This morning there was a "quote of the day" on my iGoogle page that I take issue with:
"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can’t be taken on its own merits" (Dan Barker).
How do you know that this is true?
By reason?
How do you know that reason is a valid foundation for truth?
By reason?
Right.
Faith is an absolutely necessary part of any philosophical position. I discussed this in my previous post. Ironically, it appears as though this quotation is from a book entitled Losing Faith in Faith. I think Mr. Barker should question the amount of faith he has placed in reason.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
The heart of philosophy
Christianity is often condemned for its circular reasoning, and postmodernism is often condemned for its contradictions. However, we cannot reasonably expect the heart of any philosophy (including Christianity) to be free of both circular reasoning and contradiction. One or both of these are of necessity at the heart of every philosophy.
Circular reasoning or contradiction are the necessary result of supporting our philosophy, or more specifically, our epistemology, on the most basic level. The problematic question is simply, "How do we know that this is how we know?" We have only two ways to answer: we must either step outside or stay within our philosophy. If we step outside the philosophy to answer this question, we contradict ourselves. For example, if we attempt to show that postmodernism must be reasonably believed, we are, to oversimplify, saying, "How do we know that reason is an invalid basis for truth? By reason." If we use reason to demonstrate that Christ or the Bible should be the foundation for truth, we reach the same contradiction.
The other option is to stay within the philosophy to answer the question. This leads to circular reasoning. Christians are guilty of this when they say something like, "How do we know that God exists? By the Bible. How do we know the Bible is true? Because it came from God."
We cannot satistfactorily support any philosophy on the most basic level. We must therefore seek to find, not conclusive proof, but good grounds for believing in a philosophy.
Circular reasoning or contradiction are the necessary result of supporting our philosophy, or more specifically, our epistemology, on the most basic level. The problematic question is simply, "How do we know that this is how we know?" We have only two ways to answer: we must either step outside or stay within our philosophy. If we step outside the philosophy to answer this question, we contradict ourselves. For example, if we attempt to show that postmodernism must be reasonably believed, we are, to oversimplify, saying, "How do we know that reason is an invalid basis for truth? By reason." If we use reason to demonstrate that Christ or the Bible should be the foundation for truth, we reach the same contradiction.
The other option is to stay within the philosophy to answer the question. This leads to circular reasoning. Christians are guilty of this when they say something like, "How do we know that God exists? By the Bible. How do we know the Bible is true? Because it came from God."
We cannot satistfactorily support any philosophy on the most basic level. We must therefore seek to find, not conclusive proof, but good grounds for believing in a philosophy.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
"Ten Days in a Mad-House"
Today I read a fascinating book, Ten Days in a Mad-House, by Nellie Bly. Nellie was a newspaper reporter around the turn of the century who investigated the conditions of insane asylums by having herself committed to one. In this short book she details her horrifying experience . It's no longer in print, but you can read it here. Very interesting!
Letter from Senator Schumer
On Monday I emailed our senators, Charles Schumer and Hillary Clinton, to ask them to oppose the FISA bill. I was surprised and pleased to receive this email in response from Senator Schumer:
Thank you for your e-mail. Each and every piece of correspondence I receive is important because it allows me to better understand the New Yorkers I serve in the United States Senate.While I don't agree with much of what Senator Schumer stands for, this email caused me to gain some respect for him. I appreciated this acknowledgement - even in an automatically generated email - that he is listening.
As you can imagine, my office receives a great number of messages every day regarding a variety of issues – this is particularly true of e-mails. It makes me proud to know that my constituents take an active role in our government by corresponding with me, and I look forward to responding to your concerns in greater detail. In the meantime, I just wanted to let you know that your e-mail has been received, and to ask for your patience until I send you a more detailed response.
Again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to visit my website http://schumer.senate.gov to follow my work in the Senate and to learn more about the services my office can provide to you.
Warmest regards
Friday, July 4, 2008
Privacy vs. National Security
I just got back from a week at moot court camp at PHC. The camp was extremely intense, perhaps overly so, but moot court itself was a lot of fun. The topic was "National Security vs. Privacy." The problem (you can read it here; note, however, that William Denolf did not appear in the problem we worked with) was extremely complicated and there were no easy answers, but ultimately I came down on the Libertarian side of the issue (surprise!). In brief, the government needed a warrant to surveil Bronner and Comerford.
