Rachel Maddow Talkin Shit about Obama+Indefinite Detention[Warning, political thread]

[guerilla]

I believe that habeus corpus only applies to American Citizens, but i could be wrong on that.

Habeus Corpus is considered a universal right in every western democracy. It is based on the civil code established in the Magna Carta of 1215. Most western law is based on British common law.

Habeas corpus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting timeline data in that section for anyone who is curious about the current state of habeus corpus.

 

[erisch]

First of all. There is regulation in every single industry out there. Deregulation is simply less regulation. I'm not talking about more regulation, simply different regulation. I want my Internet out of the hands of American crony capitalists.

By demonstrating that American is a lower quality democracy where businesses have the power to influence policies, I am hoping you will see that a supra national organisation would be better suited. Or better yet, let Brussels take care of it!

 

[erisch]

Most western law is not based on British common law. In fact, most western law is based on civil law or code law (more countries, don't know about population).

 

[guerilla]

Most western law is not based on British common law. In fact, most western law is based on civil law or code law (more countries, don't know about population).

oh FFS

Medieval English common law: foundations for 21st century legal systems

 

[erisch]

From the same page.

The main alternative to the common law system is the civil law system, which is used in Continental Europe, and most of the rest of the world. The former Soviet Bloc and other Socialist countries used a Socialist law system (some of them use civil law system, for example, Lithuania).

You make it too easy for me.

 

[xmcp123]

Before I start, I'd like to declare this thread both fantastic, and completely derailed.

This is actually quite interesting. Let me tell you what is going on in Singapore and Malaysia. There is this thing called the Internal Security Act which basically let's the government detain people for an extended (2yrs) period of time without a prosecution. Both countries are considered semi-democracies for this reason. A semi-democracy is when either proper election or civil liberties are missing. You guys are moving towards becoming a semi-democracy.

You've already failed. Democracy has nothing to do with detention periods. Our issue with this is our constitution. And either way, we're a representative democracy. And yes, there is a difference.

When it comes to the censoring of the Internet here in backwards Australia, what else would you expect?

You mean the same Australia that would not only still have the right to regulate the internet within it's borders, but would also likely have a seat on the international board you propose? Ohhh yeah.

Remember that post a while back where some numbnut claimed the Internet belonged to the US, and some of you guys jumped on a bandwagon claiming that I was "preaching" false commoditization through government regulation? Well, guess what?

Alright let's have fun.

Censorship in Australia

Done by the government.

confiscated domains in the US, US businesses "influencing" Swedish police and legals in the case agains TPB, the list goes on.

You mean the police that are part of the government? Or do you mean the judges that are part of the government?
Or maybe you mean the lawyers that were trained in the ways of the government?
Or the prosecutors trained in the ways of the government, and employed by the government?
Or the international lobbies that can so obviously easily impact the government?
Or the government that passed the draconian and unclear laws that led to this situation, never realizing their full implications or needed clarifications?

This is why we want the Internet to be governed and regulated by a supra national organisation that is insulated from crony capitalists.

You mean you want to establish a central place for the crony capitalists to lobby?

You can try to pick my argument apart, but I would have to say that if you do not agree with me, you do not understand what I am talking about.

Yeah, allow me to bow to your superior knowledge of the internet and government. Oh wait!

• I've been online pretty much since I could wipe my own ass
• I worked in IT for the government in high school(and both my parents are gov't workers)
• I follow politics voraciously
• I've had a datacenter raided (years and years ago, by a foreign govt)
• I spent most of my high school and early college career in the underbelly(unregulated) section of the internet to the level that a certain anti-everything organization(who knows only what I did, not what I do now) occasionally recommends me as a source for mainstream media when they fuck shit up(note: never believe anything that comes from Wired, those guys are fucktards)
• I've rented servers in over a dozen countries, and by now probably half my old ICQ list has been arrested (by the same govts you'd want to give control to).

Seriously, I'm not that knowledgeable about too many things. But I know governments, I know regulation, I know the internet, and I know you are so far out of your league it's insane.

Everything any government touches online turns to shit. The United States has a more non-interventionist approach than you could ever hope to see in any coalition. Most regulation they try fails horribly.
And that's the way it should be.

