Einstein's 1,427-Page F.B.I. File

meow meow cat chow writes: "Fred Jerome of the Gene Media Forum has recently written a book called "The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover's Secret War Against the World's Most Famous Scientist." The book talks about how the FBI spied on Einstein and identifies some of the people who said he was a spy. Jerome sued the government to obtain access to the 1,427 page file which can be found at (http://foia.fbi.gov/einstein.htm) The New York Times has an article about the book."

Comments

No surprising.

[Krapangor]

After all Einstein was for banning all nuclear weapons and against the development of the H bomb.
Keep in mind that these were the hard times in the cold war against the communists. Some people wrongly thought that all anti nuclear weapons guys were pro communist. Ironically their preceptions that the spending of more and more money into the military sector would bring down communism has turned out correct after all. Einstein was in fact unwillingly helping Stalin and Breshnev.

Re:No surprising.

[murat]

I'm sure FBI has files of other science genuines such as Nikola Tesla, etc. Any information?

Re:No surprising.

[dj28]

Did you even bother to read the article? He wasn't being investigated becuase he was against nuclear weapons. And they just didn't "assume" he was a communist. He, in all actuality, was a communist. If you read the article, you would know that he was affiliated with 34 communist front groups between 1937-1954, and was a chairman in three of those groups. The government had every right to be suspicious about him. Read the article before you rant about something you have no clue about.

Re:No surprising.

[Anonymous Coward]

The government had every right to be suspicious about him.

Are you implying that the governments should in general be suspicious of communists? Why not libertarians, conservatives or some other political party?

Re:No surprising.

[Spoing]

Did you even bother to read the article? He wasn't being investigated becuase he was against nuclear weapons. And they just didn't "assume" he was a communist. He, in all actuality, was a communist. If you read the article, you would know that he was affiliated with 34 communist front groups between 1937-1954, and was a chairman in three of those groups. The government had every right to be suspicious about him. Read the article before you rant about something you have no clue about.

Yeah, Communism is so obviously an effective threat against Capitalism that it was...erm...never mind.

Re:No surprising.

[Anonymous Coward]

Communists? Who cares? Yes, communism ultimatly failed, but, in a perfect world without corruption and greed, it would make for a perfect system. The average person now knows that extreme left communism just does not work. However, at a time earlier in this century, people were not confident in the capitalistic economy, and had not seen communisms failures firt hand yet. They had, on the other hand, experienced the shortcomings of capitalism. Remember the great depression? It was a _major_ failure of extreme right capitalism. Furthermore, many people were distraught at the mistreatment of the working class. Communism was one answer (opinion: it was a step in the right direction, but the step was much to large). While I'm on the subject, to this day I can show you probably hundreds of millions (billions?) of people around the world who would certainly disagree with capitalism, and embrace socialism or even communism. I guess my point is, the whole communist witchhunt thing was (and still is to an extent) unfair and that capitalism is not perfect either. We must also remember that communist "propaganda" was also met with anti-communist "propaganda", so it's especially hard to judge either side from an unbiased viewpoint.

Re:No surprising.

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot.

I don't see that happening here in Europe where many government cabinets have outright Communist members. It's called democracy, you know.

Re:No surprising.

[peddrenth]

"The government had every right to be suspicious about him"

Just like the government is allowed to be suspicious of anyone who's a democrat? It obviously justifies wiretapping.

Dammit, let's have a web-microphone for each and every telephone in parliament, see how people like freedom of information to work the other way around.

Re:No surprising.

[Kalabajoui]

All this talk of communism and yet nobody replying to the above post seems to understand that America IS a very socialistic country. We subsidize airlines to the tune of forty billion dollars, farm subsidies are now back with a vengeance, the FDA lubricates Big Pharmacy's pockets with the blood and misery of the sick etc... It doesn't stop with corporate interests; we also subsidize education at the federal level with grants, the over-inflated price of housing is due to government interference in the market. Then there's the popular whipping-boy of socialistic policies, welfare, which though a drop in the bucket of our budget, is attacked mercilessly by politicians who want to give money to their rich corporate contributors. It's too bad that us Americans allowed our government to get as big and out of hand as it currently is. Were America actually a true free market society, the resulting economic boom would far eclipse our current ideas of prosperity.

Re:No surprising.

[darkonc]

Tesla wasn't a genius. More like a crackpot with all his deathrays and "unlimited energy" ideas.

Yeah... That, and the completely insane idea that AC current was more efficient than DC current.

Tesla and Edison probably split because of their differening ideas on the efficacy of AC current vs. DC. Edison firmly believed that DC was the way to go and did Everything in his power to destroy Tesla and his AC ideas. Like Bill Gates, however, he was able to recognize when an idea was stronger than his marketing clout and turn to an 'embrace and extend' approach.

Tesla died a (relative) pauper because he was willing to give away his AC patents to General Electric rather than see Edison win with his DC ideas. Without Tesla, we would not have things like transformers, AC motors and long-distance power transmission. Edison, on the other hand, had money and marketing on his side.

Re:No surprising.

[PatientZero]

2,500 innocent lives is the acceptable limit for plausable deniability. Once you pass that, you've launched yourself into "genocide" territory, and only the CIA can help you now -- if they want to. ;)

Re:No surprising.

[vrt3]

A majority of the people accused by McCarthy of Communism were in fact registered, card-carrying Communists.

So? In Belgium and in France, to name a few, there were until a few years ago (or even still now in France?) Communist Parties, and in Belgium we still have a communist-minded party. Despite that, neither country has become communist, so it's hardly a reason to hunt the members of those parties down.

Besides, what happened to free speech, and being free to believe whatever you want?

And I can show you millions of homosexuals, whores, thieves, junkies, rapists, murderers, child-molesters, lesbians, drug-dealers, and the like. In your view, Communism would seem to be just one more "lifestyle choice".

So now it's a crime to be homosexual?

it is my right and obligation to protect my nation from your actions if you should choose to move beyond words and into the realm of violence.

If and only if I choose to go into the realm of violence, yes. But that's not what communism is about.

Re:No surprising.

[Planesdragon]

If and only if I choose to go into the realm of violence, yes. But that's not what communism is about.

Tell that to Stalin. It doesn't matter how good your economic theory is--when the proponents of it loudly proclaim the need for a worldwide revolt (not a revolution, which can be peaceful, but an armed revolt) you set everyone else on edge against you.

If the USSR had decided to wage war in the economic sense, it might have had a chance. But, rather than letting their system succeed on its own merits, they (the communists) decided to try and force it, thus tainting any moderate implementation.

(Oh, and it was a crime for a great many years to be a homosexual. Just like it is a crime now to be a bigamist or commit bestiality. When Mormons take over the government or dogs learn to talk, expect those laws to change.)

Re:No surprising.

[mpe]

A majority of the people accused by McCarthy of Communism were in fact registered, card-carrying Communists.

So what? These people had every right to do so. The real irony is that McCarthy attacked people for being "unamerican" by himself attacking the US Consitution.
Similarly whilst Hoover was having the FBI indulge his paranoia organised crime bosses were laughing.

Re:No surprising.

[mpe]

Of course people are free to hold their political opinions. However the Communist Party in the USA was not a legitimate political organization in the 1930's - 1950's since it received secret funding from the USSR.

And we all know the US would never consider anything similar...
Let alone have a US funded entity overthrow a democratic government.

Re:No surprising.

[vrt3]

I wasn't talking about Stalin or the USSR, or any other implementation of communism, merely about communism itself.

BTW, from my last comments, one could get the impression that I'm a communist. Well, I'm not. My political view has progressed from moderate socialist/green to a more libertarian approach. But I defend veryone's right to hold his/her own political opinion.

Re:No surprising.

[Planesdragon]

Any named political idea that is implemented by one group is flavored by that group.

Personally, I think that Communism just needs a slight alteration to encourage greater productivity and it'd work--but that's not going to happen, mostly because command economies are horribly inefficient.

;) And I don't think you're a communist. Just a /. poster. :) (I'm not one either. I'm a novelist, and commies have about as much political weight to them now as, oh, the KKK.)

Re:No surprising.

[Wyatt Earp]

Because, between oh...about 1905 and 1989 there was a push for Communism to take over the world.

The FBI was paranoid about that.

Re:No surprising.

[foobar104]

Communists? Who cares? Yes, communism ultimatly failed, but, in a perfect world without corruption and greed, it would make for a perfect system. [...] Communism was one answer (opinion: it was a step in the right direction, but the step was much to large).

I don't usually like responding to ACs, especially ones who are so very wrong, but what the heck.

I used to hold that same opinion. Then, over a span of a dozen years or so, my opinion changed. I started thinking about the moral case of communism versus capitalism, and that put things in an entirely different light.

