Iceland Taps Facebook To Rewrite Its Constitution 264
An anonymous reader writes "Iceland is finally overhauling its constitution, and it has turned to the Internet to get input from citizens. More specifically, the 25-member council drafting the new constitution is reaching out to its citizens through Facebook. Two thirds of Iceland's population (approximately 320,000) is on Facebook, so the constitutional council's weekly meetings are broadcast live not only on the council's website, but on the social network as well. 'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir, spokeswoman for the constitutional review project."
public-private partnership (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess "reliance on large private corporations for operation of and participation in government" is going to be part of the new constitution? Not that it isn't de facto part of every other modern Western constitution, but now they've announced the overhaul it seems to me the right time to start being open about how the world runs now.
Re:public-private partnership (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook ,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir, spokeswoman for the constitutional review project."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You can choose to actually read.
the constitutional council's weekly meetings are broadcast live not only on the council's website, but on the social network as well. 'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,'
the material is available through their own website and other means as well, they're simply using facebook as one of the channels by which people can get information and discuss the matter.
Which is perfectly reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
you're the only one making up these delusions about monopolies.
facebook is one of the ways you can get the information, it's so convenient for the purpose for most people that most of the people taking advantage of the service are doing so through facebook.
you're perfectly free to drag your lazy ass cursor up to the address bar and drag your chubby chettos encrusted fingers to keyboard and type in the address of their actual website and you'll get the information, you just won't be able to see the comments
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I believe Facebook offer the conversation via. XMPP, so you might be able to use a common chat-client as well. (I know this is true for personal chats, dunno about whatever they use).
Re: (Score:2)
That article you linked to was full of shit. The richer EU nations have consistently given money to poorer areas in the EU (although imo it isnt their responsibility). The US bailing out its carmakers is not an example of the govt bailing out economically depressed area (vs companies). Flint, MI is going to stay as poor as ever. And Greece is in trouble largely through its own overspending - ie everyone there wants to be early retiring overpaid underworked bureaucrat there.
And that was only from the ope
Re:public-private partnership (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. So many people are perpetuating this false notion about the Icelandic crisis.
1) Iceland *has* taken austerity measures, and pretty significant ones -- about 40% cuts, 60% revenue.
2) Iceland *did* pump significant money into their banks -- nearly a year's worth of GDP as loans. However, they did it *after* the banks went into receivership. This let them fully bail out their own citizens while not fully bailing out the citizens of other countries who invested. This is actually the basis for the legal case against them.
3) This action is the reason that, contrary to popular misconception, the Icelandic crisis is *far* from over. This isn't about banks, the IMF, some shadowy cartel, or whatnot trying to force Iceland to pay back vague "debts". Rather, it's about paying back UK and Dutch citizens for their maximum insurable losses in their Icesave accounts. Individuals, not institutional investors, and the entities seeking the payback are the UK and Dutch governments. Iceland rejected reduced settlements with them in the referendum, so now they're having to fight paying back the *full* cost in the EFTA court system. If they lose, things will go very badly for them. One thing that may help is that the estates of the collapsed banks appear to be larger than expected, so they may be able to pay off most if not all of the overseas accounts just from that.
4) In a way, this is as much aggravated by old rivalries [wikipedia.org] than anything else, esp. with the UK. It certainly didn't help matters that the UK invoked a provision designed for terrorists against Iceland to sieze Landsbanki assets in the UK. It's so crazy that I sometimes run into British people online talking about how they should sue Iceland for the volcanoes.
I don't know that Iceland's approach was right or wrong. They definitely got themselves into a lot of trouble with their domestic bailout. But as for taking things to the EFTA, only time will see how that goes. I do find it admirable that they've thrown their legal system not just at the bankers that caused the mess, but the politicians who stood by or were complicit in allowing it to happen. Their real problem is that their banking crisis was so much larger than their economy, so when other nations wanted them to insure against the losses from their banks, well...
