Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-23 Thread meekerdb

On 11/23/2013 9:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Nov 23, 2013, at 10:19 PM, meekerdb > wrote:



On 11/23/2013 2:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 11/23/2013 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:00 AM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court

  There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,



The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on 
this. Some
sites on this  have just disappeared.


It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA 
authorizes the
defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found 
it
"anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be 
thinking of
was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people 
without trial
as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The 
ACLU has
challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v 
Obama.  A
district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went 
up
through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out 
the
injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing 
to bring
the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling 
on
whether or not it is constitutional.

This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only 
persons
who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More 
modern
democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in 
being able
to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for 
court review
of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.

Brent,

I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as 
opposed
to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
application of said rights in practice.


?? Left out some words?

Only one, I think, but it ruined the paragraph. Sorry.
"...certain fundamental rights are not being upheld is bureaucratic
impediment,..."

I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:

- The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it 
is
not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental 
right
to a trial.


The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who 
have taken
up arms or aided organizations

Of course "aiding" said organizations can be defined as anything that
goes against the government's wishes. Especially when we have to take
the Government's word on even the existence of such organisations.


You are assuming the government (prosecutors) get to redefine words so that
"aiding" can mean anything.  But once you assume that, then no law has any
meaning.  Anyway you are wrong.  Judges and juries and even military 
tribunals are
not all stupid or tools of despotic Presidents or lackeys of corporatism.  
You so
readily make those assumptions implicitly; but you don't see that if true 
then you
are already living in 1984.  Do you really think this is dystopia?  Are you 
afraid
the CIA will have you assassinated for you opinions?



They've already assassinated American citizens (suspected not convicted of any crime) 
for essentially what amounted to speech.  A few weeks later they assassinated his 16 
year old son, also a US citizen, apparently for no other crime than having had 
al-Awlaki as a father.  See: 
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-just

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-23 Thread Jason Resch



On Nov 23, 2013, at 10:19 PM, meekerdb  wrote:


On 11/23/2013 2:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 11/23/2013 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:00 AM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:


On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court

  There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,



The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on  
this. Some

sites on this  have just disappeared.


It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA  
authorizes the
defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found  
it
"anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be  
thinking of
was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people  
without trial
as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The  
ACLU has
challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v  
Obama.  A

district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went  
up
through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out  
the
injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing  
to bring

the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling on
whether or not it is constitutional.

This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only  
persons
who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More  
modern
democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in  
being able
to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for  
court review

of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.

Brent,

I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as  
opposed

to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
application of said rights in practice.


?? Left out some words?
Only one, I think, but it ruined the paragraph. Sorry.
"...certain fundamental rights are not being upheld is bureaucratic
impediment,..."

I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:

- The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it  
is
not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental  
right

to a trial.


The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who  
have taken

up arms or aided organizations
Of course "aiding" said organizations can be defined as anything that
goes against the government's wishes. Especially when we have to take
the Government's word on even the existence of such organisations.

You are assuming the government (prosecutors) get to redefine words  
so that "aiding" can mean anything.  But once you assume that, then  
no law has any meaning.  Anyway you are wrong.  Judges and juries  
and even military tribunals are not all stupid or tools of  
despotic   Presidents or lackeys of corporatism.  You  
so readily make those assumptions implicitly; but you don't see  
that if   true then you are already living in 1984.  Do  
you really think this is dystopia?  Are you afraid the CIA will  
have you assassinated for you opinions?



They've already assassinated American citizens (suspected not  
convicted of any crime) for essentially what amounted to speech.  A  
few weeks later they assassinated his 16 year old son, also a US  
citizen, apparently for no other crime than having had al-Awlaki as  
a father.  See: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/


In the 'war on terror' there has been an unjustified (in your mind)  
killing of a 16 year old.  I'm shocked!  Shocked! that an innocent  
person has been killed.


That the president signed a death warrant for a U.S. citizen (acting  
as judge, jury, and executioner) doesn't concern you?  This was in  
Yemen, a country the U.S. is not at war with.



  I suppose you recommend that we go back to the acceptable carpet  
bombing of Dresden or Tokyo.


Around a million of civilians have died from the wars in Afganistan  
and Iraq.  Was this justified to apprehend a small number of criminals?


Or do you suggest that we should just ignore these enemi

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-23 Thread meekerdb

On 11/23/2013 2:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 11/23/2013 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:00 AM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court

  There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,



The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on 
this. Some
sites on this  have just disappeared.


It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA 
authorizes the
defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found 
it
"anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be 
thinking of
was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people 
without trial
as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The 
ACLU has
challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v 
Obama.  A
district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went 
up
through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out 
the
injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing 
to bring
the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling 
on
whether or not it is constitutional.

This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only 
persons
who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More 
modern
democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in 
being able
to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for 
court review
of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.

Brent,

I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as 
opposed
to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
application of said rights in practice.


?? Left out some words?

Only one, I think, but it ruined the paragraph. Sorry.
"...certain fundamental rights are not being upheld is bureaucratic
impediment,..."

I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:

- The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it 
is
not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental 
right
to a trial.


The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who 
have taken
up arms or aided organizations

Of course "aiding" said organizations can be defined as anything that
goes against the government's wishes. Especially when we have to take
the Government's word on even the existence of such organisations.


You are assuming the government (prosecutors) get to redefine words so that 
"aiding"
can mean anything.  But once you assume that, then no law has any meaning.  
Anyway
you are wrong.  Judges and juries and even military tribunals are not all 
stupid or
tools of despotic Presidents or lackeys of corporatism.  You so readily 
make those
assumptions implicitly; but you don't see that if true then you are already 
living
in 1984.  Do you really think this is dystopia?  Are you afraid the CIA 
will have
you assassinated for you opinions?



They've already assassinated American citizens (suspected not convicted of any crime) 
for essentially what amounted to speech.  A few weeks later they assassinated his 16 
year old son, also a US citizen, apparently for no other crime than having had al-Awlaki 
as a father.  See: 
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/


In the 'war on terror' there has been an unjustified (in your mind) k

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-23 Thread Jason Resch
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 1:23 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 11/23/2013 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:00 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>> Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
>>> when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
>>> laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
>>> As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court
>>>
>>>   There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
>>> Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
>>> apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on this.
>>> Some
>>> sites on this  have just disappeared.
>>>
>>>
>>> It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA authorizes
>>> the
>>> defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found it
>>> "anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be thinking
>>> of
>>> was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people without
>>> trial
>>> as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The ACLU
>>> has
>>> challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v Obama.
>>>  A
>>> district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
>>> unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went up
>>> through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out the
>>> injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to
>>> bring
>>> the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling on
>>> whether or not it is constitutional.
>>>
>>> This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only
>>> persons
>>> who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More modern
>>> democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in being
>>> able
>>> to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for court
>>> review
>>> of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.
>>>
>>> Brent,
>>>
>>> I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
>>> claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
>>> right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as opposed
>>> to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
>>> application of said rights in practice.
>>>
>>>
>>> ?? Left out some words?
>>>
>> Only one, I think, but it ruined the paragraph. Sorry.
>> "...certain fundamental rights are not being upheld is bureaucratic
>> impediment,..."
>>
>>  I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:
>>>
>>> - The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
>>> constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it is
>>> not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental right
>>> to a trial.
>>>
>>>
>>> The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who have
>>> taken
>>> up arms or aided organizations
>>>
>> Of course "aiding" said organizations can be defined as anything that
>> goes against the government's wishes. Especially when we have to take
>> the Government's word on even the existence of such organisations.
>>
>
> You are assuming the government (prosecutors) get to redefine words so
> that "aiding" can mean anything.  But once you assume that, then no law has
> any meaning.  Anyway you are wrong.  Judges and juries and even military
> tribunals are not all stupid or tools of despotic Presidents or lackeys of
> corporatism.  You so readily make those assumptions implicitly; but you
> don't see that if true then you are already living in 1984.  Do you really
> think this is dystopia?  Are you afraid the CIA will have you assassinated
> for you opinions?



They've already assassinated American citizens (suspected not convicted of
any crime) for essentially what amounted to speech.  A few weeks later they
assassinated his 16 year old son, also a US citizen, apparently for no
other crime than having had al-Awlaki as a father.  See:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-23 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 7:23 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 11/23/2013 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:00 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>>
>>> Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
>>> when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
>>> laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
>>> As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court
>>>
>>>   There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
>>> Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
>>> apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on this.
>>> Some
>>> sites on this  have just disappeared.
>>>
>>>
>>> It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA authorizes
>>> the
>>> defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found it
>>> "anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be thinking
>>> of
>>> was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people without
>>> trial
>>> as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The ACLU
>>> has
>>> challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v Obama.
>>> A
>>> district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
>>> unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went up
>>> through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out the
>>> injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to
>>> bring
>>> the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling on
>>> whether or not it is constitutional.
>>>
>>> This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only
>>> persons
>>> who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More modern
>>> democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in being
>>> able
>>> to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for court
>>> review
>>> of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.
>>>
>>> Brent,
>>>
>>> I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
>>> claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
>>> right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as opposed
>>> to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
>>> application of said rights in practice.
>>>
>>>
>>> ?? Left out some words?
>>
>> Only one, I think, but it ruined the paragraph. Sorry.
>> "...certain fundamental rights are not being upheld is bureaucratic
>> impediment,..."
>>
>>> I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:
>>>
>>> - The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
>>> constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it is
>>> not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental right
>>> to a trial.
>>>
>>>
>>> The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who have
>>> taken
>>> up arms or aided organizations
>>
>> Of course "aiding" said organizations can be defined as anything that
>> goes against the government's wishes. Especially when we have to take
>> the Government's word on even the existence of such organisations.
>
>
> You are assuming the government (prosecutors) get to redefine words so that
> "aiding" can mean anything.  But once you assume that, then no law has any
> meaning.

Yes, I can see you finally understand my point of view.

> Anyway you are wrong.  Judges and juries and even military
> tribunals are not all stupid or tools of despotic Presidents or lackeys of
> corporatism.

I don't think they are all stupid or corrupt, but I do think that the
system has a whole acts in a stupid and corrupt way. You yourself
think this because you claimed it to justify Obama.

> You so readily make those assumptions implicitly; but you
> don't see that if true then you are already living in 1984.

Well we already have big brother: the government is in fact listening
to everything we say, by its own admission looking for threats to the
common good. Words like "freedom" have been redefined... The slogan of
Guantanamo is "honour bound to defend freedom". Depressingly, this is
not the first concentration camp to use a slogan based on doublespeak
on the concept of freedom.

> Do you really
> think this is dystopia?

I think it's going in that direction.

> Are you afraid the CIA will have you assassinated
> for you opinions?

I am afraid that I will run into problems the next time I want to
visit the US, which is something I really like to do. I've been
several times to the US and I would like to visit many more, but it's
getting a but creepy.

I am also afraid that in a near futur

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-23 Thread meekerdb

On 11/23/2013 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:00 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court

  There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,



The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on this. Some
sites on this  have just disappeared.


It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA authorizes the
defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found it
"anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be thinking of
was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people without trial
as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The ACLU has
challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v Obama.  A
district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went up
through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out the
injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring
the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling on
whether or not it is constitutional.

This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only persons
who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More modern
democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in being able
to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for court review
of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.

Brent,

I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as opposed
to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
application of said rights in practice.


?? Left out some words?

Only one, I think, but it ruined the paragraph. Sorry.
"...certain fundamental rights are not being upheld is bureaucratic
impediment,..."


I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:

- The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it is
not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental right
to a trial.


The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who have taken
up arms or aided organizations

Of course "aiding" said organizations can be defined as anything that
goes against the government's wishes. Especially when we have to take
the Government's word on even the existence of such organisations.


You are assuming the government (prosecutors) get to redefine words so that "aiding" can 
mean anything.  But once you assume that, then no law has any meaning.  Anyway you are 
wrong.  Judges and juries and even military tribunals are not all stupid or tools of 
despotic Presidents or lackeys of corporatism.  You so readily make those assumptions 
implicitly; but you don't see that if true then you are already living in 1984.  Do you 
really think this is dystopia?  Are you afraid the CIA will have you assassinated for you 
opinions?





that have taken up arms against the U.S. and
only for the duration of the war against Al Quida and the Taliban.

How can a war against an undefined enemy and with undefined goals ever
stop? Can you imagine a scenario where the government says: "ok guys,
we won the war on terror. Well done everyone, it's over". And the
sailors kiss their girlfriends in Times Square and everything goes
back to normal.


No, and that is certainly a problem.  But it's not a problem of violating the Constitution 
or other laws - it's inherent in the form of conflict.





So you
are confused on several counts.  This is what the 6th amendment actually
says:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the
crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense."

Note that it refers to a criminal trial.  An enemy soldier captured in
wartime is not a criminal.