The practical case for communism is clear: improve the quality of life for all through collective ownership of the means of production. If it worked without flaws, I think it probably would, in fact, reduce things like poverty and inequity. From this, it makes a sort of sense that communism should be tried.

But the moral case is very different. Put simply, and as I understand it, capitalism is based on the assumption that you own what you produce. Communism is based on the assumption that you do not own what you produce. In other words, in a capitalist world, if I plant a field and grow corn, it's mine to do with as I will: eat it, hoard it, sell it, or let it rot in the fields. In a communist world, that corn rightfully belongs to the state as a whole-- not in the sense of state as government, but in the sense of the group of all people who live in my community/county/world/whatever. Government is just a necessary evil to enact the will of the people as a whole.

The moral case for capitalism just makes more sense to me: the corn (or whatever) wouldn't exist without me, so I own it. If you want corn, grow your own. The fact that communism is based on an opposite idea means that, to me, it's tantamount to stealing my corn. That pretty much ruins the moral case in my eyes.

Yes, capitalism leads fairly directly to bad things, like poverty and such, but that's not the point. Are you familiar with the idea of fruit from a poisoned tree? It's a legal doctrine; you can probably learn more by googling "Felix Frankfurter." No, seriously. Stop laughing.

The doctrine of fruit from a poisoned tree simply says that anything you gain through improper means is itself improper. The legal use of this doctrine applies to rules of evidence, but it's also useful for considering moral issues. Basically, the idea is the opposite of the old saw, "The ends justify the means."

So, given that communism springs from a fundamentally wrong moral position (this is ultimately a judgment call, of course) that's our poisoned tree. The benefits we might reap from it-- like reducing poverty and inequity and all that-- are the fruit. When I thought of it in those terms, that pretty much decided it for me.

Like I said though, this is fundamentally a judgment call. It's just unfortunate that the ideals of communism enacted through a few powerful men have turned out to be so very dangerous. I'm almost to the point where I'm willing to say that the ideas themselves are dangerous, due to their potential for abuse and horror.

Re:No surprising.

[TheCrazyFinn]

Actually, The government had every right to 'Be Suspicious' of him, What they didn't have the right to do was act on those suspicions without proof of treason, and they didn't. With his close ties to communist organizations, and access to sensitive documents, Einstein could have very easily spied for the USSR, but he didn't, so they didn't do anything. If you have a security clearance, and dangerous friends, expect to be monitored, no matter what your political views.

The Crazy Finn

Re:No surprising.

[zeugma-amp]

You're pretty much on target here. The people McCarthy was hounding were communists. They supported a brutal and murderous regime in the USSR and later China.

If we are to remain free though, we have to be willing to accept the idea that people will have differeing opinions on politics.

McCarthy's open attacks on Constitution protections is enough to make me oppose him an his methods.

In a free country, the ends cannot justify the means.

Re:No surprising.

[zeugma-amp]

Too bad you posted as AC. You are largely correct in your writings above. I'd bump you up if I had mod points.

THe way that communism sucks the life out of a people is one of the clues that one can take to the innate evil it contains as a philosophy. Yes, I said evil. Some things are evil whether people want to believe it or not. Look at the horrors that occurred in the Ukraine. Millions starved to death at the command of Stalin. The supporters of communism will not recognise their complicity in these deaths any more than they can recognise their complicity in the deaths of millions in China during the 'Cultural Revolution' or the 'Great Leap Forward'.

For a modern example of pending death and destruction, take a look at the harvest the Angel of Death is about to reap in Zimbabwe. Here we see communists stealing the lands from farmers in the name of 'land reform'. Now we hear that the crops (what little were actually planted) are failing. Duh.

People have no sense of history whatsoever. Sometimes I think it is a way of blocking out knowledge that would otherwise leave people with a feeling of responsibility for the results of those cherished ideas of theirs.

I'm not one stupid enough to claim that there are no excesses of the free market and democracy. That is why I believe a Republican form of government with limited powers of regulation is probably the best balance between the mob (democracy), the fundamental human rights to just be left the hell alone, and the unrestrained excesses of monopolies that the free market can produce.

Re:No surprising.

[HydroCarbon10]

Communists? Who cares? Yes, communism ultimatly failed, but, in a perfect world without corruption and greed....

Yes, and right after we eliminate corruption and greed we could do away with physics too. Free energy would be quite nice. In fact, after figuring out how to eliminate corruption and greed finding a way to modify physics at will shouldn't be too terribly difficult.

Re:No surprising.

[RandomCoil]

Yeah, Communism is so obviously an effective threat against Capitalism that it was...erm...never mind.

You've got some awesome 20/20 hindsight there.

Re:No surprising.

[Spoing]

That I do!

In all seriousness, did communism (as a social/economic system) ever make sense to you? Well before the Soviet Block fell, reading about it in high school -- let alone college -- left me wondering...why? How? It's kind of like the underwear gnomes on South Park: 1. Get underwear. 2. ??????? 3. Profit!.

I'll grant only one exception: kabutz (sp?) and other small-scale commune systems with unforced and willing participants. On a larger scale, where the members aren't as willing (or are forced to be willing), it never made sense to me. Where's the personal motivation?

Capitalism isn't perfect, and often nasty, but it does have some major built-in personal motivators.

Re:No surprising.

[RandomCoil]

Nah, communism never made much sense to me, but then I was raised under capitalism. It does seem to work in small groups of like-minded people, but you get one person in their who starts feeling the least bit superior and bam-o it all breaks down.

Anyway, I responded to your original comment mainly because regardless of whether or not communism can be a long term threat to a capitalist people, The Soviet Union did represent a military threat which I don't think can be lightly brushed aside. I mean, it's not like the USSR was really communist anyway -- more of a fascist oligarchy that liked the vocabulary of communist theory.

Frankly, I really hope that two people can have this same conversation about countries based on religious fundamentalism in XX years. Those never make much sense to me either.

Re:No surprising.

[Mahonrimoriancumer]

There was a minor stock market correction in October, 1929 (roughly like the wobbles NASDAQ has been having the last few days). The market recovered within a few weeks, and not until years later was the correction mythologized by revisionists into a "crash". The economy was fine until 1933, when FDR, having lied his way into office, dictatorially closed the banks and threw the economy into a tailspin

The worst loss in a single day for stock market occurred Oct. 24th 1929. What was the best gain in a single day for the stock market? Oct. 25th, 1929!

The stock market crash did not propel us into the Great Depression. That was caused by FDR, when he refused to be inagurated president until late May, 1932. This caused a great deal of uncertanty in the banking world and destroyed several trading markets, especially futures.

Re:No surprising.

[Mahonrimoriancumer]

(Oh, and it was a crime for a great many years to be a homosexual. Just like it is a crime now to be a bigamist or commit bestiality. When Mormons take over the government or dogs learn to talk, expect those laws to change.)

The Mormon church is against bigamy and excommunicates any member who practices it.

Re:No surprising.

[gerbache]

Eh, there's a fine line between crackpot and genius, if you ask me. There have been a lot of people through the years who were by all rights geniuses but considered nuts. So Telsa had a few bad ideas... so what? He also pioneered the technology that allows modern long distance power transmission (AC, even though it is admittedly far more dangerous that DC). That alone puts him into the genius category as far as I'm concerned, even if he did have some nutty other projects.

Re:No surprising.

[gerbache]

Ever study Communism? Real Communism, not the stuff Stalin and others have put into action. Real communism is based on people sharing resources so that all benefit. This is a far cry from requiring violence. Have all the attempts thus far been violent? Absolutely not! How about the countries (Like say, oh, the United States that you seem to think is so bloody perfect) have communist parties?

The US very definitely has one, and it puts someone into the Presidential election every time it comes up. They won't get elected because they are far too extreme for the average voter to support, but nevertheless, they are attempting to change the government. Doesn't sound too violent to me, and actually seems to embody the "American Way" pretty well.

Re:No surprising.

[Kalabajoui]

Just the other day our President, Bush, was going on about making people work harder for their welfare. I couldn't agree more. We need to train those corporate executives in lifestyle skills, teach them how to fill out job applications, and make them jump through all of the other hoops the poor do to feed at the government trough. Sadly it doesn't work that way. The poor in America do get benefits, but often have to work harder to qualify than if they just went out and found a job. Our government doesn't want to eliminate benefits for the poor; otherwise, what else would they use as a distraction from their giveaways to the filthy rich?

Re:No surprising.

[mpe]

You're pretty much on target here. The people McCarthy was hounding were communists. They supported a brutal and murderous regime in the USSR and later China.

Problem is that plenty of people in the US have supported all sorts of brutal, murderous and undemocratic regimes, with out any similar kind of fuss being made about their views. This support includes several billion US dollers per year. AFAIK US communists were never in any kind of position to provide meaningful funding to the USSR and China.

McCarthy's open attacks on Constitution protections is enough to make me oppose him an his methods.

You don't defend something by destroying it.

