Governments New Tracking System – PLAN

Sighhhh

"I really do not know what to say."

Sums it up. People are going to view this however they choose to view it, but at the end of the day, if you don't like the idea of the government using your cell phone, then let them know, or don't get a cell phone. I remember feeling the exact same way about tele-marketers using my land line to pander their products to me in my home, on a device I was paying for.

Solution? I dumped the land line, and the government responded to massive complaints by enacting the "do not call" registry. Yes, we live in an era where the government is working overtime to catalog and classify everyone and everything, but we still have the option to say "enough already" and stop buying bigger and better electronic devices every time they upgrade something. We don't have to play, and we can insist that the game rules change if enough people really do object. Maybe the real fear being targeted here is that enough of us are not going to object until it is too late.

Did the German people really believe their government was simply relocating the Jews, or did they just not want to know? Sadly, I think we still don't know the answer to that one.

"if you don't like the idea of the government using your cell phone, then let them know, or don't get a cell phone."
I do let them know I do not like things like this at my expense - they do it anyway.Why should i not buy a technology that i use on a daily business because government chooses to use it without my permission?

"I remember feeling the exact same way about tele-marketers using my land line to pander their products to me in my home, on a device I was paying for." Ditto.Thing is, a telemarketer cannot access your cell anytime they wish.

"but we still have the option to say "enough already" and stop buying bigger and better electronic devices every time they upgrade something."
So your option is to stop using a device that makes my life easier that i choose to pay for and enjoy the benefits from, all because the government hijacks it? In essence, restrict my freedom and liberty by choice to prevent government from its infringements even more? How brave......

"We don't have to play, and we can insist that the game rules change if enough people really do object. Maybe the real fear being targeted here is that enough of us are not going to object until it is too late." - Precisely my point.

Did the German people really believe their government was simply relocating the Jews, or did they just not want to know? Sadly, I think we still don't know the answer to that one. Some did know, some did not. The ones that did were to scared to speak out publicly and the ones who did not continued to live in ignorance until it was to late.

or we could just sit in a dark room with our thumbs up our asses because making any kind of move might offend or scare someone else... i dont know about you, but im really sick and tired of these "be very afraid" stories... i dont like being scared... i dont like being paranoid... and i dont like having to harbor more bullshit on my shoulders than my normal day to day life already puts on me...

Amen!!

That's because you are not afraid. Propaganda does not work on everybody.

lmao... oh the irony!

oh wait... maybe hes with "them"... he's a warner...

and if i do not pay my taxes to pay for programs like this, than this guy knocks at my door and hauls me jail - great illustration

no no no, this guy shows up after the government is abolished and rapes and pillages and does whatever he wants because he's technically not forbidden from it and there aren't frivolous things like taxpayer funded police to stop him. he's most likely working for a corporate interest that instigated said deregulation.

lol - funny :-)
"this guy shows up after the government is abolished and rapes and pillages and does whatever he wants because he's technically not forbidden from it " - We have soldiers who rape locals over seas - I was an MP in Germany and saw it more often then you would think. We also take other countries and literally reshape them, allocating resources as we see fit that do not belong to us. We set up puppet governments in those countries to ensure that we get something out of it. Every ship has rats - the bigger the ship, the more rats.
This guy above exists with or with government. The only difference is that under todays law, this guy has legal backing. He won't rape you himself. He just gets you tossed into prison for not paying him where you get raped. If you pay him, he takes his cut first, and then redistributes it - giving only a fraction of what he takes to those who actually need it. When the needy tell him its not enough, he says the answer is to steal more from you. Legally the consitution used to prevent this - now...not so much as he is funded by the government to do so. heck - he is the law.
"he's most likely working for a corporate interest that instigated said deregulation." - ah - the corporatism straw man...love it. Have nothing else eh?

I agree,,, no real worries with this for me

"This has everything to do with protection of life liberty and property."
How so? How is charging you money to inform you of the weather or your surroundings (both of which you could easily do yourself if you had half a brain) in the interest of liberty and property...ever read Bastiat? Besides, since programs like this started years ago, they have always ended up soaking up additional power and funding from guess who - the tax payer....So how is it for liberty?
PS- sorry i pay attention to stuff and use my freedom responsibly so that i do not need the government to do it for me.

you're going to pay your taxes anyway right? They're not exactly charging you extra, just adding to debt lolol.

