Rising fascism in the US

livinglava wrote:

The problem is these supernational institutions have built-in problems that aren't apparent without close scrutiny. With the Paris accord, scam.

I don't know what the "paris accord" is. But perhaps you mean the "Paris Agreement"
The latter has nothing at all to do with European Court of Human Rights, international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Paris Agreement is not a court but as an - as the name suggest - an agreement, not by the Council of Europe but within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Every marketing scam looks good superficially or else it wouldn't work as a scam.

While the Trump administration has so far not attempted to explicitly declare the act of publishing illegal, a core part of its argument would criminalize many common journalist-source interactions that reporters rely on all the time. Requesting more documents from a source, using an encrypted chat messenger, or trying to keep a source’s identity anonymous are not crimes; they are vital to the journalistic process. Whether or not you like Assange, the charge against him is a serious press freedom threat and should be vigorously protested by all those who care about the First Amendment.

Criminally prosecuting a publisher for the publication of truthful information would be a first in American history, and unconstitutional.

while there is no First Amendment right to crack a government password, this indictment characterizes as ‘part of’ a criminal conspiracy the routine and protected activities journalists often engage in as part of their daily jobs, such as encouraging a source to provide more information.

The potential implications for press freedom of this allegation of conspiracy between publisher and source are deeply troubling. With this prosecution of Julian Assange, the U.S. government could set out broad legal arguments about journalists soliciting information or interacting with sources that could have chilling consequences for investigative reporting and the publication of information of public interest.

While we investigate the implications of the US Justice Department’s charges against Julian Assange, which are specific to his interactions with a source, we reiterate our concern that the prosecution of those who provide or publish information of public interest comes at the expense of the investigative journalism that allows a democracy to thrive.

While the indictment of Julian Assange centers on an alleged attempt to break a password—an attempt that was not apparently successful—it is still, at root, an attack on the publication of leaked material and the most recent act in an almost decade-long effort to punish a whistleblower and the publisher of her leaked material.

Several parts of the indictment describe very common journalistic behavior, like using cloud storage or knowingly receiving classified information or redacting identifying information about a source.

while we are relieved that the government has not chosen to include publication-based charges today, if Assange is indeed extradited, the government can issue superseding indictments. It should not do so.

Leaks are a vital part of the free flow of information that is essential to our democracy.

Reporting on leaked materials, including reporting on classified information, is an essential role of American journalism.

How hard/expensive do you think it will be to have him killed and/or tortured if other prisoners within the general population have access to him? Do you think prisoners are too honorable to be paid/bartered to abuse some other inmate?

It seems like he's already been tortured in the embassy. Who smears feces on a wall except as an animal-like reaction to extreme stress? I couldn't believe his behavior was described as "rude response of a guest to hosts." Of course maybe I am just being suspicious and they were just taking really good care of him and he decided to smear feces on the wall as an act of unprovoked aggression. Who can say, really?

LOL you do know that we never agree to be under that court and congress already pass a law allowing the president to use military force of all things if a member of our military is being held by this court or any similar court.

Americans even non Trump supporters such as myself would not put up with a foreign court having any say in our behaviors.

That said I can only hope that our courts will step in and limit Trump behaviors.

While America refuses to accept international law, protect war criminals like Bush and conduct illegal wars like those in Iraq, resentment will build up and make further 9/11s more likely.

Finally, the comments about a free market system being liberal are hilariously absurd

Liberal come from liberalis referring to the attributes of a free man. As a political term, it only came into use after 1830, at the time of the fight over parliamentary reform in Britain, and meant those who favored reform of parliament, as opposed to conservatives, to those who did not want to see any such reform. Don't make it up as you go along, George, you're not well enough educated for that.

If all nations were to follow “the liberal system of free exportation and free importation,” then they would be like one great cosmopolitan empire, and famines would be prevented. Then he repeats the phrase: “But very few countries have entirely adopted this liberal system.”

Smith’s “liberal system” was not concerned solely with international trade. He used “liberal” to describe application of the same principles to domestic policy issues. Smith was a great opponent of restrictions in the labor market, favoring freedom of contract, and wished to see labor markets “resting on such liberal principles.”

Elsewhere, Smith draws an important contrast between regulating “the industry and commerce of a great country … upon the same model as the departments of a publick office”—that is, to direct the economy as though it were an organization—versus “allowing every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice.” In drawing such a contrast, Smith again is signaling the label “liberal” for the latter, which he favors.

Smith also compliments a school of French economists: “In representing perfect liberty as the only effectual expedient” for making national wealth as great as possible, “its doctrine seems to be in every respect as just as it is generous and liberal.” At the core of Smith’s idea of liberal principles is the idea of natural liberty:

"All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men."

For Smith, natural liberty was not an axiom. He made exceptions to it and acknowledged that he was doing so. Still, it is his main principle, and the burden of proof is on those who would contravene it. In an open letter to Smith in 1787, Jeremy Bentham saluted him for having taught society the presumption of liberty. Bentham then proceeded to challenge Smith on one of his exceptions, saying that Smith had failed to meet the burden of proof when he made an exception to natural liberty by endorsing an existing law setting a maximum interest rate.

Shortly after The Wealth of Nations was published, Robertson wrote to Smith, saluting it as an antidote to "illiberal arrangements" and saying, “Your Book must necessarily become a Political or Commercial Code to all Europe, which must be often consulted by men both of Practice and Speculation.” Robertson’s expectation, widely shared at the time, proved accurate. And as Smith’s system spread, so did his term for it. The term became familiar in British officialdom, popping up occasionally in Parliamentary debate and even in King George III’s address at the opening of Parliament in 1782.

The origin of the term "liberal' involved free market capitalism, and laws limiting the powers of previously entrenched aaristocracies. This was then a big step forward from the government sanctioned monopolies and the vested aristocratic systems that preceded it. Today in the U.S. the term, more often than not, refers to Democrats who seek the solution to social and economc problems primarily through direct government action. A ittle bit of that can be a good thing, moderating the excesses of free market capitalism. However. its excesses lead usually to autocracy, the loss of individual freedoms and a form of equality in poverty for all.

I love it when you're snotty and wrong all in the same post. Adam Smith was referring to an economic system, not a political system. In his lifetime, those we would call liberals were called Whigs, and those we would call conservatives were called Tories.

The Hanseatic League was a trade organization, not a political system, nor a political entity. You, like George, should not make sh*t up when you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I suspect in your case that you rushed out and did a shallow internet search in the hope of coming up with something you could use in your never-ending attempts to bully people online.

As a political term, it only came into use after 1830, at the time of the fight over parliamentary reform in Britain, and meant those who favored reform of parliament, as opposed to conservatives, to those who did not want to see any such reform.