Here's why (a summary of my petitioner case):
This was never discussed in a moot court round, but there is a critical flaw in this argument, and that is that email is not first class mail. The argument implies that if first class mail may be searched at the border, then surely email - a less private form of communication - may be searched also. But the difference between first class mail and email is that with first class mail, something physical crosses the border, whereas with email, electrons cross the border. The purpose of border searches of first class mail is to prevent the introduction of illegal substances into the country; simply glancing at the context of Montoya definitively settles this. The reasoning for warrantless searches of first class mail may not be applied to email.
The issue at stake here is not surveillance, but warrantless surveillance. We should certainly uphold the president's power to preserve national security, but we must insist that he follow the proper channels when doing so.
Here's why (a summary of my petitioner case):
ReasoningOn the respondent side, one of the best arguments we had was the international nature of the communication. Regardless of one's beliefs as to the international elements of the case, it remains an undisputed fact that the petitioners' communication was international in nature. And the government has the power to surveil international communication. In U.S. v. Montoya de Herdandez, the Supreme Court noted that at the border, even first class mail may be searched without a warrant. The Court wrote that "the Fourth Amendment's balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior. Routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant, and first-class mail may be opened without a warrant on less than probable cause." Since the petitioners were communicating through foreign email accounts and foreign servers, the government certainly had the power to search.
In the 1967 case Katz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that an individual is not subject to warrantless search if he has a reasonable expectation of privacy. As we look over the facts of this case, we will see that 1) the petitioners had a reasonable expectation of privacy, 2) the government did not meet the warrant requirement, and 3) the result of these two facts is that the search was unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional.
Bronner and Comerford had a reasonable expectation of privacy. In Katz, the Supreme Court ruled that this must be twofold: it must be subjective, and it must be objective. A subjective expectation of privacy answers the question, "Did the individuals believe that their communication was private?" That Bronner and Comerford did was directly stated in the problem. In Katz the Court ruled that "what an individual seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected." Our problem states that BATM, of which the petitioners were members, "took measures aimed at making additional government surveillance difficult if not unlikely." Obviously, they sought to preserve their communication as private and therefore had a subjective expectation of privacy.
An objective expectation of privacy asks the question, "Was the individuals' expecation of privacy one that society is willing to accept?" The answer to this is a resounding "yes." These were private emails that the government was surveilling. The petitioners were "surely entitled to assume that their communication would not be broadcast to the world" [Katz]. To read the Constitution more narrowly, is, according to Katz, to "ignore the role that public telephone [in this case, wireless internet] has come to play in private communication."
As a result of the petitioners' reasonable expectation of privacy, the government needed a warrant to surveil. In U.S. v U.S. District Court and Katz, the Supreme Court ruled that there are two requirements for a warrant: it must be granted prior to search, and it must be granted by a neutral magistrate. Neither of these requirements were met. The government stumbled upon the information and continued to search without even attempting to apply for any warrant of any kind at any point throughout the case. Obviously, no neutral magistrate was ever involved. None whatsoever.
As a result of Bronner and Comerford's reasonable expectation of privacy and the government's failure to meet the warrant requirement, the search was, in the language of Katz, "per se unreasonable" and therefore, unconstitutional.
This was never discussed in a moot court round, but there is a critical flaw in this argument, and that is that email is not first class mail. The argument implies that if first class mail may be searched at the border, then surely email - a less private form of communication - may be searched also. But the difference between first class mail and email is that with first class mail, something physical crosses the border, whereas with email, electrons cross the border. The purpose of border searches of first class mail is to prevent the introduction of illegal substances into the country; simply glancing at the context of Montoya definitively settles this. The reasoning for warrantless searches of first class mail may not be applied to email.