And last time i checked, i can only tell that its raining and thundering, can't really predict severity of storms by tasting the wind... maybe my dog could, but even then, he wasn't talkin. And then, what about the zombie apocalypse... I might end up with half a brain and then what would i do without a warning system!

Programs like this started... more than just years ago, try decades. You didn't have to own a radio or a tv back in the day, and you still don't... Same applies for cell phones. I really doubt this sucks up more power and funding... A statistic would be nice to settle this but alas i don't really care that much. We have bigger things to worry about sucking up resources and taxes... like... maybe the wars? or inflation...

I wish you the best of luck paying attention to 'stuff' i hope nothing creeps up on you. We don't really need the government to do it for us, but if they have the infrastructure in place for an early warning system, why not take advantage of it? I'm sure this will be linked with independent observation systems as well, and will be helpful (read: save lives) in the future as the weather gets crazier. It's something that should be done on the federal level, seeing as how huge America is and how weather affects multiple states at a time; relying on one company or state to do it might prove to be unrealistic and unreliable in the case of a real emergency, hence, its at the federal level.

"you're going to pay your taxes anyway right? They're not exactly charging you extra, just adding to debt lolol."
Pay taxes with my hard earned money and support a program i do not agree with or go to jail? Well, i have a family to feed, so its really no question.Adding to the debt is charging me extra as every American who pays taxes is responsible to pay the debt - not voluntarily mind you, but....

"And last time i checked, i can only tell that its raining and thundering, can't really predict severity of storms by tasting the wind... maybe my dog could, but even then, he wasn't talkin. And then, what about the zombie apocalypse... I might end up with half a brain and then what would i do without a warning system!"
Weather services have been around for a very long time now with the governments involvement - and their updates on your local channels. But you are giving up your right to take care of yourself and yours by paying attention to things around you to the government trusting that it will do it right. I cannot imagine a greater path to disappointment and would not suggest holding your breath in anticipation.

"Programs like this started... more than just years ago, try decades. You didn't have to own a radio or a tv back in the day, and you still don't... Same applies for cell phones." Agreed.

"I really doubt this sucks up more power and funding"
Then who is paying for the brodcast equipment, the IT dept, the security team, and the guys in the middle?

"A statistic would be nice to settle this but alas i don't really care that much. We have bigger things to worry about sucking up resources and taxes... like... maybe the wars? or inflation..."
We do have more FISCAL things to worry about you are correct. However when a top heavy system collapses, it always makes the attempt to maintain control no matter what the price on the people is - hence the reason for the article.

"I wish you the best of luck paying attention to 'stuff' i hope nothing creeps up on you. We don't really need the government to do it for us, but if they have the infrastructure in place for an early warning system, why not take advantage of it?"
Because the infrastructure is not in place, or is not being utilized - either one will cost money.

"I'm sure this will be linked with independent observation systems as well, and will be helpful (read: save lives) in the future as the weather gets crazier. It's something that should be done on the federal level, seeing as how huge America is and how weather affects multiple states at a time; relying on one company or state to do it might prove to be unrealistic and unreliable in the case of a real emergency, hence, its at the federal level."
I would refer you to Bastiat, but i am starting to think it would be pointless.

You trust people who steal from you?

You're absolutely right Mike!

I would never trust telecom companies, since they just successfully argued in court that they should be immune from being sued collectively when they defraud their customers.

That is what you meant, right?

"I would never trust telecom companies, since they just successfully argued in court that they should be immune from being sued collectively when they defraud their customers" - I am not sure what you mean here. Do you mean that you believe it to be okay to sue all telecom companies because of the actions taken by 1?

No, that means when they defraud a million people out of their money, people are only allowed to pursue the case on an individual basis, rather than band together and sue for the full damage.

So when AT&T puts an extra, illegal 40 bucks on your phone bill, unless you're willing to go to court for forty bucks, they can get away with it.

"No, that means when they defraud a million people out of their money, people are only allowed to pursue the case on an individual basis, rather than band together and sue for the full damage."
I can go with you on that one. I must say that falsely advertising a service and then billing the customer is a problem.

"So when AT&T puts an extra, illegal 40 bucks on your phone bill, unless you're willing to go to court for forty bucks, they can get away with it."
Not just AT&T, but I do see your point. I am wondering though - what were you charged for? I mean, did your service go down due to a maintennce on your provider, or what?