Re:No surprising.

[Robert Martin]

In a perfect world, communism is NOT the perfect system. Communism and capitalism are two ways to allocate scarce resources that have alternative uses (and all resources are scarce). Communism typically allocates resources based on central planning. Everything is state owned, so communists build factories as needed and then central planners mandate a certain number of widgets produced each month. The problem with this is, the central planners receive imperfect feedback on how many widgets are actually needed. Remember, as we all know from Econ 101, typically, as prices change, demand changes as well. Price goes down, demand goes up. There's no such thing as a natural consumption rate, just an equilibrium price based on a certain supply. Communism also mandates a price for the product, however. Because they are controlling the price and the supply, and because they have imperfect information, there will likely be shortages for that product. This is why, in the former Soviet Union, which has some of the richest soil in the world (during WWII, Hitler even planned on trucking back Soviet soil after he conquered it), people were starving. It wasn't because of corruption or greed, it was because the central planners in Moscow didn't understand as well as the local farmers the local soil conditions as well as the local farmers--and thus mandated crops and yields that didn't utilize the land as efficiently as the local farmers could. Because capitalism puts the burden of resource determination on the local producer, resources are efficiently allocated. The local producer is guided by prices (which are an indicator of the relative value that consumers place on certain products) what his land/factory/whatever can produce (should I grow beans or peas?), and how much it costs to produce each. This is much more efficient, because he and millions of other people are making things that consumers deem valuable, and because they are competing with each other, they gradually become more efficient with their resources. I can go into more detail, but I'd recommend Sowell's Basic Economics for anyone who is confused about those points. Further, and this is more in response to other people claiming that the US is socialist--this is partially true. But remember than even in free market economics, there are things we cannot trust the market to produce. The classic example is defence. It makes sense for the government to tax and to provide for the defense of the country. If everyone paid for what they felt was appropriate, our system would be uncoordinated and vulnerable. Other examples are education, etc.

Re:No surprising.

[EnderWiggnz]

dude - you are seriously talking out of your ass...

the great depression was caused by -
1) simultaneous saturation of two huge new markets (radio and automobile), and the fallout from losing all the cottage inustries that supported the rise of these industries.

2) massive stock market speculation (stock market bubble)

3) Bone-headed protectionist tariffs by Hoover.

I know that you really want to blame this on FDR, but the facts just arent there. FDR inheritied n 18% unemployment rate - there was serious discussion of revolution before he got in, and yet he managed to save the Union.

Re:No surprising.

[ahodgson]

Perhaps because, unlike communists, those other parties don't strongly advocate and work towards the violent takeover of their government? Hmmm ...

Re:No surprising.

[Spoing]

Frankly, I really hope that two people can have this same conversation about countries based on religious fundamentalism in XX years. Those never make much sense to me either.

Agreed. As soon as one religion becomes dominate they'll be able to have a non-hostile conversation. Then, it'll start all over again. The positive thing about having no one global religion is that it keeps the radicals in check. Also, I've found that people tend to get most upset with those who almost agree with them...but not quite.

Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay?

[Rolo Tomasi]

The FBI you see through these files is not the degenerate radical group now laboring to abolish the sacred liberties for the sake of which our nation was founded.

Yes, it's actually the degenerate radical group whose founder and director liked to dress like a ballerina.

Re:Not at all

[imr]

You forget sakharow. His struggle, the same as einstein's in this matter, desserved the urss government.

urss would have gone down anyway, would the money have been put in something else than nuclear weapons , as it was unable to stand a long economical war against the usa. Wich is what it was all along.

The fact that both systems chose the weapon area to compete the most is a moral standpoint and shows both system as being bad from this point of view. This is the battlefield that einstein and sakharov chose to fight in.
Ethics. Responsability. not politics and power.

Fifties flashbacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

...yes, it's scary.

It also sounds like a joke if you didn't live through the fifties. I did, and believe me, it was no joke.

I'm also scared by a lot of current rhetoric following 9/11. The words "terrorism" and "terrorist" seem to be taking on a lot of the baggage that "communism" and "communist" had in the fifties. If you're harboring terrorists, you're a terrorist... if you're associating with terrorists, you're a terrorist...

And "terrorist" doesn't seem to have a well-defined meaning, it's anyone the U. S. government wishes to attack.

And every time things settle down, the government announces some new warning about a possible terrorist attack and urges us to be vigilant and keep an eye on our friends and neighbors for suspicious activities--whatever they might be.

Does ANYONE seriously believe that NORTH KOREA had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? Or shares any fundamental views with Al-Quaida? No, yet somehow they're part of the International Terrorist Conspiracy.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government of the USA has fallen under the control of some Very Bad People, no doubt about it.

The only thing that is keeping the public complacent about it is the new role of the major news media as propaganda arms of the government. I know, I know, this is not news according to the likes of Chomsky et al, but there has been a **huge** sea change since 9-11 in how far they are even willing to pretend to go against the government line.

Personally I blame a lot of it on the changing nature of what a "reporter" is. Most of the people doing that job now are drooling for the chance to sit in Wolf Blitzer's chair and become high-paid celebrities. Edward R. Murrow they're not. Rock the boat? Not a chance, that would affect their chances for promotion.

Join la resistance!. The Smirking Chimp - news from the vast left-wing conspiracy.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how we're all posting anonymously on this topic? Scary times indeed - lots of people are afraid to so much as criticize the Bush administration. Fifties flashback for sure.

The US Government recently legitimized plans to invade the Netherlands.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[BCoates]

The US Government recently legitimized plans to invade the Netherlands

When the Netherlands declares extraterritorial jurisdiction over Americans and brings them to trial there, I'd damn well expect the US to do what was necessary to get them back.

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[anthony_dipierro]

Notice how we're all posting anonymously on this topic?

Slashdot has your IP address. And the Patriot Act gives the government the power to get it from slashdot. What's the point?

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is precisely the point.

The issue at hand is the development of an international legal system which has teeth. A system which will might cause a mass-murderer, for instance, to think twice before killing a village full of innocent people.

Such a system must have extraterritorial jurisdiction over any signatory state as far as some very particular cases are concerned. In the absence of this power the court is meaningless. While I'm no fan of the current administration, I respect their concern that the court could become a forum for politically-motivated prosecutions. The wise solution to this is not to actively subvert the court itself, but to become a serious party to the system, and to work to make it fair and balanced.

Are you seriously proposing that the blessed state of being "An American" should trump prosecution for mass murder? You might argue that the American legal system itself should handle this prosecution, but that ain't gonna help make some warlord in South Berzerkistan think twice before levelling a village with his black-market Soviet gunship. This is the missing element of vision in the American policy. The rest of the world can go hang, it seems to be saying.

The USA is in the process of withdrawing itself from what little connection it had with international law. It is becoming a rogue state. Right now the Europeans are looking quietly at one another, and at the Russians, and the Chinese, and thinking... If the USA chooses to make itself the singular enemy of all mankind, where does one stand for security?

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now the Europeans are looking quietly at one another, and at the Russians, and the Chinese, and thinking... If the USA chooses to make itself the singular enemy of all mankind, where does one stand for security?

The better-informed Europeans realise that Russia and China also oppose the International Criminal Court.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is in the process of withdrawing itself from what little connection it had with international law. It is becoming a rogue state. Right now the Europeans are looking quietly at one another, and at the Russians, and the Chinese, and thinking... If the USA chooses to make itself the singular enemy of all mankind, where does one stand for security?

Excuse that last mishap. As a non USian, I have this to say - You cannot see past yourselves, read what you have said, and ask yourself why would other countries need to concern themselves about security? Is it because you think we do? There are many types of "security", and the world was doing it usual hap-hazard mix of OK long before the US came into existence.

The USA is just another country, remember that and maybe things will improve.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

The USA is just another country, remember that and maybe things will improve.

The USA is a bit like the control freak at work who insists on doing everything him/herself because he doesn't trust anyone else to be able to do anything else competently. They think they are always in the moral right, they think they are the only ones capable of doing anything competently, they think they are the only ones capable of doing things objectively, and think they are better than everyone else. When they drop nuclear bombs on another country's women and children, they consider it justifiable ("pearl harbour blah blah", what, 2K *soldiers* dead? Try hundreds of thousands of women and children). Now they want to bomb Iraq, Northern Korea etc .. and of course "they are in the right", "they have God on their side" blah blah. Its an incredibly dangerous situation.

And its only getting worse, under Bush. The US is becoming increasingly paranoid that everyone is out to get them, and they think that "being American" automatically trumps everyone.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Anonymous Coward]

When the Netherlands declares extraterritorial jurisdiction over Americans and brings them to trial there, I'd damn well expect the US to do what was necessary to get them back.

As opposed to the US declaring extraterritorial jurisdiction over people from many parts of the world. Typically being abducted and not even placed on trial. Including for the "crime" of defending themselves against US forces invading their country.
Can you understand the concept of "double standards".

