Sec. Cohen's anti-net speech
L. Shelton Bumgarner
byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) wrote:
>In article <5mlgu1$jnp$2...@nw001.infi.net> bum...@removethis.infi.net (L. Shelton Bumgarner) writes:
>>byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) wrote:
>>>What I have a problem with is having the government interfere with the
>>>technical details of how those systems are produced and with the exchange of
>>>information between willing parties.
>>My idea is that if the ISP and backbone companies worked with the
>>government, the government would simply say --"Get your act together
>>so the Net won't crash." How the companies actually did this would be
>>up to them.
>Geez. Are you under the impression that somehow the ISPs are unmotivated to
>make the Net not "crash"? Are you under the impression that the government
>officials and agencies care a wit about that kind of goal if it ever came
>down to a choice between political advantage and efficient Net operations?
If not now, later. Esp when so much of our society depends on making
the Net cheap and accessable for all. Access to the Net is going to
become crucial to our lives in the near, near future. Thus the
government will feel it has no choice but to step in at some point to
make sure things work from a telecommunications standpoint. A prime
example of what I'm talking about is UUnet's recent actions...
>There's
>no way the government can improve on either of those, but they sure can screw
>up both of them.
You're jumping to conclusions. I'd rather have the government
understand the Net so it CAN guide it properly rather than have to
wait until there IS a problem that requires it to step-in. (THINK:
midnight basketball for urban kids.Preventive measures.)
>If you are getting at the issue of ISP cooperation, I find that as a rule ISPs
>coordinate their activities as much or more than most other industrial
>groups, though we have to be careful to not cooperate too much or the
>government will come after us with anti-trust laws. What they should do is
>get the hell out of the way, and so far for the most part that's what they
>have done. Let's hope it stays that way or improves.
But because the Net is growing so fast, there is a danger it might
split, which would very likely bring the government in...
>>> That's the essence of free speech and
>>>yoau re damn right I have a reaction against any form of censorship, and
>>>it's not "knee-jerk", it is well considered and principled. If there is
>>>something "knee-jerk" going on here it is the knee-jerk reaction that some
>>>people have which is to conclude that anything important ought to be controlled
>>>by the government regardless of what it is and what the consequences can be
>>>expected to be.
>>I don't want control by the government, I want guidence. (sic)
>But you are ignoring the obvious fact that the government has neither the
>skills and motivation nor the moral means to enforce such "guidance". The
>government doesn't want what's good, the have no way to find it out, and
>they have no good way to bring about whatever it is that you think they
>ought to want to bring about in the first place. The ability to throw people
>in jail doesn't make an institution well-suited to make decisions about how
>an industry ought to work nor does it give it the moral right to
>do so.
Man, see what's there, not what Republican fanatics have been telling
you. The big bad government does a bazillian things outside of the
public eye that let you live the life you live. I'm not for big
government, I'm for smart government. All we have to do is EDUCATE
government officials as to the ways of the Net...regulations is
coming, one way or another. And there is nothing you or I can do to
prevent it.
lee
--
L. Shelton Bumgarner -- Keeper of the Great Renaming FAQ
[Please remove "REMOVETHIS" from my email to respond to my posts]
L. Shelton Bumgarner
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>On Fri, 30 May 1997 03:06:19 GMT, bum...@removethis.infi.net (L.
>Shelton Bumgarner) wrote:
>><I'm breaking this responce into several posts so people will actually
>>read it.>
>I just love having to waste bandwidth needlessly.
It's not needlessly. It's the only way to keep this readable.
>>liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>>
>>>The government is the enemy. Period.
>>That is bull shit. Period. (Are those black helecopters I hear)8-) I'm
>>all for the freemarket deciding where the Net goes, but there comes a
>>point where the government needs to at least keep an eye on things.
>You can say this all you wish, but it will not make it so.
Oh yeah? Well yer mother's a CIA informant!
>So, you want "government" to regulate the net, you just don't know
>which government, or exactly what regulation is required, but, by gum,
>SOMEONE is going to regulate SOMETHING.
>Sheesh.
I know that if I specify exactly what should be done, you'll spout off
about how that could NEVER ever POSSIBLY be DONE for this or that
reason. So I keep things general. The Net is growing very quickly.
Yes, it's doing ok right now, but why wait until there's a problem.
Also, the US government WILL regulate the Net in more ways than you
can shake a stick at in the near future. As for the Net as a whole, I
don't know which international body would be best for that job. The UN
maybe. Or maybe something that's not been created yet.
>>What we need is a good enemy -- someone or something Americans can
>>hate so they can stop hating their own government! If only we'd not
>>had Vietnam and Watergate, maybe people would feel differently.
>>
>Vietnam and Watergate just revealed to the masses what anyone with
>three or four neurons to rub together already knew.
The truth is out there, right?
lee
beable
beable
beable
Steve Brinich
L. Shelton Bumgarner wrote:
> Yes, it's doing ok right now, but why wait until there's a problem.
Get the government involved -- produce lots of problems _now_!
--
Steve Brinich ste...@access.digex.net If the government wants us
PGP:89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E to respect the law
http://www.access.digex.net/~steve-b it should set a better example
L. Shelton Bumgarner
neut...@kona.javanet.com (Doctress Neutopia) wrote:
>Ram Samudrala (r...@mbisgi.umd.edu) wrote:
>: I think the only thing Uncle Sam is good for is driving humanity to
>: extinction.
>: --Ram
>Nicely said!
Oh shut up and organize an orgy or something
lee
L. Shelton Bumgarner
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>On Sat, 31 May 1997 04:38:10 GMT, bum...@removethis.infi.net (L.
>Shelton Bumgarner) wrote:
>>See also canard. I still have to shake my head in disbelief that you
>>would rather the Net no longer be a viable medium than have the
>>government involved in it.
>Having the government involved in it is what will make it a non-viable
>medium!