The issue at stake here is not surveillance, but warrantless surveillance. We should certainly uphold the president's power to preserve national security, but we must insist that he follow the proper channels when doing so.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
"Jam," by Karen Chase
I usually hate stream-of-consciousness writing. It confuses and irritates me. (See "Susie Asado," by Gertrude Stein.) However, the poem "Jam," by Karen Chase, is a definite exception. The stream-of-consciousness style fits the subject matter of "Jam" perfectly. The end result is unique, interesting, and very enjoyable. You can read "Jam" here.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
π
I wrote a calculator program a couple days ago to calculate pi. It was a very interesting experiment!
I used a Taylor series to do this. If you let f(x) = arctan(x), then if x = 1, f(x) = π/4. So if you calculate the Taylor series for f(x), the sum as the number of terms approaches infinity will approach π/4. Here's the series:
∞
y = Σ (-1)^(n-1) * x^(2n-1) / (2n-1)
n=1
Let x=1, and then multiply the series by 4.
I programmed my brother's TI-84 Plus SE (because that's much faster than my TI-83) to calculate about 10,000 terms of the series. The calculator thought for about two minutes, and returned an answer that was only correct to four or five digits. That gave me a new respect for supercomputers that can calculate billions of digits of pi! I wish I knew of a way to plug this equation into our computer and see how it did.
I used a Taylor series to do this. If you let f(x) = arctan(x), then if x = 1, f(x) = π/4. So if you calculate the Taylor series for f(x), the sum as the number of terms approaches infinity will approach π/4. Here's the series:
∞
y = Σ (-1)^(n-1) * x^(2n-1) / (2n-1)
n=1
Let x=1, and then multiply the series by 4.
I programmed my brother's TI-84 Plus SE (because that's much faster than my TI-83) to calculate about 10,000 terms of the series. The calculator thought for about two minutes, and returned an answer that was only correct to four or five digits. That gave me a new respect for supercomputers that can calculate billions of digits of pi! I wish I knew of a way to plug this equation into our computer and see how it did.
Poetry
I've been taking a course in and extracurricularly studying a lot of poetry lately, as part of my preparation for the English Literature AP exam which I so stupidly signed up for. I didn't know very much about poetry before, so I've been finding this very interesting.
- Poetry is approachable, and by normal people. It can be read, understand, and enjoyed.
- Poetry is very interesting. Poets express extremely complex thoughts in the most compact, effective way possible.
- Poetry appeals intellectually. For me, poetry requires more brainpower than prose. You have to really concentrate to read and interpret poetry, because poets don't waste words. Even the aesthetic aspects of poetry are intellectually interesting (e.g. seeing how the poet's use of devices such as alliteration, assonance, meter, etc. make you feel a certain way).
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
"Remarkable family connections" *cough
MSNBC had an interesting headline this morning: "Researchers find remarkable family connections for the candidates" (link). Namely, Barack Obama and Brad Pitt are ninth cousins, and Hillary Clinton and Angelina Jolie are ninth cousins, twice removed. That all the major news networks are going crazy over this is nothing short of ludicrous.
Let's do the math. If each of your parents have two siblings, and each sibling has four children, you will have 16 first cousins, 64 second cousins, 128 third cousins, and so forth, ending up with 1,048,576 ninth cousins. You will have 17,891,328 ninth cousins, twice removed (number of ninth cousins + number of children in seventh generation + number of children in eleventh generation). These numbers are astounding! For reference, the population of New York State was 19,306,183 in 2006 (US Census Bureau).
Remarkable family connections? Hardly.
Let's do the math. If each of your parents have two siblings, and each sibling has four children, you will have 16 first cousins, 64 second cousins, 128 third cousins, and so forth, ending up with 1,048,576 ninth cousins. You will have 17,891,328 ninth cousins, twice removed (number of ninth cousins + number of children in seventh generation + number of children in eleventh generation). These numbers are astounding! For reference, the population of New York State was 19,306,183 in 2006 (US Census Bureau).
Remarkable family connections? Hardly.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
News story
When I was warming up before a competition last week, some photographers from a local news station came into the room to take pictures and video clips. The video clips were on the news, but I didn't see them and couldn't find them online. I did find this news story, however, and that's me at the piano in the picture.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Tasmin Little
British violinist Tasmin Little has posted a few of her recordings as free downloads on her website, www.tasminlittle.net. The recordings are of the Bach Partita No. 3 in E major, Ysaye's Sonata No. 3 in D minor, and the Luslawice Variations by Paul Patterson. You can visit the download page here.
