Your Right To Resell Your Own Stuff Is In Peril

JoeUser said:
Totally flawed logic.

If things like eBay, Craigslist, news paper ads, etc are not used any more then how the hell do you plan on letting people know your motorcycle is for sale? Huh? HUH?!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're kidding or what. You're aware that items were sold secondhand before 1995, right?
 
kbrickley said:
I don't think a stateless society is even possible in the modern world. Has there ever been a successful stateless society? If we could get the money out of politics a democratic republic is actually a reasonable government. We need to fix our broken system, not replace it with total anarchy ;)
Click to expand...

Anarchist philosophy is for those that are not willing to realize the fact that systematization of the Earth has just started, in earnest, and will only grow larger as time moves forward, bar collapse of pretty much all human civilization.
 
Still waiting for the anarchists (who like driving on roads, visiting hospitals, etc) to explain why they haven't emigrated to Somalia yet. Should be a paradise.
 
Aluisious said:
Still waiting for the anarchists (who like driving on roads, visiting hospitals, etc) to explain why they haven't emigrated to Somalia yet. Should be a paradise.
Click to expand...

Yeah no shit. You'd think Arab Spring taught anyone anything. You don't like a government, fine. You usurp the government, and then what? Oh I think I'll take over from here.

Something tells me a lot of you don't want me to rule. Guess what? I don't want you to rule either.

Again, disagree with politics, take it to the courts and your congressman. It works when a large majority push for action - remember SOPA?
 
Freedom always changes. You have to find freedom within the constraints of the system in which you live.
 
(That is not to say that rebellion against tyranny is a mistake... it's just to say that there are certain facts of the times that are never going to change. There are also certain facts of society and reality which are reasonably invariable.)
 
Zarathustra[H];1039214217 said:
Except for it being the single worst Supreme Court decision of all time
Click to expand...

Not all time. There have been several lemon majority opinions. Citizens United wasn't the "worst of all time" by any means.
 
Also, one of the primary reasons that people suffer a lack of freedom is that they perceive one another as tyrants. A Christian sees a Muslin as tyrannical and vice versa. A Republican sees me as a Socialist pig, and I see him as a heartless consumer. Since civilization hasn't come to a proper consensus for human behavior, I don't see the conflicts working themselves out anytime soon. Freedom is nurtured by harmony -- and social harmony requires a proper direction. That direction is the entire problem with human life... it cannot be agreed upon.
 
Skripka said:
"Corporation are people" is flawed. Almost as badly as eminent domain. The result has basically led to money laundering in our elections between 501(c)(4)s and SuperPACs.
Click to expand...

How is eminent domain flawed? There are times when you need land for the public good. Of course it gets abused, but there is nothing wrong with the concept. THere is something fundamentally flawed about viewing a corporation as a person.
 
Azhar said:
Democracy works like this: don't like the ruling? Write to your congressman and tell him. Participate in politics one way or another..
Click to expand...

We (USA) are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. If we were a true democracy, we would have a say/vote in every law, bill and act ever proposed. But instead, we elect people whose "intended" job is to represent the people who put them in office.
 
Will stuff cost less now? I mean, if I cannot resell an item, it's going to be worth less, so should cost less. Then again, if I buy an item and have to resell it, and ask permission, that's going to be more and more paperwork and database work for the company, so more cost.

But how would this even work. If I bought some milk and eggs, and made a cake, or some metal and nuts and bolts and made some stuff, would I have to ask the maker if it was ok to sell it? Then at that point once I gave the cake in a metal box to someone, and they sold it, would they be asking me or the other company?
 
NeghVar said:
We (USA) are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. If we were a true democracy, we would have a say/vote in every law, bill and act ever proposed. But instead, we elect people whose "intended" job is to represent the people who put them in office.
Click to expand...

A republic is still a type of democracy ;) ... according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary a democracy is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" ... even the Greeks (who some like to hold up as the pinacle of "true democracy") weren't true democracy types as only the male citizens could vote ... I thank my lucky stars that we are not a "true democracy" as I can envision the chaos that all those voters would inflict on everyone :cool:
 
NeghVar said:
We (USA) are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. If we were a true democracy, we would have a say/vote in every law, bill and act ever proposed. But instead, we elect people whose "intended" job is to represent the people who put them in office.
Click to expand...