Even in your own statements, you admit the problem is that the corporations can so easily influence the government(as in sweden) so why would you want to give the governments more control? Corporations can't legislate on an internet-wide basis right now. That's all gov't control will achieve. Making it easier for lobbyists because there's no competition, and a central place to lobby.

 

[guerilla]

First of all.

You are thread jacking completely.

There is regulation in every single industry out there.

And...

Deregulation is simply less regulation.

And...

I'm not talking about more regulation, simply different regulation.

No, you are talking about more and different regulation. The internet doesn't need any regulation. It is self-regulating. It is a free market. Competition and incentives drive innovation and conflict resolution.

I want my Internet out of the hands of American crony capitalists.

And hand it to the globalist Euro trash. Uhm, no thanks. Americans are not using the power they have to advance an agenda. The European Union has already expressed a desire to do so if they could get a slice of the action.

Keep government the fuck off the internet or they will ruin it.

By demonstrating that American is a lower quality democracy where businesses have the power to influence policies

All democracies by definition undermine property rights by mob rule (voting). This inevitably leads to the politicization of property rights, which inevitably attracts special interest (crony capitalist) money to the politicians.

The problem is democracy. There is no such thing as a high quality democracy, because a democracy would be pointless if it couldn't fuck with property rights.

I am hoping you will see that a supra national organisation would be better suited.

No, a global oligarchical bureaucratic monopoly is not better than American control. At least if America goes sideways, other countries can take over portions. By putting it in the hands of a monopoly, there will be no way to stop them from fucking up the net. There will be no competition, and no accountability.

Or better yet, let Brussels take care of it!

Yeah, because the Treaty of Lisbon has been voted down 3 times, and like all good bureaucracies, they are going to disregard their own Constitution, ignore democratic results and do what they want anyway.

Thanks for making my point.

Anyone who thinks that bureaucrats and politicians are more trustworthy than businessmen needs a swift kick in the ass. There is pretty much no group of people lower than politicians except perhaps unelected bureaucrats and pedophiles.

 

[guerilla]

From the same page.

They list the alternatives. Bravo. Your quote did not disprove my statement.

I'll repeat it for you.

Most western law is based on British common law.

Not continental Europe. Not Eastern Europe. The West. Most of it.

 

[guerilla]

That's all gov't control will achieve. Making it easier for lobbyists because there's no competition, and a central place to lobby.

Hallelujah!

 

[erisch]

Let's get this thread back on track again.

The Internal Security Act of Singapore and Malaysia allows the government to detain people for extended periods of time. Needless to say, this power was abused during Suharto's time in Malaysia and heavily used during Lee Kuan Yew's time as Prime Minister in Singapore.

Internal Security Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the US Internal Security Act was to be revamped the way it is described by Rachel Maddow then what have we got? A president that can call for Martial Law and detain political opponents or media doesn't sound like a really good idea to me.

 

[xmcp123]

First of all. There is regulation in every single industry out there. Deregulation is simply less regulation. I'm not talking about more regulation, simply different regulation. I want my Internet out of the hands of American crony capitalists.

Yeah, the kind of regulation that works. Fuck that. I like my wild west.

By demonstrating that American is a lower quality democracy where businesses have the power to influence policies, I am hoping you will see that a supra national organisation would be better suited. Or better yet, let Brussels take care of it!

You mean the same brussels(belgium) who are tied with the United States on the Corruption Perceptions Index?
And since you guys aren't the ones doing the bribing, I think it's a fair bet to say your beloved brussels would is quite fine accepting international bribes.
Edit: Easier to summarize with this: US = Less Corrupt.

It's the devil you know or the devil you don't. And right now the devil in the United States seems to be in a coma, so don't fuck with it.

 

[xmcp123]

Let's get this thread back on track again.

this is the second time you've been in a convo about the g20 control of the internet, then cut it off as soon as you would've had to support your views in any rational way.
If Turbo and her man-boob trigger finger are ok with it, I'd be 100% fine letting this thread derail to continue this.

I could use some fresh meat. I've been sick for 2 days, I'm grumpy, and I got all night.