This is a very interesting idea. It's interesting both as a means of addressing copyright law and as a means of getting more people interested in classical music. The problem is, I listened to her recording of the Bach Partita, and it's terrible. It was horrendously out of tune, and her interpretation was extremely strange (way too fast!). I happen to be playing this piece, and I know how insanely difficult it is to get it in tune, but a professional violinist should be able to do better.
You can listen to the recording of the Preludio (the hardest movement) here.
(If you want to hear an excellent recording of this, check out the Milstein or Szeryng ones. You can watch the Milstein one on Youtube here.)
This is a very interesting idea. It's interesting both as a means of addressing copyright law and as a means of getting more people interested in classical music. The problem is, I listened to her recording of the Bach Partita, and it's terrible. It was horrendously out of tune, and her interpretation was extremely strange (way too fast!). I happen to be playing this piece, and I know how insanely difficult it is to get it in tune, but a professional violinist should be able to do better.
You can listen to the recording of the Preludio (the hardest movement) here.
(If you want to hear an excellent recording of this, check out the Milstein or Szeryng ones. You can watch the Milstein one on Youtube here.)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
I'm still alive!
Wow, it's been a long time since I've posted. Lots of things have been happening to me lately - good things, but they make my life crazy.
Fortunately, the piano competition business is slowing down. For that I am very grateful. Now I need to catch up in school, and, unfortunately, the AP exams are looming on the horizen.
Fortunately, the piano competition business is slowing down. For that I am very grateful. Now I need to catch up in school, and, unfortunately, the AP exams are looming on the horizen.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Guinness Book of World Records error
This post doesn't have anything to do with anything...it's just a random observation.
On page 129 of the Guinness Book of World Records 2008, John D. Rockefeller is listed as the "richest person ever" with $900 million in 1913. The book states that this is the "equivalent to $189.6 billion today." If this conversion is accurate, then we've seen 20,000% inflation since 1913. That would make $1 in 1913 the equivalent of $200 today!
Since these numbers just didn't seem reasonable, I looked up inflation rates and the consumer price index online. Apparently the book is off by a factor of 10. Inflation since 1913 is about 2000% rather than 20,000%. You can check this on the U. S. Department of Labor statistics website. Scroll down to the section entitled "Get Detailed CPI Statistics" and click the top link, "Inflation Calculator."
Thus, Rockefeller's wealth was actually about $19 billion. I think this means that Rockefeller is not the "richest person ever," since Bill Gates is listed at $50.1 billion.
I tried to contact Guinness, but I didn't see their email address on their website. (Granted, I didn't look very hard or for very long.)
On page 129 of the Guinness Book of World Records 2008, John D. Rockefeller is listed as the "richest person ever" with $900 million in 1913. The book states that this is the "equivalent to $189.6 billion today." If this conversion is accurate, then we've seen 20,000% inflation since 1913. That would make $1 in 1913 the equivalent of $200 today!
Since these numbers just didn't seem reasonable, I looked up inflation rates and the consumer price index online. Apparently the book is off by a factor of 10. Inflation since 1913 is about 2000% rather than 20,000%. You can check this on the U. S. Department of Labor statistics website. Scroll down to the section entitled "Get Detailed CPI Statistics" and click the top link, "Inflation Calculator."
Thus, Rockefeller's wealth was actually about $19 billion. I think this means that Rockefeller is not the "richest person ever," since Bill Gates is listed at $50.1 billion.
I tried to contact Guinness, but I didn't see their email address on their website. (Granted, I didn't look very hard or for very long.)
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Founding Father letter
This is a fascinating letter I came across while researching my paper on Christianity and America's founding. The letter is from the Letters of Delegates of Congress, part of the Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation collection from the Library of Congress American Memory site. (The Century of Lawmaking collection is an excellent resource; unfortunately, it is not included in search engine queries. The site has its own search engine, which searches automatically generated text transcriptions of the various records within the collection. The transcriptions are temporary files which expire about an hour after they are generated.)
