I don't want to go too far, but according to Wikipedia's article on rape "the World Health Organization defined it in 2002 as 'physically forced or otherwise coerced penetration – even if slight – of the vulva or anus, using a penis, other body parts or an object'".
Is it a mistake to use that definition here? Obviously the local law is relevant in legal proceedings and I want to respect survivors of sexual assault, but what else do we call it?
Those doctors are screwed. I'd personally sue each and every one of them. If only to stop them from cooperating with the police ever again. Then I'd request the police and doctors be charged with assault. And then demand the doctors' licenses be revoked and the police officers' badges revoked.
Qualified immunity goes a long, long way; and even beyond that, a court issued a warrant for this, which means it's got more than just the usual "in the course of their duties" cover going on.
KOB News 4 have found another case - maybe it's regular practice round there?
"Our investigation reveals another chapter. Another man, another minor traffic violation, another incident with Leo the K-9 and another example of the violation of a man's body.
Young is taken to the Gila Regional Medical Center in Silver City, and just like Eckert, he's subjected to medical procedures including x-rays of his stomach and an anal exam.
Again, police found nothing, and again the procedures were done without consent, and in a county not covered by the search warrant.
We've learned more about that drug dog, Leo, that seems to get it wrong pretty often. He might be getting it wrong because he's not even certified in New Mexico.
"
The forced X-rays are grevious bodily harm, too: every X-ray damages your tissue, which is why doctors ordinarily only prescribe them where the medical benefits are judged to outweigh the risks.
Is this seriously what HN has come to recently? Ever since the NSA revelations, that most of us have been assuming for a while anyways, I can't visit this site without seeing a front page articles about abuse by the government or a snarky comment like this. Not saying this particular article is unwarranted but you get my point.
Yes, HN is for more than just tech and I love many of the articles that wind up on this site but I disagree that biased politics should be a cornerstone.
Yes, the government is far over reaching it's bounds, I don't think many people on this site would disagree with that, but when it gets to the point where I have to read a comment related to the NSA in every single thread, regardless of it's relevance, it gets tiresome. Nothing is being added to the discussion, just emotionally charged comments like the one above. The "preaching to the quire" metaphore could not be more applicable to this situation. HN is not a sight to raise awareness on, we all know.
I've only been on this site for about 2.5 years now so I'm far from a veteran, but I have seen two major events that have caused a wave of pointless comments.
1) NSA spying revelations as stated above.
2) Google reader shutting down - Companies discontinue old products in favor of new potentially more popular ones. Get over it, there's plenty of alternatives and I don't care that every time a Google product launches you're hesitant to use it because "what if Google discontinues it?". Just like the NSA, stop bringing up stuff everyone knows.
Can we stick to topics that actually raise discussion please.
>Just like the NSA, stop bringing up stuff everyone knows.
Google reader shutdown, ok, many geeks used it, there is alternatives.. blablabla.
But are you saying that NSA spying on everyone should be just another minor fact, I don't get it. Doesn't it seem wrong to you that someone is listening to ALL your digital communications/actions?
I am in no way saying it isn't a problem or we shouldn't talk about it. It's terrible what the NSA is doing. All I'm saying is my HN experience has noticeably decreased do to the massive amount of shallow comments these topics bring. Call your representatives if you want to make a difference, flooding a tech forum with political comments isn't going to do anything.
What about persons outside US? the thing is that wile this does not directly influence, there are at least discussion about ethics of this and whether this really right action, thus at least (all else held constant) decreasing pool of IT professionals that are willing to support this with their labor.
As side note, this surveillance should not be just noted and forgotten.
Most of comments are not much political. (i.e. I see them as discussion of ethics/morales, not as person/party x agenda pushing/discussion)
Governments have different powers than citizens and different roles in society. Do they abuse those powers often? Yes, they have since this country was formed, nothing new here.
What does smokeyj's comment add to the discussion? At best it's emotionally charged and douchy way of saying you don't like the government.
I disagree with this. If an individual does not have the right to do something, neither does a collective. We all individually have the right to defend ourselves, for example. As with most things in society, it's more efficient to "outsource" the task to specialists like police. However, if individuals do not have the permission bits to do something like administer non-consensual anal probes, neither should law enforcement.
As someone with personal experience with this, I can say that "revenge" is the wrong reason for punishment. Punishment handed out by society should be about dissuading other members of that society from behaving against the society's best interests. Anything else is personal.