Yes, but they redefined what an "enemy soldier" is and also what "wart

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-23 Thread Jason Resch
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 2:40 AM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 11/22/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:00 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
>>   On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb  
>>  wrote:
>>
>>  On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>
>> Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
>> when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
>> laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
>> As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court
>>
>>  There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
>> Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,
>>
>>
>>
>> The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
>> apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on this. Some
>> sites on this  have just disappeared.
>>
>>
>> It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA authorizes the
>> defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found it
>> "anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be thinking of
>> was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people without trial
>> as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The ACLU has
>> challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v Obama.  A
>> district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
>> unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went up
>> through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out the
>> injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring
>> the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling on
>> whether or not it is constitutional.
>>
>> This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only persons
>> who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More modern
>> democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in being able
>> to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for court review
>> of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.
>>
>>  Brent,
>>
>> I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
>> claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
>> right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as opposed
>> to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
>> application of said rights in practice.
>>
>>
>>  ?? Left out some words?
>>
>>
>>  I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:
>>
>> - The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
>> constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it is
>> not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental right
>> to a trial.
>>
>>
>>  The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who have
>> taken up arms or aided organizations that have taken up arms against the
>> U.S. and only for the duration of the war against Al Quida and the
>> Taliban.  So you are confused on several counts.  This is what the 6th
>> amendment actually says:
>>
>> *"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
>> speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
>> wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
>> previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
>> of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
>> compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
>> assistance of counsel for his defense.**"*
>>
>> Note that it refers to a criminal trial.  An enemy soldier captured in
>> wartime is not a criminal.
>>
>
>  It becomes problematic when the "war on terror" has no defined end, no
> defined enemy, and is global in scope, making the whole world into a
> battlefield.
>
>
> Indeed, it's not like wars contemplated in laws, including international
> law.  But it's not like a criminal enterprise either.
>
>
>   It is the same stretching of laws that enabled the US to implement
> concentration camps of Japanese Americans by creating "exclusion zones"
> around military bases that were hundreds of miles in range of the military
> base, or the idea od "fourth ammendment free zones" which extend hundreds
> of miles from national borders, and impact 2 out of 3 Americans:
> http://blogs.computerworld.com/privacy/21805/2-out-every-3-americans-lost-fourth-amendment-protections-dhs
>
>  It may be legal under some stretched interpretation of the letter of a
> law, but certainly not under the spirit of the law.
>
>
>  I recently learned that the "*In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
> shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,*" is not actually
> upheld.  The Supreme Court has ruled this right does not exi

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-23 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 5:00 AM, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>
> On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
> when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
> laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
> As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court
>
>  There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
> Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,
>
>
>
> The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
> apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on this. Some
> sites on this  have just disappeared.
>
>
> It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA authorizes the
> defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found it
> "anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be thinking of
> was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people without trial
> as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The ACLU has
> challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v Obama.  A
> district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
> unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went up
> through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out the
> injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring
> the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling on
> whether or not it is constitutional.
>
> This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only persons
> who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More modern
> democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in being able
> to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for court review
> of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.
>
> Brent,
>
> I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
> claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
> right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as opposed
> to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
> application of said rights in practice.
>
>
> ?? Left out some words?

Only one, I think, but it ruined the paragraph. Sorry.
"...certain fundamental rights are not being upheld is bureaucratic
impediment,..."

> I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:
>
> - The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
> constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it is
> not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental right
> to a trial.
>
>
> The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who have taken
> up arms or aided organizations

Of course "aiding" said organizations can be defined as anything that
goes against the government's wishes. Especially when we have to take
the Government's word on even the existence of such organisations.

> that have taken up arms against the U.S. and
> only for the duration of the war against Al Quida and the Taliban.

How can a war against an undefined enemy and with undefined goals ever
stop? Can you imagine a scenario where the government says: "ok guys,
we won the war on terror. Well done everyone, it's over". And the
sailors kiss their girlfriends in Times Square and everything goes
back to normal.

> So you
> are confused on several counts.  This is what the 6th amendment actually
> says:
>
> "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
> and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the
> crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
> ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the
> accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
> compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
> assistance of counsel for his defense."
>
> Note that it refers to a criminal trial.  An enemy soldier captured in
> wartime is not a criminal.

Yes, but they redefined what an "enemy soldier" is and also what "wartime" is.

> Second, it clearly refers to crimes committed in
> a state or district of the U.S. - not Afghanistan or Iraq.  So it is not at
> all unconstitutional to deny a trial to those captives in Guantanomo.

Right, this one is just a violation of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, namely article 5:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment."

I assume you don't need me to link photos?

> I agree that they should be tried, but the use of a military tribunal is
> certainly not unconstitutional.
>
>
>
> He was not forced to sign the NDAA by bu

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-23 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 23 Nov 2013, at 07:42, Jason Resch wrote:





On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 21 Nov 2013, at 18:55, Jason Resch wrote:





On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 21 Nov 2013, at 15:50, Jason Resch wrote:





On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote:


Telmo wrote:

"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position  
is
essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine  
possibilities for

peaceful world with further increases in freedom)."

Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on  
modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling  
slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers,
who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the  
later "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it  
into a gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger  
(with SOME exceptions, thank you).


 I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an  
innovation historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for  
the 21st.

My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate,  
governing a so called government into committing crimes  
(international and domestic) originally excluded

from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.

How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call  
it: econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and  
forcing own interest on other countries? (Not to

mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).



Gödel pretended that the US constitution was inconsistent and  
refused to sign it. Einstein intervened and succeeded in changing  
Gödel's mind (about not signing it to get the "green card" or the  
nationality).
Einstein asked Gödel if the US constitution could prevent  
something like a Nazy party to take power, like in Germany, and  
Gödel said that it could!



There was a letter describing the event which was long thought to  
be lost, but was recently found as described here:


http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/

See the bottom of page 7 in this 2006 letter by the IAS: 
http://www.ias.edu/files/pdfs/publications/letter-2006-spring.pdf


Interesting links. Thanks.






I don't think capitalism is the problem, but financial lobbying  
and corporatism; + lies, can pervert completely a democracy.


Yes, I think where things stand today is the result of something  
different from the flaw Godel found.


Are you sure?


I just mean that while the effect is more or less the same  
(subverted democracy), I think the means is probably different than  
an exploitation of the same flaw (whatever it was) that Godel found.


What we have today isn't so much a corruption of the laws by which  
government operates, but a corruption of people in the government.


My guess is that the inconsistency Godel found in the constitution  
involved a means of using the laws against themselves, rather than  
what we see today which is a selective enforcement of laws.   
Applying laws in full force against some, while not applying the  
laws at all against others.  This, coupled with bought and paid for  
lawmakers and a broken forth estate make it easy for those with  
power and wealth to use the government as a tool to further their  
power and wealth.


The constitution should not make this possible, but I have not read  
all the amendments.




Perhaps if everyone was equally permitted to enforce the laws things  
would have gotten to where they are today, but currently only a  
privileged few (district attorneys) have the power to bring charges  
against someone.  The right to a trial by jury is also subverted in  
90% of cases, by threatening vast and unjust charges unless the  
person agrees to plead guilty to a smaller set of charges.  It's not  
clear to me how the constitution could prevent such malfunctions.


BY forbidding that practice. It seems obviously unfair toward poor or  
ruined people.






It reminds me of a quote attributed to Franklin:

The story goes that as Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence  
Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia  
on September 18, 1787, a woman asked him, “Well Doctor, what have we  
got, a republic or a monarchy?”  Franklin replied, “A republic,  
madam – if you can keep it.”


Franklin's reply suggested that vigilance on the part of the people  
is required to maintain the government as envisioned in the  
constitution.


I think that this was also the reason for the right of having guns: to  
be able to overthrow a government who would betray the democratic rule.

In life and politics, vigilance is always required.










For me both prohibition and 9/11 are ... unsolved.

I would be happy to know Gödel's argument that the US constitution  
permits dictatorship.



I am also very curious about it.  I've 

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-23 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 23 Nov 2013, at 05:00, meekerdb wrote:


On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court

 There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,



The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on  
this. Some

sites on this  have just disappeared.


It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA  
authorizes the
defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have  
found it
"anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be  
thinking of
was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people  
without trial
as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The  
ACLU has
challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v  
Obama.  A

district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This  
went up
through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out  
the
injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal  
standing to bring
the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling  
on

whether or not it is constitutional.

This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that  
only persons
who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More  
modern
democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in  
being able
to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for  
court review

of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.

Brent,

I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as  
opposed

to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
application of said rights in practice.


?? Left out some words?



I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:

- The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it  
is
not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental  
right

to a trial.


The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who  
have taken up arms or aided organizations that have taken up arms  
against the U.S. and only for the duration of the war against Al  
Quida and the Taliban.


You might give a quote. It looks like what it has been asked to Obama  
to make precise, and he refused to do so. It seems to me that it is  
explicit that all "suspect of threat" are concerned with no explicit  
reference to Al Qaeda, nor Taliban. Just suprressing a coma or a  
period in some sentence would have clarified, but even that was  
rejected by Obama's administration.




So you are confused on several counts.  This is what the 6th  
amendment actually says:


"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to  
a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and  
district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district  
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of  
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the  
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining  
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for  
his defense."


Note that it refers to a criminal trial.


Indeed. That's the problem. If you are suspected of threat, you better  
do a crime just to have some lawyer!




  An enemy soldier captured in wartime is not a criminal.


But a war on terror, typically, makes the wartime infinite, and  
transforms the whole country (the US) into a battlefield.



Second, it clearly refers to crimes committed in a state or district  
of the U.S. - not Afghanistan or Iraq.  So it is not at all  
unconstitutional to deny a trial to those captives in Guantanomo.  I  
agree that they should be tried, but the use of a military tribunal  
is certainly not unconstitutional.


If a military tribunal is used. But the NDAA (and the patriot act)  
dismisses any trial, military or not.


The detention ends with the end of the hostility/war, but I thought  
Obama would close Guantanamo (as he promised) and end the hostility  
after the death of Bin Laden. Now, the way he acts suggests that there  
is just no end possible to such type of hostility.  The notion of  
threat and terror are too fuzzy for that.
As the evidences ad

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-22 Thread meekerdb

On 11/22/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:




On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:00 PM, meekerdb > wrote:


On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb  
  wrote:

On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court

  There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,



The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on this. Some
sites on this  have just disappeared.


It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA authorizes the
defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found it
"anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be thinking of
was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people without trial
as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The ACLU has
challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v Obama.  A
district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went up
through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out the
injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring
the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling on
whether or not it is constitutional.

This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only persons
who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More modern
democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in being able
to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for court review
of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.

Brent,

I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as opposed
to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
application of said rights in practice.


?? Left out some words?



I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:

- The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it is
not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental right
to a trial.


The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who have 
taken up arms
or aided organizations that have taken up arms against the U.S. and only 
for the
duration of the war against Al Quida and the Taliban.  So you are confused 
on
several counts.  This is what the 6th amendment actually says:

/"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a 
speedy and
public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the 
crime shall
have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained 
by law,
and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be 
confronted with
the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining 
witnesses in his
favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.//"/

Note that it refers to a criminal trial.  An enemy soldier captured in 
wartime is
not a criminal.


It becomes problematic when the "war on terror" has no defined end, no defined enemy, 
and is global in scope, making the whole world into a battlefield.


Indeed, it's not like wars contemplated in laws, including international law.  But it's 
not like a criminal enterprise either.


It is the same stretching of laws that enabled the US to implement concentration camps 
of Japanese Americans by creating "exclusion zones" around military bases that were 
hundreds of miles in range of the military base, or the idea od "fourth ammendment free 
zones" which extend hundreds of miles from national borders, and impact 2 out of 3 
Americans: 
http://blogs.computerworld.com/privacy/21805/2-out-every-3-americans-lost-fourth-amendment-protections-dhs


It may be legal under some stretched interpretation of the letter of a law, but 
certainly not under the spirit of the law.



I recently learned that the "/In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the 
right to a speedy and public trial,/" is not actually upheld. The Supreme Court has 
ruled this right does not exist for crimes that have a sent

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-22 Thread Jason Resch
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:00 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb  
>  wrote:
>
>  On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
> when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
> laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
> As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court
>
>  There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
> Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,
>
>
>
> The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
> apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on this. Some
> sites on this  have just disappeared.
>
>
> It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA authorizes the
> defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found it
> "anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be thinking of
> was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people without trial
> as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The ACLU has
> challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v Obama.  A
> district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
> unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went up
> through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out the
> injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring
> the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling on
> whether or not it is constitutional.
>
> This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only persons
> who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More modern
> democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in being able
> to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for court review
> of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.
>
>  Brent,
>
> I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
> claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
> right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as opposed
> to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
> application of said rights in practice.
>
>
> ?? Left out some words?
>
>
>  I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:
>
> - The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
> constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it is
> not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental right
> to a trial.
>
>
> The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who have
> taken up arms or aided organizations that have taken up arms against the
> U.S. and only for the duration of the war against Al Quida and the
> Taliban.  So you are confused on several counts.  This is what the 6th
> amendment actually says:
>
> *"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
> speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
> wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
> previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause
> of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
> compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
> assistance of counsel for his defense.**"*
>
> Note that it refers to a criminal trial.  An enemy soldier captured in
> wartime is not a criminal.
>

It becomes problematic when the "war on terror" has no defined end, no
defined enemy, and is global in scope, making the whole world into a
battlefield.  It is the same stretching of laws that enabled the US to
implement concentration camps of Japanese Americans by creating "exclusion
zones" around military bases that were hundreds of miles in range of the
military base, or the idea od "fourth ammendment free zones" which extend
hundreds of miles from national borders, and impact 2 out of 3 Americans:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/privacy/21805/2-out-every-3-americans-lost-fourth-amendment-protections-dhs

It may be legal under some stretched interpretation of the letter of a law,
but certainly not under the spirit of the law.


I recently learned that the "*In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,*" is not actually
upheld.  The Supreme Court has ruled this right does not exist for crimes
that have a sentence of less than six months in prison.  I guess they don't
know how to interpret the word "all".



