Free Republic

Is the article suggesting that:

-God caused the deaths of hundreds of Brazilian civilians, the vast majority of whom probably had no realistic influence on their government (or even the ability to participate in their country's political process at all)

because

-The government of Brazil made a particular foreign policy decision

?

This current generation will turn on its own "old" and eat them if necessary. It's simply the way they are, and this abject selfishness and narcissism in today's younger generation is just as obvious as it gets.

Is it selfish for us to want to keep the money we earn? It's not this generation's fault that the money you paid into SS has already been spent. Nor is it our fault that many seniors failed to set aside income to supplement the SS they expected to one day receive.

If my wallet is stolen by a mugger or con artist am I justified in going out to steal yours? Would it be selfish of you to resist my attempted mugging?

In a new editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Alderman argues that the case for sodium restrictions isn't scientifically sound and caution may be the best route until more and better evidence proves otherwise.

The science is largely irrelevant to this issue. Whether sodium is good for my health, bad for my health, or has no effect on my health, in a free society it is my choice to decide if I want to consume it, and in what amounts.

Don't like sodium? Don't consume it. Don't like restaurants with salty food? Go somewhere else. It's really pretty simple. There's no need to force one set of preferences on everyone else.

Thank you both for your kind words.

To prove I'm not completely biased, I should point out that this is my current most hated line of commercials. They strike me as creepily misogynistic.

The commercials show a woman trapped in a glass enclosure which sits in an empty warehouse. There's dusty furniture/appliances in the glass box which she is made to clean. The woman is amazed at the cleaning power of the advertised product. But she never seems to ask why she's been trapped inside this enclosure in the empty warehouse, or why she is being made to clean for the disembodied voice speaking to her from the shadows. She also appears to still be stuck in the glass box at end when she has finished cleaning.

Weird stuff. Associating your cleaning products with domestic slavery isn't a strategy I would undertake, but I guess that's why I'm not in television advertising.

Spare me this notion that women get the upper hand in marketing. They don’t. Both genders are slammed - each in their own, “special” way.

EVERY ad is going to portray the consumer as obsessed with the advertised products. Female characters go crazy for air freshners and spend inordinate amounts of time cleaning. Male characters go crazy for watered down beer and spend inordinate amounts of time patching things together with their tool set. Both male and female characters seem to find life fulfillment by purchasing the newest 7-razored shaving device. In this respect the ads seem even handed.

The imbalance comes in whenever male and female characters interact with each other. Maybe it's just my male bias at work, but it seems like female characters usually get the upper hand over the male characters.

How many ads have you seen where a man gets "put in his place" by a woman? These threads will provide countless examples. How many ads have you seen where a woman gets shown up by a man? I'm sure there are some, but they don't seem nearly as numerous.

Here are a few more problems I see with justifying the Stolen Valor Act by pointing to the Feds' trademark interest in military decorations.

-Trademark infringement is usually addressed through civil proceedings, not criminal proceedings.

-Trademark infringement requires that the mark be used in commercial activity. However, neither the authorized use of military decorations nor many of the unauthorized uses of military decorations relate to commercial activity.

-Trademark infringement requires a likelihood that consumers will be confused, but there does not appear to be any "consumer" when it comes to military decorations.

-IMO, the real reason Congress prohibits unauthorized wearing of military decorations is because it is offensive, not because they want to prevent anyone from being confused. Punishing offensive behavior is not an appropriate task for the Federal government. The Feds should not pursue inappropriate ends by masking what they are doing as something else that might be Constitutionally permissible.

Wow, you don't know the laws concerning trademarked items, do you?

Not especially, no. I hope my ignorance won't be too much of a bother :)

...They own the design and they own the right to who can wear them.

Can you provide a source to verify this claim? For example, has the government registered a trademark in their military decorations?

Just like, for instance, the LAPD owns their patches and can charge you with wearing their patches.

This example does not seem analogous to the issue we are discussing.

First, because the LAPD is part of a local government empowered by a state/local constitution, not the Federal constitution. Second, it seems like the restrictions on wearing the LAPD patch are aimed at preventing police impersonation, which is a public danger, and not as an effort to protect the LAPD logo as intellectual property.

Or am I incorrect on this point? Could you be charged for sewing an LAPD patch onto your jacket in a way that does not make it look like you are an officer (maybe it's on a designer denim jacket with several other patches)?