As soon as "revenge" comes into it, the self-perpetuating downward spiral of justifying bad behavior as punishment for bad behavior begins.
Individuals in society who gain pleasure from the punishment of others, whether that punishment was deserved or not, should realize they're really just being sadistic.
Well that's fine, but we're not comparing personal opinions. This tangent was brought to us by smokeyj's ramblings about the injustice of governments doing bad things with unequal punishment, and edias explaining why he's full of it.
Reality is well established that government plays a different role than individuals and is explicitly given permissions we refuse to citizens by way of the Constitution.
People can't own ICBMs or atomic bombs, either, which is their sovereign right if not for the oppressive government.
Btw, what always escaped me about US weapons laws is that police can have 10+ round mags, full auto weapons, etc, but the individual can not. As opposed to military, police fights basically the same criminals as we, mere mortals, do. The only difference is that this fight is their job.
They're expensive; as noted jmccree, in the US limited in numbers, perhaps 200,000 in civilian hands. But worse, the cost of ammo the chew up!
Me, I wouldn't mind having a belt-fed Genera Purpose Machine Gun, but I'd have to burn up a lot of ammo at some range I don't even know of anywhere nearby to become sufficiently proficient.
Well, a real FN P-90 would be cool, but not clearly useful.
As for your knowledge of US weapons laws, it has never been illegal at the Federal level to own 10+ round magazines, although during Clinton's "Assault Weapons" ban new ones were restricted to the police and military. But with the world awash in surplus magazines, and the manufacturers' having months between signing and enactment to stamp out as many as they could, all it resulted in was increased prices for them, and renewed popularity for .45 ACP in new gun designs. I.e. if you're limited to 10 shots, you'd better make them count, which is my philosophy, biased by the fact that the M1911 fits my hand perfectly.
But during that AW ban I owned a number of > 10 round magazines, and currently own 10s for various guns, including 10 or so AK-47 magazines for a friend who lives in a state where they're now banned.
But it's only a few states that do that, although they include the large population California and New York. To put this in perspective, 42-3 of the states have (or in the case of Illinois soon will have) de jure or de facto "shall issue" concealed carry regimes. That means any citizen or resident alien (e.g. Green Card holder) in good standing can get a license to carry a concealed handgun. A handful don't even require a license, including the large population state of Arizona.
Only two of these states recently imposed magazine size limits, Connecticut (which has always been weird, and the politicians are using Newtown as an excuse to turn the screws on the citizens they'd prefer to be subjects), and Colorado ... where the backlash has been fierce, including the recall of two state senators including their Senate President, and subsequent full elections could easily result in a reversal of that law.
So, actually, most of us mere mortals can be as well armed as the police normally are (full auto carbines being of very limited utility). Heck, we can even own body armor as good as their's.
And note, that on a federal level, the only restriction are machine guns manufactured after 1968. In many states, full auto before 1968, grenade launchers, etc are fully legal for individuals to own. The ban on machine guns manufactured after 1968 is clearly unconstitutional. (See US v Miller, where a short barrel shotgun was ruled not protected under the 2nd amendment as it was NOT a military weapon)
Actually manufactured after 1986, a poison pill in the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA). 1968 is when the Gun Control Act (GCA of '68) passed, pretty much completely changing the retail arrangements, and giving the BATF something for their out of work revenuers after sugar price supports destroyed the moonshine industry. They were so abusive many doubt the US gun culture would have survived without the FOPA reigning them in somewhat.
Whatever the constitutionality of the Miller Amendment, it's clear the Federal Courts are going to offer no relief.
| it's emotionally charged and douchy way of saying you don't like the government.
this is your emotionally charged and douchy way of projecting your dislike for those who dislike government. smokeyj's comment were accurate, and none of it, when read without being emotionally charged, suggests an anti-government sentiment: describing things the way they are doesn't always reveal a personal opinion.
Well, the taxes/theft thing isn't quite appropriate.
Seizure, impounding, eviction, even fines, ...these might ring truer, since they're generally harsher, require less sophistication and such effects are more immediate. These things are often unavoidable, and inflicted without option or recourse.
Meanwhile, taxes, tolls, tariffs... eh, not so much. They're slow, often legislated amidst varying degrees of democracy (in our modern times) and in some cases can be met with degrees of flexibility, where a real slippery individual might be capable of avoiding them.
No, taxes are payment on debt you owe. Ben Franklin explained it quite well:
-----------------------
The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.
All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
One could also argue that I have a job, culture and home despite the government - not thanks to them.