You're arguing over schematics. I know what the United States is. My point still stands, you voice your objection, you don't go firing your gun at every politician every time they sneeze the wrong way.
 
kbrickley said:
A republic is still a type of democracy ;) ... according to the Merriam Webster Dictionary a democracy is "a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections" ... even the Greeks (who some like to hold up as the pinacle of "true democracy") weren't true democracy types as only the male citizens could vote ... I thank my lucky stars that we are not a "true democracy" as I can envision the chaos that all those voters would inflict on everyone :cool:
Click to expand...

Don't worry, only half of our lazy country (at best) gets their fat lazy butts up off the couch and puts down Survivor 23 and Entertainment Tonight long enough to vote for candidates/issues they know nothing about.
 
Aluisious said:
Still waiting for the anarchists (who like driving on roads, visiting hospitals, etc) to explain why they haven't emigrated to Somalia yet. Should be a paradise.
Click to expand...

Anarchy isn't living without rules, it's living without goverment rules from a national body and replacing them with more localized governence, which is what lots of people say they want to do anyway. You could still have hospitals and roads in an Anarchist state, it's actually not people going around shooting people and blowing up stuff with 0 rules. :p
 
Azhar said:
You're arguing over schematics. I know what the United States is. My point still stands, you voice your objection, you don't go firing your gun at every politician every time they sneeze the wrong way.
Click to expand...

When did I mention anything about firing a gun at a politician?
 
DeathPrincess said:
Will stuff cost less now? I mean, if I cannot resell an item, it's going to be worth less, so should cost less. Then again, if I buy an item and have to resell it, and ask permission, that's going to be more and more paperwork and database work for the company, so more cost.

But how would this even work. If I bought some milk and eggs, and made a cake, or some metal and nuts and bolts and made some stuff, would I have to ask the maker if it was ok to sell it? Then at that point once I gave the cake in a metal box to someone, and they sold it, would they be asking me or the other company?
Click to expand...

This won't impact any of those things ... expect a VERY NARROW ruling on this ... the person in question bought goods that were available in Thailand at a reduced price from the equivalent good in the USA (textbooks in this case) ... he then had relatives ship or bring him those items and sold them for a profit in the USA ... he is most likely in violation of some form of import/export law since these are grey market items ... and that is most likely where the court will rule ... he never should have used the first sale doctrine as his defense and I suspect that is where the court will rule here :cool:
 
NeghVar said:
When did I mention anything about firing a gun at a politician?
Click to expand...

Someone else did and that what all of my arguments were covering. I am just saying I don't care if it's a democracy or representative democracy or republic or whatever, violence is not the answer to policy changes in our society.

And dammit, I meant semantics. I dunno why schematics was typed :-P
 
Azhar said:
Someone else did and that what all of my arguments were covering. I am just saying I don't care if it's a democracy or representative democracy or republic or whatever, violence is not the answer to policy changes in our society.

And dammit, I meant semantics. I dunno why schematics was typed :-P
Click to expand...

DAMN YOU autocorrect :D
 
You want a good case of false advertisement - look at the ads for movies that come out on DVD and Blu-Ray. Theys ay you own it - well you do not - you only really have a license to play it as much as you want in your home - you really cannot play it in senior centers or even in home day care centers and places like that.
 
stevejg61 said:
You want a good case of false advertisement - look at the ads for movies that come out on DVD and Blu-Ray. Theys ay you own it - well you do not - you only really have a license to play it as much as you want in your home - you really cannot play it in senior centers or even in home day care centers and places like that.
Click to expand...

I believe you're allowed to replay a copy of a movie you own at a senior center or daycare all you want...so long as you're not making money off the venture.

Unlike say the NFL football games...where they openly state during commercial breaks that "this broadcast is for the private use of our audience; any reuse of video, or still photos, or commentary, or accounts of the game without the NFL's expressed consent is strictly prohibited".
 
damicatz said:
Because corporations collude with the state to avoid liability for their criminal actions in what is known as "limited liability".

In this, corporations and government have something in common. The state does not allow you to hold a judge or an executioner liable for his actions, even if he condemns an innocent man to death. You cannot hold a politician liable for passing a law that violates people's rights. In the same vein, you cannot hold those who run a corporation liable for the criminal activities of their corporation because the state grants them immunity from liability.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Napster, or TPB, or...(the list goes on) lol

It's all about who has the most money. And in America, corporations (aka 'people') own America. Citizen's haven't owned America for many generations now sadly. They buy their own laws all the time. Money in politics is *definitely* the source of the problem.

It needs to be "One human being, one vote" (and citizenship is required), otherwise, we're effectively screwed as a country.

Political office was meant to be an office of service to the citizens, not money and financial security for the individual (and their families) holding that office (in some instances for life, EG: the office of the president). As soon as they have completed their term of service, they should no longer receive *any* type of payment/benefit associated with political office, and just resume being another ordinary citizen. This would further instill/affirm the desire to serve their citizens knowing they'd be one of the masses again. If we could remove the "benefits" from being in politics, and make it a servant's position, ala Jury Duty, we'd eliminate the majority of greed and skewed policies at the source. And lastly, any and ALL benefits/laws with any regard to public offices should have to be affirmed by the citizens that the office held covers (ie: if it's a local office, then local citizens vote on their raise/medical benefits, if it's a federal office, then the nation's citizens vote for their raise/medical benefits, etc) not "hey, we're in power now, let's vote our own raise" bullshit that's gone unchecked.
 
Starcrossed said:
Also, one of the primary reasons that people suffer a lack of freedom is that they perceive one another as tyrants. A Christian sees a Muslin as tyrannical and vice versa. A Republican sees me as a Socialist pig, and I see him as a heartless consumer. Since civilization hasn't come to a proper consensus for human behavior, I don't see the conflicts working themselves out anytime soon. Freedom is nurtured by harmony -- and social harmony requires a proper direction. That direction is the entire problem with human life... it cannot be agreed upon.
Click to expand...

And this is why I have a sad little laugh every time I see one of those "Coexist" bumper stickers. Sucks knowing the truth that it'll never happen. But it's been proven time and again, that some prefer to live in a "dream" rather than the real world. :(
 
J So said:
While I'm not super fond of Citizens United I don't think we could live in a county called the Land of the Free without allowing it. I don't think it's that big a deal, Especially with DVR I think more people are going to tune out the political ads.
Click to expand...

At least for now that seems to be the case. The folks on the R-Team have been pissing away massive piles of cash with little effect. With everyone getting their news from their preferred belief affirming echo chamber ad-buys no longer have the impact they once did.

But I think the long term effects of unlimited anonymous spending are yet to be determined.

The key is the anonymity. That has got to end.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Anarchy isn't living without rules, it's living without goverment rules from a national body and replacing them with more localized governence, which is what lots of people say they want to do anyway. You could still have hospitals and roads in an Anarchist state, it's actually not people going around shooting people and blowing up stuff with 0 rules. :p
Click to expand...

According to Wikipedia, there are two definitions of anarchy: the US one and the rest of the world one (Isn't it amusing how often this happens ;)). So, he is not wrong.

From Wikipedia:

Anarchy has more than one definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2] When used in this sense, anarchy may[3] or may not[4] be intended to imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society.

Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples,[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.[6]
 
potency said:
It's not any less mature than a filibuster.
Click to expand...

You know I actually respected the filibuster when they actually had to work at it and keep talking ... pretty impressive to watch them reading voter lists or phone books ... when they changed the law where they could just say "filibuster" and block it without doing anything until you got 60 votes to over ride the filibuster ... that, as you say, was definitely pretty immature :D
 
potency said:
It's not any less mature than a filibuster.
Click to expand...

Yeah tell me about it. Filibusters to me are small groups of children throwing a tantrum when the majority passes a bill. Filibusters are often abused for the sake of trying to be "the party" who controls a government.
 
Azhar said:
Personally I'd go with sock puppets. It's hard to say no to those cute sock puppets my daughters made. I'd imagine it'll have the same effect on lawyers and judges.



Unless it inconveniences them.
Click to expand...

But you wouldn't be able to sell those sock puppets since that would be reselling the thread and materials you made it from.
 
ianken said:
The key is the anonymity. That has got to end.
Click to expand...

Why do you say that? What if you wanted to support a party and knew there were nutcases that would hunt you down and make you a target if you did support a certain party. Would you like that?
 
Starcrossed said:
Also, one of the primary reasons that people suffer a lack of freedom is that they perceive one another as tyrants.
Click to expand...

Suffering a lack of freedom is when one person is forced to do what another person commands.

A Christian sees a Muslin as tyrannical and vice versa.
Click to expand...
No, a Christian sees a muslim as misguided and a Muslim sees a Christian as beneath them.

A Republican sees me as a Socialist pig, and I see him as a heartless consumer.
Click to expand...

No, a republican sees a democrat as an irresponsible person who cannot think for themselves.

Freedom is nurtured by harmony -- and social harmony requires a proper direction.
Click to expand...
Nothing could be farther from the truth. If everyone was acting in harmony then by definition they would NOT be free to go their own way.

Don't worry, you are not totally lost yet, when you mature you may learn enough to become a republican.
 
Zarathustra[H];1039214217 said:
Except for it being the single worst Supreme Court decision of all time.


It allows the few to - with no restraints and no accountability, and mostly anonymity - use their money to exert influence over the many in ways that I'm sure our founding fathers had never intended.

We should be seeking to minimize the influence of money in politics, not maximize it.

Otherwise we just lying to ourselves about being a free country. We are just slaves to an oligarchy.
Click to expand...

Citizens United is not a supreme court decision, it is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. In short, it's dedicated to preventing the united states from becoming what the USSR used to be.
 
NeghVar said:
We (USA) are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. If we were a true democracy, we would have a say/vote in every law, bill and act ever proposed. But instead, we elect people whose "intended" job is to represent the people who put them in office.
Click to expand...

You people need to stop parroting each other. "Republic" does not mean anything close to what you think it does.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Anarchy isn't living without rules, it's living without goverment rules from a national body and replacing them with more localized governence, which is what lots of people say they want to do anyway.
Click to expand...

Sounds like an arbitrary distinction of scale to me.
 
BBA said:
In short, it's dedicated to preventing the united states from becoming what the USSR used to be.
Click to expand...

If you actually believe this you have truly imbibed too much of the kool-aid.

It is an organization run by borderline organized crime hell bent on removing all restrictions to political donations, so that their side of the political landscape can win every time, turning us from a representative democracy into a country where we have policy for the highest bidder.

If anything this brings us closer to the endemic corruption of the Soviet system, not the other way around.

The Supreme Court decision (usually referred to by the same name as the organization) is probably the biggest threat to our nations freedom in our lifetime.
 
Aluisious said:
You people need to stop parroting each other. "Republic" does not mean anything close to what you think it does.
Click to expand...

Nor does democracy mean what he thinks it does.

Democracy does not equal "direct Democracy".

Any system in which voters have an either direct or indirect say on the direction of their country is a Democracy, and that includes the United States. Yes, we are a Constitutional Republic, which is a form of Representative Democracy, and as such we are a Democracy.

NeghVar and his pals need to stop parroting nonsense they know nothing about.
 
BBA said:
Citizens United is not a supreme court decision, it is an organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizens' control. In short, it's dedicated to preventing the united states from becoming what the USSR used to be.
Click to expand...

Yeah no. Citizen's United v FEC is a Supreme Court decision that was about the question of whether political entities could skirt election rules on donations applied to television ads by releasing content on video on demand services instead.

Supreme Court not only said they could, but it went further than that and reversed the ability to regulate any campaign donations not directly given to a candidate. This decision reversed many previous decisions which held that the federal government could limit the amount of money spent. By the court doing this it allowed the ability of the few to control the government for the many. This action brings us closer to an oligarchy (a word derived from the Russians).
 
Methadras said:
The court is almost never interested in striking down commerce laws like the First Sale Doctrine since it's been precedent for a long time.
Click to expand...

Maybe so but I wouldn't put it past a court that seems to be fine with forcing everyone to buy products from whichever favored industry of the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top