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[jedidiah]

Yeah, we should just let other nations walk all over us and kill our citizens and property without even fighting back.

What a pathetically sheltered and out of touch twit you are. You don't even know half of what you should know about the subject to make an informed descision about it. Your eyes gloss over at the thought of a "glamourous" weapon like a primitive nuke while you completely ignore the all of the other bombings and battles that went on during that war.

If you wish to fabricate Allied misconduct in WWII, Nagasaki should be the last of your concerns.

BTW, the US was quite content to let the rest of the world destroy itself until the US was attacked directly.

When someone declares war on you, you go and destroy them. You are only doing that which they have promised to do to you if only they still had their Armies and their arms factories.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[jedidiah]

If they have kidnapped your citizens they aren't a "friendly" nation anymore.

The US may merely NOT TRUST an international court. The US is historically an isolationist nation. It could have quite easily never even taken part in either world war. So, a little paranoia about "world government" doesn't necessarily imply anything sinister.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[jedidiah]

Such people are released after the cessation of hostilities in those situations when they are genuine combatants and subject to the rules for treatment of prisoners of war.

While I admit that there should have been a formal declaration of war on Afghanistan, I think you drawing comparisons between criminal prosecutions and acts of war are quite disengenuous.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Platypii]

Fair enough.... then why don't we consider afghanistan/bin laden/whomever justified in attacking us? We've been meddling in the middle east for decades, and if you think we haven't been killing 1000's of people there to suit our interests, you are the "pathetically sheltered and out of touch twit" Seems to me that they are the ones retaliating, and we are the agressors.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Platypii]

ah, the stereo typical american point of view -- you believe that if the US weren't here, the wrld would fall into shambles, as so everyone should think america is as great as it believes itself to be. newsflash: america is no different than any other large industrial country out there! Furthermore, the world would not shrivel away if america no longer existed.... nor do i believe anyone would be particularly upset over it.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[bankman]

Some points:

We are the budget of the Unitied Nations

No, you are not. To be precise the other AC was talking about the US, the country (well, initially). Not you as a person. To be even more precise, the US accounts for 25% of the budget (let me explain this a little: that's one quarter of the budget). That is a lot. According to this page, the "U.S. owes $1.952 billion In past, current obligations." This effectively makes the US one of the largest debtors of the UN as well.

You then go on:
We litterly rebuilt Japan after bombing it in to the stone age.

The people of Nagasaki and Hiroshima are probably extremely thankful to this very day. The nicest thing one could say about this, is probably that it ended the war in the Pacific.

The US funding for Germany and Japan wasn't exactly altruistic, but (rightfully) politically motivated.

lets keep our own technology.. hell.. lets stop the internet

And if that were possible, we would all happily call it USnet and praise Al Gore as our saviour. There is a reason why it's called "Internet" (hint: because it's international and the US can't stop it, it can just shut down a part of it.).

Why not we just step back during WW1.. and maybe there wouldn't have been a Europe.. Hell.. WW2 .. same case.. Funny.. comments like this just freaking make me laugh.

Your English is so bad that I can hardly believe you are US American. Actually, I think when referring to the US, it's very important to do just that: REFER TO THE USA, NOT AMERICA. There are a hell of a lot Americans who aren't US citizens, and quite happily so.

By the way, in case you are interested: America was discovered by Europeans (not counting native Americans, who didn't call themselves Americans back then).

Every Single Country in this world OWES money to the US.

And the US owes money to every single country in the world as well. It's called economics. Just in case you were wondering.

If we was to stop trade with other nations.. Growth would litterly stop..

Again, your grasp of the English language is astonishing, but never mind. Yes, you are right, growth in the US would become virtually non-existent if that were to happen.

I had the privi to be in another nation, Germany.. when we where doing our Interist rates in the US.. funny how that was aired on TV news more than the local game shows.

Aaaargh, that English again. This statement clearly indicates that you are an idiot AND a liar: Nothing gets more air time in Germany than game shows.

All in all, you are a disgrace to so many US citizens (if you are one, if not, you are a plain idiot) I have met.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Tycho]

You know the disturbing thing is we were pretty well on out way to patching up our relationships with North Korea and for that matter Iran until Bush became President. Then, Bush withdrew from essentially all of the foreign policy initiatives that Clinton had been working on and did some other things like calling Iran, Iraq, and North Korea an axis of evil. Now due to the inaction of the US both the Israel/Palestinian peace process and US relations with North Korea and Iran have been set back years. I mean before the State of the Union Address this year Iran had offered to let the US fly troops over itself and had offered sanctuary to US troops too. Keep up the good work Bush, maybe next you can instigate a nuclear war between Pakistan and India.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[SoLoatWork]

Well considering N. Korea sold nuclear waste materials to Al-Quaida...

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Glytch]

Bull-fucking-shit! The US has constantly refused to pay dues to the UN whenever possible! I hope to god you're a troll, and not a standard cookie-cutter US consumer. (You folks don't deserve the title "citizen".)

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Glytch]

There is not a country on this globe that has not had help in one form or another from the US.

Ah, okay. My fellow citizens who have been laid off (because your lumber industry refuses to modernize and thus demanded insane tariffs against Canadian lumber) will thank you. Yup. You sure helped out.

When a disaster happens in other countries, the US is usually the first one in to help.

Unless, of course, it's an African country with an AIDS epidemic that can't afford the ludicrous prices that US pharmaceutical companies charge for medication.

By the way, you're illiterate. Not that you'll know what that means.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[sean23007]

If I may make one point about the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima: Vengeance may be the method of justification used by people today, but that wasn't the reason Truman chose to drop the bomb. His generals had written up something called Operation Overlord, which outlined a large-scale invasion of the Japanese islands. It predicted something like 1 million American soldiers dead, and 10-12 million Japanese (soldiers & civilians) dead. Truman wanted to end the war. I'm not going to say he saved a dozen million lives, but he did avoid trying to kill that many people.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[ipfwadm]

When they drop nuclear bombs on another country's women and children, they consider it justifiable ("pearl harbour blah blah", what, 2K *soldiers* dead? Try hundreds of thousands of women and children).

If you'll recall, Pearl Harbor was bombed on December 7, 1941. Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945. The United States didn't sit on its hands for almost 4 years, patiently waiting for the A-bomb to be developed so we could show those japs who's boss. No, in fact it was fighting a war, one that killed THOUSANDS of Americans. Sure, they were all soldiers, but did all of them voluntarily go? No. Remember the draft during World War II? Thousands of 18 year-olds, still children, went overseas to die, so that people like you and me can live in a free world. So don't make it sound as if the Pacific campaign of WWII can be reduced to "Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, Americans nuked two Japanese cities in retaliation."

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Troed]

The US is the only country ever to be convicted in an international court of law of terrorism.

No, this is not a troll - it IS true, look it up.

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Hoi Polloi]

"The issue at hand is the development of an international legal system which has teeth. A system which will might cause a mass-murderer, for instance, to think twice before killing a village full of innocent people."

And what do you propose would be a punishment that would deter a suicidal mass-murderer? Putting them in a plane and crashing them into a building? Allow them to retire to the jungles of Cambodia?

Re:Fifties flashbacks...

[Platypii]

IT was already pointed to by the reply above me, but I still find it unbelieveable you can say "We litterly rebuilt Japan after bombing it in to the stone age" in seriousness! And as for every nation in the world oweing us money, if that were true, then why do we have a national debt, eh? That is money we owe to other countries!

More to the point

[peddrenth]

More to the point, where's the file on Erdos, the famous Hungarian communist (or mathematician, depending on who you ask)? There was a lot of government harrasement talked about in his autobiography.

His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Stephen Samuel]

Nuclear weapons are a horrid and nasty thing. We've been lucky that they haven't been used since Nagasaki -- and that's probably at least partly due to the face that Einstein was both willing and able to speak out about the horrors that nuclear weapons were capable of producing.

Communism isn't an inherently evil and nasty system.. The communist governments of Russia and China were/are vicious and corrupt, but that's more a statement about the people that lead them than of the basic systems themselves. It's not like the US is a whole lot better with it's support of people like Agusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden -- all in the name of so-called 'democracy'. We sometimes forget that these 'evil nasty people' are a product of our own government's support system.

Einstein 'agitated' for peace. He had ideas that were different than those who were in power at the time. These should never be considered crimes in a truly democratic system. The idea behind democracy is that an idea should either stand or fall on it's own merits -- not based on the fact that someone hates the label that some intolerent extremist attaches to it (like Hoover, McCarthy or even Nixon).

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[PatientZero]

The fact of the matter is that there has never been a non-corrupt communist regime

And there has never been a non-currupt democratic regime, nor a republic or totalitarian regime, so what's your point? You think you are arguing that communism must be corrupt, yet all you're saying is that every government set up by humans has been corrupt. And the sky is blue. So what?