Re:public-private partnership (Score:4, Insightful)
I have little sympathy for people who invested in Icelandic banks from overseas. They gave very favourable interest rates and returns in exchange for greater risk, and people are now complaining that they never expected that risk to actually materialise. Well, too bad, you took a chance and lost. The system in the UK compensates you up to (IIRC) £35k if you are a private individual but beyond that you are on your own.
I had an account with an Indian bank for a couple of years to get their high interest rates, but I never expected the same security as from a UK bank.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why? Because it was advertised everywhere that IceSave was a solid bank with a triple A rating."
Out of interest have the rating agencies in question been sued into the ground for giving stunningly bad advice yet?
Re: (Score:3)
One of the central points made by the research professor in his analysis [forbes.com] was not all or none on austerity measures - but that the taxpayers were very correct in not agreeing to foot the total losses of the private banking sector - to the extent that Iceland would never be able to repay the private sector losses+interest, and so avoid entering national level "debt slavery" that they can never escape from. Besides the overwhelming evidence presented to support his analysis (including the "Brady bonds that res
Re: (Score:2)
Needless to say, people/countries that don't pay back debts won't find a lot of investment dollars going their way. That's the price of walking away.
Who said we want dollars? Are you still living in the 80s?
Re: (Score:2)
Iceland has set a shining example
It has, but Greece (mentioned in your linked article) cannot follow Iceland's example without dumping the euro; as long as it is its national currency, Greece does not get to inflate it or tweak any other of its parameters. Plus Greece has next to nothing production and exports, so not much of value there either. Take the euro and the EU credibility away, and there will be nobody willing to invest in Greece.
Re: (Score:2)
They use a readily available media where they reach two thirds of their population. At the same time, they operate another portal, so they do not depend on that private organization.
How could you even ask for more than that? How is this not exactly the right thing to combine independence with available, modern technology?
Jesus, you'd find something to complain about if you could have your cake and eat it, too, methinks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah because traditional referendums don't rely on corporations to print their ballots,
None of your examples are about the citizens needing to make an explicit choice to use a single private business in order to be able to participate fully in constitutional change. The analogy here would be requiring me to buy Dunbal(R) Branded Paper(TM) before I can write down my choice.
corporations to make the voting booths,
Is there a standardised voting booth design? Does a single private firm have to build one for every polling station across the country? Do I actually have to walk into the booth before I fill in my ballot paper?
corporations to make the buildings the process happens in,
Or public bui
Re: (Score:2)
They should log the entire country on to Eve Online and debate their constitution there.
Re: (Score:2)
"Reliance" is an extreme way to view this situation. Iceland is communicating with its citizens where they are.
Currently, Iceland is my favorite nation on Earth. The fact that as a country they decided to put their people ahead of bankers is simply amazing. I'm surprised we haven't sent bombers over there to bring them into line.
If we had done the same in 2008 we'd
Re: (Score:2)
"Reliance" is an extreme way to view this situation. Iceland is communicating with its citizens where they are.
What about the one third of citizens who aren't there (on Facebook)? Are they now essentially second-class citizens as far as this council is concerned? They're encouraging people to sign up to a foreign, third-party, commercial service in order to participate in their own government. That just isn't right to me.
Farcebook (Score:5, Insightful)
'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir
Because we thought it would be fun to actively discourage 1/3 of our population from being involved in the discussion...
Re: (Score:2)
'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir
Because we thought it would be fun to actively discourage 1/3 of our population from being involved in the discussion...
If 2/3 of the population is using one platform, couldn't that automatically mean that most of the discussion would take place there, regardless of anyone's wishes? I think you may be seeing an agenda where there is only acceptance of reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh absolutely - the majority of the discussion would be on the (social) platform that people largely use.
However:
The reality of the matter is that while 2/3rds of Iceland's population may have a facebook account, the Icelandic government is still, will, a government.
And
Re: (Score:2)
our president is a publicity sensitive demagogue who can be relied upon to give in to the pressure group that screams the loudest and refuse to ratify the law which automatically refers the law to a plebiscite.
Wait a minute! Obama is also president of Iceland?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, the politicians and all their friends use facebook, which means everyone uses facebook. Besides, disenfranchising the lower 1/3 of society is OK, they never have anything interesting to say. Bunch of fucking rednecks (yes, Iceland has their analogue).