>   Second, it clearly refers to crimes committed in a state or district of
> the U.S. - not Afghanistan or Iraq.  So it is not at all unconstitutional
> to deny a trial to those captives in Guantanomo.
>

It is against the declaration

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-22 Thread Jason Resch
On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:09 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Nov 2013, at 18:55, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 15:50, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote:
>>>
>>> Telmo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
>>> essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for 
>>> **peaceful
>>> world with further increases in freedom)*."
>>>
>>> Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on
>>> modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling
>>> slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers,
>>> who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the later
>>> "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a
>>> gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME
>>> exceptions, thank you).
>>>
>>>  I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation
>>> historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st.
>>> My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
>>> a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate,
>>> *governing* a so called government into committing crimes
>>> (international and domestic) originally excluded
>>> from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.
>>>
>>>  How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it:
>>> econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing own
>>> interest on other countries? (Not to
>>> mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gödel pretended that the US constitution was inconsistent and refused to
>>> sign it. Einstein intervened and succeeded in changing Gödel's mind (about
>>> not signing it to get the "green card" or the nationality).
>>> Einstein asked Gödel if the US constitution could prevent something like
>>> a Nazy party to take power, like in Germany, and Gödel said that it could!
>>>
>>
>>
>> There was a letter describing the event which was long thought to be
>> lost, but was recently found as described here:
>>
>> http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/
>>
>> See the bottom of page 7 in this 2006 letter by the IAS:
>> http://www.ias.edu/files/pdfs/publications/letter-2006-spring.pdf
>>
>>
>> Interesting links. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I don't think capitalism is the problem, but financial lobbying and
>>> corporatism; + lies, can pervert completely a democracy.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I think where things stand today is the result of something
>> different from the flaw Godel found.
>>
>>
>> Are you sure?
>>
>
>
> I just mean that while the effect is more or less the same (subverted
> democracy), I think the means is probably different than an exploitation of
> the same flaw (whatever it was) that Godel found.
>
> What we have today isn't so much a corruption of the laws by which
> government operates, but a corruption of people in the government.
>
> My guess is that the inconsistency Godel found in the constitution
> involved a means of using the laws against themselves, rather than what we
> see today which is a selective enforcement of laws.  Applying laws in full
> force against some, while not applying the laws at all against others.
> This, coupled with bought and paid for lawmakers and a broken forth estate
> make it easy for those with power and wealth to use the government as a
> tool to further their power and wealth.
>
>
> The constitution should not make this possible, but I have not read all
> the amendments.
>
>
>
Perhaps if everyone was equally permitted to enforce the laws things would
have gotten to where they are today, but currently only a privileged few
(district attorneys) have the power to bring charges against someone.  The
right to a trial by jury is also subverted in 90% of cases, by threatening
vast and unjust charges unless the person agrees to plead guilty to a
smaller set of charges.  It's not clear to me how the constitution could
prevent such malfunctions.

It reminds me of a quote attributed to Franklin:

The story goes that as Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at
the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18,
1787, a woman asked him, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a
monarchy?”  Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”

Franklin's reply suggested that vigilance on the part of the people is
required to maintain the government as envisioned in the constitution.


>
>
>
>>
>> For me both prohibition and 9/11 are ... unsolved.
>>
>> I would be happy to know Gödel's argument that the US constitution
>> permits dictatorship.
>>
>>
> I am also very curious about it.  I've sometimes thought about whether a
> constitution can be designed with game-theoretical principals such that it
> would be impossible (or high

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-22 Thread meekerdb

On 11/22/2013 5:38 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court

  There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,



The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on this. Some
sites on this  have just disappeared.


It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA authorizes the
defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found it
"anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be thinking of
was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people without trial
as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The ACLU has
challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v Obama.  A
district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went up
through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out the
injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring
the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling on
whether or not it is constitutional.

This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only persons
who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More modern
democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in being able
to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for court review
of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.

Brent,

I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as opposed
to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
application of said rights in practice.


?? Left out some words?



I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:

- The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it is
not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental right
to a trial.


The controversial clause of the NDAA only applies to citizens who have taken up arms or 
aided organizations that have taken up arms against the U.S. and only for the duration of 
the war against Al Quida and the Taliban.  So you are confused on several counts.  This is 
what the 6th amendment actually says:


/"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public 
trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been 
committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be 
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses 
against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have 
the assistance of counsel for his defense.//"/


Note that it refers to a criminal trial.  An enemy soldier captured in wartime is not a 
criminal.  Second, it clearly refers to crimes committed in a state or district of the 
U.S. - not Afghanistan or Iraq.  So it is not at all unconstitutional to deny a trial to 
those captives in Guantanomo.  I agree that they should be tried, but the use of a 
military tribunal is certainly not unconstitutional.




He was not forced to sign the NDAA by bureaucracy (he
might have been forced in other ways, but here we get into pure
speculation). It was fully within his powers not to sign it or to
demand changes;


Demanding things of Congress doesn't necessarily get them (particularly when the House is 
controlled by the Republicans).




- Harm is a very subjective word. If the Supreme Court was interested
in upholding fundamental rights, it could easily interpret loss of
fundamental human rights as harm;

The point is that the people who were plaintiffs in the case weren't harmed.



- The bureaucratic impediments seem to work mostly in a direction of
loss of freedom. Empirically, it does not look plausible that they are
just neutral attrition -- they prevent Guantanamo from being closed,
they allow for total surveillance, they allow the Federal Government
to go after marijuana businesses that were authorised by their states,
they allow for "free speech zones", they allow for random road check
points and so on;

- The constitution is the highest law. If people were serious about
following it, they couldn't possible let some lower level law get in
the way. It's a truism that

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-22 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 22 Nov 2013, at 19:36, Richard Ruquist wrote:

The New Scientist article that Liz linked says essentially that  
crises happen when workers outnumber the available jobs

especially elite jobs: 
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029382.400-the-maths-that-saw-the-us-shutdown-coming.html#.Uo-iDdK-qFA

Turchin has found what he believes to be historical cycles, two to  
three centuries long, of political instability and breakdown  
affecting states and empires from Rome to Russia. In a book he is  
finishing, he argues that similar cycles are evident in US history,  
and that they are playing out to this day. He admits that his  
theory, built on a model that combines social and economic data,  
must be tested against real events – but unlike most historical  
theories, it can be. Meanwhile, he says, it "predicts the long-term  
conditions that led to this shutdown".


Workers or employees make up the bulk of any society, with a  
minority of employers constituting the top few per cent of earners.  
By mathematically modelling historical data, Turchin finds that as  
population grows, workers start to outnumber available jobs, driving  
down wages. The wealthy elite then end up with an even greater share  
of the economic pie, and inequality soars. This is borne out in the  
US, for example, where average wages have stagnated since the 1970s  
although gross domestic product has steadily climbed.


This process also creates new avenues – such as increased access to  
higher education – that allow a few workers to join the elite,  
swelling their ranks. Eventually this results in what Turchin calls  
"elite overproduction" – there being more people in the elite than  
there are top jobs. "Then competition starts to get ugly," he says.


The richest continue to become richer: as in many complex systems,  
whether in nature or in society, existing advantage feeds back  
positively to create yet more. The rest of the elite fight it out,  
with rival patronage networks battling ever more fiercely. "There  
are always ideological differences, but elite overproduction  
explains why competition becomes so bitter, with no one willing to  
compromise," Turchin says.



Thanks Richard. Interesting. May be true!

Bruno







On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 21 Nov 2013, at 22:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:


Bruno,

The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their  
tax burden for over 100 years.


Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic  
crash usually followed by war.
That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the  
crash was followed by the Civil War within a decade.


Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI,
and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street  
crash of 1929->WWII.


In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they  
caused investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real  
estate crash of 1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and  
caused the 1929 crash.  We have already experienced a real estate  
crash in 2008. and today we see the stock exchange reaching never  
before heights.
So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the  
1920s are repeated,

the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession.

The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was  
reduced to 25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up  
to Reagan, the top tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those  
rates the rich tended to turn profits back into their companies and  
the recessions were rather mild. But after Reagan reduced the top  
rates to 28%, the incentive to accumulate wealth was strong  
resulting in a series of investment bubbles. Recall the internet  
bubble at the turn of the century. And deregulation resulted in the  
invention of derivatives.


So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we  
are headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just  
because the very rich are making so much money, especially in  
derivatives which continue to exist despite being the cause of the  
real estate crash. It is said that the value of the derivative debt  
is orders of magnitude bigger than the value of the entire world.


That sounds like a form of comp (;<)


I am not entirely convinced. I think other factors have to be taken  
into account, and that the correlation you describe can be the  
symptom of some other problems. I really don't know, I need more  
data, and clever algorithms to manage them :)


I agree on deregulation and the foolishness of many pseudo- 
economical ideas, which here also can only help to influxes black  
and grey money, this little by little amounts in the financial  
circuits, slowly but persistently,  which makes the bandits taking  
the banks into hostages. Something like that.


I distinguish black money (100% of the value is based on a lie), and  
fake money (th

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-22 Thread Richard Ruquist
I vary from filthy rich to excessively rich.
But for this group, I toned it down.
I think history speaks for itself.
Richard


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 5:39 PM, John Mikes  wrote:

> Thanks, Richard, excellent reverberation. I just frown when I read "rich"
> - who are they? lately the word "millionaire" lost it's taste: with a
> middle-class family home of - say - 700K value and some cash set aside:  an
> average  retiree is a millionaire.
> Billionaire is not so easy: there is a gap in between (at ~some hundred
> millions?), to be fixed if it refers to net worth of a person (or of a
> family) or includes ALL (also what is hidden from the IRS).
> It came up when some irate writer mentioned the 'millionaires' in the
> legislation.
> I try: "super-rich", or "ultra-rich". (I frequented a group of retired
> professors of good witts when I said something about 'rich' and one jumped
> me: "Whom do you call 'rich'?" and another quipped: "whoever has more money
> than himself"..
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
>> Bruno,
>>
>> The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their tax
>> burden for over 100 years.
>>
>>
>> Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash
>> usually followed by war.
>>
>> That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the crash was
>> followed by the Civil War within a decade.
>>
>>
>> Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI,
>>
>> and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash of
>> 1929->WWII.
>>
>>
>> In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they caused
>> investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real estate crash of
>> 1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and caused the 1929 crash.  We
>> have already experienced a real estate crash in 2008. and today we see
>> the stock exchange reaching never before heights.
>>
>> So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the 1920s
>> are repeated,
>>
>> the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession.
>>
>>
>> The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was reduced
>> to 25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to Reagan, the
>> top tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those rates the rich tended
>> to turn profits back into their companies and the recessions were rather
>> mild. But after Reagan reduced the top rates to 28%, the incentive to
>> accumulate wealth was strong resulting in a series of investment bubbles.
>> Recall the internet bubble at the turn of the century. And deregulation
>> resulted in the invention of derivatives.
>>
>>
>> So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we are
>> headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just because the
>> very rich are making so much money, especially in derivatives which
>> continue to exist despite being the cause of the real estate crash. It is
>> said that the value of the derivative debt is orders of magnitude bigger
>> than the value of the entire world.
>>
>>
>> That sounds like a form of comp (;<)
>>
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:

>
> On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> 
> If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central power
> should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their
> local
> powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter.
>

 I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system
 that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the
 danger with ideologies.

>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance",
 not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made
 possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution
 and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is
 made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed
 societies.

>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>
>>>  My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the
 decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks
 that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to
 sociopathic manipulations.

>>>
>>> About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of the
>>> "little bureaucratic sort of bosses".
>>> With some level of "spiritual maturity", I can conceive that you are
>>> right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual maturity exists,
>>> nor even that it is on a near horizon.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>  The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling
>>> to
>>> think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the
>>> times.

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-22 Thread John Mikes
Thanks, Richard, excellent reverberation. I just frown when I read "rich" -
who are they? lately the word "millionaire" lost it's taste: with a
middle-class family home of - say - 700K value and some cash set aside:  an
average  retiree is a millionaire.
Billionaire is not so easy: there is a gap in between (at ~some hundred
millions?), to be fixed if it refers to net worth of a person (or of a
family) or includes ALL (also what is hidden from the IRS).
It came up when some irate writer mentioned the 'millionaires' in the
legislation.
I try: "super-rich", or "ultra-rich". (I frequented a group of retired
professors of good witts when I said something about 'rich' and one jumped
me: "Whom do you call 'rich'?" and another quipped: "whoever has more money
than himself"..


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> Bruno,
>
> The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their tax
> burden for over 100 years.
>
>
> Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash
> usually followed by war.
>
> That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the crash was
> followed by the Civil War within a decade.
>
>
> Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI,
>
> and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash of
> 1929->WWII.
>
>
> In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they caused
> investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real estate crash of
> 1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and caused the 1929 crash.  We
> have already experienced a real estate crash in 2008. and today we see
> the stock exchange reaching never before heights.
>
> So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the 1920s are
> repeated,
>
> the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession.
>
>
> The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was reduced
> to 25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to Reagan, the
> top tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those rates the rich tended
> to turn profits back into their companies and the recessions were rather
> mild. But after Reagan reduced the top rates to 28%, the incentive to
> accumulate wealth was strong resulting in a series of investment bubbles.
> Recall the internet bubble at the turn of the century. And deregulation
> resulted in the invention of derivatives.
>
>
> So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we are
> headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just because the
> very rich are making so much money, especially in derivatives which
> continue to exist despite being the cause of the real estate crash. It is
> said that the value of the derivative debt is orders of magnitude bigger
> than the value of the entire world.
>
>
> That sounds like a form of comp (;<)
>
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>  On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:
 
 If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central power
 should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their local
 powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter.

