The Glade 4.0

And dont we have another thread about how the Brits are censoring Internet porn.

They haven't yet. And we've censored things before. We've even banned alcohol for an entire decade. We had slaves. In 1869, Britain granted unmarried women who are householders the right to vote in local elections.

I really hate these "the U.S. is so repressed/puritanical/whatever" arguments. No matter which way the chips fall, it's counted as proof of the theory.

History tells us they did in the colonies or at least it did when I was in school.

What makes you think all these things happened in the U.K.?

We occupy homes in Iraq sometimes. It's not a big deal in times of war or civil unrest.
I am just saying that the American War most likely did not improve individual liberties on an empirical basis.

They haven't yet.

I think this belongs in the porn thread. ("I hate people.")

Of course, the irony there is that thread is about the UK banning porn, not the USA.

Soldiers can't demand food and housing from citizens - Empirically Improved
All goods don't have to pass through England - Empirically Improved
The Gov't can't search our vehicles or houses without due process - Empirically Improved
Judges don't get 5% of the confiscations they impose on us - Empirically Improved

Lex wasn't comparing pre-war america with post-war america. He was comparing post-war america with their contemporary england.

I am just saying that the American War most likely did not improve individual liberties on an empirical basis.

here was part of the UK, hence, they happened in the UK.

Soldiers can't demand food and housing from citizens - Empirically Improved

All goods don't have to pass through England - Empirically Improved

The Gov't can't search our vehicles or houses without due process - Empirically Improved

Public reaction to three court cases held in the 1760s helped to define the seizure laws we have today. Wilkes v. Wood and Entick v. Carrington involved pamphleteers who were charged with criticizing the king and, as a result, had items from their home illegally seized. Lord Camden agreed that the items taken from both homes were taken illegally, making him a hero in the public's eye. The third case, The Writs of Assistance Case, involved the search and seizure for smuggled goods in the colonies. Like the Wilkes and Wood cases, the public felt as if the warrants used to seize the smuggled goods were illegal, but the court disagreed. From these three cases, laws were eventually crafted to guard against illegal search and seizures.

Judges don't get 5% of the confiscations they impose on us - Empirically Improved

We can speak freely about the Gov't - Empirically Improved

Yes they have.

They aren't elected officials. Firing would work as well as firing squad, terminating employment as well as termination of life.

It's been pretty well established that your system doesn't work.

Only in your mind Arathain. I can point to specific points where it was tried and it worked out very well. You have...your imagination. I make fact-based decisions however I understand you are free not to.

When's the last time an army squad knocked on your door and demanded you cook them dinner?

Or you were arrested for what you write on this forum?

Or a police officer stormed into your house without a warrant found something illegal or arrested you for it.

Or you were forced to testify against yourself in court?
.

We were in a state of unrest and near rebellion. It was excusable. Obviously after matters were settled this wouldn't happen again. We didn't need an Amendment - even if we did, it would be violated if there was further unrest.

It has never worked. Individual freedoms are mostly based on culture. If you can't change the culture, people won't care.

Only in your mind Arathain. I can point to specific points where it was tried and it worked out very well. You have...your imagination. I make fact-based decisions however I understand you are free not to.

Twenty percent of America supported the revolution. That is a minority of ideology though through their action they DEFINED the ideology of the culture for a century.

I won't even respond to this silliness.

We were in a state of unrest and near rebellion. It was excusable. Obviously after matters were settled this wouldn't happen again. We didn't need an Amendment - even if we did, it would be violated if there was further unrest.

This is not an individual freedom.

Already in the U.K.

Public reaction to three court cases held in the 1760s helped to define the seizure laws we have today. Wilkes v. Wood and Entick v. Carrington involved pamphleteers who were charged with criticizing the king and, as a result, had items from their home illegally seized. Lord Camden agreed that the items taken from both homes were taken illegally, making him a hero in the public's eye. The third case, The Writs of Assistance Case, involved the search and seizure for smuggled goods in the colonies. Like the Wilkes and Wood cases, the public felt as if the warrants used to seize the smuggled goods were illegal, but the court disagreed. From these three cases, laws were eventually crafted to guard against illegal search and seizures.

I am sure people spoke just as freely about the Gov't in the U.K.

No, they are just considering it.

Twenty percent of America supported the revolution. That is a minority of ideology though through their action they DEFINED the ideology of the culture for a century.

It didn't increase our individual freedoms.

A revolution would be a terrible thing for the United States. It would push all our tech industries overseas... for good. I'd rather prosecute pedofile-writers than have instability and murdering of judges.