It is their property, as in “intellectual property”, and they take those ownership privileges very seriously.

What provision of the Constitution allows them to claim these designs as intellectual property and to protect them with criminal sanctions for unauthorized use?

It can't be Congress's power over the "land and naval forces" since the law applies to those not in the land and naval forces. It can't be "authority over all places purchased" since we're talking about intellectual property, not real property.

Art. IV, Sec. 3, clause 2 might apply. It reads:

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."

However, both the placement of this clause in Art. IV, Sec. 3 and the records of the drafting of the clause indicate that "Property" meant real property. There's also the question of whether the law's restrictions are "needful." For the sake of brevity I'll set that question aside for later.

Ribbons are property of the U.S. Armed Forces and Congress can stipulate conditions for using them!

By "property" I meant "real property." I though this was apparent from context since I was referring to clause 17, which covers "...authority over all places purchased...", but perhaps I should have been more precise in my language.

Military ribbons are things, not places. Moreover, the Federal government does not "own" ribbons purchased by private individuals from private sellers.

Can a private civilian walk onto a secure military installation without permission? If Congress doesn’t have any authority over civilians under Article I, Section 8, then that answer should be “yes”. Correct?

Not necessarily. Congress's power over military installations is covered by the 17th clause of Art. 1, Sec. 8 which reads "...to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be." As Federally "owned" property Congress can stipulate conditions for accessing or using it.

This clause would not cover the law in question since the law applies both on and off military installations. Again, without a tenuous argument tied to the "necessary and proper" clause I fail to see how Congress is empowered to enact these restrictions.

I am curious to know what you think are the limitations to Congress's power under the "regulation of the land and naval forces" clause. If Congress can prohibit the wearing of unearned medals by civilians not on a military installation, can they also prohibit the wearing of an Army PT shirt or uniform-like clothing? Stipulate a national diet for teenagers to decrease training time for new recruits? Prohibit "boot camp" style fitness programs for civilians?

...I believe Congress has absolute legal authority to do so without any legal twistings or relying upon the "necessary and proper" clause.

The text of the Constitution suggests otherwise.

The clause you cited earlier from Art. 1 Sec. 8 empowers Congress to make rules "for the land and naval forces". And that's it.

They make the regulations for the armed forces.

Correct.

Those regulations determine who can wear which award.

I would change that to, "The regulations determine which members of the land and naval forces can wear which award."

Those regulations can stipulate the penalty for someone wearing those awards without permission.

I would change that to, "The regulations can stipulate the penalty for members of the land and naval forces wearing awards without permission."

I don't see how Congress's power could extend beyond that described in my "changed" versions WITHOUT resorting to the "necessary and proper" clause.

Why do you think telling a lie to bar floozie should be Constitutionally protected?

Answer my question and I will answer yours.

The U.S. Congress is the authority when it comes to the Federal Armed Forces. The Constitution gives them this authority under Article I, Section 8:

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Under this authority, Congress has the right to regulate who can wear specific ribbons. This also gives them the authority to say who cannot wear the specific ribbons.

The power you cited only covers the regulation of land and naval forces, not all persons in the U.S.

An argument could be made that the "necessary and proper" clause authorizes restrictions on the wearing of awards by non-land or naval forces (i.e. all persons in the U.S.) since awards have less "value" if many people falsely claim to have earned them, and that less valuable awards will result in a reduced ability to regulate the land and naval forces.

However, that seems like a very tenuous argument. If the "necessary and proper" clause can be stretched that far then there is really almost nothing beyond the scope of Congress's power, which is not what the Founders intended.

Even if these restrictions are technically Constitutional, it seems obvious that they are being imposed because people are offended by phony veterans, not because anyone is really worried that the lies of a few dirtbags will hinder the operation of the armed forces. As people who value liberty, we should not support using legal technicalities to achieve ends that are contrary to the principles of limited government.

I say there is no God given, Constitutional right to deceive, which is the issue before the court.

As a matter of law, then, do you believe that criminalizing my claim to be a marine biologist (as in my hypothetical in post #21) would be Constitutionally permissible?

As a matter of personal belief, do you believe it is appropriate for the government to criminalize that same claim?

It is apparent that you are either a fool or never got shot at in combat or else you would not make that statement.

