Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 6th Jan 2012 09:26 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 502439
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Darkmage
by umccullough on Sat 7th Jan 2012 00:32
in reply to "RE: Comment by Darkmage"
To get back to the "original intent" of the US constitution, you are gonna have to strip women, minorities, and non-land owning white males of their rights. Which is going to be awkwaaaaaaaaard...
Especially when "minorities" are now white people in certain parts of the country.
Bah, copyright law has LONG since stopped being what it was intended for... now it more-or-less provides the exact situation that it was originally designed to prevent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_copyright
To get back to the "original intent" of the US constitution, you are gonna have to strip women, minorities, and non-land owning white males of their rights. Which is going to be awkwaaaaaaaaard...
Going further - how much, really, those rights were there mostly to shield big owners? (essentially corporations of the past; we do have historical record of XIX century, times of massive corruption and profiteering (pretty much everywhere, of course) - and you know, I believe our times will be remembered similarly "glorious" & more in the sphere of myths; it's happening before our eyes, for example the "~50s were awesome" myth while http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/ratrace.html ...inaccurate memories of the past, seeing it as much better than it really was, is probably at the core of populist ~conservatism)




Member since:
2009-03-17
To get back to the "original intent" of the US constitution, you are gonna have to strip women, minorities, and non-land owning white males of their rights. Which is going to be awkwaaaaaaaaard...