>You keep blathering about 'smart' government and 'educating'
>government and 'just a little regulation' -- when the entire history
>of the cancerous State shows that government gets dumber, more
>ingnorant, and more expansive over time, until it is a mindless,
>knowledgless mass that sprawls over a society and crushes it. Provide
>me some concrete indications you can actually overcome the inertia of
>220 years and the ignorance of 535 congenital idiots, and we'll talk.
Sigh. Why is it so hard for conservatives (or in this case anarchists)
to realize that they're "winning" their battle to reduce (or abolish
in anarchist terms) "big government." The pinkos are in full retreat.
Celebrate by forming a monopoly (for conservatives) or abolishing your
local scout troop (for anarchists).
>As it is, you're asking for unspecified laws to be passed by
>uneducated Congresscritters to head off unproven problems,
Why does government have to only correct problems? Why can't it try to
prevent problems for a change?
> and
>justifying it all by pointing to the usurpation of radio (a different
>medium) in the 1920s (a different time), which, as many people have
>posted, had the effect of destroying radio as a
>liberating/freedom-enhancing medium and turned it into a tool for the
>powers-that-be to spread their view of things.
It scares me that there are people out there with these views.
>I repeat my original question -- what's your game? What have you been
>promised for selling out the net?
Damn, you figured me out.
Lizard
On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 03:21:38 GMT, bum...@removethis.infi.net (L.
Shelton Bumgarner) wrote:
>liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>
>Why does government have to only correct problems? Why can't it try to
>prevent problems for a change?
>
It's not in the nature of the system. Indeed, if there is such a thing
as a moral government, it is a government which is purely reactive --
a government which acts when rights have been violated, and acts
solely to punish the perpetrators of such violation. There is no
'right' to email, I am happy to report.
In any event, as a matter of living in the putative real world,
government isn't structured to 'prevent' problems, nor is it good at
solving them. It excels at creating false problems, such as 'flag
burning' or 'partial birth abortions', which distracts everyone from
focusing on real problems. THAT is the job of government, and it does
it quite well.
>> and
>>justifying it all by pointing to the usurpation of radio (a different
>>medium) in the 1920s (a different time), which, as many people have
>>posted, had the effect of destroying radio as a
>>liberating/freedom-enhancing medium and turned it into a tool for the
>>powers-that-be to spread their view of things.
>
>It scares me that there are people out there with these views.
>
It scares me someone with as much net-history as you has apparently
been hopelessly and totally co-opted by the State.
>>I repeat my original question -- what's your game? What have you been
>>promised for selling out the net?
>
>Damn, you figured me out.
>
Wasn't hard.
*----------------------------------------------------*
Evolution doesn't take prisoners:Lizard
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue:AuH20
http://www.mrlizard.com
Steve Brinich
L. Shelton Bumgarner wrote:
> Sigh. Why is it so hard for conservatives (or in this case anarchists)
> to realize that they're "winning" their battle to reduce (or abolish
> in anarchist terms) "big government." The pinkos are in full retreat.
They aren't retreating nearly fast enough, and need a few swift
kicks to the fundament to accelerate them.
Tommy the Terrorist
In article <5n2mvm$ljg$2...@nw003.infi.net> L. Shelton Bumgarner,
bum...@removethis.infi.net writes:
>Sigh. Why is it so hard for conservatives (or in this case anarchists)
>to realize that they're "winning" their battle to reduce (or abolish
>in anarchist terms) "big government." The pinkos are in full retreat.
>local scout troop (for anarchists).
Look, according to the classical anarchist analysis, a government is an
institution whose sole purpose is to influence behavior by violence.
Therefore, the "size" of government is best measured in terms of the
total amount of violence it commits (i.e. the total number of executions
+ total number of prison cells + total decrease in quality of life
experienced by people attempting to avoid the preceding, either by
following laws under duress or in attempting to evade them).
In these terms, the U.S. government has probably never been larger.
The "battle against big government" largely involves the spinning off of
nearly "autonomous" segments of "government" which were essentially
private services to start with. Since they remain subject to government
authority even as "independent" operations, and can still be subsidized
and/or taxed, the change of status there is mostly on paper. It is still
a rhetorical victory in the sense that the population learns that you
don't actually *need* government to have a fire department or a weather
bureau, but it doesn't change the quality of life much. ESPECIALLY not
when the spin-off puts the operation, not into the hands of a worker
cooperative open to and answerable to the people, but instead into the
hands of a private corporation organized in a dictatorial manner.
Stephen Tanner
On 5 Jun 1997 08:33:59 GMT, Tommy the Terrorist
<may...@super.zippo.com> wrote:
>Look, according to the classical anarchist analysis, a government is an
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>institution whose sole purpose is to influence behavior by violence.
But watch out for the new wave, wild-eyed, avant garde anarchist
analysis.
WE REJECT CLASSICAL ANARCHY! WE BELIEVE IN NEW ANARCHY! ANARCHY IN
THE UK! WE DON'T BELIEVE IN GOVERNMENT! WE DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD! WE
DON'T BELIEVE IN ANYTHING! SO...I GUESS WE DON'T BELIEVE IN NEW
ANARCHY! SO WE'RE...SORRY TO HAVE BOTHERED YOU!
>Therefore, the "size" of government is best measured in terms of the
>total amount of violence it commits
...using the metric unit of the "owie". Happiness is measured by the
"welk", defined as "the amount of enjoyment one gets by watching one
episode of the Lawrence Welk show". The measurement is kept accurate
by occasional comparison to a "Fun Size" candy bar in a locked vault
in Paris, next to a sign saying "Yes, this is the size of Fun." Keep
in mind that we've now entered Tommy the Terrorist's Fantasy Kingdom.
>(i.e. the total number of executions
>+ total number of prison cells + total decrease in quality of life
+ 100,000 * (size_of_pleasure_team)
>experienced by people attempting to avoid the preceding, either by
>following laws under duress or in attempting to evade them).
>
>In these terms, the U.S. government has probably never been larger.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YM "in my universe". HTH!
>The "battle against big government" largely involves
..."embedding" random "phrases" in "quote marks".