I think you have done an excellent job of articulating the fear people associate with things like this, and again, the problem is not the technology itself, it is the fact of incidents like Katrina and the despicable lack of compassion displayed by the Bush administration that have helped to make people not trust their government. Add to that powerful and outspoken people like Cheney insisting that torture is a good thing, and you have citizens who are not inspired to trust their government much anymore.

That guy is a conspiracy theorist...

What I am saying is that I love technology, but I hate being forced into something... their whole operation is funded through taxation theft. If you don't pay their extortion, they throw you in a cage. That is unethical behavior.

Without them, you have no money or property anyway you fool. Property is a social agreement, not an objective law of the universe.

You pay taxes to ensure that you have property rights. Otherwise, you'd pay mercenaries to kill anyone who violated your will, which would be everyone who doesn't care about you, which is quite a few people.

God this Libertarian propaganda gets old. You don't really believe that shit do you?

you are kinda right about taxation theft ... line items in the president's budget are not something the American people really have a clue about. It's part of the murky area that doesn't get talked about much.

I pay taxes to stay out of prison, because if I don't, you will tackle me and throw me in a cage (or have someone to do it for you which is almost worse).

yes... alerting americans that other americans or even your own family is in danger is just... downright unamerican... the scoundrels...

"You pay taxes to ensure that you have property rights." - What is wrong with a person defending their own property? Also, people have worked together throughout history to defend their property without the aid of any government. On the contrary - look at what happened after the American revolution - government used a huge chunk of money and debt to by lands further west, and then sold them to people to colonize them. The people (believing that they now had rights to the land) went to settle the land just to be harrassed by the Indians and squaters alike - both of which were there prior to their moving in. So who do the people call to save them from the land they just bought - the government - the same scums who sold it to them to begin with knowing the issues it already had. So how does this equate to government defending private property?

"Otherwise, you'd pay mercenaries to kill anyone who violated your will, which would be everyone who doesn't care about you, which is quite a few people." You mean government that take land as it see's fit, and distributes it as it sees fit using force - which it has always done (Mexican American War) Indian removal Acts etc? Throughout history, even our own, it has been that way. History just does not call it what it is because such expansions are always done under the banner of a 'righteous cause' that enjoys much public support.

In regards to your last statement, are you referring to cases like where England hired the German Hessian to expand their ranks to aid getting the colonies back in line? If so - that was also an act condoned by government. Today we use firms like blackwater etc.

Or perhaps you are referring to drug cartels that hire mercenaries to defend their properties? Or something....i dunno man - please give me an example because I have no idea where you got that from...most private entities could not even afford a real mercenary army which is why they are more commonly used by governments.

"What is wrong with a person defending their own property?"

I love how you say this and then provide your own refutation.

Because property is meaningless outside of it being a specific social arrangement. No one actually OWNS anything outside of having a social system that agrees with it and an army that protects it.

"So how does this equate to government defending private property?"

Because the only proper definition of property is the LEGAL definition. Meaning that anything not agreed to among a society is up for grabs.

And that's exactly what happened to the Native Americans. They, not being seen as part of the legal structure, were given no rights to the land they lived on.

The entire concept is based on legal agreements, which are always unfair, always cultural and frequently arbitrary.

"You mean government that take land as it see's fit, and distributes it as it sees fit using force..."

This is where Libertarians, universally, become fucking morons. You just replace any force you disagree with in history as being part of "the government."

What about Ghengis Khan? Would you consider his conquests "an act of government?"

Here's a tip, you don't need an organizing legal structure to act like a total prick. And, contrary to this constant yammering, individuals VOLUNTARY (with or without force) fuck each other all the time, with our without government.

And this whole premise is stupid because property REQUIRES force for existence. The only way you can stop anyone from just "borrowing" your shit is physically stopping them with force.

"In regards to your last statement, are you referring to cases..."

No, did you even read what I said? I'm referring to what happens in the ABSENCE of government. Like in Somalia or the Old West. When there is no dominant authority in the area, then there are no rules, and therefore no requirement for anyone to respect anything.

The only thing that made property coherent in 1870's New Mexico was common decency and how many guns you had.

Libertarian refusal of this basic fact is baffling to me. How do you think the world works without authority? How exactly do you think cooperating individuals have treated one another throughout history? Or do you just call competing warlords in the Medieval era "government" and call it a day?