I'm a fool because I don't believe in criminalizing lies when there is no intent to deceive and no detrimental reliance?

Please explain why you think I'm wrong.

Likewise, IMHO there is no right to deceive, which is what thieves of valor attempt to do.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

In your opinion, could the government legitimately impose criminal penalties on me if I falsely claimed to be a marine biologist to the guy sitting next to me on the bus? Let's say I'm only making that claim because I want his (brief) admiration, and not for any other reason.

I don't see how merely making a false claim that you had received a medal could be a criminal offense. As I understand it, the law does not require that anyone rely on the misrepresentation. It doesn't even seem to require an intent to deceive (though I may be mistaken here).

I understand that making such a false claim is very offensive, and that a person making that kind of claim is probably a real dirtbag. It just doesn't seem bad enough to justify imposing criminal penalties.

Since the right to contract is elemental, and named in the Constitution, it can't be bargained away.

I'm confused. The bargain I mentioned involved the right to free speech, not the right to contract.

And it seems like such rights are bargained away regularly in our society. As a condition for my continued employment, my employer can demand that I not talk politics or conduct outside business while on the job. So why can't the government demand, as a condition for continued liability protection in the corporate form, that I not make certain kinds of campaign contributions while using the corporate form?

The state isn't even asking me to permanently abandon my right to make campaign contributions. It's only asking that I restrict those contributions I make while operating through the corporate form.

In any case, if it's MY right to free speech/contract, shouldn't I be the one to decide whether or not I can bargain it away?

The advantage of limited liability is that of the government ~ the only privilege element is that which is lent to corporations and their constituent parts, and there are a variety of legal arguments about who gets to do what to whom with which ~ with almost infinite variation.

So, what is the value of limited liability to the government? Well, there's the matter of prisons ~ fewer are needed. Plus, people are encouraged to invest surplus to bring prosperity to everyone.

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Are you suggesting that the special liability protections enjoyed by those who incorporate are NOT privileges granted by the government, but rather are due to the shareholders by natural right?

Here's my take on the issue.

If the government restricts my speech by threatening to take one of my other natural rights, or by threatening to take property that I rightfully own (such as imposing a fine), then the government has violated my rights. In this situation the government leaves me worse off since I MUST choose between my right to free speech and something else that rightfully belongs to me.

However, if the government offers me a special privilege, and requires me to accept speech restrictions as a condition of using this special privilege, then my rights are not violated if I choose to accept the privilege and the conditions attached to it. This is just a bargain between me and the government. If I don't want the speech restrictions then I can choose not to accept the special privilege. This doesn't leave me worse off, since the special privilege is not rightfully mine in the first place.

No one has a natural right to avoid paying debts or making restitution (assuming solvency). And that is essentially what the state grants to those who incorporate - a limitation on personal liability that ordinary citizens and other business entities do not enjoy. Therefore, the liability protection offered by the government to those seeking to incorporate is a privilege, not a right. As a government-provided privilege, the government can require conditions (such as campaign contribution limits) for its use without violating anyone's rights.

Of course, even if a government action doesn't violate rights it may still be impractical or dangerous. If the government started quietly building prison camps all across the country it might not be violating anyone's rights with the construction itself, but it's still something we shouldn't let the government get away with. Corporate campaign contribution limits may fall in this category; not a violation of rights by itself, but still a very bad policy for other reasons.

I know I'm being very nit-picky here, but I think a correct understanding of rights is critical for promoting liberty.

I should also mention that it might be a rights violation if the government grants a privilege and imposes conditions for its use AFTER the privilege has been accepted. For that reason, I think imposing speech restrictions on corporations incorporated before the campaign finance laws were passed could be a rights violation.

I'd be interested to hear both of your thoughts.

If something is the wrong thing to do, the law is proper in penalizing it or forbidding it.

So the law could properly penalize or forbid gluttony, disrespect for one's parents, or expressions of bigotry?

A corporation differs from other voluntary organizations in that it is granted special privileges by the government. The corporate form shields the owners from personal liability, a special protection that individual citizens and most other voluntary organizations generally do not enjoy.

If the state can grant special privileges to those who choose the corporate form, can't it also impose special restrictions on how that corporate form may operate? If so, what is the scope of restrictions that the government can legitimately impose?