There are very large and practical advantages of organizing judicial system, infrastructure and other basic, hard to replace societal services through a tax system.
But history shows us that the more a government interferes the less efficient the result will be.
My analysis of the current situation would be that since all power corrupts the governments of today have become hard-handed, arbitrary in their exercise of powers and blind to the consequences. The amount self restraint that an ordinary citizen could expect from governments seems to be long gone, they pass another law, they raise the taxes and use the "social contract" as a pretext.
I am a very firm believer in non-violence and non-force and would like to minimize the use of violence and force as much as possible, advocates of statism and authoritarians in general don't seem to agree with that view.
Please see the article at the top of this thread for a good example of what I'm talking about.
Also, unless you are an anarchist who rejects all forms of capitalism, then I would argue you do support the use of violence and force, you just support a different kind of authoritarianism.
Oooh, a social contract reference, my favorite! Please, show me this social contract I've signed. Where can I read the specific terms of this contract, and how do I challenge/nullify the clauses I disagree with?
Fair enough, but according to Wikipedia's rough overview of contract law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract
(because we all know Wikipedia is the end-all be-all of authority on matters like this)
it appears the Gov't is in violation of their part of the contract, to wit the clause of AT LEAST the 4th Amendment (unreasonable searches and seizures; see the TSA, see most police conduct, see the crap with the NSA, etc etc ad nauseam). Therefor, I should be able to nullify and void this 'social contract' and (among other things, trying to keep it simple since we're arguing 'on the internet') not pay my taxes. We all know how well that will work out - fines, court summons, all culminating with large men with heavy clubs and guns knocking on my door to 'coerce' me to fulfill "my half" of the bargain.
If the deck is stacked so far against you there's no reasonable way to remedy your grievances, it ain't a 'contract' it's a 'coercion' or 'an offer you can't refuse'. The government is a bully with a very large, very powerful club, and we have no reasonable recourse against it. We try to play by the rules, they'll change the rulebook or completely change the game. Ergo, the grand-grand-grand-parent commenter who said "Taxes are an armed robbery" is essentially correct.
I'm not even going to get into the 'contracts made under duress aren't enforceable contracts' side of things.
And, apropos of nothing, while I personally don't mind paying most taxes, I'd like to see a way for individuals to pay 'their share' and indicate what programs their money would get allocated to "Humble Indie Bundle" style. A 'reasonable default' for the majority who don't care, but sliders and drop-downs with various degrees of detail for those who do. I'd like to be able to shunt all of my tax money into silos for 'road repair', 'public education', "fireman's fund", etc, and keep it away from things like "Department of Defense" "local police forces", and "NSA slush fund". tl; dr - A highly granular way to "vote with my dollar". I doubt that will get implemented in my lifetime (if ever), but a man can dream...
If my landlord breaks the terms of my lease I am more than free to move, but I don't get to stay there for free just because he broke the contract.
You can nullify the contract by leaving any time you like. Or you can attempt to hold the government to the contract using a little known facet of our democratic process called "The Legislative Branch."
Once again ... It's not a fair argument to say that you can leave any time you want.
Your home, family, friends, culture, job and probably a big part of your identity will be left behind. Even in states with well known scumbag governments people tend to stay until they have a very real threat to their life and person.
And to think that democracy is a kill-everything-silver-bullet is very naive, we have had laws written under democratic rule that allowed one person to own other persons, less then 10 years ago sexual intercourse between men were still illegal some states in USA.
And yet I agree that a central government is preferable to no central government, I would also agree that democracy is very much preferred over the alternatives.
All I ask is that the social contract is not to be used as a pretext for things that are not absolutely necessary since we are born into that contract and can not nullify it in any realistic way at a later stage in life. Please respect my personal freedom, privacy and individual rights - keep the use of force and violence against others to an absolute minimum.
Is that to much to ask?
PS Search youtube for video called "George Ought to Help", it may contain some things worth thinking about
Democracy is not the only option, according to the terms of the contract violent revolution is also on the table, but a cursory study of U.S. history will tell you how bad of an idea that is.
Also as I already pointed out, your home, family, friends, culture, and job are there largely because of the services the government provides. So while it may suck, if you disagree with paying taxes you can not pay them and leave, or you can stay pay your taxes and continue to enjoy the services of the government.
Here's a thought experiment. Imagine if the government hadn't invested it's tax revenue back into national defense and infrastructure for the past three centuries. Do you still think your home, family, friends, culture, or job would exist? Why should you get to enjoy the payout of investing three centuries worth of tax revenue if you are not going to contribute?