Because for the majority of even this country's existence, there was no overarching Federal, State or even local governments. The majority of evil shit was done by unregulated individuals making their way across the frontier in the absence of law or government.

Let me just say this as simply as I can. There are no governments and there are no "voluntary virtues" citizens. There are only people and the power people wield. Where and how they choose to wield that power is really irrelevant.

Take the private conquest of Hawaii as an example, in which fruit companies overthrew the local government and established their own business regime.

"I love how you say this and then provide your own refutation".- How did I do that exactly? Using a neighborhood watch type of deal locally as oppose to government is hardly contradictary.

"Because property is meaningless outside of it being a specific social arrangement. No one actually OWNS anything outside of having a social system that agrees with it and an army that protects it."
So if I work hard to buy a car I want, then it is not truly mine? Hmmmm - maybe thats why so many states argue that driving is a priveledge and not a right. If one cannot own that which one pays for, then it is okay for society to steal it from them...Is that what you mean?

"Because the only proper definition of property is the LEGAL definition."
Frederick Bastiat - The Law - your thoughts on the work?

"Meaning that anything not agreed to among a society is up for grabs."
But society is comprised of individuals who deep down agree on very little - a fine example being this comment string. So why should a person who works hard to buy something have to share it with someone who did not just because society says so. Do you see this as being morally correct, or do you not care?

"And that's exactly what happened to the Native Americans. They, not being seen as part of the legal structure, were given no rights to the land they lived on."
Yes they were actually. The French and Spanish 'owned" the lands the indians inhabited - they just coexisted with them enough to live and let live, never forcing them into anything. They told the Indians that if they sold the land to America, that the same would apply - knowing damn well it wasnt true. Then when the US came to settle 'their land', the indians fought back. It was a use of force that caused the indians to give up their land - not a honest agreement on ownership.

"The entire concept is based on legal agreements, which are always unfair, always cultural and frequently arbitrary."
So how is legal moral? And if not moral, then why do people follow?

"You mean government that take land as it see's fit, and distributes it as it sees fit using force..."

This is where Libertarians, universally, become fucking morons. You just replace any force you disagree with in history as being part of "the government."
Yet it was the federal government that bought the lands. As noted by Washington - government is indeed force - so in neither case did I make a false statement in this manner. "universally, become fucking morons. You just replace any force you disagree with" - any force that is morally reprehensible - u bet we do.

"What about Ghengis Khan? Would you consider his conquests "an act of government?""
IN an age where empires ruled - yes.

"Here's a tip, you don't need an organizing legal structure to act like a total prick." Agreed - a legal structure just makes moral wrongs okay to people like you.

"And, contrary to this constant yammering, individuals VOLUNTARY (with or without force) fuck each other all the time, with our without government."
Once again - government just makes it legal, and involuntarily.

"And this whole premise is stupid because property REQUIRES force for existence. The only way you can stop anyone from just "borrowing" your shit is physically stopping them with force.""
Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. Anyway, the only way to do so is via a revolution - and those often make matter worse in the long run. In such a light, coming up with a workable solution is through education, and hoping society as a whole will see it. If not then your efforts are in vain etc. I am okay with that - at least I wil die one day knowing that at least i tried.

"No, did you even read what I said? I'm referring to what happens in the ABSENCE of government."
How about the colonies in Pennsyvalnia in the 1680's which had no government at all and did quite well? It was not until Penn took then by force that they started to go downhill.

"Like in Somalia or the Old West. When there is no dominant authority in the area, then there are no rules, and therefore no requirement for anyone to respect anything."
Somalia had warlords which the people could always either fight, or move. Besides,a warlord is a tyrant plain and simple, not an anarchy. The warlords are the dominating force which means their words are law, and to disobey is death. To disrespect the warlord etc is also death. So the warlords force is the governing power thus a minnie dictatorship within smaller clusters. Just because e people are barbaric and non-civil, does not mean that they have no governing system.

"The only thing that made property coherent in 1870's New Mexico was common decency and how many guns you had."
And now it is so much better right?

"Libertarian refusal of this basic fact is baffling to me. How do you think the world works without authority? How exactly do you think cooperating individuals have treated one another throughout history?" Or do you just call competing warlords in the Medieval era "government" and call it a day?
I would ask you read Rothbard, but i know you never will, so it is pointless for me to argue.