I don't know about Iceland, but in Italy every bum on the street has a cell phone, given to them by the various non-profits that follow them. So the 1/3 who is not connected either doesn't speak the language, is older than combustion engines, hasn't yet mastered the use of its sphincter or is fucking retarded. No loss there.
Re: (Score:2)
Bunch of fucking rednecks (yes, Iceland has their analogue).
Well, to be fair, *every* country has its analogue.
+1 Like (Score:2)
I just hope, they don't vote about it with clicking "Like".
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to most places that actively discourage 90% of the population from being involved in the discussion.
If they can show that people's opinions and ideas actually count it would be a major step forward for democracy, as important as the universal vote IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
Love the title (Score:2)
Iceland taps Facebook
Sorry, but my first thought was a puerile one. Quite fitting, since I think Facebook is fucking over a lot of people everyday, it was just their turn to get "tapped".
New provision in the Icelandic constitution... (Score:2)
"No one shall engage in unprovoked ganks in Empire highsec, on pain of being CONCORDOKKEN'd [youtube.com]."
Re: (Score:2)
Big deal - countries tap whatever (Score:2)
Big deal...
Here is a plausible scheme
930 [Country] Taps Free Men To Rewrite Its Constitution
1900 [Country] Taps Newspapers To Rewrite Its Constitution
1920 [Country] Taps The Radio Show To Rewrite Its Constitution
1940 [Country] Taps Telephone Company To Rewrite Its Constitution
1960 [Country] Taps The TV Show To Rewrite Its Constitution
2010 [Country] Taps Internet Site To Rewrite Its Constitution
So, where is the relevant news?
How accurate is that count? (Score:2)
Government must issue the currency, not a Bank! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to read a lot into the issue of legality of homeschooling and I can't help but think that you are very biased.
On one hand I do believe homeschooling should be legal but on the other hand I realize that there are some serious problems with homeschooling and depending on the state of your country's public school system it may very well make sense to mandate that all children must go to public schools for both their own good as well as the good of the population in general.
Similar arguments can also b
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't want to call you a libertarian fruitcake but honestly, you seem confused.
In any parliamentary democracy the state is, at least technically, an agent of the people appointed by the people to run the affairs of the people on a national and international level.
Thus if the people support a ban on homeschooling then they are likely to support politicians who also support a ban on homeschooling.
Also, "violent collectivist" and a little rant about owning "a quotal share in other people's children and thei
Re: (Score:2)
You need to explain how it happens that people can lose their rights by dint of a vote. All you have done is recited the State line of 'Parliament represents the people, therefore it is legitimate'. No vote by other men can take the rights of another group of men away from them. If you agree with this, then you agree that slavery is fine, until people vote and say it is not.
I hate violent people, and people who cannot think. For them, there is always a video nowadays:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXB [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
People don't inherently have rights to anything.
Thats true, there is no 'right to healthcare' or 'right to education' both of those things are goods, not rights.
Rights do not come from the decisions of 'society'. There are fundamental principles of morality, and these do not change because people take a vote. You concede this by saying that because government has the 'biggest stick' i.e. a monopoly on violence, they get to say what is what. Just because they can use violence, it doesn't follow that they can dictate reality. They can force people to obey
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as absolute freedom, yet the is the negotiating of rights. Done properly, you can maximize the freedom of people. You will also find that very few of those negotiated rights will be universal because every culture brings their own values to the table.
Take your example of the child. You, and perhaps the country to which you belong, probably have a strong sense of paternal authority. Yet other people would strongly disagree with your assertion, equating that paternal authority to a
Re: (Score:2)
yet the is the negotiating of rights. Done properly, you can maximize the freedom of people.
No. Rights are not negotiated, and they do not come from legislatures, the UN or anywhere else. Rights are born with you, they are limited in number and all stem from property rights.
Take your example of the child. You, and perhaps the country to which you belong, probably have a strong sense of paternal authority. Yet other people would strongly disagree with your assertion, equating that paternal authority to a form of slavery that society must work to overcome. After all, to leave the child enslaved to the individual is fundamentally immoral.
Unbelievable. First of all, I dont belong to any country. Secondly, Paternal authority comes from property rights, and is entirely legitimate. In absentia of that, the State becomes the owner of all children, and it is this that is completely immoral. There is no such thing as 'society' in this case; what you really mean is tha
Re: (Score:2)
Strictly speaking there is no right to property ... ...
Property is an artificial concept, if there was no mankind, the term property would not exist.
Sorry, I could say more to your post but it is so confuse, I don't really get what you want to say. For me it seems you want to live in an anarchy whre the only agreement is "people may own things"
Re: (Score:2)
For me it seems you want to live in an anarchy whre the only agreement is "people may own things" ...
That is very insightful and partially correct. The only rules there should be are that you own property, including a property right in yourself, that no one has the right to encroach upon you or your property, and that you should do all you promise to do.
You have a right to dispose of your property as you see fit, enter into contracts as you see fit, and to generally carry out your existence as you see fit.
You claim that there is no right to property, and yet, if you have your money stolen from you, your (q
Re: (Score:2)
Rights are born with you, they are limited in number and all stem from property rights.
Please prove that property rights are innate.
Secondly, Paternal authority comes from property rights, and is entirely legitimate.
So is child slavery OK as long as the parents agree?
No decent human being thinks that it is correct that a small number of State employees should have absolute power and ownership of all children. It is anathema, revolting and completely wrong.
The ownership of children is revolting and completely wrong (in my opinion) - both by the State or parents.
Children have rights. If the parents are unable or unwilling to provide them, the State empowered by the People should provide them. Education is one of the rights, as decided by consensus.
(Not that I'm against homeschooling; but your argument applies to parents who provide no schooling at all, and I'm agai
Re: (Score:2)
Please prove that property rights are innate.
Prove it to yourself:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp [mises.org]
So is child slavery OK as long as the parents agree?
Being forced to send your child to a school is Child Slavery, do you approve of it? Do you believe that because a majority thinks it is appropriate, that confers legitimacy upon it?
The ownership of children is revolting and completely wrong (in my opinion) - both by the State or parents.
Then you grasp the fundamental problem. SOMEONE has to be responsible for children. What you have to decide is who you think should be responsible, the State or parents, and then you have to say why.
If you say the State, then you have to explain why such a violent i
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No one owns another person, not even one's children. That does not lead to a default ownership of children by the state.
Your construction is interesting "one's children"; that is a possessive construction, and its one that everyone uses because quite naturally, properly functioning human beings understand that children really do belong to their parents; they are a unique specie of property in that they can be owned, but also have all the rights that human being have, meaning that they are not truly owned as a man owns a dog, but exist in a separate and special category of property that is not found in any other type of prope
Re: (Score:2)
Health and education are not rights, they are goods:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOwImRicZrw [youtube.com]
You have a property right in yourself, i.e. you own yourself, your own life and body. Property rights have nothing to do with restricting the rights of others to resources.
There are two senses in which property rights are identical with human rights: one, that property can only accrue to humans, so that their rights to property are rights that belong to human beings; and two, that the person's right to his own body
Re: (Score:2)
I, too, think that there are inherent rights-- born with you: Things like life, health, education, self determination... But *property* rights?
unless you can heal yourself on your own and teach yourself on your own, health and education are not inherent rights. They are services provided to you by someone else and you are not born with an inherent right to someone else's labor.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you accept that if a homeschooled individual can't find a job or otherwise finds him/herself in trouble, the state has no obligation to care for that person?
Not saying homeschooling is bad, just that authority and responsibility cannot be separated and one has to accept the consequence of changing either.
Re: (Score:3)
Then you accept that if a homeschooled individual can't find a job or otherwise finds him/herself in trouble, the state has no obligation to care for that person?
Not saying homeschooling is bad, just that authority and responsibility cannot be separated and one has to accept the consequence of changing either.
Absolutely. Employment is not the business of the state, wether the person was Home Educated or not. The State cannot have obligations, only people have obligations. States do not have rights, only people have rights:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8 [youtube.com]
For the record, Home Educated people have a higher rate of employment that the general government schooled population.
Re: (Score:2)
According to you, what IS the business of the state?
In your various replies in this thread you seem to be against most things the state does. Did you just forget to mention the rest or are there some things you DO want the state to do?
Re: (Score:2)
According to you, what IS the business of the state?
In your various replies in this thread you seem to be against most things the state does. Did you just forget to mention the rest or are there some things you DO want the state to do?
What I or anyone thinks the State should do is irrelevant; the State doesn't have the right to steal your money, conscript you into an army for 'national service', steal your land or do any of those things that people are forbidden to do by natural law. 'The State' can exist in any way that it wants, as long as it is bound by the same laws that bind men; no stealing, encroaching on people and their property, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
natural law
Nonsense upon stilts.
Re: (Score:2)
natural law
Nonsense upon stilts.
Whose stilts, yours or mine or the State's?
Re: (Score:2)
What is natural law?
Re: (Score:2)
Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and is thus universal.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natu
Re: (Score:2)
Nature has physics but what you're referring to as natural is just as man made as everything else.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it IS relevant to this discussion. The list you made is rather inclusive and pretty much boils down to "no state government at all". I wonder if this is indeed what you meant to say and, if not, what a state government is supposed to do.
Re: (Score:2)
what a state government is supposed to do.
More to the point, and what is crucial, is what a State should not be able to do.
A State should not be able to do anything that you or I am not able to do, like stop people from kissing in public, or growing and smoking Marijuana, or brewing alcohol, or selling those things, or selling yourself, or gambling, or anything whatsoever as long as you do not violate the property rights of other people.
That means no Eminent domain, no internet regulations (censorship, net neutrality), no compulsory school attendan
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, we've heard dozens of times now what you think government should NOT do.
But please tell us what the CAN do according to you.
It really isn't such a difficult question to answer, so I don't understand why I should ask yet again. Please just give a straight and honest answer instead of yet again attacking a strawman. I would really like to try and understand your point of view, but you're making it impossible for me to do so by only explaining half of what is undoubtedly a well-rounded view of how governm
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, no:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bryan6.html [lewrockwell.com]
What you have in democracy is mob rule, where by simply voting, people's rights are suppressed only because a majority voted for something, no matter if it is fundamentally immoral or not. That is insane.
Let me guess... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You Sir, have no clue. Especially not about nordic/germanic ideas how law should work or what property is.
Law and rights are completely arbitrary.
USA: I own land, you step on it, I shot you: legal! (And from an european or asian point of view: absurd!)
Norway e.g.: you own land, we have a stormy season with harsh weather, I mak
Re: (Score:2)
Law and rights are completely arbitrary.
Thats what they taught you in school, so that you would not be able to think like a free man.
USA: I own land, you step on it, I shot you: legal! (And from an european or asian point of view: absurd!)
In Texas, you have better property rights than you do in other states; its called the Castle Doctrine:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=texas+man+shot+trespassing+drunk+taxi+jumped+out#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=castle%20doctrine%20texas&aq=1l&aqi=g-l5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ea006a1cc738a9bb&biw=1268&bih=740&pf=p [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So, where do *your* rights come from? Don't bother replying if it involves deities.
Try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6n1FL42to8 [youtube.com]
or if you have the time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Like the other poster said; It's not forbidden to educate your child at home, but it is forbidden to deprive them of the education provided by the state.
That is a flat out lie. Home Education is ILLEGAL in Sweden and Iceland and Germany (for example). You may not teach 'your' children at home, even if you decide to follow the State curriculum.
In the case of Germany, the law forbidding Home Schooling is one of the few laws left on the statute books from that country's dark era that Godwin's law prevents me from typing out. :)
Re: (Score:2)
That is bullshit, and that is the reason why I set "illegal" in quotes when I awnsered the first time to you.
I happen to live in germany. Teaching your kids yourself is ofc not illegal. However the children and parents have "school duty". That means the childrans have to go to school.
However: that in no way means you c
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in Germany you are EXPECTED to teach them to a certain degree at home. I was amazed at how early kids in Germany got out of school until a German friend told me that their parents(read mothers) are expected to educate them in the afternoons. Of course this doesn't really bode well for kids with busy and/or neglectful then their children suffer and are much less likely to get into Gynasium and beyond......
Re: (Score:2)
Thats exagerated. However parents are supposed to help with homeworks or at least supervise the kids doing their homeworks. I don't know how that is done in other countries whre the pupils are in school till late afternoon, do they have homeworks in Spain, France ot Italy?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that you dont understand what Home Education Home or Schooling actually means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeschooling [wikipedia.org]
Its illegal in Germany. Thats immoral. Deal with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Germany does not allow it because school is one of the ways they prevent extremism from re-emerging. If a child is home schooled exclusively the parent can tell them anything they like, e.g. Jews are evil and pollute the German Master Race. At school they spend quite a lot of time instilling modern German values and society is considered to have the right to force that on children, even against the wishes of their parents.
Germany has a pretty much zero tolerance approach to this sort of thing. They are dete
Re: (Score:2)
Germany does not allow it because school is one of the ways they prevent extremism from re-emerging.
Even the UN has condemned Germany for its stance on Home Schooling:
"Even though the special rapporteur is a strong advocate of public, free and compulsory education, it should be noted that education may not be reduced to mere school attendance and that educational processes should be strengthened to ensure that they always and primarily serve the best interest of the child," the report said.
"Distan
Re: (Score:2)
Alcohol abuse in other people is not my business; and this is a deep flaw in your philosophy; you believe that because SOME parents are bad, ALL parents must be put under the wing of the State 'for the sake of the children'. This is the sort of reasoning that creates laws to control the internet, and it gives birth to totalitarian countries like Sweden (Home School banned, because their parliament says their society is perfect, and so there is no need for Home Schooling. Im not making that up. State monopoly on the sale of alcohol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverages_in_Sweden [wikipedia.org] etc etc), Finland (where you are fined for speeding proportionally to your income) and Iceland (train wreck vassal state, hollowed out by the banksters, where you dont have even the most basic of your rights).
People's ability to perform excellent teaching is not my business; and this is a deep flaw in your philosophy; you believe that because SOME parents have the full pedagogical knowledge gathered by humanity, ALL parents must be left to their own whims 'for the sake of freedom'. This is the sort of reasoning that creates anarchic chaos, and it gives birth to people like you.
Man, you're not full of sh*t, you are hollow. You even failed at trolling because I'm not angry, just mildly amused by your arguments. Pr
Re:They cannot possibly get it right (Score:4, Insightful)
No State monopoly on security / police
If any private party can claim police power, they can also claim the right to search your property and papers. Oh, and any complaint of illegal searches would go to the same system. That's the end of the 4th amendment.
No State monopoly on Law
No State monopoly on courts
I guess you don't believe much in the "with liberty and justice for all" thing. I'd rather not be hauled before a kangaroo court or get no protection if I have no protection money, thank you very much.
No State theft of resources (Taxation)
Without income, there's no public services whatsoever. Go to Somalia or some other anarchist state if that's your ideal society.
Yet another country where the people have been reduced to the level of property; the property of the State.
There are equally bad or worse fates, like being the property of your parents. Children are not pets and even pets have laws against animal cruelty. Any state that lets children grow up with no minimum standard of education is neglecting that child and its human rights. They may be your offspring but they are not your prisoner - physically, intellectually or otherwise. If I was to use as much hyperbole as you, I'd say you demand the right to brainwash your children. My country, Norway, has also outlawed home schooling but there are private schools like Montessori [wikipedia.org] or Waldorf [wikipedia.org] education. They have to document a competent staff, their plans and methods of teaching and adherence to minimum guidelines set forth by the government. And I think it's a good thing, YMMV.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The more I hear about your country, btw, the more I consider getting up there, as things seem to go to shit around lately. Well, if you only could relocate the whole act to some place with a decent climate....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go start a family in a failed state and let me know how that works out for you.
There is nothing stopping you do that if you don't like the country you are living in now.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that I should be able to choose the sort of law I want to be bound by in any contract that I enter into. I can already do this in business contracts, so why should I not be able to do this with myself?
Contracts are voluntary. But if you're walking down the street and I decide to rob you or beat the shit out of you then we can't agree on a choice of law afterwards. Would you really like to enter another jurisdiction who could have its own absurd laws every time you enter a store? What about on the road, what rules apply when two jurisdictions crash at 55 mph? Contracts are simple to avoid, simply don't agree to anything. But it'd be pretty hard to coexist with other people without laws.
Re: (Score:2)
The street you are walking down is privately owned, and the private police at either end make escape for you impossible. You are caught, I get my property back, then the street owner sends you to the private court, where you are severely punished.
Would you really like to enter another jurisdiction who could have its own absurd laws every time you enter a store?
Millions of people do it all the time:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388279/British-tourist-faces-year-Dubai-jail-calling-prophet-Muhammad-terrorist-heated-row.html [dailymail.co.uk]
On the private roads which I drive, there is no speed limit, just like the Autobahn in Germ
Re: (Score:2)
The street you are walking down is privately owned, and the private police at either end make escape for you impossible. You are caught, I get my property back, then the street owner sends you to the private court, where you are severely punished.
And what if the person robbing you is the one that owns the street?
Re: (Score:2)
And what if the person robbing you is the one that owns the street?
You mean like 'Jay Walking' in Manhattan?
Or maybe you mean like this man being knocked off of his bicycle in that city:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkiyBVytRQ [youtube.com]
Thinking is hard!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't that Somalia?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So when has the anarcho-utopia existed?
Re: (Score:2)
It lasted 1000 years.
And yet it still fell.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't look now, but strip clubs are illegal in Iceland, too ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Rofl ... tell that the endless other countries where home schooling is "illegal". It is really funny from what kinds of "facts" people draw conclusions liek yours ... I'm still out of breath from my rofeling ...
What are you ranting about anyway? It is not like that Iceland has no constitution or is not a demogracy.
Re: (Score:2)
You're laughing because that is the conditioned response to any challenge on your spoon-fed State conditioning. I note that you are from .de ; that tells us all we need to know about your 'education' if we were prone to generalizations:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=home+education+germany [google.com]
People have been given political asylum after beign forced to flee from your 'free country' that is a democracy (mob rule, where even the dumbest have a say in the violence).
Re: (Score:2)
Wether its better or not is a red herring. This is about the principle of who gets to control you, you, or the State
So should you get to beat your children, too? This isn't an issue of state versus personal freedom, but of whether children are simply the property of their parents or not to do with as they will.
Oh, and by the way?
You cant have it both ways; you cant be a little bit pregnant.
Got it. State shouldn't be able to tell me to do *anything* or impose any force on me for whatever actions I take. P
Re: (Score:2)
So should you get to beat your children, too? This isn't an issue of state versus personal freedom, but of whether children are simply the property of their parents or not to do with as they will.
No, its a question of wether the State owns children or the parents own them.
Discipline is a matter for the parents, not the State or you. If you have your own children, its up to you to discipline them in a way that is appropriate for them, you made them they are your responsibility and no one else's. Some children can be reasoned with without ever having to lift your hand. Others need a slap. Only the parent can judge what is appropriate, not you, not I, and not some aparatchick from the State.
If that is
Re: (Score:2)
They said facebook, not /b/
Re: (Score:2)
You know, Björk doesn't exactly dominate their music scene any more. At least upgrade your "Stereotypical Íslensk Band" meme to Sigur Rós [icelandicb...gurros.com] ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Come on people, this is embarrassing.
How can Slashdot not handle such a basic task as international character support?
Especially considering the number of times the look and interface has changed. You would think in 2011 they could sort of throw that in. I know the site is an English language site. But, even when posts are in English, you may occasionally need to use one o' them thar' furrin' werds.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you tried to type, but the the Icelandic thorn [wikipedia.org] doesn't show up.
Re: (Score:2)