People give up their homes, family, friends, and culture every single day in the U.S. just to survive. Now I do think it's definitely unfair to those who simply can't afford to move. If that's the case for you or the parent I was responding to, I will personally buy you a plane ticket to Somalia (or any other place with limited government) and give you two months rent.
First, about taxes ... I live in Sweden and we pay the worlds second highest percentage of GDP as tax and the service I get in return is really not anywhere near best-of-class.
If we were talking about national defence and infrastructure, that would be something that even an "anarchist" as myself would be willing accept and file under "things that a government can administer", but the amount of government sponsored waste, abuse and misuse of collected tax is reaching biblical proportions right in front of my eyes.
We don't have a constitutional court in Sweden and the political landscape is very much a hegemony and in practice a two party system like the US - it doesn't lean towards changing the system in any meaningful way, When I'm told that I should be prepared to accept my current situation due to a "social contract" which I have been born into - and if I don't like it I can always pack my bags and move to Somalia - it doesn't seem at all reasonable to me - even if you pay my ticket.
Second, role and praise of governments ... The major advancements in living standards and job creation have largely been due to technological improvements, free market capitalism, enterprises and entrepreneurs. The largest redistributions of wealth have been due to voluntary membership in trade unions and individuals exercising their right to choose employer. Governments and nation states have historically opposed any change to things like guild systems and even ordered military forces to break up strike actions. I don't think that crediting governments for job creation and living standards is entierly correct.
We don't live in a perfect world, so I don't expect volontary co-operation to work for all issues that a society faces, I am prepared to accept a central government in a nation state. In that way I am just a different kind of authoritarian than you. There may even be a high practical value for a central government to administer things like infrastructure, defence and judical system.
But once we get past that point we are walking a slippery sloap and we must be very careful with every step we take - otherwise we might end up in a situation where it is me or your who gets a thoroughly examaniation of our back part like the gentleman mentioned in the article above.
And I really don't see how that is covered in any form of social contract.
Sweden is second in the world behind Norway for income equality (one of the most import factors in encouraging entrepreneurship), has one of the highest rates of entrepreneurship of OECD countries (much higher than the U.S.), is number one in the world in terms of gender equality, has the 4th highest life expectancy in the world (The U.S. is 33rd), has the fifth lowest infant mortality rate in the world (less than half that of the U.S.), and is within 10% of the U.S. in terms of GDP per capita.
According to the most recent data I can find (2012) Sweden is fifth in the world in terms of tax percentage of GDP. Considering Sweden is top 5 in almost every indicator I can think of, that seems pretty reasonable to me, and I would not hesitate to call that best of class service.
How can you simultaneously claim that "The largest redistribution of wealth have been due to voluntary membership in trade unions and individuals exercising their right to choose employer."
While also making the claim that you can't simply up and move because "Your home, family, friends, culture, job and probably a big part of your identity will be left behind".
If there is only one or very few employers in your area what real right do you have to choose your employer? Your indictment of the Social contract is equally an indictment of the Free Market.
Also you're going to need some evidence to back up claims like "The major advancements in living standards and job creation have largely been due to technological improvements, free market capitalism, enterprises and entrepreneurs." If you'll take at look at the industrial revolution you'll notice almost all infant industries were subsidized, several key technological developments that helped lead to the industrial revolution were spurred by government intervention (e.g.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_chronometer), and patents were really enforced for the first time to encourage entrepreneurship and strangle competition from competing countries.
As for the government using force to break up strikes. I can only speak to U.S. history, but I can't think of an instance where the government stepped in (with violence) before the strike turned violent. I can think of several far more egregious applications of violence by private industries:
And in fact, it was the government which codified the right of unions to strike, preventing private enterprise's unjustified use of violence (or at least attempting to). Unions pretty much wouldn't exist today if it weren't for government protection.
Also, I'm sorry but anarchists reject the use of force in all forms, they would not support any hierarchical forms of power (in a lot of cases that includes any capitalist system, and no anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists). Let's call it what it is, Libertarianism.
> Why should you get to enjoy the payout of investing three centuries worth of tax revenue if you are not going to contribute?
You're portraying industry and taxation as a chicken and egg scenario, and by proving that taxation is why your job is here, taxation must therefore be the enabler of civilization (and as a result, just and moral -- to the extent you support caging people who do not agree). Your basic premise is theoretically and historically inaccurate.