"Because for the majority of even this country's existence, there was no overarching Federal, State or even local governments."
BUllshit - read the Oxford History of the US starting with Empire of Liberty by Woods, or maybe even Colonial Hiostry of the US by Rothbard...Want me to actually cite the chapters and Pages?

"The majority of evil shit was done by unregulated individuals making their way across the frontier in the absence of law or government."
See above answer.

""Let me just say this as simply as I can. There are no governments and there are no "voluntary virtues" citizens. There are only people and the power people wield.Where and how they choose to wield that power is really irrelevant."
And you accuse me of contradictions.....

That is exactly what we are saying, no problem with companies tracking you... fine with me, you can opt out at any point... not the same with statism. You don't think the DEA will use/has been using this technology for a long time? Victimless crime rate.... here we go up again. Government is not choice, voluntaryism is...

This program does not change the location information the government has on cell phone users in any way. The Emergency Alert System tells cell phone companies to send a message to certain towers, the cell phone companies then send the message from certain towers. How will this help the DEA?

This is the most innocuous part of any government that exists "Hey there's a tornado, look out!" The fact that you have a problem with it shows that your arguments against "statism" are not driven by rational thought.

Don't try to reason. It doesn't work very often on this website. Some people just choose to believe that the government is always out to "get them" no matter what it does.

You are right Mike, this technology has been a line item in the President's budget all the way back to Bush...line item meaning it gets funded without a vote. It is enshrouded in anti-government mentality, largely because the technology was refined and further developed post 9-11, and was tested by using infectious disease patterns. The reason why people tend to freak out about this sort of thing is because our government has not inspired us lately to trust them, and the technology, like all technologies, is capable of being used for both good and evil, but the technology is not the ENEMY.

I never said technology was bad, I don't want to be forced. I don't like aggressive coercion.

I don't think any of us do, I'm just not sure that's what this is.....yet.

Do not fear choice and peace.

We DON'T have to buy the things they market to us. We are just stupid, and I'm not sure anyone has figured out the alternative opt out button for that yet. I think it's pandemic.

Maybe you don't have to buy what a business is selling, but you do have to buy/pay taxes for what the government does.... against your wishes/will. This is not about choice, even the funding of this is unethically based.

I just got a letter back from my representative because I phoned his office and asked him not to vote for HR3. He responded by telling me he was actually one of the sponsors of this bill, and his reasoning was exactly what you are saying. He couldn't justify funding abortions with taxpayer money because a lot of people are opposed to that. He is correct, they are, and he knows they are because they have let him know.

I am opposed to most of what this GOP dominated government is doing with my taxes, starting and ending with these wars, but sadly, he is not listening to my opposition, he is claiming to be listening to another faction he represents. So what do we conclude? The wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the oil? Probably true, so exercise your democratic right to object, and do so loudly.

c'mon, they're already doing that....

That'd be awesome if they did that, actually.

there is, you turn GPS off on your cell phone, or don't buy a cellphone, or buy one without GPS. I don't think the government really cares where you are anyway, and I don't mean that in a disparaging way to you.

The point is we want to have the option, voluntary option.... not be forced into this inefficient monopoly of lies.... you enjoy this inefficient system all you want, just let us opt out! Don't force people into your "great ideas".

I do not have a cell phone . No one really needs one .

I can't answer that in a way that is going to satisfy you Mike. Power corrupts, absolute power absolutely corrupts.

We live in a risk society, and our role in this society requires that we participate in risk assessment. You assess the risk associated with any technology and you make decisions. Monsanto is a better example of risk assessment gone wrong. The people whose lives are being impacted by the risks associated with Monsanto technologies are not the ones who are directly making the decisions about what risks they are willing or not willing to bear, but ultimately each of us is responsible, in a democratic society, to make those risk assessments when we go to the polls. I did not vote for my current representative, but neither did I support the policies of the representative who was voted out and replaced by the current one. However, I did make sure my past representative knew what I objected to in his policies, and I even suggested to him that he accept NPR's invitation to debate his opponent. He declined. He lost the election. His risk assessment was, apparently off as well. We live in a Risk Society where you can't have everything you want and just opt out of what you don't want. You have to participate or someone else makes your decisions for you, and clearly, the majority of the American people are not being represented by those they vote or do not vote into office.