>the spinning off of
>nearly "autonomous" segments of "government" which were essentially
>private services to start with.
The neat thing about anarchists is you can keep beating the crap out
of them, and they won't call the police on principle.
Still, raving nutbars are a necessary evil, as is the phrase
"necessary evil".
>Since they remain subject to government
>authority even as "independent" operations, and can still be subsidized
>and/or taxed, the change of status there is mostly on paper. It is still
>a rhetorical victory in the sense that the population learns that you
>don't actually *need* government to have a fire department or a weather
>bureau, but it doesn't change the quality of life much. ESPECIALLY not
>when the spin-off puts the operation, not into the hands of a worker
>cooperative open to and answerable to the people, but instead into the
>hands of a private corporation organized in a dictatorial manner.
Bud, you're going to be one of the first up against the wall when the
revolution doesn't come.
Tommy will now do fifty pushups for writing the phrase "worker
cooperative open to and answerable to the people".
I will do fifty pushups for stealing gags from a Fry and Laurie
sketch.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 03:21:38 GMT, bum...@removethis.infi.net (L.
>Shelton Bumgarner) wrote:
>>liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>>
>solving them. It excels at creating false problems, such as 'flag
>burning' or 'partial birth abortions', which distracts everyone from
>focusing on real problems. THAT is the job of government, and it does
>it quite well.
I suspect that to those that deeply are opposed to both those things,
they are in fact "problems." Why is that so hard to understand? You're
not the center of the universe, ya know. (Because I am, by the way.)
>>It scares me that there are people out there with these views.
>>
>It scares me someone with as much net-history as you has apparently
>been hopelessly and totally co-opted by the State.
It scares me that you think I would be "co-opted" by the State.
Although you accusing me of that bothers me about as much as gay
person calling me a "breeder" bothers me.
>>>I repeat my original question -- what's your game? What have you been
>>>promised for selling out the net?
>>
>>Damn, you figured me out.
>>
>Wasn't hard.
Now that we understand each other.
lee
(come on Kibologists, this thread is getting too serious.)
Roger Douglas
>bum...@removethis.infi.net (L. Shelton Bumgarner) wrote:
>
.....
><Oh shut up and organize an orgy or something
>
>You say that like it's a *bad* thing!
>
>Me? I'm curious about the 'or something.'
It should have been "an orgy AND something".
e.g.
- Orgy and Bar-B-Q Sausage Sizzle
- Orgy and Brass Band Competition
- Orgy and Trivia Quiz (Area Finals)
- Orgy and Over-80's Spelling Bee
- Orgy and Cockroach Races
- Orgy and Olde Tyme Fayre
- Orgy and Sci-Fi Convention
- Orgy and free wine tasting
- Orgy and end-of-year factory run-out sale
- Orgy and free seminar on "Kibology for Fun and Profit"
- Orgy and Bonfire Party (prize for best effigy of a politician)
- Orgy and Sheep Shearing Demonstration
I see a great need.
--R.
Maelstrom
bum...@removethis.infi.net (L. Shelton Bumgarner) wrote thus:
>Man, see what's there, not what Republican fanatics have been telling
>you. The big bad government does a bazillian things outside of the
>public eye that let you live the life you live. I'm not for big
>government, I'm for smart government. All we have to do is EDUCATE
>government officials as to the ways of the Net...regulations is
>coming, one way or another. And there is nothing you or I can do to
>prevent it.
>
listen to what these so-called "experts" say. You've got vision man! Can I
ask you for an analysis of what will happen to the smaller US states like
Austria and England when the government steps in? Will they still be
allowed on? Also what if terroists get mad that they can't use the
Internet anymore and try to split it up? Will the government be able to
afford guards around the internet line? Maybe they can tax us on the rate
of information transfer like you have demanded before. After all, whats
good for Lee S. Bumgarner has to be good for everyone right?
--Maelstrom(14 yo visual basic wizard)
"Obviously unlike you people I don't have time to read
every post that I reply to."
Yonderboy
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Chris Carrell
>
>>>It scares me that there are people out there with these views.
>>>
>>It scares me someone with as much net-history as you has apparently
>>been hopelessly and totally co-opted by the State.
>
>It scares me that you think I would be "co-opted" by the State.
It scares me to think that people actually watch "The State."
>lee
>(come on Kibologists, this thread is getting too serious.)
Chris
--
Chris Carrell
Replace each _dot_ with . if'n you really want to email me
If Cyberpromo wants to email, that's ze...@alt.net
L. Shelton Bumgarner
cjc@pandora_dot_bio_dot_purdue.edu (Chris Carrell) wrote:
>>
>>It scares me that you think I would be "co-opted" by the State.
>It scares me to think that people actually watch "The State."
Hey, I thought that was a pretty good show. It really sucked that they
didn't do well when they went on CBS that one time.
lee
L. Shelton Bumgarner
r...@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) wrote:
>I don't deny the Chinese government is far worse than the U.S.
>government and I actually agree with a lot of U.S. government policy,
>BUT I DO NOT THINK A GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY.
>People are already finding this out, and eventually my goal is to see
>individual self-government above all else. Either humanity is capable
>of this or they will become extinct.
This reminds me of a TV show (new twilight zone or Amazing Stories, I
forget which one) about a person who discovers the Meaning Of Life. It
drives him crazy, but not before he's able to tell someone else...The
end of the story has The Meaning Of Life read over a radio, which
drives EVERYONE crazy.
lee, who wonders if the FCC would permit that or not.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
r...@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) wrote:
>L. Shelton Bumgarner (bum...@removethis.infi.net) wrote:
>>I think my particular poltical theories are just a wee bit more
>>grounded than yours, kiddo.
>On what? Water? Clouds? On the other hand, my theories are based on
>observations of natural systems, which have been around much longer in
>a complex dynamic equilibrium than ANY government humans have come up
>with or anything humans have created.
>And you know, it is the younger people who are smarter than you
>generally, not the other way around. You seem to think just because
>you're older you know better.
You mean I don't?
