That's a perfectly reasonable reaction to what's been going on, far as I'm concerned. If you're not mad, you don't have a pulse.

This needs to go to the top, and stay there, until the rest of the population hears it. Sad that it won't, but it should.

Henry Rollins for president, anyone?

The Constitution has born a heavy trampling for about the last 70 years. Sorry guys, it was great while it lasted but it just couldn't hold up to time. Politics is about changing the status quo and a good deal of the powers used to execute these changes at the national level are not provided for in the Constitution.

As an example, this speaker says that telcoms should not be allowed to charge money to carry your site traffic, presumably in reference to the "tiered" internet issue. Now, what the telcoms decide to do with their own property is an action of the free market. There is no proposal for a law that would "allow" telcoms to charge tiered rates for traffic because such a thing is presently within their rights. To satisfy his objections would require legislative action restricting telcoms use of their private infrastructure. That sounds like restricting freedom to me, and further it's not a power provided for in the Constitution, except under a very liberal interpretation of the commerce clause.

I won't say it's dead yet, but it's been dying for a long, long time. And both "sides" take their turns at the killing.

--Joe

Joe, the commerce clause IS liberally interpreted. Otherwise we wouldn't have any of the civil rights bills. Like it or not, the Constitution is a living, interpreted document, and it would be stupidity to amend the text and jeopardize the case law that's been developed in the last 50 years.

The information you're denying the readership here is that the Telcos did NOT pay for that infrastructure out of their own pockets - it was heavily subsidized by tax dollars, so it really IS the property of the people, not to be alienated for the benefit of private interests. Should we subject commerce and trade on the internet to free market forces? Of course! That's what's currently happening, and it's caused a massive rise in productivity.

The government will usually only step in to maximize competitiveness across industries - to allow Telcos to establish a monopoly market would not be in the interest of free markets as a whole and would definitely not be in the interests of freedom - thus, the government should not act against the interests of efficient markets and give the Telcos an undeserved windfall.

You raise some good points.

"it would be stupidity to amend the text and jeopardize the case law that's been developed in the last 50 years."

I don't propose such action. I'm simply pointing out that there isn't a side that respects freedom, or the constitution. There isn't a side that threatens our freedom in particular. Both sides take their liberties with the Constitution. Let us not forget that it was a Democrat who instituted domestic concentration camps explicitly for American citizens and residents.

I think you're right, it would be stupidity to re-interpret the commerce clause. But I also believe that it was wrong to liberally interpret it in the first place, and that every law passed on the authority of that interpretation violates the Constitution. The Constitution grants the federal government only the powers explicitly listed in the first three articles.

"it was heavily subsidized by tax dollars, so it really IS the property of the people"

Now that is something that you're going to have to prove. Does public subsidisation equal public ownership? Are American farmers beholden to the will of the people because they rely on subsidisation? The government can't tell you what to do with your degree, subsidized by tax dollars. It's compelling to think that because we payed for it we own it, but I don't think that's true. Why do you suggest it in this case? The purpose of subsidisation is to encourage markets, not to purchase them.

Now, if I understand correctly, there are certain unfulfilled conditions that were attached to the money, but leaving them unfulfilled does not bring the telcoms under the purview of the federal government.

"The government will usually only step in to maximize competitiveness across industries - to allow Telcos to establish a monopoly market would not be in the interest of free markets as a whole and would definitely not be in the interests of freedom"

The federal government steps in not to maximize competitiveness but to enforce standing anti-trust legislation. The telcoms are not attempting to form a trust and hence do not fall under these laws.

My greater point here is that this man's anger is not well placed. There is a much greater malaise upon our nation, of which recent developments are only a symptom.

--Joe

Both comments above are really great. Raise some important issues.

"That sounds like restricting freedom to me, and further it's not a power provided for in the Constitution, except under a very liberal interpretation of the commerce clause."

There is a problem in society when companies become entities in the real world, we assume they share the same rights that apply to people. But of course they don't. Companies don't have feelings and or obligations, how can an inanimate object have the same rights that apply to a human being? As Yehoshua, said the infrastructure that is provided was heavily subsidized by the goverment, so it's not theirs to own.

For example, Enron shorted the California electrical market by selectively shutting down plants and thus boosting the price of electricity. That's why there were rolling blackouts, there was never a shortage of power in California.

One can argue that it was their right because it was their power stations.

But is that beneficial to society? To Economic development? Of course not...

-------------------------------------

I just saw the rebuttal above, I would support your view if the goverment was doing a proper job in implementing it's anti-trust policies, as the mass deregulation in the FCC shows they haven't obviously. And this is after we nearly deregulated the entire energy market...