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[PatientZero]

More people were murdered by their own communistic governments than by any wars or famines in the last century.

That would be true only if you disregarded all the various violent external U.S. actions in South America, Africa, and Asia as well as those of the totalitarian regimes the U.S. has set up throughout Latin and South America. Sure, the U.S. tends to avoid killing its own citizens, but our leaders seem to have no qualms about supporting mass murder in other countries.

The over 5,000 children that die in Iraq every month since 1991 from sanctions overshadows any current Communist actions, and it's just the first example.

The point is not that Communism is the best form of government/monetary policy. The point is that when you give lots of power to humans, they tend to exercise it unwisely at the expense of others, regardless of the type of government. The problem as I see it is that because Capitalism's goal is to maximise the control of resources to a few, it allows a much larger abuse of power than other economic models.

For example, under Socialism, the farm workers themselves determine how farmland is used. If twenty farmers "go nuts" and decide to use tons of chemicals on their farm, they only affect one farm. However, under Capitalism, if one transnational corporation "goes nuts" and uses the same pesticides, they will affect the food for several countries instead of 500 people.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Galvatron]

But Russia is the whole POINT! You have to realize that at this time, there really were Soviet spies in America. Much of academia believed in what the Russians were doing, and were more than willing to pass research on to them. The design of the first Soviet atomic bomb was actually identical to an American design, right down to the same number of rivets on the outer casing. Furthermore, it was the avowed goal of the Russians to destroy all capitalist countries, and usher in a worldwide communist reign.

So, yes, there were abuses of power by the FBI. Yes, Einstein was innocent. However, there was a very real threat, and it is understandable, if not totally acceptable, that the FBI would keep tabs on prominent research scientists with known communist sympathies.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[NearlyHeadless]

More people were murdered by their own communistic governments than by any wars or famines in the last century.

That would be true only if you disregarded all the various violent external U.S. actions in South America, Africa, and Asia as well as those of the totalitarian regimes the U.S. has set up throughout Latin and South America. Sure, the U.S. tends to avoid killing its own citizens, but our leaders seem to have no qualms about supporting mass murder in other countries.

Communist governments killed 100 million people. See the Black Book of Communism. Give me a break. It's amazing there are still people defending communism after the experience of the twentieth century.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[5KVGhost]

Nuclear weapons are a horrid and nasty thing. We've been lucky that they haven't been used since Nagasaki...

No, we haven't been "lucky", the US has been working damned hard to see that they haven't been used, despite the destrutive aspirations of petty dictators and superpowers alike.

Communism isn't an inherently evil and nasty system.. The communist governments of Russia and China were/are vicious and corrupt, but that's more a statement about the people that lead them than of the basic systems themselves.

Wrong. Show me one single large-scale implementation of communism that's actually worked. That's right, there aren't any. The _concept_ of communism isn't evil, but it's absolutely impossible to make it work without coercion and force. It's based on the compulsory sacrifice of the individual for the greater good, and, as much as some people might pretend otherwise, humans don't work that way.

It's not like the US is a whole lot better with it's support of people like Agusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden -- all in the name of so-called 'democracy'. We sometimes forget that these 'evil nasty people' are a product of our own government's support system.

Some of them are, at least indirectly, but most of them are not. (No credible source indicates any US support of Bin Laden, for example.) In foreign policy the US, like all other nations, is ultimately pragmatic. Short of moving in and taking over completely (which while perhaps practical is usually frowned upon) one sometimes one must choose between supporting the lesser of two local evils. To claim that the US "isn't much better" only demonstrates how unfamilar you are with the horrific abuses that were (and are) a part of daily life within those other regimes you idealize.

Einstein 'agitated' for peace. He had ideas that were different than those who were in power at the time. These should never be considered crimes in a truly democratic system.

They weren't crimes. He wasn't arrested. He was investigated by the FBI for what they considered suspicious activities and to make sure he wasn't sharing classified information with people that would not share his idealistic bent. The purpose of the FBI is to investigate, and many, many prominent and obscure people of all occupations and political stripes were investigated. Was it right? Was it necessary? At the time it was very hard to say.

The idea behind democracy is that an idea should either stand or fall on it's own merits -- not based on the fact that someone hates the label that some intolerent extremist attaches to it (like Hoover, McCarthy or even Nixon).

They weren't really concerned about ideas, they were concerned about actions. Hoover and McCarthy were often paranoid, but spies are real, and sometimes spying results in the deaths of large numbers of people. The threats posed by the USSR and China at the time were also very real, and a country where memories of WWII and Korea were still fresh was far more willing to take those threats seriously than we are from our vantage point 50 years removed.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Pig Hogger]

The design of the first Soviet atomic bomb was actually identical to an American design, right down to the same number of rivets on the outer casing.

One of the funniest thing about the story of the soviet atomic bomb is that the much dreaded Lavrenti Beria (head of the KGB) was in charge, and when he was at the first test, he had brought two soviet spies that were able to see several american tests. The bomb went off beautifully, and in the totally silent bunker, Beria, stone-faced as always, simply asked the two spies if that's what an atomic bomb explosion looked like. It's only when they both said "da!" that everyone broke out and cheered...

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[PatientZero]

Me: For example, under Socialism, the farm workers themselves determine how farmland is used.

You: Under Soviet Communism, farm workers did not determine how land was to be used.

Fine, but I said socialism, not communism. My only point is that declaring communism itself -- or any form of government -- evil by nature is rediculous. Totalitarian rule is by far the most efficient in terms of deciding laws, and Mother Theresa might even be able to pull it off. But I wouldn't want my state to use it. It's too open for easy abuse.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Reality Master 101]

Uh, no. Freedom feeds the people, fascism starves the people. As I said recently, the world is hungry not because of unequal distribution of wealth, it's because of unequal distribution of capitalism and freedom.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Ian Bicking]

I was watching a PBS documentary on this, and I found it quite interesting that one of the major spies (at least that was uncovered) was a man who wasn't ideologically aligned with the Soviets, but rather felt that it was essential to have a balance of power in the world.

I forgot his name... I don't believe he was ever convicted of anything (the information he knew was too useful and all that).

I must admit, while I don't particularly like that India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, I'm glad at least that they both have them. I can't imagine nuclear weapons being used, except when only one party in a conflict has them.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Tablizer]

(* The bomb went off beautifully, and in the totally silent bunker, Beria, stone-faced as always, simply asked the two spies if that's what an atomic bomb explosion looked like. It's only when they both said "da!" that everyone broke out and cheered... *)

They could of have messed with them. It would be funny if they said, "No, the Amerika boom was shaped like bunny rabbit, not a mushroom".

(* sig: Ossama should have bombed Disneyland, Hollywood and Redmond. *)

Sounds like the FBI should open a file on you too.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[PatientZero]

which US action killed 30 000 000 people as Stalin did ?

I can't think of a single war even that has produced 30 million deaths, but I don't memorize many war statistics. One is that the U.S. supported (funded, trained, and provided military equipment) Indonesia in it's recent 25 year war against East Timor. One third of East Timor's 750,000 population has been eradicated to date, and the majority of it occurred in the past 2-3 years.

Under socialism nobody gets to decide anything for it the decisions are reserved to chosen few who are (unlike a corporation) under no external pressure to do anything sensible.

You can have ownership and control by the state. Russia had essentially a ruling class that decided how resources were to be used statewide. In the U.S., those with the capital (corporations) get to decide how resources are used. Current socialist movements put the control of resources into the hands of those that work them. This has shown up in the U.S. as employee ownership and single proprieterships.

They can rape steal your crops and rape your wife and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

This has nothing to do with the form of government. Situations as you describe, while sensational, have occurred in all societies where law enforcement is weak.

So far , capitalism created the best standard of living for EVERYONE involved.

Please, tell me you do not honestly believe this. Have you traveled to any developing nations? Have you read about U.S. foreign policy? As I mentioned above, there are 250,000 East Timorese that would disagree with you had they not been slaughtered for voting for a local democratic government over rule by the Indonesian military.

millions of people who risk their lives to get into this, what you call "abuse of power", are the best proof what is a superior economical system.

I never claimed that capitalism wasn't good for the capitalist elite; in fact I claimed the opposite. Sure, it's turned out well for a lot of Americans, but at the expense of people living in the developing nations. Some of them clearly benefit, but mostly it's those that set up the systems to export profit to the transnational corporations. That many people come to the U.S. supports both views, not one over the other.

Finally some advice: by insulting someone, you're much less likely to get a lively discussion and debate. It will likely devolve into more name-calling and anger. Frankly, I'm 100% behind reducing both of those.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[stevey]

No, we haven't been "lucky", the US has been working damned hard to see that they haven't been used, despite the destrutive aspirations of petty dictators and superpowers alike.