 

[erisch]

Sigh..

Brussels refer to the official seats of the EU, not Belgium.

My point is that whoever regulates the Internet should be insulated from interest seekers. Your point seems to be that you want the Internet to remain the way it is. Most likely it will remain the way it is for quite some time, but after that time is over I think it would be fair for most people if they were all represented by whoever regulates the Internet. Is there anything wrong with that?

 

[LogicFlux]

Sigh..

Brussels refer to the official seats of the EU, not Belgium.

My point is that whoever regulates the Internet should be insulated from interest seekers. Your point seems to be that you want the Internet to remain the way it is. Most likely it will remain the way it is for quite some time, but after that time is over I think it would be fair for most people if they were all represented by whoever regulates the Internet. Is there anything wrong with that?

This is the second thread in which you managed to turn the topic to how much the US sucks and how awesome it would be if the EU controlled the internet. Why don't you just create your own retarded thread on that topic and bump it whenever you're feeling particularly insecure such as when the neighbor girl rejects your advances?

 

[xmcp123]

Sigh..

Brussels refer to the official seats of the EU, not Belgium.

I'll admit my American is showing on that one. Honestly though, what I said applies to a pretty high percentage of the EU, aside from places like Luxembourg or Switzerland.

My point is that whoever regulates the Internet should be insulated from interest seekers.

But that is impossible. Name one thing EVER that was insulated from interest seekers. There's even a capitalist angle on mother teresa

Your point seems to be that you want the Internet to remain the way it is. Most likely it will remain the way it is for quite some time, but after that time is over I think it would be fair for most people if they were all represented by whoever regulates the Internet.
Is there anything wrong with that?

Yes. First off, that was not what you said in the slightest.

By demonstrating that American is a lower quality democracy where businesses have the power to influence policies, I am hoping you will see that a supra national organisation would be better suited.

^---that has nothing to do with the future.
But beyond that

1. The minute what you say happens, the internet is over. It's another television with strictly controlled message.
2. The only large-scale things I've ever seen europe successfully come together to is either kill off the other half of europe, or make the euro.
3. Life isn't always fair. Suck it up princess. Arpanet was ours, the TCP-IP stack was ours, and even the open version of TCP-IP (BSD) came out of the University of California.
4. I'll save you a seat on whatever reinforced/heavily armed pickup me, guerilla and popeye will be cavorting/revolting around in if regulation ever hits the level you seem to think it will. But the G20 taking control is not an option. (Dibs on shotgun seat!)

 

[guerilla]

If thread jack has green light...

Sigh..

Brussels refer to the official seats of the EU

Any comment on the Lisbon Treaty, rejection by 3 electorates, and they are still going to implement it anyway? These are the fucking authoritarian scumbags you want to give 100% control of the internet to?

My point is that whoever regulates the Internet should be insulated from interest seekers.

Decentralization (freedom) is the only way to protect something. When you start to control and regulate it, you remove not just the moral sense of freedom, but the practical capacity of a free system to evolve and change when threatened. Like domesticating a wild animal, you remove the very things that allow it to protect itself against predators.

If you try to lock up control of the internet, whoever has that control, will be assailed by every commercial force to implement policy that favors them at the expense of the people using and building the net. History is loaded with these examples. Your intentions are great, but your method is counter-intuitive.

Sadly, most people hold counter-intuitive ideas about regulation and government.

Your point seems to be that you want the Internet to remain the way it is.

What is wrong with how the net is now?

Most likely it will remain the way it is for quite some time, but after that time is over I think it would be fair for most people if they were all represented by whoever regulates the Internet.

You're not listening (or reading). What would be fair is for the users to regulate the net for the themselves.

What greater representation can you get, than direct democracy based on how much you upload, download, contribute, what hardware you have etc? What could be more meritorious than a system where people vote by the value they provide to other users? That's pretty much what we have now. Why on earth would you want to make it some sort of socialized system where all sites are equal or there are price controls which disrupt market allocation of resources and create shortages?

This is so frustrating because you just keep repeating the same thing over and over, without ever addressing a single, rational, cogent economic point!