Nathaniel Scudder was a New Jersey delegate to the Continental Congress and a colonel in the Revolutionary War. He died in battle on October 17, 1781 , only three years after this letter was written. One can read the Wikipedia article on him here.
York Town, May 1. 1778
My Dear Son,
As I suppose you are now at home with your Honored Daddy & Mama, I wish you to use every Endeavour to make them and your Brothers & Sisters comfortable and happy; and at the same Time to improve your Vacation in such a Way as will prove advantageous to your own Education, and honorable to you in Point of Behavior among your Friends & Acquaintances.
Carefully avoid the Allurements of every Vice, and shun industriously the Temptations of youth. Tread diligently in the Paths of Virtue, & strive above all to obtain, through the Merits of your Redeemer, the inestimable Blessings of true Godliness & undefiled Religion.
A Seene is opening, my Dear Child, in this Country for the greatest imaginable Display of Talents and Education, and a Young Man with your Capacity, Abilities and Learning can't fail under God, if he sets out right, of making a Figure in public Life on the great Stage of this new World. Indeed I cannot help contemplating my Sons as shining in future in some of the most splendid Departments of this mighty rising American Empire, the Glory of the western World- and greatly eclipsing their Father in every civil Accomplishment. This is surely in their Power, since they now may improve themselves designedly for this Purpose; whereas he from this amazing Change in human Affairs was unexpectedly & reluctantly, as well as unpreparedly and rapidly pushed from Stage to Stage to the most important Seat he now has the Honor to fill, and to which he finds himself Alas, but too unequal. But how will it ring my Heart, if by any false Step, if by any fatal vicious Indulgence these my fond Hopes shall be disappointed? Then indeed will my grey Hairs descend with Sorrow, & perhaps a speedy Pace, to the Grave.
O my Son, let it be your daily & nightly prayer to be delivered from every Evil & every Temptation, and to be prepared for the whole will & Pleasure of God your Creator, Preserver and constant Benefactor.
Love & Respects to all, & am my Dear Son, your affectionate & Indulgent Father, Nathl Scudder
Nathaniel Scudder was a New Jersey delegate to the Continental Congress and a colonel in the Revolutionary War. He died in battle on October 17, 1781 , only three years after this letter was written. One can read the Wikipedia article on him here.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Fiat power
A few weeks ago I was discussing some area of public policy with my mom (I don't remember what). In response to something I said, Mom said, "Well, that will never happen." So I said, "Yes, but I'm not telling you what will happen; I'm telling you what should happen."
That made me think about "fiat power" in debate. Now, I may be missing something (after all, I don't debate), but it seems that fiat power is totally unnecessary. The resolution states that a given change should happen, so arguing that the change won't happen is non-responsive and entirely irrelevant. We don't need "fiat power" to tell us this. Can't debaters just say what I said to my mom - "I'm not telling you what will happen; I'm telling you what should happen"?
Edit: In response to DebaterPrime's comment.
What I was "missing" is that fiat power doesn't attempt to give the affirmative team any new power. It just clarifies and formalizes an existing power. I think I understand!
That made me think about "fiat power" in debate. Now, I may be missing something (after all, I don't debate), but it seems that fiat power is totally unnecessary. The resolution states that a given change should happen, so arguing that the change won't happen is non-responsive and entirely irrelevant. We don't need "fiat power" to tell us this. Can't debaters just say what I said to my mom - "I'm not telling you what will happen; I'm telling you what should happen"?
Edit: In response to DebaterPrime's comment.
What I was "missing" is that fiat power doesn't attempt to give the affirmative team any new power. It just clarifies and formalizes an existing power. I think I understand!
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Life is still crazy!
I'm still really busy, with school and music. I probably won't be posting very much over the next couple of weeks, especially on week days.
Monday, January 14, 2008
This is a video of an amazing pianist playing Liszt's "La Campanella." I love this piece! I need to talk my piano teacher into letting me learn it. (I know it's way too hard, though.) Here's a PDF download of the sheet music.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Something to keep in mind...