Sorry I forgot the USA is the worlds saviour all bow down to the inherantly fair openminded country which never makes mistakes.

'we' don't have the USA to thank for much; certainly not when it has to go clean up situations it created.

Sigh. OK so I'm British, and have my own view of the world - but too many Americans have this misguided view of their country, and the ability to conviently forget history.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Permission Denied]

even if you are an absolutely brilliant person in physics, perhaps one of the smartest people who ever lived, you can be a complete ignorant moron when it comes to politics and human relations.

A LOT of Slashdotters could learn this lesson. Just because you are a good programmer (or pick your geek subject) doesn't mean you know beans about how the world should be run.

I'm a good programmer. Does that mean I shouldn't be passing on my opinions about how the world should be run?

Well, let's be fair - that's not what you're saying. You're saying that I shouldn't participate in political discussion unless I know how "the world should be run." There is no other possible conclusion from your post: you're saying that Einstein shouldn't have experimented with Marxism because he obviously didn't understand how people work (and this, in turn, is obvious from his Communist associations). You're saying that sympathizing with socialists shows just how utterly incapable Einstein was to participate in political actions.

Now, you wrote clearly, so there's no need to paraphrase; we can see what you're saying through your own words:

If you are a socialist, then you have no clue about how the world should be run, and should just stay away.

In short, you're telling me to shut the fuck up because I disagree with you. Now, which one of us is "intrinsically anti-freedom?"

Normally, I would tell rabid anti-socialists to form an opinion on Marxism by not by reading anti-Marxist literature but by reading Marx himself, but only after understanding the proper historical framework, by reading John Stuart Mills' On Liberty, Tocqueville's Souvenirs of the Revolution of 1848, and perhaps some of the proceedings of the English parlement on factory workers during 1846-1847. That's normally what I would ask of the rabid anti-socialist. However, I don't ask this of you, since you've already formed an opinion that "Socialism is intrinsically anti-freedom."

I'm neither a communist, a socialist, nor a Marxist - but I know the difference between the three. Economically, I'm more likely to agree with Adam Smith than with Engels. However, unlike you or M. Le Pen, I realize that there is nothing intrinsically dangerous about studying and sharing the teachings of Marx, or even forming political associations based upon Marxist ideology.

I believe my Anonymous Comrade said it best: "You, my friend, are a facist bastard."

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Brontosaurus Jim]

So your saying I should be forced at gunpoint to give up everything I enjoy?

No thank you. All though I appreciate that you feel important enough to tell me what I should be doing. Like you have all the answers or something.

Christ, can't you see that there is nothing stoping _you_ from helping the afghans? Or the man next door? Or his neighbor? The only thing stopping all us from helping is that, apparently, _we don't want to_.

Maybe you can wax angry against that, and maybe we all should. But starting a bloody revolution only to point guns at the survivors and say, "Give," doesn't seem like a very good solution.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[themurray]

Corruption is common, but the scale of it seems to be great when considering Totalitarian and communist governments. When Stalin out kills Hitler's reign of terror it shows that communism is worst, but too bad the war effort did not roll on into Russian like our general wanted to after the fall of germany.

The only good communist is a dead one!

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[error0x100]

Furthermore, it was the avowed goal of the Russians to destroy all capitalist countries, and usher in a worldwide communist reign.

Uhm, so what? It was also the avowed goal of the Americans to destroy all communist countries, and "usher in a worldwide capitalist/democratic reign". (To the extent that the US funded many foreign wars against communist and socialist countries (Al Qaeda against the S.U. being one of them) and even assassinated leaders of other countries)

The fact that capitalism+democracy does seem to be a much better political system in no way makes the US morally right in attempting to force its particular preferred political ideology on other countries.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[themurray]

The people of under communist countries have a tendency to be treated less then farm animals. The party bosses lived like kings and the common people very rarely got out of the fields to reach the higher levels of living. Where did they get protection or health care with all the self-caused problems the government caused due to short-sighted policies?

Capitalism may seem dog-eat-dog, but it at least gives one a chance to live good even if you don't win.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[error0x100]

The fact of the matter is that there has never been a non-corrupt communist regime, which should lead one instantly to deduce that it is communism itself which is the problem

It "should"? No, it most emphatically should NOT lead one instantly to deduce anything of a general nature about communism. That is an invalid logical inference. A fault of reasoning. An incorrect deduction. An unscientific conclusion. You've come to a conclusion but you've left out the part where you explain how you got there.

There has never in the history of humanity been a democratic government that was free of corruption either. What, according to your flawed methodology of reasoning, "should" we deduce about democracy from that?

For the mentally impaired, I'm not advocating communism here at all, I'm just pointing out that ACs method of reasoning is incorrect.

It might well be that communism cannot work, but AC here has not demonstrated that. NOTHING can be concluded from merely pointing to the fact that it hasn't worked anywhere *yet*. That would have been much like stating, around 1880, "The fact of the matter is that man has never flown, which should lead one instantly to deduce that man will never fly, it is impossible". Not a valid logical inference at all.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Citizen of Earth]

Communism isn't an inherently evil and nasty system.. The communist governments of Russia and China were/are vicious and corrupt, but that's more a statement about the people that lead them than of the basic systems themselves.

I think that it is. It's a wonderful system as long as it is not implemented by human beings. Given that its only purpose is to be implemented by human beings, the system itself must be fundamentally flawed.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Citizen of Earth]

It's not like the US is a whole lot better with it's support of people like Agusto Pinochet, Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden -- all in the name of so-called 'democracy'.

I doubt anyone believed that these madmen were proponents of democracy. It was all on the name of 'lesser of two evils'. The calculation of the amounts of evilness are subject to review.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Reality Master 101]

You're saying that I shouldn't participate in political discussion unless I know how "the world should be run."

No, I said what I meant: Just because you might be good at a particular subject, doesn't mean you can apply the same reasonings to another subject.

[i said] If you are a socialist, then you have no clue about how the world should be run, and should just stay away. [you said] In short, you're telling me to shut the fuck up because I disagree with you. Now, which one of us is "intrinsically anti-freedom?"

I meant "should" in the sense that we would all be better off if you stayed away until you learned more about reality, not in the sense that you should be "forbidden" to voice your opinion. Feel free. But that doesn't make you less wrong and misguided.

However, unlike you or M. Le Pen, I realize that there is nothing intrinsically dangerous about studying and sharing the teachings of Marx, or even forming political associations based upon Marxist ideology.

Here is where you went off the deep end and began manufacturing things based not on what I actually said, but on your own biases.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Xylantiel]

No, I believe it was the avowed goal of Americans to keep the USSR from creating a worldwide communist reign (with them in charge). It was kill-or-be-killed.

Notice that China is communist and we're not actively trying to destroy them.

Americans are historically VERY isolationist. But the threat of the USSR gaining influence over most of the world was just too much to ignore.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[byronbussey]

It's amazing there are still people defending communism after the experience of the twentieth century.

No one is doing this. What people are saying is just because Communism isn't a viable method of government does not make Capitalism some sort of infalible system. The trap that people like Hoover fell into, was the belief that since Communism was "evil", they felt justified to do anything nessecary (within the Law, and often beyond it) to defeat "evil".

To make a comparision, only to make a point, the Nazi's justified murdering the Jews and others, because in their minds the outcome would be a German utopia. In effect, you can justify anything when the outcome is a "heaven on earth"; a place devoid of evil.

Now obviously Communism fell into this problem as well because they were looking for their own Utopia. This all comes back to human nature, which exists in all forms of government. Capitalists can behave in exactly the same ugly ways as Communuists, (and they have). Capitalists can fall into the same spiral as the Communists did. And the current call for an objective self- analysis of behavior is the responsible path to take. The people that don't do this are the Fascist and Communists, because they blindly think/know that they are right.

Furthermore, the defeat of Communism does not validate Capitalism; Hoover was more of a Communist/Fascist than a defender of Democracy, he ran all over liberty and freedom.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[snol]

The only good communist is a dead one!

aaaand.... what's the difference between you and Stalin, evil-wise? He's bloodthirsty, you're bloodthirsty - it's people that kill people, not ideologies.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[snol]

That is an invalid logical inference. A fault of reasoning. An incorrect deduction. An unscientific conclusion.

Given enough evidence, that type of inference is actually fairly scientific. It's not how deductive logic works, but it is how science works: you drop enough things and you deduce that things fall when you drop them. Not to say that the evidence for gravity isn't much much stronger than the evidence against Communism, but the method is sound. Problem with social science is you still have to take statistical and systematic error into account, which gets pretty impossibly complicated compared to nice easy stuff like physics.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[snol]

He wasn't advocating Communism, he was saying to take a middle ground. But we'd better open a file on him anyway.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[snol]

yeah, that article actually says the most likely figure is between 100,000 and 350,000 excess deaths due to sanctions. The author likes to rag on the 'loony left' (Zinn, Chomsky, Said et al) but if you read the last four paragraphs, he seems to be agreeing that the sanctions are stupid, barbaric, and counterproductive, just like those damn soft-on-terrorism lefties have been saying.

