Its a shame Im drifting dangerously away from the topic of this group, and have a history of posting too much about too few subjects, because Im enjoying this discussion, but better make this my last post on the subject.
In theory there are a variety of aspects of the U.S system of government that are superior to the system here. The way your system is written down, in theory you have much better separation between the different branches of government. Here we dont have proper separation between the judicial arm, the executive has progressivly taken power away from the parliament, and one of our chambers isnt even elected. So Im not the sort of European that finds it easy to take cheap shots at the US of A. In practice however, the system is subject to the usual powerful human influences which are always looking to erode the safeguards, with mixed results. It is said that every generation has to fight to retain its previously hard won freedoms, and maybe even win some new ones. In some senses and in many places round the world, this battle seems to have been somewhat lost in recent times, perhaps because we've appeared to have the luxury of not needing to pay as much attention, or the game seems to heavily stacked against us to bother fighting. All sorts of horror can result from such complacency or sense of powerlessness and defeat. So I dont want to discourage people fighting for stuff they believe is important. I was merely musing on some of the reasons why I dont think this particular issue is that all that much of a threat unless we happen to end up in a world which will be horrific in many other more dramatic ways. I could more easily imagine a time when the net still exists, but people become more afraid of the consequences of saying certain things on it, than I can imagine them just switching it off completely for reasons that dont pass the smell test.Time will tell eh, hope you get a better law than that currently proposed, but am personally cynical as to whether it will be enough to save you if the times of real strife arrive. As for WMD, its a shame that the US has massive double standards when it comes to sovereignty and the law for them as compared to the rest of the world. USA uses its might to get other countries to sign up to things that are not reciprocated, eg extradition treaties, and its attitude towards international law is little better than using them as justification for starting wars when it suits, but not to feel bound by these international laws itself when it doesnt want to be. Cheers Steve --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Mark Villaseñor <videoblogyahoogr...@...> wrote: > > Steve: "...the law is far from the only factor that will influence the > judgement of those making the decisions. Internet too important to too many > people to be shut down on a whim for weak reasons." > > Well, at least we agree on the latter. > > However LAW is not functioned, here in the U.S. anyway, to "influence" > judgment but rather authorize or prohibit action. And therein rests my > distain for S-3480 because by way of ambiguity, it AUTHORIZES precisely what > we agree should not be done. And I'm not suggesting that a sitting U.S. > President would necessarily act "on a whim," yet under S-3480 as current > he/she would have that power/authority. (Does the matter of WMD existence > ring any bells?) > > Although we could discuss (debate) the ancillary elements and possible > contributing factors of a Net shut-down at length, such distracts from the > historical core; indisputable truth. Unless clearly restrained, a government > will act of its own will. When it does this in affect thwarts the purpose of > a republic, the U.S. foundation. Whereas weak or nonexistent governmental > restraints brought about by a lack of vigilance, invariably robs THE PEOPLE > of secure liberties. > > ...My resistance is a Yank thing, Steve. :D > > Happy Trails, > Mark Villaseñor, > http://www.TailTrex.tv > Canine Adventures For Charity - sm > http://www.SOAR508.org >