Is there anything wrong with that?

Kill me now.

 

[erisch]

I went to KFC, died a little inside, and came back to this... I think it might take a little while to discuss if neither of you will accept any of my arguments.

I'd also like to point out that so far in our discussion I have refrained from any cheap shots even though there have been plenty of opportunities.

I'd like to turn the argument around a little to have a look at your side. Clearly Europe is far from flawless. Placing the responsibility of governing or regulating the Internet in the hands of the European Commission would probably not be much better than the current situation. Italy is probably the least transparent country among all the western countries. Silvio Berlusconi, PM of Italy, is like Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand, only worse. The complexity of code law makes it a bit more difficult and less flexible for businesses to operate in Europe.

However, a supra national bureaucratic agency adhering to code law agreed upon by member nations (essentially regulated) would leave very little room for interest seekers to influence it. Changes in code law legislation takes time to implement, likely longer than any political term for important matters, which means that any one business, industry or government would not be able to do much. The reason for that is that with parliamentary multiparty systems governments are formed through coallitions.

My question to you: Do you see an advantage of having an agency or organisation as described above governing an industry that surpasses national boundaries, or would you still prefer to have one hegemon state representing 4.5% of the population doing it?

 

[erisch]

Oh, and by the way, the population of western countries with code law is 770 mill, and the population of western countries with common law is about 385 mill, or half.

 

[guerilla]

However, a supra national bureaucratic agency adhering to code law agreed upon by member nations (essentially regulated) would leave very little room for interest seekers to influence it.

Like the IMF? Or the WorldBank?

Are you familiar with John Perkins?

Puleeze.

Changes in code law legislation takes time to implement, likely longer than any political term for important matters, which means that any one business, industry or government would not be able to do much. The reason for that is that with parliamentary multiparty systems governments are formed through coallitions.

But as seen by the EU, supra governments do everything with bureaucrats, not elected party members forming coalitions.

I will bring it up for a 3rd time, the EU is blatantly ignoring 3 down votes on the Lisbon Treaty, the people have spoken, and yet the EU is violating its own mandate and proceeding with its own agenda.

You haven't proposed (not that I am interested in the least) who this agency will answer to, and how people will be selected to it, or who funds it. These are the key issues that will undermine it's authority.

Next, you have not even made a case for what purpose this would serve, other than to wrestle control of something left uncontrolled from Americans. What precisely is lacking in the American control of the internet? What have been the failures, frauds and shortcomings?

My question to you: Do you see an advantage of having an agency or organisation as described above governing an industry that surpasses national boundaries, or would you still prefer to have one hegemon state representing 4.5% of the population doing it?

It's a loaded question with a false premise. There is no advantage to taking control of something away from a republic or democracy, to place it in the hands of bureaucrats. You haven't identified a need, you haven't identified a purposeful notion for this idea.

You just keep repeating yourself over and over, again ignoring any intelligent social or economic theory put forth in contrast.

Personally, I'd like to see what political control is left, privatized and sold off from government so that it can be owned by a party with a profit motive, rather than a political motive.

 

[erisch]

Not like the IMF, not like the World Bank. John Perkins? Nope, haven't heard of him, but I think I'll read his books and watch Zeitgeist.

The Lisbon Treaty was not ratified. So what. The EU is not a country. It is a multilateral trade agreement with high enough integration to almost make it a political union. What is missing, is the constitution. I don't see a point in rushing that. The member countries have stable domestic policies anyway.

Japan's former Ministry of International Trade and Industry was a bureaucratic agency consisting of non-elected bureaucrats. It was successful because it was meritocratic.

I am restating my arguments hoping that you will acknowledge them.

Some current reading:
Reding wants globally responsible, privatised ICANN - Foreign - The Sofia Echo Details how it could be done.
European Union Asks Obama To Free ICANN Shows how it is a current issue.
Gaining a Stake in Global Internet Governance: The EU, ICANN and Strategic Norm Manipulation -- Christou and Simpson 22 (2): 147 -- European Journal of Communication Didn't read this one, but it seemed official

We can discuss the much more interesting economics side of this after I finish preparing a presentation for tomorrow.