Man. That really changes things.
lee
L. Shelton Bumgarner
r...@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) wrote:
>L. Shelton Bumgarner (bum...@removethis.infi.net) wrote:
>>Again, this makes sense to YOU because it fits within your world view.
>>To me, its a loaded take on things. The government will be able to go
>>only so far (in the US) when it comes to content due to a little thing
>>called the Bill of Rights. (why is it kooks forget about such things?)
>You ask the kooks in the Supreme Court. The Bill of Rights, as far as
>I can see, hasn't protected speech on the radio. Are you saying I can
>say the word "fuck" on radio?
No, and you shouldn't be able to.
>>>the better governments in the world. Contrary to your insinuations, I
>>>reject all authority and all top-down order, and it's not limited to
>>>politics.
>>Uh, please elaborate upon the political ideas you're alluding to in
>>that last sentence.
>I said it's not limited to politics and I gave you some references.
>The whole point is that you can have complex order WITHOUT top-down
>coercion, and top-down coercion will inevitably lead to stagnation.
>No government will last indefinitely. A bottom-up system CAN.
This is simply not true in our modern world. You live in in a
bottom-up la-la land.
Teg Pipes
tan...@aros.net (Stephen Tanner) writes:
> On 5 Jun 1997 08:33:59 GMT, Tommy the Terrorist
> <may...@super.zippo.com> wrote:
> ...using the metric unit of the "owie". Happiness is measured by the
> "welk", defined as "the amount of enjoyment one gets by watching one
> episode of the Lawrence Welk show". The measurement is kept accurate
> by occasional comparison to a "Fun Size" candy bar in a locked vault
> in Paris, next to a sign saying "Yes, this is the size of Fun." Keep
Also,
The "Lynn", which is the amount of angst it takes to cause one
14-year old to write one poem. A teraLynn will cause a teenage girl
to 'try to kill herself' with aspirin or some other amazingly
non-lethal technique.
The "wesley", which is the amount of nerdiness generated by one
episode of old Star Trek. It takes a couple of megawesleys to
play a game of Magic- The Gathering or to make a joke *in* a
programming language.
> >The "battle against big government" largely involves
>
> ..."embedding" random "phrases" in "quote marks".
...I'm not "svelte" or "thin"... I smell "bad"...I "drink maple syrup
straight from the bottle"...I don't "wash my groin area" or even "bathe"
"at all"....
-Teg
Ram Samudrala
L. Shelton Bumgarner (bum...@removethis.infi.net) wrote:
>No, and you shouldn't be able to.
Why not? I'm saying I should be able to. Why are you more right than I?
>>I said it's not limited to politics and I gave you some references.
>>The whole point is that you can have complex order WITHOUT top-down
>>coercion, and top-down coercion will inevitably lead to stagnation.
>>No government will last indefinitely. A bottom-up system CAN.
>This is simply not true in our modern world. You live in in a
>bottom-up la-la land.
Huh? Almost every system outside of human beings exists in a
bottom-up way. And with human civilisation, except for the Internet,
I can't think of a case where bottom-up systems have been TRIED in the
first place. The real world makes it hard to do so, but the Internet
makes a bottom-up POSSIBLE, due to technology.
--Ram
email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
He is most powerful who has himself in his own power. ---Seneca
Ram Samudrala
L. Shelton Bumgarner (bum...@removethis.infi.net) wrote:
>r...@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) wrote:
>>I don't deny the Chinese government is far worse than the U.S.
>>government and I actually agree with a lot of U.S. government policy,
>>BUT I DO NOT THINK A GOVERNMENT IS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THIS POLICY.
>>People are already finding this out, and eventually my goal is to see
>>individual self-government above all else. Either humanity is capable
>>of this or they will become extinct.
>This reminds me of a TV show (new twilight zone or Amazing Stories, I
>forget which one) about a person who discovers the Meaning Of Life. It
>drives him crazy, but not before he's able to tell someone else...The
>end of the story has The Meaning Of Life read over a radio, which
>drives EVERYONE crazy.
>lee, who wonders if the FCC would permit that or not.
The FCC may or may not, but that decision shouldn't be made by them.
--Ram
email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
For my heart could not flee away from my heart, nor could I escape from
myself since wherever I ran, I should be following. ---St. Augustine
Ram Samudrala
L. Shelton Bumgarner (bum...@removethis.infi.net) wrote:
>>And you know, it is the younger people who are smarter than you
>>generally, not the other way around. You seem to think just because
>>you're older you know better.
>You mean I don't?
See what I mean? Yes, you don't. You remind me of Sally Jessy
Raphael (re. her shows with teenagers who disrespect authority).
--Ram
email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th
The suburbs are when they cut down all the trees
and then name the streets after them! ---Alfred E Neuman
Jaffo
In alt.religion.kibology, on Fri, 06 Jun 1997 05:00:23 GMT, LawyerBoy 0.01
wanted to share:
:tan...@aros.net (Stephen Tanner) wrote:
:
:
:<The neat thing about anarchists is you can keep beating the crap out
:<of them, and they won't call the police on principle.
:
:OK, I've just gotta .sig this.
Can we share?
Jaffo
--
The neat thing about anarchists is you can keep beating the crap out
of them, and they won't call the police on principle. -- SWT
Christopher J. Carrell
>
> >This is simply not true in our modern world. You live in in a
> >bottom-up la-la land.
>
> Huh? Almost every system outside of human beings exists in a
> bottom-up way. And with human civilisation, except for the Internet,
> I can't think of a case where bottom-up systems have been TRIED in the
> first place. The real world makes it hard to do so, but the Internet
> makes a bottom-up POSSIBLE, due to technology.
I can only think of one system that I'd make bottom-up. But that
bottle of Yuengling has to be top-down first. Would you like
coal dust with that?
Chris
--
Chris Carrell - Replace each _dot_ with . if you want to email me
"There are things one can do/with Ben-Gay, Nair and superglue/a package
of indelible dye/Why would a guy such as I ever buy indelible dye/
blue as the sky/Don't ask me why." - Heywood Banks
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Mon, 09 Jun 1997 02:48:16 GMT, L. Shelton Bumgarner
wanted to share:
:As I've said, it can and it will. The Feds can regulate interstate
:commerce.