Something to keep in mind as the election approaches:
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Attributed to Plato
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Attributed to Plato
The Anti-Federalist
Today is Alexander Hamilton's birthday, so it's kind of ironic that today I discovered the Anti-Federalist Papers. Until today, I sided with the federalists, like any loyal American. After all, America wasn't doing well under the Articles of Confederation, and a stronger central government seemed like the clear solution. The Constitution itself seemed very well-planned, well-thought-out, and well-written. I assumed that our problems are solely the result of men dishonestly misinterpreting the Constitution.
Not so. The mess we're in now was actually predicted in 1787. The "Brutus" essays were a series of essays "To the Citizens of New York" that appeared in the newspaper during the same time period as did the Federalist. The author, believed to be New York judge Robert Yates, predicted the misuse of the "necessary and proper" clause and the corruption of the federal judiciary. About the necessary and proper clause, he wrote, "This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared "that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof." (Essay I, 18 October 1787)
He continued, "the legislature of the United States are ... by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way."
He also wrote that "the powers given by this article are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing [of] almost any law." [emphasis added] This is exactly what has happened.
In essay XI (31 January 1788), the author cautioned about investing federal judges with the power "not only to carry into execution the powers expressly given, but where these are wanting or ambiguously expressed, to supply what is wanting by their own decisions." He wrote that they " will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort....
"The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: — I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted." [emphasis added] Again, this is exactly what has happened and is happening today!
Those misinterpreting the Constitution are not the only ones at fault for the problems of today. "Brutus" warned, but nobody listened.
It will be interesting to read more of the Brutus essays and other parts of the Anti-Federalist.
Not so. The mess we're in now was actually predicted in 1787. The "Brutus" essays were a series of essays "To the Citizens of New York" that appeared in the newspaper during the same time period as did the Federalist. The author, believed to be New York judge Robert Yates, predicted the misuse of the "necessary and proper" clause and the corruption of the federal judiciary. About the necessary and proper clause, he wrote, "This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of section 8th, article 1st, it is declared "that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any department or office thereof." (Essay I, 18 October 1787)
He continued, "the legislature of the United States are ... by this clause invested with the power of making all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way."
He also wrote that "the powers given by this article are very general and comprehensive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing [of] almost any law." [emphasis added] This is exactly what has happened.
In essay XI (31 January 1788), the author cautioned about investing federal judges with the power "not only to carry into execution the powers expressly given, but where these are wanting or ambiguously expressed, to supply what is wanting by their own decisions." He wrote that they " will give the sense of every article of the constitution, that may from time to time come before them. And in their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal. And I conceive the legislature themselves, cannot set aside a judgment of this court, because they are authorised by the constitution to decide in the last resort....
"The judicial power will operate to effect, in the most certain, but yet silent and imperceptible manner, what is evidently the tendency of the constitution: — I mean, an entire subversion of the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the individual states. Every adjudication of the supreme court, on any question that may arise upon the nature and extent of the general government, will affect the limits of the state jurisdiction. In proportion as the former enlarge the exercise of their powers, will that of the latter be restricted." [emphasis added] Again, this is exactly what has happened and is happening today!
Those misinterpreting the Constitution are not the only ones at fault for the problems of today. "Brutus" warned, but nobody listened.
It will be interesting to read more of the Brutus essays and other parts of the Anti-Federalist.
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Copyright law, version 3
I checked out voluntary collective licensing upon DebaterPrime's recommendation. It sounds like a great idea. However, voluntary collective licensing is incapable of eliminating the need for copyright law reform. First, voluntary collective licensing is by definition voluntary, and it is unrealistic to expect that all artists will choose to use it. Their work should still be protected. Second, the principles of voluntary collective licensing couldn't be effectively applied to other media, such as books or inventions. We need appropriate copyright laws for more than just recorded music. Third, our copyright laws are a joke. They're impractical, unrealistic, and unfair. Even if voluntary collective licensing insured that they would no longer effect our lives, such stupid laws should still be eliminated.
Our laws should protect what should be protected but no more. We need a philosophy regarding what should and should not be legally protected, and then shape all copyright law - for recordings, sheet music, books, everything - around that.
Our laws should protect what should be protected but no more. We need a philosophy regarding what should and should not be legally protected, and then shape all copyright law - for recordings, sheet music, books, everything - around that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)