As for your disdain for limited government, that's what set the US apart. It's why we grew to have the largest industry in the world. By your reasoning, Cuba and North Korea should have regulated themselves into endless prosperity by now. Let me buy you a ticket.
You need evidence that economic prosperity should not come at the expense of human rights? Or that America was founded on the principles of restricted government and individual liberty seeking freedom from religious persecutions? Or that shaping moments of this nation was a tax revolt that led to the American Revolution? I don't have time to give history lessons, but I'm not making it up. Check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States
Ahahahahah the entire history of the United States is based on expanding economic prosperity at the expense of human rights. For fucks sake slavery was enshrined in our constitution because it was so profitable. Then there was the whole genocide of native populations at the expense of economic growth.
And yes obviously they were revolting over having to pay taxes not you know the whole taxation without representation thing (hmmm... taxation in exchange for representation, that sounds almost like some sort of social contract). Maybe try reading some history through a different lens than "waaaaah taxes!" Why don't you give this a try: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People's_History_of_the_Unite...
Also I was dead serious about accepting your offer to buy me a ticket to Cuba, you can email me at quinnchrzan@gmail.com
You made the case that the US should be a poster child for unrestricted government, citing Somalia as a contrast. I'm simply saying that the beginnings of the US more closely resembled the Wild West than a well-regulated market place. You're only supporting my point in arguing that even the most "civilized" of governments are founded in death and despair, but you probably won't realize that as you're not arguing out of principle.
I will seriously buy your ticket if you promise to stay in Cuba. Email me in a year with proof and I'll send some bitcoins your way. Maybe they'll have computers in Cuba by then.
Yes you are correct when the U.S. was founded it had almost no regulations, no taxes (aside from tariffs), and federalism hadn't quite been worked out yet so the U.S. government was as small as it could have been. I would argue that that's about as close to a truly "Free Market" as America ever got.
...and the result was enslavement, genocide, and subjugation. Yay! I don't know what you mean by saying I'm not arguing out of principle. I'm citing specific events and facts while you sit there and say "but history!" while not responding to any of the evidence I'm providing or providing any of your own.
You offered to buy me a ticket, not promise to reimburse me if I stayed for a year. If you're already trying to back out of your verbal (written?) contract you must be a pretty shitty libertarian. How about this, I'll draw up a contract in which I agree to stay for a year on the condition that you pay for my ticket with the requirement that if I fail to prove residency after one year I will reimburse you for the ticket. A ticket from where I live to Key West (an hour boat ride away) is less than 200$. What do you say? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is?
And hey maybe when (if) I come back in a year the U.S. might have a functional education system and get that healthcare thingy figured out. I mean it's kind embarrassing we're doing worse than a country that doesn't have computers. Except they do have computers despite the efforts of the U.S. embargo.
> I don't know what you mean by saying I'm not arguing out of principle
Let me put it another way. The efficacy and morality of taxation cannot be deduced via extrapolating historical economic and sociological data points. If a country has high taxes and is economically well off, that doesn't refute that taxation constitutes theft. It also doesn't prove that they couldn't have been better off with lesser or no taxes. Just because a region has low taxes or low regulation doesn't mean it's the epitome of what a decentralized society has to look like either. I can tell you think you have my ideology in a little libertarian box, but you're only fooling yourself.
As for your ticket, I'm not backing out -- but the condition is you have to stay. I'll buy your ticket and send it to you, but you have to put down a safety deposit on a mutually agreed upon arbitrator for the amount of $400. Every year you can prove residency you get $100 back. If you can't prove residency, I keep the remaining funds.
> Minors can't enter contracts, either, so your parents entered you on your behalf when you were born. You maintain it by staying here.
Or it is null and void when I turn 18.
> You're welcome to leave whenever you like.
And so are you. So there. It is pointless to counter criticism of society with "move to Somalia if you don't like it" and similar absurd platitudes. It doesn't address the question at hand, and it also doesn't address the fact that people who disagree with the (faux) social contract does not have any less of a right to live in the same country as you do.
Imagine that you go to a party, and to your horror you discover that a mass rape is in progress. You try to intervene and say that this is just not right, but are quickly told that if you don't like it you can go down the street to that other party where there are no raping going on.
The fact that we regard it as "civilized" discourse to treat people with respect regardless of how barbaric their remarks are is one of the problems with our present state of civilization.
Is it a mistake to use that definition here? Obviously the local law is relevant in legal proceedings and I want to respect survivors of sexual assault, but what else do we call it?