It never ceases to amaze me. Watching people use Constitutional provisions
that were created to PREVENT the restriction of trade, to justify restriction
of trade.
The interstate commerce clause was written to protect free trade between the
states. Not to restrict it.
You've got it backwards, Lee.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 05:11:37 GMT, bum...@removethis.infi.net (L.
>Shelton Bumgarner) wrote:
>>liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>>.
>>
>>Uh, what about your typical conservative? They tend to want less
>>government, not more? In fact, one conservative recently introduced a
>>bill that would preclude any taxation of the Net. Period.
>>
>No, it would grant the federal government power to decide how the net
>will be taxed, not the states. And I don't consider laws telling me
>that I can't have sex with another consenting adult to be "less
>government". Conservatives are often worse hyopcrites than liberals --
>at least liberals openly state they want to run your life.
I agree with about conservatives but not Liberals. The slander that's
been said about Liberals needs to be noted and corrected.
>You don't need a law to say "You can't tax the net". You simply don't
>pass any net taxes. By making it a law, it is implied the government
>has the power to decide.
As I've said, it can and it will. The Feds can regulate interstate
commerce.
lee
L. Shelton Bumgarner
r...@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) wrote:
>L. Shelton Bumgarner (bum...@removethis.infi.net) wrote:
>>No, and you shouldn't be able to.
>Why not? I'm saying I should be able to. Why are you more right than I?
Well, my view works within the existing framework of our society.
Those who want to let their 6-year-old hear "cunt" on the radio while
they drive them to school in the morning are just out of luck. If we
go your route, it is likely people would simply not listen to the
radio. No more hearing Ozzy on the radio as you drive to defend your
doctoral thesis.
And we'd likely have less not more freedom if we had a "bottom-up"
society. Most people on the "bottom" aren't too fond of the word
"cunt" either, I fear.
>>This is simply not true in our modern world. You live in in a
>>bottom-up la-la land.
>Huh? Almost every system outside of human beings exists in a
>bottom-up way.
Hellooo, earth to Spock! Dija ever think there might be a REASON for
that? Humans are not subatomic particles. The last 10k years of human
cilivization and development seem to point to the fact that the only
way to allow both the majority and minority peace and quiet is to have
democratically elected "government." Of the people, by the people, for
the people. Lizard would say we need to strip down to loin cloths and
do battle rather than get even that form of government, but anyway.
> And with human civilisation, except for the Internet,
>I can't think of a case where bottom-up systems have been TRIED in the
>first place. The real world makes it hard to do so, but the Internet
>makes a bottom-up POSSIBLE, due to technology.
Well, you've simply not convinced me that a bottom-up system would be
worth the pain and trouble of implimentation. Regardless of what
conservatives, X-Files fans or anarchists would have us believe, the
US's current form of "government" seems to be doing pretty well. We
have stablity and a fair amount of responsiveness on the part of our
elected officials. What problems we do have come more from a lack of
political interest or willpower on the part of The People than a
problem with the Constitution. Our "hardcoded" communications protocal
of our "bottom down" organization system to use the terms of
Internetism.
lee "death and taxes" bumgarner
When you think about it, our government is pretty much bottom-up. I
vote (from the bottom) for the people who represent me "up" at the
top. They may then proceed to govern me from the "top" but as long as
they work within the system, I don't see a problem.
L. Shelton Bumgarner
liz...@mrlizard.com (Lizard) wrote:
>On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 05:11:01 GMT, bum...@removethis.infi.net (L.
>Shelton Bumgarner) wrote:
>>Steve Brinich <ste...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I would rather it be a government created problem and a private sector
>>>> created problem. We control the government.
>>
>>> Hence all the web-page icons thanking the government for responding
>>>to Netizen demand by passing the CDA.
>>
>>Oh, it is just so easy to see the negative even though
>>
>>FACT: the CDA will likely be overturned
>Speculation. Odds are, it will be upheld in part and overturned in
>part. But the SC could just punt and say that they'll handle abuses as
>they come up (i.e, striking down specific prosecutions under it) I
>grow less and less sanguine about the prospects of an easy victory.
Ok, agree to disagree. Time will tell.
>>FACT: if it isn't there are several bills in congress that would over
>>
>> turn it
>Which will never, never, never pass. No congressmen, other than maybe
>10, will vote to overturn a law which "protects our chuldren from
>pornography". He'd could never run for city dogcatcher after that.
Uh, no. That time has passed. If the bill is properly worded it should
pass without any problem.
>>FACT: the Internet Caucus exists so there will not be future CDA-like
>> bills written in the future.
>>
>Hah! The Internet Caucus exists to sidetrack politically active
>netizens.
Oh, ok. I've decided that sometimes "Discussing anything with fools is
foolish."
I suppose you could say the same of me, in your eyes.
lee
Jaffo
I'm sorry, I just can't take this anymore.
This is so sickening to me. This isn't about the net. Not to me. The net is
just the example.
The larger principle involved really scares the shit out of me. Take a minute
to think about email spam. Really think about it. It annoys you, right? It
takes your time, yes? You pay for your bandwidth, so it's taking your
property, too.
I understand that. I can even justify government action on Libertarian
principles, as long as theft or harm can be proven.
I believe you have the right to sue Sanford Wallace, or any other spammer, to
be compensated for the property he has taken from you. You are entitled to
compensation for the theft of your bandwidth.
But that's not what scares me. What scares me is how QUICKLY people are
willing to adopt the government solution.
Voluntary, technological methods exist to thwart spammers, and minimize the
property damage, but nobody really gives a damn about those methods.
We're a country so drunk on government that ANY problem, no matter how minor,
goes right on the government chopping block. Why bother working up
technological fixes when we can just MAKE people do what we want?
Why bother negotiating advertising standards and advocating boycotts when all
we have to do is pull a little lever and MAKE these bastards DO THE RIGHT
THING!
People are so bloodthirsty, and so lazy that they are EAGER to use force
against these people. Even if some degree of force is justified, I am
appalled to see force being advocated so eagerly by people here.
What scares me is how easy it is to get government to hurt people today. All
you have to do is run a few news stories, print a few articles, and get a few
names on a petition, and government will charge right on in to your rescue,
seizing assets and bashing heads with sadistic glee.
It's so easy for us to sit here at our keyboards and let government do our
dirty work for us.
Government will regulate the Internet, not because government is evil or
greedy or opportunistic, but because PEOPLE are eager to let government solve
all their problems for them.
People LOVE the magic power of the ballot box. The effortless power of
COERCION and FEAR. All you have to do is write a few letters and Washington
is full of men who are perfectly willing to send the goon squad to act against
technology they don't even fucking UNDERSTAND!
Don't you see, it's not Sanford Wallace that's getting hurt by your anger?
It's innocent people like Steve Jackson that suffer. Government is like a
genie in a bottle. It can grant any wish you want to make, but it is VERY
VERY hard to control! It interprets your wishes in ways you never intended.
Using government to regulate the internet is like using a nuclear weapon to
mow your lawn! Sure, you'll get rid of that annoying grass, but you'll take
out 7 city blocks in the process.
But people don't want to wait. They don't want to give technology and social
pressure time to solve this problem. They've got their hands on that magic
lever. The lever that says anything THEY want is MORALLY RIGHT god dammit!
And if we get enough people to pull that lever with us, we can do any fucking
thing we want.
People are so drunk on that power, they don't comprehend what they are about
to unleash.
Once you let the genie out of the bottle, he won't just confine his attention
to Sanford Wallace. He's so eager to grant your wishes, so empowered by the
RIGHTEOUS ANGER behind your will, he'll start looking at the 800 number in
your signature, the advertising links on your web page, and while he's poking
around, he might just decide he doesn't like those nudie pictures on your hard
drive.
But you don't care about that. You've got the power. You're angry,
self-righteous, and pissed off! These guys have cost you REAL MONEY god
dammit! AND YOU'RE GONNA MAKE THEM PAY!
No matter what it costs. For God's sake, people, the government is NOT A TOY!
It is not a magical genie in a lamp that you can rub whenever something pisses
you off! Government is a HUGE, POWERFUL, DANGEROUS force that should be
deployed with EXTREME CAUTION, and only when ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY!
This is a force that can destroy lives and nations. It can put you in jail,
break up your family, and take your house. It can break down the doors of
your business and take every damn thing you own. And you have to ram it in
the balls with a sledgehammer to even get an apology!
I'm begging you, people, don't be so quick to let this genie out of the
bottle. You don't know what you're fooling with.
Jaffo
--
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself.
Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels
in the forms of kings to govern him?" -- Thomas Jefferson
Jaffo
In alt.religion.kibology, on Sun, 08 Jun 1997 15:47:51 GMT, LawyerBoy 0.01 -
snip NOSPAM!! to reply wanted to share:
:LB... notoriously generous with stuff I've stolen.
Thatta boy!
Jaffo
In alt.politics.jaffo, on Mon, 09 Jun 1997 02:48:19 GMT, L. Shelton Bumgarner
wanted to share:
:r...@mbisgi.umd.edu (Ram Samudrala) wrote:
:
:>L. Shelton Bumgarner (bum...@removethis.infi.net) wrote:
:
:>>No, and you shouldn't be able to.
:
:>Why not? I'm saying I should be able to. Why are you more right than I?
:
:Well, my view works within the existing framework of our society.
:Those who want to let their 6-year-old hear "cunt" on the radio while
:they drive them to school in the morning are just out of luck.
What about people who want their children to hear political speeches on the
radio? Are they out of luck too, Lee? You don't have the authority to make
people into good parents, or to prevent them from being bad ones. All you can
do is keep people from hurting each other.
Once you think you have a right to meddle in the lives of strangers, there is
no end to the corruption. Once you decide that YOU know better than others
what is good for them, there is no limit to what you can accomplish.
Once you have the guns on your side, you can make them do whatever you want,
Lee. Where will you stop? Will you allow people to listen to Howard Stern?
Will you allow people to watch porno movies? Will you allow people to show
sex-ed videos to their kids?
Will you allow them to listen to "hate radio" and say bad words?
Or will you make all that go away, at the point of a gun?
What gives you the right to judge these people, Lee? What gives you the right
to HURT them if they don't run the world your way?
What happens the day after you law passes and Howard Stern says "cunt" on the
radio at 6am? Will you hit him on the back of the head with the rifle butt
yourself, or will you just hire somebody to do it for you?
:Well, you've simply not convinced me that a bottom-up system would be
:worth the pain and trouble of implimentation. Regardless of what
:conservatives, X-Files fans or anarchists would have us believe, the
:US's current form of "government" seems to be doing pretty well.
By what standard?
:We
:have stablity and a fair amount of responsiveness on the part of our
:elected officials.
Unless you want to say "cunt" on the radio at 6am. <G>
:What problems we do have come more from a lack of
:political interest or willpower on the part of The People than a
:problem with the Constitution.
:Our "hardcoded" communications protocal
:of our "bottom down" organization system to use the terms of
:Internetism.
:
:lee "death and taxes" bumgarner
:When you think about it, our government is pretty much bottom-up. I
:vote (from the bottom) for the people who represent me "up" at the
:top. They may then proceed to govern me from the "top" but as long as
:they work within the system, I don't see a problem.
Can you think of a situation where the majority might have voted for something
immoral?
HINT: Slavery.
Ted Frank
In article <339e7ead...@news.onramp.net>, Jaffo <ja...@onramp.net> wrote:
>:As I've said, it can and it will. The Feds can regulate interstate
>:commerce.
>
>It never ceases to amaze me. Watching people use Constitutional provisions
>that were created to PREVENT the restriction of trade, to justify restriction
>of trade.