>>>
>>> I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system
>>> that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the
>>> danger with ideologies.
>>>
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>
>>
>>> My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance",
>>> not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made
>>> possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution
>>> and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is
>>> made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed
>>> societies.
>>>
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>  My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the
>>> decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks
>>> that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to
>>> sociopathic manipulations.
>>>
>>
>> About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of the
>> "little bureaucratic sort of bosses".
>> With some level of "spiritual maturity", I can conceive that you are
>> right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual maturity exists,
>> nor even that it is on a near horizon.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>  The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling
>> to
>> think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the
>> times.
>> The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal to
>> authority. We have never been "modern".
>>
>
>
> I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central problem
> in society for a long time, without being an expert in logic.
>


 The problem is t

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-22 Thread Richard Ruquist
The New Scientist article that Liz linked says essentially that crises
happen when workers outnumber the available jobs
especially elite jobs:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029382.400-the-maths-that-saw-the-us-shutdown-coming.html#.Uo-iDdK-qFA

Turchin has found what he believes to be historical
cycles,
two to three centuries long, of political instability and breakdown
affecting states and empires from Rome to Russia. In a book he is
finishing, he argues that similar cycles are evident in US history, and
that they are playing out to this day. He admits that his theory, built on
a model that combines social and economic data, must be tested against real
events – but unlike most historical theories, it can be. Meanwhile, he
says, it "predicts the long-term conditions that led to this shutdown".

Workers or employees make up the bulk of any society, with a minority of
employers constituting the top few per cent of earners. By mathematically
modelling historical data, Turchin finds that as population
grows,
workers start to outnumber available jobs, driving down wages. The wealthy
elite then end up with an even greater share of the economic pie, and
inequality soars. This is borne out in the US, for example, where average
wages have stagnated since the 1970s although gross domestic product has
steadily climbed.

This process also creates new avenues – such as increased access to higher
education – that allow a few workers to join the elite, swelling their
ranks. Eventually this results in what Turchin calls "elite overproduction"
– there being more people in the elite than there are top jobs. "Then
competition starts to get ugly," he says.

The richest continue to become richer: as in many complex systems, whether
in nature or in society, existing advantage feeds back positively to create
yet more. The rest of the elite fight it out, with rival patronage networks
battling ever more fiercely. "There are always ideological differences, but
elite overproduction explains why competition becomes so bitter, with no
one willing to compromise," Turchin says.


On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Nov 2013, at 22:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Bruno,
>
> The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their tax
> burden for over 100 years.
>
> Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash
> usually followed by war.
> That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the crash was
> followed by the Civil War within a decade.
>
> Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI,
> and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash of
> 1929->WWII.
>
> In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they caused
> investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real estate crash of
> 1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and caused the 1929 crash.  We
> have already experienced a real estate crash in 2008. and today we see
> the stock exchange reaching never before heights.
> So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the 1920s are
> repeated,
> the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession.
>
> The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was reduced
> to 25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to Reagan, the
> top tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those rates the rich tended
> to turn profits back into their companies and the recessions were rather
> mild. But after Reagan reduced the top rates to 28%, the incentive to
> accumulate wealth was strong resulting in a series of investment bubbles.
> Recall the internet bubble at the turn of the century. And deregulation
> resulted in the invention of derivatives.
>
> So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we are
> headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just because the
> very rich are making so much money, especially in derivatives which
> continue to exist despite being the cause of the real estate crash. It is
> said that the value of the derivative debt is orders of magnitude bigger
> than the value of the entire world.
>
> That sounds like a form of comp (;<)
>
>
> I am not entirely convinced. I think other factors have to be taken into
> account, and that the correlation you describe can be the symptom of some
> other problems. I really don't know, I need more data, and clever
> algorithms to manage them :)
>
> I agree on deregulation and the foolishness of many pseudo-economical
> ideas, which here also can only help to influxes black and grey money, this
> little by little amounts in the financial circuits, slowly but
> persistently,  which makes the bandits taking the banks into hostages.
> Something like that.
>
> I distinguish black m

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-22 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 21 Nov 2013, at 22:53, Richard Ruquist wrote:


Bruno,

The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their  
tax burden for over 100 years.


Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash  
usually followed by war.
That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the  
crash was followed by the Civil War within a decade.


Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI,
and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash  
of 1929->WWII.


In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they  
caused investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real  
estate crash of 1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and  
caused the 1929 crash.  We have already experienced a real estate  
crash in 2008. and today we see the stock exchange reaching never  
before heights.
So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the  
1920s are repeated,

the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession.

The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was  
reduced to 25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to  
Reagan, the top tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those  
rates the rich tended to turn profits back into their companies and  
the recessions were rather mild. But after Reagan reduced the top  
rates to 28%, the incentive to accumulate wealth was strong  
resulting in a series of investment bubbles. Recall the internet  
bubble at the turn of the century. And deregulation resulted in the  
invention of derivatives.


So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we  
are headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just  
because the very rich are making so much money, especially in  
derivatives which continue to exist despite being the cause of the  
real estate crash. It is said that the value of the derivative debt  
is orders of magnitude bigger than the value of the entire world.


That sounds like a form of comp (;<)


I am not entirely convinced. I think other factors have to be taken  
into account, and that the correlation you describe can be the symptom  
of some other problems. I really don't know, I need more data, and  
clever algorithms to manage them :)


I agree on deregulation and the foolishness of many pseudo-economical  
ideas, which here also can only help to influxes black and grey money,  
this little by little amounts in the financial circuits, slowly but  
persistently,  which makes the bandits taking the banks into hostages.  
Something like that.


I distinguish black money (100% of the value is based on a lie), and  
fake money (the sur-price of a legal medication which would be  
replaced by a less expensive medication if it was not illegal).


What is the "real" value of one dollar?

It is the value of work + speculation. The speculation can be based on  
evidences or lies. The amount of lies creates a fake value, which  
leads to economical catastrophes. But if the "rich" is a bandit, he  
speculates on those catastrophes too.


Solution? Step 0: education. Step 1:  stop prohibition of food and  
drugs. Denationalize food and drugs, in all nations. Allow free  
competitions in the art of life. We can take the complains into  
account and still enforce some respect for the neighbors, but not much  
more.


Alas, we live at a time where a lot of humans still like (or are  
encouraged) to delegate their thinking to the local authorities, and  
the problem is that the bandits and "authorities" can exploit this.


Bruno






On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:

If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central  
power
should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their  
local

powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter.

I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system
that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the
danger with ideologies.

I agree.



My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance",
not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made
possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution
and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is
made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed
societies.

OK.


My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the
decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks
that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to
sociopathic manipulations.

About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of  
the "little bureaucratic sort of bosses".
With some level of "spiritual maturity", I can conceive that you are  
right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual 

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-22 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 22 Nov 2013, at 14:38, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court

There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,



The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on  
this. Some

sites on this  have just disappeared.


It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA  
authorizes the
defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found  
it
"anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be  
thinking of
was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people  
without trial
as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The  
ACLU has
challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v  
Obama.  A

district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went  
up
through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out  
the
injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing  
to bring

the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling on
whether or not it is constitutional.

This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only  
persons
who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More  
modern
democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in  
being able
to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for  
court review

of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.


Brent,

I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as opposed
to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
application of said rights in practice.

I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:

- The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it is
not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental right
to a trial. He was not forced to sign the NDAA by bureaucracy (he
might have been forced in other ways, but here we get into pure
speculation). It was fully within his powers not to sign it or to
demand changes;


Right. It is his administration which proposed the bill, and refused  
to change the language.
Also he signed a counter-statement promising that he will not apply  
it. This shows he is aware that it is a bad law. But then why sign it?  
Why taking the risk that some future president apply it? (Also he  
promised to never do counter-statements of that kind in his first  
election campaign, so what?)
The patriot act *has* been applied to some CIA whistleblower  
(explaining they knew about 9/11 month before the attack). I can  
provide link or video.






- Harm is a very subjective word. If the Supreme Court was interested
in upholding fundamental rights, it could easily interpret loss of
fundamental human rights as harm;


Yes. And the NDAA can be considered as a threat on the American  
Citizens.
If the NDAA is applied, Obama should be the first to be detained  
without trial ...






- The bureaucratic impediments seem to work mostly in a direction of
loss of freedom. Empirically, it does not look plausible that they are
just neutral attrition -- they prevent Guantanamo from being closed,
they allow for total surveillance, they allow the Federal Government
to go after marijuana businesses that were authorised by their states,
they allow for "free speech zones", they allow for random road check
points and so on;


If you react to much to a terrorist attack, you fall in the trap of  
the terrorists. You make their act successful, and you do a big  
advertising for terrorism. Every expert knows that the fight against  
"real" terrorism is a matter of discretion, patient infiltration and  
without any public response.

The expression "war on terrorism" is a semantical aberration.




- The constitution is the highest law. If people were serious about
following it, they couldn't possible let some lower level law get in
the way.


Right.



It's a truism that anything that prevents the application of
constitutional principles is unconstitutional, and a lot of people in
the USA swore to defend the constitution.


And thus, the mystery.

Bruno





Telmo.


Brent


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subs

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-22 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 7:51 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>
> Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
> when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
> laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
> As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court
>
>  There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
> Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,
>
>
>
> The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But
> apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on this. Some
> sites on this  have just disappeared.
>
>
> It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA authorizes the
> defense budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found it
> "anti-constitutional".  The controversial provision you may be thinking of
> was clause that affirmed the Presidents power to detain people without trial
> as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 attack.  The ACLU has
> challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v Obama.  A
> district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was
> unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went up
> through the layers of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out the
> injunction on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring
> the case - and so in effect upheld the law without actually ruling on
> whether or not it is constitutional.
>
> This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only persons
> who are actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court.  More modern
> democracies, seeing the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in being able
> to nullify unconstitutional laws, have explicitly provided for court review
> of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a case.

Brent,

I would say you're making an implicit extraordinary claim here. This
claim being that the reason why certain fundamental rights (like the
right to a trial) are not being is bureaucratic impediment, as opposed
to these impediments being created for the purpose of preventing the
application of said rights in practice.

I argue that this claim is extraordinary for the following reasons:

- The President signed the NDAA. He also swore to defend the
constitution and he's supposed to be a constitutional expert, so it is
not likely that he is not aware that citizens have a fundamental right
to a trial. He was not forced to sign the NDAA by bureaucracy (he
might have been forced in other ways, but here we get into pure
speculation). It was fully within his powers not to sign it or to
demand changes;

- Harm is a very subjective word. If the Supreme Court was interested
in upholding fundamental rights, it could easily interpret loss of
fundamental human rights as harm;

- The bureaucratic impediments seem to work mostly in a direction of
loss of freedom. Empirically, it does not look plausible that they are
just neutral attrition -- they prevent Guantanamo from being closed,
they allow for total surveillance, they allow the Federal Government
to go after marijuana businesses that were authorised by their states,
they allow for "free speech zones", they allow for random road check
points and so on;

- The constitution is the highest law. If people were serious about
following it, they couldn't possible let some lower level law get in
the way. It's a truism that anything that prevents the application of
constitutional principles is unconstitutional, and a lot of people in
the USA swore to defend the constitution.

Telmo.

> Brent
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-22 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 21 Nov 2013, at 18:55, Jason Resch wrote:





On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 21 Nov 2013, at 15:50, Jason Resch wrote:





On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote:


Telmo wrote:

"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities  
for

peaceful world with further increases in freedom)."

Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on  
modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling  
slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers,
who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the  
later "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it  
into a gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with  
SOME exceptions, thank you).


 I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an  
innovation historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for  
the 21st.

My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate,  
governing a so called government into committing crimes  
(international and domestic) originally excluded

from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.

How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call  
it: econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and  
forcing own interest on other countries? (Not to

mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).



Gödel pretended that the US constitution was inconsistent and  
refused to sign it. Einstein intervened and succeeded in changing  
Gödel's mind (about not signing it to get the "green card" or the  
nationality).
Einstein asked Gödel if the US constitution could prevent something  
like a Nazy party to take power, like in Germany, and Gödel said  
that it could!



There was a letter describing the event which was long thought to  
be lost, but was recently found as described here:


http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/

See the bottom of page 7 in this 2006 letter by the IAS: 
http://www.ias.edu/files/pdfs/publications/letter-2006-spring.pdf


Interesting links. Thanks.






I don't think capitalism is the problem, but financial lobbying and  
corporatism; + lies, can pervert completely a democracy.


Yes, I think where things stand today is the result of something  
different from the flaw Godel found.


Are you sure?


I just mean that while the effect is more or less the same  
(subverted democracy), I think the means is probably different than  
an exploitation of the same flaw (whatever it was) that Godel found.


What we have today isn't so much a corruption of the laws by which  
government operates, but a corruption of people in the government.


My guess is that the inconsistency Godel found in the constitution  
involved a means of using the laws against themselves, rather than  
what we see today which is a selective enforcement of laws.   
Applying laws in full force against some, while not applying the  
laws at all against others.  This, coupled with bought and paid for  
lawmakers and a broken forth estate make it easy for those with  
power and wealth to use the government as a tool to further their  
power and wealth.


The constitution should not make this possible, but I have not read  
all the amendments.








For me both prohibition and 9/11 are ... unsolved.

I would be happy to know Gödel's argument that the US constitution  
permits dictatorship.



I am also very curious about it.  I've sometimes thought about  
whether a constitution can be designed with game-theoretical  
principals such that it would be impossible (or highly improbable)  
for groups to obtain disproportionate levels of power.  Another  
interesting idea is that of an AI which, like an automated theorem  
prover, can decide on the constitutionality of a given law.  The  
source code for this could be open source so all can verify it.   
This might be called an AItocracy.


Interesting idea. Laws should be formalized, but that can be very  
difficult to do, and can be double edged. Even if the code source is  
open, the code could hide easily "bugs" that could be exploited by  
unscrupulous bandits. But your idea deserve to be developed, and use  
with care.









The existence of prohibition of Foods and Drugs in the Land of the  
Free is for me still a mystery.


To forbid or discourage research on a plant is ... applied  
obscurantism.


Where does that come from?


Likely from a lot of places, the prison lobby, law enforcement  
unions, money launderers, synthetic drug companies, paper companies,  
and so on.


It has been too quick. I begin to think this was well prepared. I  
think prohibition of marijuana has been in a large part a recycling  
and correction of the prohibition of alcohol, which did not work well  
(for the bandits) because alcohol *is* dangerous, and like alwa

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:09 PM, LizR  wrote:
> Sorry, you did so!!!
>
> I can only apologise. I must try not to do so much housework and stuff, I
> need to spend longer checking what I'm replying to! :) I just saw what you
> said and thought - that's odd - and then a whole conversation kicked off as
> a result. My problem is I hardly ever have time to actually watch or read
> what's at the other end of  links, so I tend not to even see them.
>
> Sorry again.

No worries really! It's very hard to keep up with the volume of messages.

>
>
>
> On 22 November 2013 10:00, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:31 PM, LizR  wrote:
>> > On 22 November 2013 03:38, Jason Resch  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:54 AM, LizR  wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> OK, fair enough. I wouldn't have said anything more if you'd said it
>> >>> was
>> >>> a joke after I made my first comment, but since you gave an
>> >>> explanation, I
>> >>> assumed you were serious. I mean, obviously it was a flippant
>> >>> comparison but
>> >>> I thought there was a serious intention behind it, which I didn't
>> >>> think came
>> >>> across very well...
>> >>>
>> >>> Oh well :(
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Liz,
>> >>
>> >> I didn't understand his comment until I saw the video he linked.  See
>> >> the
>> >> video and it will all make sense. :-)
>> >>
>> > OK, but in that case it was a bad idea to put it in a politically
>> > charged
>> > debate without including the link.
>>
>> But I did in include the link...
>>
>> > --
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> > Groups
>> > "Everything List" group.
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>> > an
>> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread LizR
By the way we cancelled our sub to NS some years ago, but I am now
reconsidering...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread LizR
It was this one:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029382.400-the-maths-that-saw-the-us-shutdown-coming.html#.Uo6MecSVPB4




On 22 November 2013 11:39, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> I stopped my NS subscription last year.
> Do you recall anything I can Google?
> I'll try 'the mathematics of crashes'
> Yes. That works:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html#.Uo6HTNK-qFA
>
> But this may be better:
> http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/12/black-scholes-equation-credit-crunch
> or
> http://fivebooks.com/interviews/james-owen-weatherall-on-physics-and-financial-markets
>
>
> But none seem to support or be concerned with the gist of my post that in
> your words
> (I suspect that there may be some truth to your statement)
> "the capitalist system would work fine if it wasn't for the rich".
> They are just too greedy for their own good.
> Richard
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:10 PM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> There was an article in New Scientist recently about a mathematician who
>> claims to have a theory which says roughly what you are saying - do you
>> know anything about that? It sounds a bit like "the railways would run on
>> time if it wasn't for the passengers!" -- or in this case,  "the capitalist
>> system would work fine if it wasn't for the rich" :)
>>
>>
>> On 22 November 2013 10:53, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>>
>>> Bruno,
>>>
>>> The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their tax
>>> burden for over 100 years.
>>>
>>>
>>> Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash
>>> usually followed by war.
>>>
>>> That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the crash
>>> was followed by the Civil War within a decade.
>>>
>>>
>>> Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI,
>>>
>>> and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash of
>>> 1929->WWII.
>>>
>>>
>>> In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they caused
>>> investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real estate crash of
>>> 1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and caused the 1929 crash.  We
>>> have already experienced a real estate crash in 2008. and today we see
>>> the stock exchange reaching never before heights.
>>>
>>> So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the 1920s
>>> are repeated,
>>>
>>> the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession.
>>>
>>>
>>> The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was reduced
>>> to 25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to Reagan,
>>> the top tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those rates the rich
>>> tended to turn profits back into their companies and the recessions were
>>> rather mild. But after Reagan reduced the top rates to 28%, the incentive
>>> to accumulate wealth was strong resulting in a series of investment
>>> bubbles. Recall the internet bubble at the turn of the century. And
>>> deregulation resulted in the invention of derivatives.
>>>
>>>
>>> So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we are
>>> headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just because the
>>> very rich are making so much money, especially in derivatives which
>>> continue to exist despite being the cause of the real estate crash. It is
>>> said that the value of the derivative debt is orders of magnitude bigger
>>> than the value of the entire world.
>>>
>>>
>>> That sounds like a form of comp (;<)
>>>
>>>
>>> Richard
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>

 On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:

  On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> 
>> If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central
>> power
>> should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their
>> local
>> powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter.
>>
>
> I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system
> that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the
> danger with ideologies.
>

 I agree.



> My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance",
> not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made
> possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution
> and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is
> made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed
> societies.
>

 OK.


  My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the
> decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks
> that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to
> sociopathic manipulations.
>

 About 

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Richard Ruquist
I stopped my NS subscription last year.
Do you recall anything I can Google?
I'll try 'the mathematics of crashes'
Yes. That works:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html#.Uo6HTNK-qFA

But this may be better:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/12/black-scholes-equation-credit-crunch
or
http://fivebooks.com/interviews/james-owen-weatherall-on-physics-and-financial-markets


But none seem to support or be concerned with the gist of my post that in
your words
(I suspect that there may be some truth to your statement)
"the capitalist system would work fine if it wasn't for the rich".
They are just too greedy for their own good.
Richard



On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:10 PM, LizR  wrote:

> Hi Richard,
>
> There was an article in New Scientist recently about a mathematician who
> claims to have a theory which says roughly what you are saying - do you
> know anything about that? It sounds a bit like "the railways would run on
> time if it wasn't for the passengers!" -- or in this case,  "the capitalist
> system would work fine if it wasn't for the rich" :)
>
>
> On 22 November 2013 10:53, Richard Ruquist  wrote:
>
>> Bruno,
>>
>> The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their tax
>> burden for over 100 years.
>>
>>
>> Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash
>> usually followed by war.
>>
>> That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the crash was
>> followed by the Civil War within a decade.
>>
>>
>> Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI,
>>
>> and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash of
>> 1929->WWII.
>>
>>
>> In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they caused
>> investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real estate crash of
>> 1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and caused the 1929 crash.  We
>> have already experienced a real estate crash in 2008. and today we see
>> the stock exchange reaching never before heights.
>>
>> So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the 1920s
>> are repeated,
>>
>> the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession.
>>
>>
>> The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was reduced
>> to 25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to Reagan, the
>> top tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those rates the rich tended
>> to turn profits back into their companies and the recessions were rather
>> mild. But after Reagan reduced the top rates to 28%, the incentive to
>> accumulate wealth was strong resulting in a series of investment bubbles.
>> Recall the internet bubble at the turn of the century. And deregulation
>> resulted in the invention of derivatives.
>>
>>
>> So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we are
>> headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just because the
>> very rich are making so much money, especially in derivatives which
>> continue to exist despite being the cause of the real estate crash. It is
>> said that the value of the derivative debt is orders of magnitude bigger
>> than the value of the entire world.
>>
>>
>> That sounds like a form of comp (;<)
>>
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
>>>  On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal 
 wrote:

>
> On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> 
> If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central power
> should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their
> local
> powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter.
>

 I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system
 that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the
 danger with ideologies.

>>>
>>> I agree.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance",
 not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made
 possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution
 and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is
 made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed
 societies.

>>>
>>> OK.
>>>
>>>
>>>  My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the
 decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks
 that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to
 sociopathic manipulations.

>>>
>>> About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of the
>>> "little bureaucratic sort of bosses".
>>> With some level of "spiritual maturity", I can conceive that you are
>>> right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual maturity exists,
>>> nor even that it is on a near horizon.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>  The deeper proble

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread LizR
Hi Richard,

There was an article in New Scientist recently about a mathematician who
claims to have a theory which says roughly what you are saying - do you
know anything about that? It sounds a bit like "the railways would run on
time if it wasn't for the passengers!" -- or in this case,  "the capitalist
system would work fine if it wasn't for the rich" :)


On 22 November 2013 10:53, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> Bruno,
>
> The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their tax
> burden for over 100 years.
>
>
> Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash
> usually followed by war.
>
> That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the crash was
> followed by the Civil War within a decade.
>
>
> Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI,
>
> and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash of
> 1929->WWII.
>
>
> In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they caused
> investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real estate crash of
> 1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and caused the 1929 crash.  We
> have already experienced a real estate crash in 2008. and today we see
> the stock exchange reaching never before heights.
>
> So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the 1920s are
> repeated,
>
> the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession.
>
>
> The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was reduced
> to 25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to Reagan, the
> top tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those rates the rich tended
> to turn profits back into their companies and the recessions were rather
> mild. But after Reagan reduced the top rates to 28%, the incentive to
> accumulate wealth was strong resulting in a series of investment bubbles.
> Recall the internet bubble at the turn of the century. And deregulation
> resulted in the invention of derivatives.
>
>
> So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we are
> headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just because the
> very rich are making so much money, especially in derivatives which
> continue to exist despite being the cause of the real estate crash. It is
> said that the value of the derivative debt is orders of magnitude bigger
> than the value of the entire world.
>
>
> That sounds like a form of comp (;<)
>
>
> Richard
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>>  On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:
 
 If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central power
 should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their local
 powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter.

>>>
>>> I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system
>>> that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the
>>> danger with ideologies.
>>>
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>>
>>
>>> My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance",
>>> not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made
>>> possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution
>>> and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is
>>> made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed
>>> societies.
>>>
>>
>> OK.
>>
>>
>>  My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the
>>> decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks
>>> that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to
>>> sociopathic manipulations.
>>>
>>
>> About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of the
>> "little bureaucratic sort of bosses".
>> With some level of "spiritual maturity", I can conceive that you are
>> right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual maturity exists,
>> nor even that it is on a near horizon.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>  The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling
>> to
>> think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the
>> times.
>> The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal to
>> authority. We have never been "modern".
>>
>
>
> I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central problem
> in society for a long time, without being an expert in logic.
>


 The problem is that "p <-> q" is far better than nothing, in the short
 run,
 so our brains are hardwired to "reason" by association, instead, of
 logical
 validity. Logic is by essence counter-intuitive (which explains the
 logician's sense of humor).
 The short term/long term conflict is unavoidable. Humans face it all the
 time, like when hesitating to stop smoking, or to stop producing CO2,
 etc.

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Richard Ruquist
Bruno,

The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their tax
burden for over 100 years.


Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash
usually followed by war.

That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the crash was
followed by the Civil War within a decade.


Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI,

and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash of
1929->WWII.


In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they caused
investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real estate crash of
1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and caused the 1929 crash.  We
have already experienced a real estate crash in 2008. and today we see the
stock exchange reaching never before heights.

So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the 1920s are
repeated,

the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession.


The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was reduced to
25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to Reagan, the top
tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those rates the rich tended to
turn profits back into their companies and the recessions were rather mild.
But after Reagan reduced the top rates to 28%, the incentive to accumulate
wealth was strong resulting in a series of investment bubbles. Recall the
internet bubble at the turn of the century. And deregulation resulted in
the invention of derivatives.


So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we are
headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just because the
very rich are making so much money, especially in derivatives which
continue to exist despite being the cause of the real estate crash. It is
said that the value of the derivative debt is orders of magnitude bigger
than the value of the entire world.


That sounds like a form of comp (;<)


Richard


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>  On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>> 
>>> If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central power
>>> should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their local
>>> powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter.
>>>
>>
>> I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system
>> that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the
>> danger with ideologies.
>>
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
>> My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance",
>> not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made
>> possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution
>> and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is
>> made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed
>> societies.
>>
>
> OK.
>
>
>  My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the
>> decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks
>> that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to
>> sociopathic manipulations.
>>
>
> About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of the
> "little bureaucratic sort of bosses".
> With some level of "spiritual maturity", I can conceive that you are
> right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual maturity exists,
> nor even that it is on a near horizon.
>
>
>
>>
  The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling to
> think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the
> times.
> The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal to
> authority. We have never been "modern".
>


 I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central problem
 in society for a long time, without being an expert in logic.

>>>
>>>
>>> The problem is that "p <-> q" is far better than nothing, in the short
>>> run,
>>> so our brains are hardwired to "reason" by association, instead, of
>>> logical
>>> validity. Logic is by essence counter-intuitive (which explains the
>>> logician's sense of humor).
>>> The short term/long term conflict is unavoidable. Humans face it all the
>>> time, like when hesitating to stop smoking, or to stop producing CO2,
>>> etc.
>>> It is even more complex today due to globalization. With the 20th
>>> century,
>>> earth has become a finite space, and this has to be taken into account,
>>> and
>>> it is not a simple task, as we have to change habits that we have since a
>>> very long time. In the long run, we will have to escape the planet and
>>> continue to run forward. But meanwhile, we have to accommodate with the
>>> finite resourcing, with or without global warming. That's a reason more
>>> to
>>> fight against corporatism, special private interests, international white
>>> collar criminality, etc.
>>>

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread LizR
Sorry, you did so!!!

I can only apologise. I must try not to do so much housework and stuff, I
need to spend longer checking what I'm replying to! :) I just saw what you
said and thought - that's odd - and then a whole conversation kicked off as
a result. My problem is I hardly ever have time to actually watch or read
what's at the other end of  links, so I tend not to even see them.

Sorry again.




On 22 November 2013 10:00, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:31 PM, LizR  wrote:
> > On 22 November 2013 03:38, Jason Resch  wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:54 AM, LizR  wrote:
> >>>
> >>> OK, fair enough. I wouldn't have said anything more if you'd said it
> was
> >>> a joke after I made my first comment, but since you gave an
> explanation, I
> >>> assumed you were serious. I mean, obviously it was a flippant
> comparison but
> >>> I thought there was a serious intention behind it, which I didn't
> think came
> >>> across very well...
> >>>
> >>> Oh well :(
> >>
> >>
> >> Liz,
> >>
> >> I didn't understand his comment until I saw the video he linked.  See
> the
> >> video and it will all make sense. :-)
> >>
> > OK, but in that case it was a bad idea to put it in a politically charged
> > debate without including the link.
>
> But I did in include the link...
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:31 PM, LizR  wrote:
> On 22 November 2013 03:38, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:54 AM, LizR  wrote:
>>>
>>> OK, fair enough. I wouldn't have said anything more if you'd said it was
>>> a joke after I made my first comment, but since you gave an explanation, I
>>> assumed you were serious. I mean, obviously it was a flippant comparison but
>>> I thought there was a serious intention behind it, which I didn't think came
>>> across very well...
>>>
>>> Oh well :(
>>
>>
>> Liz,
>>
>> I didn't understand his comment until I saw the video he linked.  See the
>> video and it will all make sense. :-)
>>
> OK, but in that case it was a bad idea to put it in a politically charged
> debate without including the link.

But I did in include the link...

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread LizR
On 22 November 2013 03:38, Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:54 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>> OK, fair enough. I wouldn't have said anything more if you'd said it was
>> a joke after I made my first comment, but since you gave an explanation, I
>> assumed you were serious. I mean, obviously it was a flippant comparison
>> but I thought there was a serious intention behind it, which I didn't think
>> came across very well...
>>
>> Oh well :(
>>
>
> Liz,
>
> I didn't understand his comment until I saw the video he linked.  See the
> video and it will all make sense. :-)
>
> OK, but in that case it was a bad idea to put it in a politically charged
debate without including the link.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 21 Nov 2013, at 15:50, Jason Resch wrote:





On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote:


Telmo wrote:

"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities  
for

peaceful world with further increases in freedom)."

Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on  
modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling  
slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers,
who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the  
later "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it  
into a gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with  
SOME exceptions, thank you).


 I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an  
innovation historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the  
21st.

My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate,  
governing a so called government into committing crimes  
(international and domestic) originally excluded

from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.

How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call  
it: econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and  
forcing own interest on other countries? (Not to

mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).



Gödel pretended that the US constitution was inconsistent and  
refused to sign it. Einstein intervened and succeeded in changing  
Gödel's mind (about not signing it to get the "green card" or the  
nationality).
Einstein asked Gödel if the US constitution could prevent something  
like a Nazy party to take power, like in Germany, and Gödel said  
that it could!



There was a letter describing the event which was long thought to be  
lost, but was recently found as described here:


http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/

See the bottom of page 7 in this 2006 letter by the IAS: 
http://www.ias.edu/files/pdfs/publications/letter-2006-spring.pdf


Interesting links. Thanks.






I don't think capitalism is the problem, but financial lobbying and  
corporatism; + lies, can pervert completely a democracy.


Yes, I think where things stand today is the result of something  
different from the flaw Godel found.


Are you sure?

For me both prohibition and 9/11 are ... unsolved.

I would be happy to know Gödel's argument that the US constitution  
permits dictatorship.


The existence of prohibition of Foods and Drugs in the Land of the  
Free is for me still a mystery.


To forbid or discourage research on a plant is ... applied obscurantism.

Where does that come from?

Bruno






Jason


The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling  
to think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all  
the times. The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by  
the appeal to authority. We have never been "modern".


Bruno





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Jason Resch
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 2:54 AM, LizR  wrote:

> OK, fair enough. I wouldn't have said anything more if you'd said it was a
> joke after I made my first comment, but since you gave an explanation, I
> assumed you were serious. I mean, obviously it was a flippant comparison
> but I thought there was a serious intention behind it, which I didn't think
> came across very well...
>
> Oh well :(
>

Liz,

I didn't understand his comment until I saw the video he linked.  See the
video and it will all make sense. :-)

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread meekerdb

On 11/21/2013 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:


Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court

 There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,



The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But apparently this has 
changed nothing. I don't find information on this. Some sites on this  have just 
disappeared.


It changed nothing because it didn't happen.  First, the NDAA authorizes the defense 
budget and other things.  The Supremes would not have found it "anti-constitutional".  The 
controversial provision you may be thinking of was clause that affirmed the Presidents 
power to detain people without trial as set out in the 2001 resolution following the 9/11 
attack.  The ACLU has challenged this provision and a case was brought in 2012, Hedge v 
Obama.  A district court ruled that the indefinite detention provision was 
unconstitutional and gave an injunction against its use.  This went up through the layers 
of appeals courts.  The Supreme Court threw out the injunction on the grounds that the 
plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring the case - and so in effect upheld the law 
without actually ruling on whether or not it is constitutional.


This is an aspect of U.S. law inherited from English law, that only persons who are 
actually harmed by a law can challenge it in court. More modern democracies, seeing the 
importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in being able to nullify unconstitutional laws, have 
explicitly provided for court review of laws without there having to be a plaintiff and a 
case.


Brent


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:

If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central  
power
should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their  
local

powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter.


I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system
that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the
danger with ideologies.


I agree.




My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance",
not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made
possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution
and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is
made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed
societies.


OK.



My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the
decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks
that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to
sociopathic manipulations.


About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of  
the "little bureaucratic sort of bosses".
With some level of "spiritual maturity", I can conceive that you are  
right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual maturity  
exists, nor even that it is on a near horizon.







The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are  
unwilling to

think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the
times.
The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal  
to

authority. We have never been "modern".



I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central  
problem

in society for a long time, without being an expert in logic.



The problem is that "p <-> q" is far better than nothing, in the  
short run,
so our brains are hardwired to "reason" by association, instead, of  
logical

validity. Logic is by essence counter-intuitive (which explains the
logician's sense of humor).
The short term/long term conflict is unavoidable. Humans face it  
all the
time, like when hesitating to stop smoking, or to stop producing  
CO2, etc.
It is even more complex today due to globalization. With the 20th  
century,
earth has become a finite space, and this has to be taken into  
account, and
it is not a simple task, as we have to change habits that we have  
since a
very long time. In the long run, we will have to escape the planet  
and
continue to run forward. But meanwhile, we have to accommodate with  
the
finite resourcing, with or without global warming. That's a reason  
more to
fight against corporatism, special private interests, international  
white

collar criminality, etc.


Right, but the hope of some people who propose a radically free market
is that it would work more like the immune system, and that it would
allocate resources in a more efficient way than central control.


I am for a free market. The market should be independent of the  
(central) power, except for the modalities of the contracts, the  
selling technic, etc.






The
long term view is not foreign to markets. This is precisely what
investments are. Warren Buffet became extremely rich by taking a long
view on investments, not by doing high-frequency trading. But again, I
say this with the human evolution caveat in mind.


Local powers can easily design laws against foreigners, and develop  
selfish local profits method. In the UD this could enlarge the gap  
between black and white, or between middle class and lower classes.
I would favor a stable central power, which would enforce few but  
basic important laws and rules, on which everyone agrees. Then the  
local powers can implement special politics and experiences.
Somehow I do believe that the Americans were close to this, but they  
failed to prevent prohibition, and that remains a bit of a mystery for  
me. I am open to the idea that there has been a real well prepared  
conspiracy, not by "illuminati" but by by a collusion of special  
interests (paper, oil, pharma, military, jails, and the black market,  
etc.).





I'm also strongly in favour of experiments. For example, and this
would certainly annoy most libertarians, I am very excited by the
Swiss plan to provide a base level of income to all citizens.


I have always defended that idea.





I like
it because it's so simple and non-intrusive. You just give everyone
the same base income, no matter how poor or rich they are.


Yes. That is what the communist never grasped. It makes no sense to  
distribute the money from the rich to the poor, this makes the richer  
less rich, and very quickly the poor even much less rich. As long as  
people don't use lies and dishonest methods, people should be able to  
enrich themselves as much as they want. But we must find a way to  
prevent the bad use of money to enrich oneself. And this asks for very  
special laws 

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Jason Resch
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Telmo wrote:
>
>
>
> *"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
> essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for 
> **peaceful
> world with further increases in freedom)*."
>
> Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on
> modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling
> slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers,
> who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the later
> "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a
> gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME
> exceptions, thank you).
>
>  I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation
> historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st.
> My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
> a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate, *governing*a 
> so called government into committing crimes (international and domestic)
> originally excluded
> from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.
>
> How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it:
> econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing own
> interest on other countries? (Not to
> mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).
>
>
>
> Gödel pretended that the US constitution was inconsistent and refused to
> sign it. Einstein intervened and succeeded in changing Gödel's mind (about
> not signing it to get the "green card" or the nationality).
> Einstein asked Gödel if the US constitution could prevent something like a
> Nazy party to take power, like in Germany, and Gödel said that it could!
>


There was a letter describing the event which was long thought to be lost,
but was recently found as described here:

http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/

See the bottom of page 7 in this 2006 letter by the IAS:
http://www.ias.edu/files/pdfs/publications/letter-2006-spring.pdf


>
> I don't think capitalism is the problem, but financial lobbying and
> corporatism; + lies, can pervert completely a democracy.
>

Yes, I think where things stand today is the result of something different
from the flaw Godel found.

Jason


> The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling to
> think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the times.
> The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal to
> authority. We have never been "modern".
>
> Bruno
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote:
>>>
>>> Telmo wrote:
>>>
>>> "I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
>>> essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for
>>> peaceful world with further increases in freedom)."
>>>
>>> Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on
>>> modernized
>>> medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling slave-owner male
>>> chauvinist Forefathers,
>>> who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the later
>>> "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a
>>> gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME
>>> exceptions,
>>> thank you).
>>>
>>> I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation
>>> historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st.
>>> My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
>>> a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate, governing
>>> a
>>> so called government into committing crimes (international and domestic)
>>> originally excluded
>>> from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.
>>>
>>> How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it:
>>> econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing own
>>> interest on other countries? (Not to
>>> mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gödel pretended that the US constitution was inconsistent and refused to
>>> sign it.
>>
>>
>> You mean "pretended" in the French sense right? As in Gödel claimed
>> that...
>
>
> Oops! Yes. Thanks for noticing. "To pretend" is a false friend. I knew it,
> but forget it all the time!
>
>
>
>>
>>> Einstein intervened and succeeded in changing Gödel's mind (about
>>> not signing it to get the "green card" or the nationality).
>>> Einstein asked Gödel if the US constitution could prevent something like
>>> a
>>> Nazy party to take power, like in Germany, and Gödel said that it could!
>>
>>
>> Provided it is followed, of course. I don't think the Weimar
>> constitution was ever repealed during the third reich. It was simply
>> ignored...
>
>
> OK.
>
>
>
>>
>>> I don't think capitalism is the problem, but financial lobbying and
>>> corporatism; + lies, can pervert completely a democracy.
>>
>>
>> I completely agree. We might only differ in that you are more
>> optimistic on the possibility of preventing financial lobbying using
>> rules, while I suspect that the only solution is to decentralise power
>> so completely that there is not target to lobby.
>
>
> I am not sure decentralizing would work better. It would augment the number
> of local powers, and such local powers might even been worse, as being more
> local and less public or less transparent.
> I think we might need some reasonable mix of centralized and decentralized
> power.
> If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central power
> should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their local
> powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter.

I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system
that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the
danger with ideologies.

My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance",
not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made
possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution
and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is
made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed
societies. My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the
decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks
that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to
sociopathic manipulations.

>>
>>> The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling to
>>> think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the
>>> times.
>>> The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal to
>>> authority. We have never been "modern".
>>
>>
>> I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central problem
>> in society for a long time, without being an expert in logic.
>
>
> The problem is that "p <-> q" is far better than nothing, in the short run,
> so our brains are hardwired to "reason" by association, instead, of logical
> validity. Logic is by essence counter-intuitive (which explains the
> logician's sense of humor).
> The short term/long term conflict is unavoidable. Humans face it all the
> time, like when hesitating to stop smoking, or to stop producing CO2, etc.
> It is even more complex today due to globalization. With the 20th century,
> earth has become a finite space, and this has to be taken into account, and
> it is n

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Jason Resch
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 21 Nov 2013, at 15:50, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Telmo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> *"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
>> essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for 
>> **peaceful
>> world with further increases in freedom)*."
>>
>> Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on
>> modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling
>> slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers,
>> who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the later
>> "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a
>> gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME
>> exceptions, thank you).
>>
>>  I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation
>> historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st.
>> My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
>> a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate,
>> *governing* a so called government into committing crimes (international
>> and domestic) originally excluded
>> from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.
>>
>>  How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it:
>> econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing own
>> interest on other countries? (Not to
>> mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).
>>
>>
>>
>> Gödel pretended that the US constitution was inconsistent and refused to
>> sign it. Einstein intervened and succeeded in changing Gödel's mind (about
>> not signing it to get the "green card" or the nationality).
>> Einstein asked Gödel if the US constitution could prevent something like
>> a Nazy party to take power, like in Germany, and Gödel said that it could!
>>
>
>
> There was a letter describing the event which was long thought to be lost,
> but was recently found as described here:
>
> http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/
>
> See the bottom of page 7 in this 2006 letter by the IAS:
> http://www.ias.edu/files/pdfs/publications/letter-2006-spring.pdf
>
>
> Interesting links. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I don't think capitalism is the problem, but financial lobbying and
>> corporatism; + lies, can pervert completely a democracy.
>>
>
> Yes, I think where things stand today is the result of something different
> from the flaw Godel found.
>
>
> Are you sure?
>


I just mean that while the effect is more or less the same (subverted
democracy), I think the means is probably different than an exploitation of
the same flaw (whatever it was) that Godel found.

What we have today isn't so much a corruption of the laws by which
government operates, but a corruption of people in the government.

My guess is that the inconsistency Godel found in the constitution involved
a means of using the laws against themselves, rather than what we see today
which is a selective enforcement of laws.  Applying laws in full force
against some, while not applying the laws at all against others.  This,
coupled with bought and paid for lawmakers and a broken forth estate make
it easy for those with power and wealth to use the government as a tool to
further their power and wealth.



>
> For me both prohibition and 9/11 are ... unsolved.
>
> I would be happy to know Gödel's argument that the US constitution permits
> dictatorship.
>
>
I am also very curious about it.  I've sometimes thought about whether a
constitution can be designed with game-theoretical principals such that it
would be impossible (or highly improbable) for groups to obtain
disproportionate levels of power.  Another interesting idea is that of an
AI which, like an automated theorem prover, can decide on the
constitutionality of a given law.  The source code for this could be open
source so all can verify it.  This might be called an AItocracy.




> The existence of prohibition of Foods and Drugs in the Land of the Free is
> for me still a mystery.
>
> To forbid or discourage research on a plant is ... applied obscurantism.
>
> Where does that come from?
>
>
Likely from a lot of places, the prison lobby, law enforcement unions,
money launderers, synthetic drug companies, paper companies, and so on.
Things which are good for the majority of the population (cheap
alternatives, copyrighted works entering the public domain, patents
expiring to become generic drugs, universal healthcare, direct democracy,
etc.) are often bad for the small few that hold an advantaged position from
the unavailability of that good thing.  See how the copyright length gets
extended everytime Disney's cartoons enter danger of entering the public
domain ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act ).

Jason



>
>
>
>
> Jason
>
>
>> The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling to
>> think by themselv

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote:

Telmo wrote:

"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities  
for

peaceful world with further increases in freedom)."

Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on  
modernized
medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling slave-owner  
male

chauvinist Forefathers,
who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the  
later

"amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a
gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME  
exceptions,

thank you).

I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation
historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st.
My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate,  
governing a
so called government into committing crimes (international and  
domestic)

originally excluded
from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.

How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it:
econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and  
forcing own

interest on other countries? (Not to
mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).



Gödel pretended that the US constitution was inconsistent and  
refused to

sign it.


You mean "pretended" in the French sense right? As in Gödel claimed  
that...


Oops! Yes. Thanks for noticing. "To pretend" is a false friend. I knew  
it, but forget it all the time!






Einstein intervened and succeeded in changing Gödel's mind (about
not signing it to get the "green card" or the nationality).
Einstein asked Gödel if the US constitution could prevent something  
like a
Nazy party to take power, like in Germany, and Gödel said that it  
could!


Provided it is followed, of course. I don't think the Weimar
constitution was ever repealed during the third reich. It was simply
ignored...


OK.





I don't think capitalism is the problem, but financial lobbying and
corporatism; + lies, can pervert completely a democracy.


I completely agree. We might only differ in that you are more
optimistic on the possibility of preventing financial lobbying using
rules, while I suspect that the only solution is to decentralise power
so completely that there is not target to lobby.


I am not sure decentralizing would work better. It would augment the  
number of local powers, and such local powers might even been worse,  
as being more local and less public or less transparent.
I think we might need some reasonable mix of centralized and  
decentralized power.
If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central  
power should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about  
their local powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter.






The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are  
unwilling to
think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the  
times.

The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal to
authority. We have never been "modern".


I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central problem
in society for a long time, without being an expert in logic.


The problem is that "p <-> q" is far better than nothing, in the short  
run, so our brains are hardwired to "reason" by association, instead,  
of logical validity. Logic is by essence counter-intuitive (which  
explains the logician's sense of humor).
The short term/long term conflict is unavoidable. Humans face it all  
the time, like when hesitating to stop smoking, or to stop producing  
CO2, etc.
It is even more complex today due to globalization. With the 20th  
century, earth has become a finite space, and this has to be taken  
into account, and it is not a simple task, as we have to change habits  
that we have since a very long time. In the long run, we will have to  
escape the planet and continue to run forward. But meanwhile, we have  
to accommodate with the finite resourcing, with or without global  
warming. That's a reason more to fight against corporatism, special  
private interests, international white collar criminality, etc.


Bruno





Telmo.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups

"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an

email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubs

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Telmo wrote:
>
> "I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
> essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for
> peaceful world with further increases in freedom)."
>
> Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on modernized
> medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling slave-owner male
> chauvinist Forefathers,
> who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the later
> "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a
> gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME exceptions,
> thank you).
>
>  I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation
> historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st.
> My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
> a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate, governing a
> so called government into committing crimes (international and domestic)
> originally excluded
> from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.
>
> How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it:
> econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing own
> interest on other countries? (Not to
> mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).
>
>
>
> Gödel pretended that the US constitution was inconsistent and refused to
> sign it.

You mean "pretended" in the French sense right? As in Gödel claimed that...

> Einstein intervened and succeeded in changing Gödel's mind (about
> not signing it to get the "green card" or the nationality).
> Einstein asked Gödel if the US constitution could prevent something like a
> Nazy party to take power, like in Germany, and Gödel said that it could!

Provided it is followed, of course. I don't think the Weimar
constitution was ever repealed during the third reich. It was simply
ignored...

> I don't think capitalism is the problem, but financial lobbying and
> corporatism; + lies, can pervert completely a democracy.

I completely agree. We might only differ in that you are more
optimistic on the possibility of preventing financial lobbying using
rules, while I suspect that the only solution is to decentralise power
so completely that there is not target to lobby.

> The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling to
> think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the times.
> The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal to
> authority. We have never been "modern".

I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central problem
in society for a long time, without being an expert in logic.

Telmo.

> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:54 AM, LizR  wrote:
> OK, fair enough. I wouldn't have said anything more if you'd said it was a
> joke after I made my first comment, but since you gave an explanation, I
> assumed you were serious. I mean, obviously it was a flippant comparison but
> I thought there was a serious intention behind it, which I didn't think came
> across very well...
>
> Oh well :(

You're right, I should have said it in my first reply. My bad.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 20 Nov 2013, at 22:20, Richard Ruquist wrote:


Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court

 There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,



The supreme court has judged the NDAA 2012 anti-constitutional. But  
apparently this has changed nothing. I don't find information on this.  
Some sites on this  have just disappeared.


Bruno





Ie.:

ARTICLE III

Text
Learn More
SECTION 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one  
Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from  
time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme  
and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour,  
and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a  
compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance  
in office.


SECTION 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity,  
arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and  
treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to  
all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and  
consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to  
controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to  
controversies between two or more states;--between a state and  
citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;-- 
between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of  
different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and  
foreign states, citizens or subjects.




On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
Telmo wrote:

"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for
peaceful world with further increases in freedom)."

Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on  
modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling  
slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers,
who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the  
later "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it  
into a gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with  
SOME exceptions, thank you).


 I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation  
historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st.

My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate,  
governing a so called government into committing crimes  
(international and domestic) originally excluded

from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.

How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it:  
econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing  
own interest on other countries? (Not to

mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).

JM

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:35, John Mikes wrote:


Telmo wrote:

"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for
peaceful world with further increases in freedom)."

Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on  
modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling  
slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers,
who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the  
later "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it  
into a gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with  
SOME exceptions, thank you).


 I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation  
historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st.

My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate,  
governing a so called government into committing crimes  
(international and domestic) originally excluded

from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.

How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it:  
econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing  
own interest on other countries? (Not to

mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).



Gödel pretended that the US constitution was inconsistent and refused  
to sign it. Einstein intervened and succeeded in changing Gödel's mind  
(about not signing it to get the "green card" or the nationality).
Einstein asked Gödel if the US constitution could prevent something  
like a Nazy party to take power, like in Germany, and Gödel said that  
it could!


I don't think capitalism is the problem, but financial lobbying and  
corporatism; + lies, can pervert completely a democracy.


The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are unwilling  
to think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the  
times. The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the  
appeal to authority. We have never been "modern".


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread LizR
OK, fair enough. I wouldn't have said anything more if you'd said it was a
joke after I made my first comment, but since you gave an explanation, I
assumed you were serious. I mean, obviously it was a flippant comparison
but I thought there was a serious intention behind it, which I didn't think
came across very well...

Oh well :(

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:22 AM, LizR  wrote:
> On 21 November 2013 20:55, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>>
>> > My point is that you used a bad comparison. There is no reasonable
>> > comparison between the King of England at the time and wizards and
>> > drgaons,
>>
>> It was a joke...
>>
> Right, gotcha. I won't ask you to explain why it was funny, because that
> tends to spoil a joke, nor will I ask why you didn't say that to start with
> and spare me the embarrassment of explaining why I thought it was an invalid
> comparison, but instead gave what looked like a plausible explanation about
> how ridiculous it was to pay taxes to someone on the other side of the
> world.

Liz, sorry! There's no reason to feel embarrassed. It's hard to convey
tone over email and it was my fault indeed.
I just ripped off a joke from Doug Stanhope rambling about the royal wedding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctOHo4RzZEc

Telmo.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-21 Thread LizR
On 21 November 2013 20:55, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> > My point is that you used a bad comparison. There is no reasonable
> > comparison between the King of England at the time and wizards and
> drgaons,
>
> It was a joke...
>
> Right, gotcha. I won't ask you to explain why it was funny, because
that tends to spoil a joke, nor will I ask why you didn't say that to start
with and spare me the embarrassment of explaining why I thought it was an
invalid comparison, but instead gave what looked like a plausible
explanation about how ridiculous it was to pay taxes to someone on the
other side of the world.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:50 AM, LizR  wrote:
>
>
>
> On 21 November 2013 12:29, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:07 AM, LizR  wrote:
>> > On 21 November 2013 11:37, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England,
>> >>
>> >> Good on them. What next? Pay taxes to wizards and dragons?
>> >>
>> > Weird comment. The King of England was only, in their view, an
>> > inappropriate
>> > subject to pay taxes to because they were no longer his subjects, at
>> > least
>> > in a de facto sense. They weren't against taxes per se, and set up a
>> > system
>> > in which people were expected to pay taxes. (And if wizards and dragons
>> > existed, people would indeed pay them taxes, or as we'd call it,
>> > protection
>> > money!)
>> >
>> > No matter how good your case, a reasoned argument is better than an
>> > invalid
>> > comparison.
>>
>> Hi Liz,
>>
>> I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. I am aware that the
>> founding fathers were in favour of taxes. As I said to Bruno, I admire
>> the constitution but I think that even more freedom can be achieved. I
>> just meant that paying taxes to kings on the other side of the world
>> is ridiculous, and that the king or queen themselves are ridiculous
>> entities in the modern world.
>
>
> My point is that you used a bad comparison. There is no reasonable
> comparison between the King of England at the time and wizards and drgaons,

It was a joke...

> and you are obscuring your point by using an inappropriate metaphor.
>
> Paying taxes to someone on the far side of the world seems ridiculous
> because that person isn't providing any of the services that they are, at
> least in theory, providing for their citizens back home. That's a fair
> point, but it doesn't make them mythical or imaginary, it just means that
> they are no longer in a position to treat colonists as subjects.
>
> Similarly, the King or Queen of England may be a ridiculous entity now, but
> they certainly weren't at the time, so (again) it doesn't make sense to
> suggest that.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread meekerdb

On 11/20/2013 5:14 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

There is always the possibility that the lawmakers (in this case
congress) will create a law that is fundamentally in
contradiction with the established corpus of constitutional law. It is
only right that there exists a body whose role it is to test that. In
our country, it is the High Court - my guess is that the Supreme Court
is the equivalent in the USA. A similar arrangement presumably exists
in other democracies, and is essential for good government, so get
used to it.


A good summary Russell.  It was not explicitly anticipated by the authors of the U.S. 
Constitution that the Supreme Court might rule a law unconstitutional, but they may well 
have considered it implicit in the function of courts.  In fact, any court can find a law 
unconstitutional; and that's binding in their jurisdiction until overturned by some higher 
court.  The executive branch is no different.  A President can (and has) said this or that 
law is unconstitutional and I'm not going to honor it.  Every federal officer is sworn to 
uphold the Constitution.


Since the U.S. was founded, many other democracies have provided explicitly for judicial 
review of laws.  I believe that in France a law is reviewed before it is finally passed - 
thus giving the court even more power than in the U.S. where the court has to wait for a 
case to be brought to it.


Brent



The High court cannot create law, so does not "rule the country", but
it can review law for consistency, particularly with the
constitution. In our country, the constitution can only change by
referendum, which succeeds only very rarely.

In the event of a standoff between the lawmakers and the law
interpreters, we have a third arm of the government (essentially an
extension of the monarchy) that has the power to fire or veto. This
role is in essence held by the US president, although with some
differences, it would seem, given the government shutdown just experienced.


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 04:20:00PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:

Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court

  There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,

Ie.:

ARTICLE III

- 
Text
- Learn 
More

SECTION 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme
Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts,
shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times,
receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their continuance in office.
SECTION 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising
under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made,
or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States
shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a
state and citizens of another
state;--between
citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming
lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the
citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM, John Mikes  wrote:


Telmo wrote:



*"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for 
**peaceful
world with further increases in freedom)*."

Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on
modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling
slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers,
who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the later
"amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a
gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME
exceptions, thank you).

  I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation
historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st.
My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate, *governing*a so 
called government into committing crimes (international and domestic)
originally excluded
from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.

How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it:
econo-feudalistic) principles, imperiali

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread Russell Standish
There is always the possibility that the lawmakers (in this case
congress) will create a law that is fundamentally in
contradiction with the established corpus of constitutional law. It is
only right that there exists a body whose role it is to test that. In
our country, it is the High Court - my guess is that the Supreme Court
is the equivalent in the USA. A similar arrangement presumably exists
in other democracies, and is essential for good government, so get
used to it.