I will agree with you 100% on your example of power in California. As a utility company they are locally regulated and I believe they should be accountable to the people.

I'll agree with you 50% on the rest, though. (; A corporation is not a person by itself, but it is an entity representing the combined efforts of many people. I will agree that corporations often accumulate power disproportionate to their effort, and exercise it with disproportionately little responsibility. But I think that most redress lies at the state level, the level at which corporations exist.

I'm morbidly curious as to how far the internet could be regulated, and how far people could be pushed to adapt to a different format before they do.

"But I think that most redress lies at the state level, the level at which corporations exist."

I would agree with that. But clearly this, just like many other topics of interest to the American public never get addressed.

You must understand that my dissatisfaction of the current legal definition of corporations mean that they are not at all accountable for creating effects that are well beyond their control or jurisdiction. By stating that the company is the 'entity' responsible, instead of any CEO or board member, any real accountability is lost. The moment you lose accountability it opens the door for pursuit of profits at the expense of everything else, even the welfare of the company or it's state of origin.

Look at the defense that Enron tried to push through, that it was a problem that none of them foresaw or had any knowledge off when in reality it's pretty clear they were all involved; Enron, it's banks, investors and their accountants.

So what happens then?

Accountability becomes a dollar payment to the goverment. But when you are a MNC, the maximum fines the goverment can throw at you are peanuts...

Ah, Rollins, just as much a businessman as those he pretends to rail against.

Question his judgment and soundness of mind, since he published book after book by Bill Shields, (2.13.61 Press) an author who claimed to be a Special Forces Vietnam Vet but who was later exposed as a fraud who never set foot in Vietnam.

The one man who had the right to question Shields's credentials didn't.

Now he expects others to believe what he believes, without question.

Two words, Hank: Johnny Mnemonic.

I'll concede all points. I think that it's an unfortunate symptom of the modern human condition.

There are some cases, of course, where officers cross the legal line and can be tried. I'd like to see greater use of punitive dissolution, personally. A sort of corporate death penalty if you will. (; Share holders receive auction value of office property, thanks for playing. I think that would help keep everyone in line.

Yes, the current system is broken.

--Joe

WTF?!? Maybe Mr. Rollins, the noted constitutional scholar that he is, can explain to me how charging some one to maintain their website is an affront to democracy. Interestingly, this very same Mr. Rollins, who is so interested in our constitutional liberties, has done a number of anti-gun advertisements.

Joe is correct in just about everything that he says, culminating in -" There is a much greater malaise upon our nation, of which recent developments are only a symptom."-

Joe, you are absolutely right, however, you may not agree with why I think you are right. I think the malaise is in who we focus our attention on. Mr. Rollins likes to criticize rightwing Christians, not because the are the real problem, but because he personally dislikes them and they are easy targets. He is not likely to be shot by any of them. Just ask Andres Serrano.

However, if you are truly worried about you civil liberties you should keep your eyes elsewere, Maybe the GWOT that Mr. Rollins so casually mocks.

"Henry Rollins for president, anyone?"
or someone else, half as entertaining a transition-we've had a movie star, a general(s), any manner of manifestation including punk rocker, sociologist, nerd-power-lifter, out-of-the-closet, media whore anarchist....par for the chaos.

I like the cut of his jib...pissed and deservedly so.

allblacks: Thank you, and in fact I do agree.

choggie: I think the recent Onion headline said it best: The Last Thing America Needs is Another President.

--Joe

w00t i love it when you guys go on these really long discussions. the essence of debate and thus democracy and freedom at its best.
personally, as a wild and crazy idea, for the sake of efficiency and simplicity i believe that there needs to be a "condensing" of US federal law and the constitution. I'm not saying that it should be edited or changed, just simplified, and rewritten, incorporating all of the new laws and amendments enacted since the original writing of the constitution, maybe we can throw out bogus and outdated laws from earlier times.
thats my 2cents.

How about taking each bogus law currently enforced, and trading them, one for one, with arcane, extant, unenforced for decades, laws scattered around the country on state books-
For instance, we can trade decriminalization of controlled substances, for saaaaay, Tennessees' sodomy laws!

Right on Henry!

Sorry, is he rapping or something?

Good message, boring angry video

I agree with Krupo. The negativity of this guy doesn't impress me.

*dead

Gold Star invocations (dead) cannot be executed by bizinichi because bizinichi is not a Gold Star member - sorry.

*dead

Gold Star invocations (dead) cannot be executed by gorgonheap because gorgonheap is not a Gold Star member - sorry.

*dead

The link to this video has been flagged as dead. Fix it within 7 days or it will be discarded (dead called by gold star member farhad2000)

Discarding this video. It was flagged as dead but not flagged undead within 7 days.