heterosexual
> couples, even if they were married, was bizarre at the least. In places
> like Utah, such laws could have survived for decades or more.
> The general model of States trying to restrict with Federal preventing
> restrictions when they are universally bad (unconstitutional or otherwise)
> is probably good most of the time.
> At least some of the time when Federal laws are created, they don't really
> make sense the same in every state. Maximum traffic speed laws being forced
> to 55mph through backdoor legislation (i.e. via budget pressure) is a good
> example of a bad move.
> FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK