quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
they should have had those rights to begin with is what i was going at. we made some huge mistakes at the beginning and it took an entire war to convince the south otherwise. i was making fun of prohibition mainly and now the government is allowed to look at any information it wants on the internet without warrants, it suppose to be for stopping the evil taliban but im sure they abuse it. also granting corporations the same rights as a person was a monumentally stupid decision, check out www.adbusters.org and im sure youll find all sort of weird stuff thats anti anything capitalist.
Well, the US civil war didn't convince anyone of anything, that was why there was a war. Will was imposed by force. I strongly suspect that after the war, if a poll was taken, the same people would be pro slavery as before the war.
As regards us having less rights now, I don't agree. I'm in the UK, & suspect the trends here have been similar in the US. 50 years ago a policeman could use physical violence on you to chastise you. The folks over here lament the loss of a coppers "right" to clip a youth around the ear. Nowadays, at the very least, the policeman would lose his job. If anything the states rights over individuals have diminished.
This side of the pond, we have the European Court Of Human Rights, which every EU country is signed to. This court has the power to overrule individuals countries laws if it finds them unjust (by & large, I approve). Currently there is a case where a lawyers (who else?) car was caught on camera exceeding the speed limit. The magistrates court/police informed him & attempted to fine him. The lawyer objected on the grounds that the police hadn't proven he was driving. They asked him if he was driving the car, & he used his right to silence. They can't prove he was driving the car (& to be fair, he never denied it), so as far as he's concerned ,it's innocent until proven guilty. If the police can't prove he was driving, he's innocent, they can't ask him anything because he may incriminate hinself. The magistrates having none of this, fined him anyway. He refused & took it to the Court Of Human Rights Because his right of innocence until PROVEN guilty had been violated.
50 years ago this would never have been entertained. They would have fined him, if he had refused to pay, they would have imprisoned him, despite not being able to prove he was driving.
The case is pending.
Also, in Europe anyway, no one can execute you anymore for a crime you didn't commit.
Mark
------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-17-2002]
™ Version 4.2