As for the _blame_, it's pretty pointless to assign - whether or not Saddam could prevent the ongoing starvation by giving in to UN demands, the UN also has the choice of lifting the sanctions in favor of some more effective strategy. And by "a more effective strategy" I mean "pretty much any other strategy."

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[snol]

What you're saying is irrelevant to what the parent post said. Saddam could stop the death or we could; both choose not to. Now, multiple-choice:
a) Saddam is an evil child-killer and "we"* are not.
b) We are evil childkillers and Saddam is not.
c) Saddam is not an evil childkiller nor are we.
d) We are evil childkillers as is Saddam.

* we = the sanction policy, the countries responsible for it, etc.

bubble in your answer, sign your paper and hand it to the proctor...

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[5KVGhost]

There's a big difference between supporting a general movement (like anti-Soviet guerilla fighting) which happens to include someone who later becomes a major-league bad guy, and directly supporting that same bad guy.

At the time opposing the Soviets was our main priority. I think that allowing the Soviets to go unopposed in Afghanistan because opposing them might contribute to a terrorist attack 20 years later would have been a rather difficult position to defend.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[5KVGhost]

Sorry I forgot the USA is the worlds saviour all bow down to the inherantly fair openminded country which never makes mistakes.

Huh? I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's not me. The US makes lots of mistakes, but do you really think the world would be a better place today if the US hadn't been around to oppose the Soviets?

The British don't have much to thank the US for? How about their continued existence? If the US had followed the isolationist path that many seem to prefer then the outcome of WWII would certainly not have been favorable for Britain or the rest of Europe.

Or do you really mean "what have you done for me lately?" :) Aside from being staunch allies in virtually every aspect of world policy, of course.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[stevey]

Huh? I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's not me. The US makes lots of mistakes, but do you really think the world would be a better place today if the US hadn't been around to oppose the Soviets?

I think the USA did the right think in that case. I wasn't really trying to argue with you specifically - your comment was just a good place to place my thoughts.

I see too many people who seem to believe that the US is literally incapable of making mistakes; which astounds me. No country is above errors. I think there's a certain arrogance amongst many US individuals who believe that the world literally revolves around them.

The British don't have much to thank the US for? How about their continued existence? If the US had followed the isolationist path that many seem to prefer then the outcome of WWII would certainly not have been favorable for Britain or the rest of Europe.

I guess that we'll never know. Although I'm sure the UK + allies would have won the war eventually; after the mistakes which the German's had made with Russia.

Aside from being staunch allies in virtually every aspect of world policy, of course.

Including those those events which arose precisly because of the US in the first place? Not to mention events which they've become involved with for entirely political reasons.

I'm not saying the US hasn't done a good job; but I do believe they have made some big mistakes in the not-so-recent past, (not that they're alone in this).

I guess I'd just like people to think a little more about their country, no matter which it is.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[dvdeug]

The lesson of Einstein is that even if you are an absolutely brilliant person in physics, perhaps one of the smartest people who ever lived, you can be a complete ignorant moron when it comes to politics and human relations.

If I recall correctly, Israel offered him the presidency, which he turned down. Obviously, he knew enough about politics to know that he couldn't have run a country.

A LOT of Slashdotters could learn this lesson. Just because you are a good programmer (or pick your geek subject) doesn't mean you know beans about how the world should be run.

You obviously missed the other big lesson here; if you let people who "know how the world should be run" run the world, they will be very happy. However, you will be screwed, as they get all the benefits, and you get to watch out for the secret police. It is more important to have dozens of lound bumbling idiots running the country (like America) rather than have one brilliant person (say, Lenin or Stalin or Franco) run the country.

If you are a socialist, then you have no clue about how the world should be run, and should just stay away. Socialism is intrinsically anti-freedom.

Ah, yes - it is entirely fair to raise taxes to benefit the music industry (that's good capitalism), but not at all fair to raist taxes to benefit the poor and starving (that's obviously red.)

Frankly, I don't hear the Swedes or the Germans or the rest of socialist Europe complaining much about their government. And if they are unhappy, they have at least as much power to change that government as Americans do theirs.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[dvdeug]

Show me one single large-scale implementation of communism that's actually worked. That's right, there aren't any.

Well, gee. On one hand, any one who wanted to set up a truly communist government had the US against him, willing to fund whatever tinpot dictator that's willing to take the US's money. On the other hand, he has the USSR and China against him, willing to fund whatever tinput dictator that's willing to take their money. (One example of this is the Spanish communists who were fighting against Franco, who were also fighting Soviet communists.) The odds of any surviving against every major superpower don't seem high.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[Pig Hogger]

Sounds like the FBI should open a file on you too.

That wouldn't be the FBI's job, but the CIA's. Anyway, they're too screwed up to be of any importance, since I've visited the US several times since I put up that .sig...

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[rmgrotkierii]

Notice that China is communist and we're not actively trying to destroy them.

Quite the opposite, during the Cold War, we were aided to a degree by the Communists in China, because they didn't like the Soviet Union either. I think the Chinese hated the USSR more then we did.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[ipfwadm]

a) Saddam is an evil child-killer and "we"* are not.

I pick (a). Why? Because the people are dying in the country that he controls. He has more of a responsibility to his people than the U.S. has to his people. If the U.S. government suddenly decided it was going to channel all tax dollars to the creation of enormous churches (wouldn't surprise me considering who's in power) and palaces, and neglected to pay welfare and medicare, etc, and thousands of people started dying, would the rest of the world rush to our aid? No, they'd say "What the hell are you doing?? Stop it."

Besides, either way the U.S. is screwed: don't lift the sanctions, and everyone blames the U.S. for all the poor children that are dying in Iraq. Lift the sanctions, and five years from now when Saddam uses nukes against Israel, it'll all be the fault of the U.S. for lifting the sanctions.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[ahodgson]

If the US hadn't been involved Stalin would have taken ALL of Europe, not just the eastern half.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[error0x100]

No, I believe it was the avowed goal of Americans to keep the USSR from creating a worldwide communist reign (with them in charge). It was kill-or-be-killed

I'm sure the Soviets saw it precisely the same way. Remember, from their viewpoint, they were simply against the "threat of capitalism". Regardless of whose political system was better or more right or wrong, there is fundamentally not much difference in the foreign policy attitutes of the 50's US and 50's USSR.

You could almost use your post word for word to express an old USSR opinion, "the threat of the US gaining influence over most of the world was just too much to ignore". This is how they saw it. Somehow you seem convinced that there is some fundamental difference though. Because "America was right"? The US could assasinate foreign leaders and invade countries to prevent the "threat of communism", but the USSR could not do likewise to "prevent the spread of capitalism"? I don't see it. Or is it just that "communism is evil"?

The USSR never invaded China either, even though they were enemies. That doesn't mean anything. I still see plenty of anti-China propaganda coming out of the US all the time.

Re:His 'crime' was that he was willing to think.

[error0x100]

Well, its not exactly how science works. If you roll a dice ten times and it comes up 6 every time, no scientist would conclude from that that dice "always comes up 6". It is quite possible for an even dice to come up 6 ten times in a row. Unlikely, but possible. In science, likewise, you cannot merely conclude that "things fall when you drop them", you can only conclude that, empirically, it seems to be the case that things always fall when you drop them. However, if someone comes along and drops a helium-filled balloon, and it surprises you by going up instead of down, you must re-evaluate your previous conclusions, since someone has shown your theory to be incomplete and/or wrong.

Obviously in social science the lines are a little more fuzzy :/ .. but to make a blanket statement that communism can never work is questionable in the extreme, no matter whose methods you are following. Particularly given the apparent lack of actual research or references backing the statement. Even a simple reference to a complete list of all countries that have ever tried communism, demonstrating how and why it failed in every one of those countries, would in this case at least have been a lot better, and would actually have lent some weight to the argument, but as it stands, its very weak.

NYT login

[iturbide]

Ah yes. Here we go again:
login: slashdotid
pass: slashdot

Feds are worse in 2002

[Anonymous Coward]

Carnivore, anyone? Patriot Act? Homeland Security?

Find some scary factoids from the past to make today seem better than yesterday.

The simple people automatically scrabble after factoids like hens scrabble after proffered grain.

Re:Feds are worse in 2002

[Graspee_Leemoor]

Ah but today is always a lot scarier than most people believe; most of the scariest facts come out years and years later, so you can take the stuff we know about today and multiple its scaryness factor by about 4...

graspee

Commitment stregthened

[Mattygfunk]

For many years, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies spied on him, acting on suspicions as disturbing as a tip that he had been a Russian spy in Berlin; as vague as an unease with his support of civil rights and pacifist and socialist causes; and as goofy as claims that he was working on a death ray or that he was heading a Communist conspiracy to take over Hollywood.