And the Constitutional provision in question has prevented the
restriction of trade; think federal regulation will be problematic?
Imagine fifty jurisdictions trying to impose their standards nationwide.
>The interstate commerce clause was written to protect free trade between the
>states. Not to restrict it.
The interstate commerce clause was written to delegate powers between the
federal and state governments. That doing so would (and does) promote
nationwide trade was perhaps a reason behind the language in the
Constitution, but nations ratify text, not reasons.
Followups out of a.r.k.
--
"I could have drowned. Kennedy saved my life."
-- Robert Reich, "Locked in the Cabinet," using an
infelicitous aquatic metaphor to describe Senate hearings
Matt McIrvin
Ram Samudrala <r...@mbisgi.umd.edu> wrote:
> Huh? Almost every system outside of human beings exists in a
> bottom-up way.
Inside of a human being, it's too dark to read!
--
Font-o-Meter! Proportional Monospaced
^
http://world.std.com/~mmcirvin/
E.Holmes
On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 18:54:12 GMT, LawyerBoy 0.01 wrote in
alt.religion.kibology:
/<I see a great need.
/
/Same here. Esp. the orgy AND Bar-B-Q. I'm all over that.
Nah, I think it'll be all over you. ESP if the events
are concomitant.
E.(and I STILL have the best bbq sauce in the world)Holmes
E.Holmes
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997 03:25:54 GMT, LawyerBoy 0.01 - snip NOSPAM!! to reply
wrote in alt.religion.kibology:
/an individual or organization posting under the name of ja...@onramp.net
/(Jaffo) wrote:
/<Using government to regulate the internet is like using a nuclear weapon
/<to mow your lawn! Sure, you'll get rid of that annoying grass, but
/<you'll take out 7 city blocks in the process.
/
/If somebody does this, I'm betting on *9* city blocks. Anybody else want
/any of this action?
Pish posh. With a properly set low-yield engineering nuke,
you could limit the effects to a single building or bridge.
On the other hand, a nice 100 MT could flatten most of a
city, but the suburbs would merely burn - but only far
enough out from GZ or the return overpressure wind would
just put out the initial fires. Twenty miles from a big
ol' strategic nuke would NOT be a pleasant environment.
E.(the nice thing about Ground Zero is you don't have time to worry)Holmes
--
There is no system problem that cannot be solved by removing users &
deleting their files. Even on Windows 3.1. --- Francesco Benvenuto
E.Holmes
On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 06:30:36 GMT, Lizard wrote in [followups reset]:
/In any event, as a matter of living in the putative real world,
/government isn't structured to 'prevent' problems, nor is it good at
/solving them. It excels at creating false problems, such as 'flag
/burning' or 'partial birth abortions', which distracts everyone from
/focusing on real problems. THAT is the job of government, and it does
/it quite well.
Ahem. Excuse me for interrupting the flow of the flamewar here,
but "it" (referring to the government) doesn't create anything.
"It" responds to issues that people (you know, those little
individual beings that gang up on each other now and then)
bring up before "it" because THEY (those people-like-substances)
thought said issues were problems. Whether the alleged issues
are properly handled at government level (and to which govt level
they might properly belong) or elsewhere is a legitimate debate.
But referring to the government as some detached, independent
entity is just stupid. A government is made of people, and a
democratic representative government especially so.
E.(IHNJH, IJLS "PEOPLE! IT'S MADE OF PEOPLE!!!")Holmes
E.Holmes
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, LawyerBoy 0.01 - snip NOSPAM!! to reply wrote in
alt.religion.kibology:
/< Your name is exhibiting itself in weird forms.
/
/I'm afraid to ask... but what does it come out like? Like a pro
/circumcision advert or something? ::shudder::
Circumcision has been highly underrated. I would explain
why, but I don't think I should give details on a family
newsgroup like alt.sex.aesthetics.
/< Why bother. We already got all the pix you could ever want.
/
/GIF, GIF, GIF!!1!
Vy wud I gif them to you?
/< Oh - I guess the general public doesn't get many chances
/< to glom 'em though. Even though they aren't classified
/< anymore. I don't think.
/
/I guess it's off to AltaVista for me then. Are there any of cities
/getting leveled? With houses and buildings and towers and stuff getting
/leveled? That I gotta see.
Yeah, but only alien cities on other planets. No one was ever
allowed to photograph Earth cities being leveled. But there's
this really great one sucking up a considerable chunk of the
Pacific. <sigh>
E.(noting that H2O doesn't make nearly as much fallout as streets
and jeeps and puppy dog tails)Holmes
--
DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we all dance to its music.
cl...@igate.iohk.com (clam)
Karlo Takki
In article <33ac4f67...@news.onramp.net>
eho...@onramp.net (E.Holmes) writes:
> Um, you don't *deliver* that kind. You go and set them up
> just like configuring TNT. Which is what it's replacing.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You'll never guess how I first (mis)read this.
> PS Pants! No-Pants! Pantsless! Coffee!
NEWSGROUPS WHERE PEOPLE TALK ABOUT: beable
Confidence Newsgroup
99% sci.physics
54% alt.religion.kibology
27% soc.religion.hindu
18% ba.jobs.offered
10% comp.sys.amiga.misc
9% comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.flight-sim
8% alt.autos.camaro.firebird
7% rec.games.frp.cyber
--k.
LawyerBoy 0.001
an individual or organization posting under the name of eho...@onramp.net
(E.Holmes) wrote:
<On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, LawyerBoy 0.01 - snip NOSPAM!! to reply wrote in
<alt.religion.kibology:
<
</< Your name is exhibiting itself in weird forms.
</I'm afraid to ask... but what does it come out like? Like a pro
</circumcision advert or something? ::shudder::
< Circumcision has been highly underrated. I would explain
< why, but I don't think I should give details on a family
< newsgroup like alt.sex.aesthetics.
In his recent HBO special, Howie Mandel (yeah, yeah, I know) made
reference to a friend that converted to Judaism as an adult. Time
for that circumsicion now!