The High court cannot create law, so does not "rule the country", but
it can review law for consistency, particularly with the
constitution. In our country, the constitution can only change by
referendum, which succeeds only very rarely.

In the event of a standoff between the lawmakers and the law
interpreters, we have a third arm of the government (essentially an
extension of the monarchy) that has the power to fire or veto. This
role is in essence held by the US president, although with some
differences, it would seem, given the government shutdown just experienced.


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 04:20:00PM -0500, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
> when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
> laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
> As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court
> 
>  There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
> Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,
> 
> Ie.:
> 
> ARTICLE III
> 
>- 
> Text
>- Learn 
> More
> 
> SECTION 1.
> 
> The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme
> Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time
> ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts,
> shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times,
> receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished
> during their continuance in office.
> SECTION 2.
> 
> The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising
> under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made,
> or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting
> ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty
> and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States
> shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a
> state and citizens of another
> state;--between
> citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming
> lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the
> citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
> 
> 
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
> 
> > Telmo wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > *"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
> > essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for 
> > **peaceful
> > world with further increases in freedom)*."
> >
> > Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on
> > modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling
> > slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers,
> > who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the later
> > "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a
> > gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME
> > exceptions, thank you).
> >
> >  I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation
> > historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st.
> > My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
> > a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate, *governing*a 
> > so called government into committing crimes (international and domestic)
> > originally excluded
> > from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.
> >
> > How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it:
> > econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing own
> > interest on other countries? (Not to
> > mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).
> >
> > JM
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> >
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> 

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread LizR
On 21 November 2013 12:49,  wrote:

> Freedom via 3D manufacture. Liberation through material wealth!
>

A global village, yeah, that's my general outlook too, although we have to
get rid of that pesky little problem of slavery* that currently provides
most of our material goods in the West, and make reparations for the free
lunch we've been enjoying for decades at their expense.

*conveniently hidden by the fact that it's been "outsourced" to the third
world.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread LizR
On 21 November 2013 12:29, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:07 AM, LizR  wrote:
> > On 21 November 2013 11:37, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
> >>
> >> > who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England,
> >>
> >> Good on them. What next? Pay taxes to wizards and dragons?
> >>
> > Weird comment. The King of England was only, in their view, an
> inappropriate
> > subject to pay taxes to because they were no longer his subjects, at
> least
> > in a de facto sense. They weren't against taxes per se, and set up a
> system
> > in which people were expected to pay taxes. (And if wizards and dragons
> > existed, people would indeed pay them taxes, or as we'd call it,
> protection
> > money!)
> >
> > No matter how good your case, a reasoned argument is better than an
> invalid
> > comparison.
>
> Hi Liz,
>
> I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. I am aware that the
> founding fathers were in favour of taxes. As I said to Bruno, I admire
> the constitution but I think that even more freedom can be achieved. I
> just meant that paying taxes to kings on the other side of the world
> is ridiculous, and that the king or queen themselves are ridiculous
> entities in the modern world.
>

My point is that you used a bad comparison. There is no reasonable
comparison between the King of England at the time and wizards and drgaons,
and you are obscuring your point by using an inappropriate metaphor.

Paying taxes to someone on the far side of the world seems ridiculous
because that person isn't providing any of the services that they are, at
least in theory, providing for their citizens back home. That's a fair
point, but it doesn't make them mythical or imaginary, it just means that
they are no longer in a position to treat colonists as subjects.

Similarly, the King or Queen of England may be a ridiculous entity now, but
they certainly weren't at the time, so (again) it doesn't make sense to
suggest that.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread spudboy100

Freedom via 3D manufacture. Liberation through material wealth!


-Original Message-
From: Telmo Menezes 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Nov 20, 2013 6:29 pm
Subject: Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution


On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:07 AM, LizR  wrote:
> On 21 November 2013 11:37, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>>
>> > who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England,
>>
>> Good on them. What next? Pay taxes to wizards and dragons?
>>
> Weird comment. The King of England was only, in their view, an inappropriate
> subject to pay taxes to because they were no longer his subjects, at least
> in a de facto sense. They weren't against taxes per se, and set up a system
> in which people were expected to pay taxes. (And if wizards and dragons
> existed, people would indeed pay them taxes, or as we'd call it, protection
> money!)
>
> No matter how good your case, a reasoned argument is better than an invalid
> comparison.

Hi Liz,

I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. I am aware that the
founding fathers were in favour of taxes. As I said to Bruno, I admire
the constitution but I think that even more freedom can be achieved. I
just meant that paying taxes to kings on the other side of the world
is ridiculous, and that the king or queen themselves are ridiculous
entities in the modern world.

Telmo.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread spudboy100

No taxes sans representation. That's a different point. If we were prevented 
selling woolens because the Kings junta back home felt threatened, then 
Americans had no way to petition parliament. Keeping down the Scots and the 
Welsh and Irish are one thing, but its harder putting down a continent wide 
revolt. Secondly, the British decided that there were more goodies in India to 
loot. The 1812 War proved my first point.  Also, America having a formal 
constitution caused the British under classes to demand the same. The Great 
Reform Act of 1832 for example. By this time the UK was surpassing the US in 
personal freedoms, and didn't have that pesky little problem of slavery, as an 
actual menace by then.


-Original Message-
From: LizR 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Nov 20, 2013 6:07 pm
Subject: Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution



On 21 November 2013 11:37, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England,


Good on them. What next? Pay taxes to wizards and dragons?


Weird comment. The King of England was only, in their view, an inappropriate 
subject to pay taxes to because they were no longer his subjects, at least in a 
de facto sense. They weren't against taxes per se, and set up a system in which 
people were expected to pay taxes. (And if wizards and dragons existed, people 
would indeed pay them taxes, or as we'd call it, protection money!)


No matter how good your case, a reasoned argument is better than an invalid 
comparison.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:07 AM, LizR  wrote:
> On 21 November 2013 11:37, Telmo Menezes  wrote:
>>
>> > who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England,
>>
>> Good on them. What next? Pay taxes to wizards and dragons?
>>
> Weird comment. The King of England was only, in their view, an inappropriate
> subject to pay taxes to because they were no longer his subjects, at least
> in a de facto sense. They weren't against taxes per se, and set up a system
> in which people were expected to pay taxes. (And if wizards and dragons
> existed, people would indeed pay them taxes, or as we'd call it, protection
> money!)
>
> No matter how good your case, a reasoned argument is better than an invalid
> comparison.

Hi Liz,

I'm sorry but I don't understand your point. I am aware that the
founding fathers were in favour of taxes. As I said to Bruno, I admire
the constitution but I think that even more freedom can be achieved. I
just meant that paying taxes to kings on the other side of the world
is ridiculous, and that the king or queen themselves are ridiculous
entities in the modern world.

Telmo.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread LizR
On 21 November 2013 11:37, Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> > who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England,
>
> Good on them. What next? Pay taxes to wizards and dragons?
>
> Weird comment. The King of England was only, in their view, an
inappropriate subject to pay taxes to because they were no longer his
subjects, at least in a *de facto* sense. They weren't against taxes per
se, and set up a system in which people were expected to pay taxes. (And if
wizards and dragons existed, people would indeed pay them taxes, or as we'd
call it, protection money!)

No matter how good your case, a reasoned argument is better than an invalid
comparison.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread Telmo Menezes
Hi John,

On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 9:35 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
> Telmo wrote:
>
> "I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
> essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for
> peaceful world with further increases in freedom)."
>
> Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on modernized
> medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling slave-owner male
> chauvinist Forefathers,

Yeah, they weren't exactly role models. Do you figure politicians are
now better?

> who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England,

Good on them. What next? Pay taxes to wizards and dragons?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctOHo4RzZEc

> or the later
> "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a
> gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME exceptions,
> thank you).
>
>  I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation
> historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st.

What do you feel should be changed for the 21st century?

> My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
> a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate, governing a
> so called government into committing crimes (international and domestic)
> originally excluded
> from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.

But are you sure this outcome would happen if the constitution had
been uphold? I don't thing the current level of federal power was what
they had in mind, for example.

> How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it:
> econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing own
> interest on other countries? (Not to
> mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).

None of the things you say after the words "capitalistic" is what I
mean by capitalism. I see that as corporatism, which is in fact very
similar to European fascism of the early to middle 20th century.
Including all the flag waving and so on. War seems to be an exclusive
pursuit of governments. I think that a decentralised and well
connected economy would make wars very unlikely.

Telmo.

> JM
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread LizR
And then there was Noah Webster's attempt to massacre the English
language...

:-)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread spudboy100

Yes not the date on the calendar that matters but the behavior of human beings. 
Is anyone implying that human nature is entirely different then 300 years ago? 
Or is human nature basically the same. Thus, the economic difference, though 
vast, appear have purchase in human behavior, still. In fact, if technology 
advances the US Constitution will have even more validity. If manufacturing in 
the next 20 - 40 years becomes the action of3D printers or nanotech, then the 
structure of producing things for yourself comes back into play. Though rather 
then being a serf, a subsistence level farmer, a mill worker, 300 years later, 
these individuals will be producing goods and services not only for themselves, 
but for neighbors, fellow villagers, extended family, a few across the pond. 

The hunger for statism now seen in the Democrat Party in the US, and Marxist 
Parties, everywhere else, might only be a phase in human development. A feature 
of the Industrial Age, where governments saw benefit in having more and more 
control over the country class. Perhaps in a generation, every day will be 
Bastile Day? 


Four years he fought and he fought unafraid
Sniffing down traitors by traitors betrayed
Marat in the courtroom
Marat underground
Sometimes the otter and sometimes the hound

Fighting all the gentry and fighting every priest 
The business man the bourgeois the military beast
Marat always ready to stifle every scheme 

Of the sons of the ass licking dying regime


-Original Message-
From: Richard Ruquist 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Wed, Nov 20, 2013 4:20 pm
Subject: Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution


Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court


 There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,


Ie.:



ARTICLE III






Text
Learn More





SECTION 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, 
and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and 
establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold 
their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for 
their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their 
continuance in office.
SECTION 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under 
this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which 
shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, 
other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime 
jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a 
party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and 
citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between 
citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and 
between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or 
subjects.










On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM, John Mikes  wrote:

Telmo wrote:

"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for
peaceful world with further increases in freedom)."




Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on modernized 
medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling slave-owner male 
chauvinist Forefathers, 
who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the later 
"amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a gun-toting 
killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME exceptions, thank you). 


 I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation historical 
masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st. 
My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome: 
a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate, governing a so 
called government into committing crimes (international and domestic) 
originally excluded 
from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'. 


How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it: 
econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing own 
interest on other countries? (Not to 
mention the availability of all level governance for enough money). 


JM

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For mor

Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread John Mikes
Thanks, Richard, - very educative!
John M


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

> Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
> when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
> laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
> As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court
>
>  There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
> Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,
>
> Ie.:
>
> ARTICLE III
>
>- 
> Text
>- Learn 
> More
>
>   SECTION 1.
>
> The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme
> Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time
> ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts,
> shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times,
> receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished
> during their continuance in office.
> SECTION 2.
>
> The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising
> under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made,
> or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting
> ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty
> and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States
> shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between
> a state and citizens of another 
> state;--between
> citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming
> lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the
> citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM, John Mikes  wrote:
>
>> Telmo wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> *"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
>> essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for 
>> **peaceful
>> world with further increases in freedom)*."
>>
>> Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on
>> modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling
>> slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers,
>> who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the later
>> "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a
>> gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME
>> exceptions, thank you).
>>
>>  I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation
>> historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st.
>> My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
>> a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate,
>> *governing* a so called government into committing crimes (international
>> and domestic) originally excluded
>> from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.
>>
>> How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it:
>> econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing own
>> interest on other countries? (Not to
>> mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).
>>
>> JM
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: Telmo On the US COnstitution

2013-11-20 Thread Richard Ruquist
Chief Supreme Court Justice Marshall usurped the Constitution
when he maintained that the Supreme Court had the right to rule
laws made by Congress and signed by the President unconstitutional.
As a result the USA is essentially ruled by the Supreme Court

 There is no provision in the US Constitution for this right.
Congress instead has the right to regulate the Supreme Court,

Ie.:

ARTICLE III

   - 
Text
   - Learn 
More

SECTION 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme
Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time
ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts,
shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times,
receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their continuance in office.
SECTION 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising
under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made,
or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting
ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States
shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a
state and citizens of another
state;--between
citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming
lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the
citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:35 PM, John Mikes  wrote:

> Telmo wrote:
>
>
>
> *"I admire the US constitution too. In fact, my political position is
> essentially to follow it (although I like to imagine possibilities for 
> **peaceful
> world with further increases in freedom)*."
>
> Which Constitution? the one epoch-opening chef-d'oeuvre based on
> modernized medieval ideas of those well educated smoking-duelling
> slave-owner male chauvinist Forefathers,
> who just did not want to pay taxes to the King of England, or the later
> "amended" versions of the same obsolete construct making it into a
> gun-toting killer - corrupt, faith-ruled money-monger (with SOME
> exceptions, thank you).
>
>  I join you in admiring the original one - as a relic, an innovation
> historical masterpiece FOR THE 18th CENTURY. Not for the 21st.
> My admiration stopped short when I realized the outcome:
> a 'special-interest money'-ruled anti-democratic conglomerate, *governing*a 
> so called government into committing crimes (international and domestic)
> originally excluded
> from it's 'modus (regulatio) vivendi'.
>
> How can you imagine a 'peaceful' world with capitalistic (I call it:
> econo-feudalistic) principles, imperialistic (oil?) wars and forcing own
> interest on other countries? (Not to
> mention the availability of all level governance for enough money).
>
> JM
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.