Millions gasped simultaneously around the teevee viewing world and the
simultaneous inhalation combined with the concomittant "Yikes!" resulted
in a series of F5 tornadoes parading around the MidWest and Central Texas.
People got hurt, Howie! Stop the Madness!!!
</< Why bother. We already got all the pix you could ever want.
</
</GIF, GIF, GIF!!1!
<
< Vy wud I gif them to you?
Doh! I wud gif you money for them.
</I guess it's off to AltaVista for me then. Are there any of cities
</getting leveled? With houses and buildings and towers and stuff getting
</leveled? That I gotta see.
< Yeah, but only alien cities on other planets. No one was ever
< allowed to photograph Earth cities being leveled. But there's
< this really great one sucking up a considerable chunk of the
< Pacific. <sigh>
Ooh! I love watching the Bikini Beach Blanket Bingo Atoll go "Poof!"
It only pisses me off when the French do it. Like they'd ever fight
anybody.
<E.(noting that H2O doesn't make nearly as much fallout as streets
<and jeeps and puppy dog tails)Holmes
Esp. the puppy dog tails. Does anybody know what's IN those things?!?
It's not *bone* is it? If it is, then how awful is that for the
Dobermans? Ewww!
And it's not like it's just "fat in a skinny sack of skin" either.
There's like SOMETHING IN THERE!
Maybe reconstituted, rehydrogenated meat by-product?
--
LawyerBoy 0.001 | http://www.neosoft.com/~jjsims/
----------------------------------------------------
alt.texas.highplains: The *real* Septic Tank of Usenet!(TM)
Ask for it by name! | "We don't need no stinkin' FAQ!"
Matt McIrvin
LawyerBoy 0.01 - snip NOSPAM!! to reply <jjsims@NOSPAM!!neosoft.com>
wrote:
> Maybe a CGI-image map of the world (Mercator map?) with a clickable index
> of Kibologists' home(countries, states, cities) would be do-able.
I'm sorry. The Mercator projection, used in every map ever made by evil
giant ethnocentric map companies, is EVIL! EVIL! By vastly magnifying
the sizes of Greenland and Antarctica, it expresses a deep chauvinism in
favor of these heavily industrialized areas of the world. Also, the
Mercator projection always puts the United States in the exact center,
by virtue of its arbitrary placement on the Greenwich Village meridian,
when in fact it is closer to the edge.
(Some manufacturers may insist that they do *not* in fact use Mercator
maps, but our research indicates that their projections are actually
just Mercator projections with additional, camouflaging mathematical
distortions applied!)
Instead it is urgent that we encourage atlases and classrooms to use the
McIrvin projection, the only equal-area map projection yet discovered.
Well, the only rectangular one. Well, at least, the only rectangular one
that is taller than it is wide, thereby accomodating the Golden Mean and
the natural orthography of the elongated human form! Accept no
substitutes.
The McIrvin projection represents all nations fairly by giving them the
only *fair and democratic* allotment of surface area, one that gives
equal area to all peoples, all principal products, all economic systems,
and all languages and religions, namely *zero* area. Other map
projections attempt to represent the curved Earth accurately by
introducing interruptions into the flat map. This may only be done with
perfect fidelity, however, by introducing an *infinite number* of
interruptions. This the McIrvin projection does by representing the
Earth's surface as a Cantor dust of discontiguous points. While this
results in a *countable* number of points, of lower cardinality than the
Earth's surface, the points omitted are also omitted in *standard*
geographic atlases, as simply proven by looking in the index. Do you see
any *irrational* latitudes or longitudes? NO!
The map is printed in convenient, portable form, as a perforated roll of
thin paper mounted on an axle (11.43 cm x 10.16 cm, 250 pages/roll),
eliminating the difficulties in folding conventional maps. It is
recycled (over 1% post-consumer content), biodegradable, and 2-ply, and
is available in "under-the-roll" and "over-the-roll" editions. Also
available are the pocket-size Student Edition (with FREE bonus of
"Mappin'", the Lively Game of Culturally Sensitive Map Projections), the
special Travel Edition in individual sheets (courtesy Amtrak), the Grand
Potentate Edition in extra-wide, gilt-edged paper and mahogany axle, and
the US MILSPEC Edition in fine, coarse, and carborundum. John Sladek
will now explain the joke.
E.Holmes
On 13 Jun 1997 05:39:22 GMT, Steven Ehrbar wrote in alt.religion.kibology:
/My question is -- can a Christian who was circumcised as an infant (like
/happens to most Americans) convert and become an Orthodox Jew? I mean,
/isn't there some sort of ritual to a proper circumcision that unfortunately
/could not be performed?
/
/Gazebo,
/A confused Catholic.
Don't worry so much. Ritual or not, circumcision is NOT in same
category with, say, Confirmation. You won't have to stand before
the congregation and have oil and water poured over your penis
while the rabbi says a blessing. Really.
E.(wondering if this is how religious misunderstandings get started)Holm3s
--
"Usenet was founded by people who took everything everyone
else doesn't care about too seriously." --- Lee Bumgarner
Kevin P. Neal
kta...@artcrime.com (Karlo Takki) wrote:
>In article <33ac4f67...@news.onramp.net>
>eho...@onramp.net (E.Holmes) writes:
>> Um, you don't *deliver* that kind. You go and set them up
>> just like configuring TNT. Which is what it's replacing.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>You'll never guess how I first (mis)read this.
>> PS Pants! No-Pants! Pantsless! Coffee!
>NEWSGROUPS WHERE PEOPLE TALK ABOUT: beable
> 10% comp.sys.amiga.misc
Here we are again!
Amiga people rule.
--
XCOMM Kevin P. Neal, Junior, Comp. Sci. - House of Retrocomputing
XCOMM mailto:kpn...@pobox.com - http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/
XCOMM kpn...@eos.ncsu.edu Spoken by Keir Finlow-Bates:
XCOMM "Good grief, I've just noticed I've typed in a rant. Sorry chaps!"