Sometimes I wonder if my commitment to try and ensure my privacy is worth the hastle. Reading this has reminded me exactly why. Having a 1247 page FBI file because of pure speculation and rumer is incredible. And this is before the ever higher big brother force of 2002.

Re:Commitment stregthened

[Citizen of Earth]

Having a 1247 page FBI file because of pure speculation and rumer is incredible. And this is before the ever higher big brother force of 2002.

And modern technology has made the recoding and dissemnination of speculation and rumor more efficient than ever. Witness Slashdot. Witness CNN.

Re:Commitment stregthened

[sean23007]

or that he was heading a Communist conspiracy to take over Hollywood.

Interestingly, it was the same conspiracy theorists who had always been accusing Hollywood of already being Communist. It seems that there is yet another quite evident hole in their false accusations...

Einstein the socialist

[miletus]

Some of the comments here make no disction between Einstein's socialist and pacifist views, and those of communism. Like many of his contemporaries, Einstein was a leftist.

For Einstein's own thoughts on socialism, check out his essay at Monthly Review: Why Socialism?

Neighborhood Watch

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.progressive.org/May 2002/berk0502.html


"President Bush has announced that, with the help of the National Sheriffs' Association, the Neighborhood Watch Program will be taking on new significance," according to the government's web page at citizencorps.gov/watch.html. "Community residents will be provided with information which will enable them to recognize signs of potential terrorist activity, and to know how to report that activity, making these residents a critical element in the detection, prevention, and disruption of terrorism." The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will be supervising the program. "Terrorism prevention" is now part of the "routine mission" of the Neighborhood Watch Program, the web site says.


So now all those little old ladies who have nothing better to do, will be able to finger terrorists. And anyone who as ever run into this type of person will understand why this will be a problem.

The United States that we think we're living in, is already gone. People are already goosestepping.

And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[Stephen Samuel]

Ah, yes.. the Nixon thing. But Nixon was the president of the United States of America. That makes him the next best thing to god ...

Doesn't it?

If The United States were a true democracy, then being willing to look at communist principles shouldn't be considered a crime. The people who liked some of the principles of communism should have been allowed to speak those ideas freely. Being able to hear and discuss those ideas, we the people should be able to accept or reject them freely, and based on their true value.

To reject an idea simply because someone attached the name 'communist' to it is not the pinnacle of democracy. Nor is destroying the lives of people simply because they are friends of such people and possibly shared belief in the value of some of those ideas an expression of the concept of free speech.

As the bible says, "What good does it do a man to rule the world if he loses his own soul?". What good does it do to have a 'democracy' where the only idea that are allowed to be held are those which are in agreement with those in power? What good is 'free speech' that is only free for the wealthy (or, for that matter, the poor)?

Some people might (with good cause) consider the principles behind the Open Source and Free Source movements communistic in nature (just listen to the rantings of the RIAA and MS). Should this, by itself, be just cause to persecute and jail people like RMS and Linus?

I think not.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[dj28]

Who said America was a Democracy? Last time I checked, it was a Republic. The Will of the people decides what is right and wrong in a Republic with strong Democratic ties. If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for Communism in America, then policy should be made on that Will. To think that the government should be some outside entity not influenced by the public opinion of the people it serves is insane. Get a grip with reality and don't resort to childish idealism that so many people here do.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[mreece]

>The Will of the people decides what is right and
>wrong in a Republic with strong Democratic ties.
>If the majority of the public finds that there is
>no place for Communism in America, then policy
>should be made on that Will.

No... we have a Bill of Rights to guarantee that the majority of the public does *not* completely determine things. If 99.9% of the population wanted to exclude everyone with red hair, it wouldn't matter. The right to espouse communist views is protected by the 1st amendment. What you're saying is pretty scary.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[Moofie]

Oh, perfect! Accusing one's debating partner of a) failure to connect with reality and b) childish ideals and you immediately make all their salient points go away.

I see what you mean. Those darn communists want to tear up our Constitution, so they shouldn't get that guarantee of free speech. Or equal protection under the law. Or the right to a trial by a jury of their peers. Since they disagree with "us", we can oppress them as much as we want to, because there's 51% of "us" and we make the rules, by God!

You have absolutely no idea what America is all about. If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for ANY school of thought or belief in America, then THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC IS WRONG. The PURPOSE of your vaunted Republic is to protect minorities from oppression. The idea is that We the People elect representatives to be wise stewards of our political power, and that does NOT include locking up people who disagree with us.

Now, you won't catch me arguing that the government is in fact acting as a wise steward, but there I go again with my childish idealism.

Idealism which I will defend unto my death.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[dj28]

Aperantly you have no clue how or why a government exists. A government only exists with the blessing of the majority of the public. The only reason the Bill of Rights exist today is because the population agrees to adhere to it. Once they don't agree to it anymore, they have a right to change or amend to it. They can either do that peacfully via representatives or violently via a revolt. If the Will of the people is not served by government, then that government is no longer valid by the people. Government doesn't protect people, the people protect the government. It's only "scary" becuase it's reality. Reality is scary to people that usually don't live within it.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[dj28]

You obviously have no clue what government is about. The job of government is to protect the weakest among us, and to protect the people from foreign agression. Any other laws are made by the will of the people. If the majority of the people within the jourisdiction of a government don't agree with the laws that government passes, then the majority of the people is oppressed rather than the minority. What you preach is not democracy. And by the way, the PURPOSE of a REPUBLIC lies in the definition of REPUBLIC. In a REPUBLIC, the representatives of the population legislate based on the opinion of their represented public. You use words you don't know the definition of.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[Moofie]

Wow. I sure am glad the Founders understood people much better than you do. You really think that the law is the direct expression of the Will of the People? Jefferson and Madison and all those guys specifically didn't want a democracy, because they felt like The People would be prone to making unwise decisions in the short to medium term. Like lynching Communists. So they put in a buffer...a legislature composed of well-regarded members of the community who are chartered not to simply parrot back whatever The People want, but to act as an intermediary. The job of the legislature is in fact to protect the people...even to protect the people from their own short-sightedness.

Again, I wouldn't argue that this system works as designed. Your (erroneous) definition of a Republic is just a democracy by another name. When was the last time your Congresscritter asked you for your opinion?

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[Chacham]

Who said America was a Democracy? Last time I checked, it was a Republic.

Actually, the US is a democracy, as well as a republic. To be specific, the United States is a "representative democracy".

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[EnderWiggnz]

wow... and now i get to use the Friend/Foe/Idiot thing for the first time.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[EnderWiggnz]

dont bother, he's a FReeper. reality has never been a concern for them.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[Pig Hogger]

Who said America was a Democracy? Last time I checked, it was a Republic.

A republic doesn't mean that it is or it is not democratic. Republic comes from "Res Publica", that is, the public thing , so it means to encompass all aspects of the public sphere, up to and including the State, the Government and the judiciary.

A republic can be democratic (USA, France, Ireland, Argentine) or not (Viêt-Nàm, China, Syria, Irak).

If you're looking for an antonym for republic, monarchy is the thing for you. There, the whole public sphere is concentrated in one person, the ruling monarch, as opposed to a republic, where it is diffused throughout every person.

And monarchies can also be democratic (U.K., Canada, Belgium, Spain) or not (Nepal, Morocco, Saudi Arabia).

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[mpe]

Who said America was a Democracy? Last time I checked, it was a Republic. The Will of the people decides what is right and wrong in a Republic with strong Democratic ties. If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for Communism in America, then policy should be made on that Will.

The US is a constitutional federal republic, with a written constitution. That written constitution, explicitally prevents the state rendering any minority opinion against the law. The only thing which can mean "there is no place for Communism in America" is a constitutional ammendment.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[snol]

No. What you've been saying in the five-so-far posts you've made on this article has been simply the most dangerous misunderstanding of the principles the country's founded on. There hasn't been a society where the majority gets to do what they want since the rise of tribalism, and for good reason. Everyone is out of line with the majority at some point. The majority of Americans realize that they all have some area in which they are minorities, and that it's in their best interest to protect minorities because of that. Take an inventory of your own personal beliefs and features and figure out for yourself whether you really want the type of unrestrained rule of the majority you're talking about. The distinction between democracy and republic that you've got such a hangup on actually cuts exactly the opposite way from what you've been talking. It's designed not to be an absolute democracy exactly because of the possibility of majorities unfairly oppressing minorities.

Hoover and McCarthy are examples of people who got around the protections, not examples of how the system is supposed to work.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[SuiteSisterMary]

Point of order: Canada is not a democratic monarchy. Canada is a social democracy (in name) with ceremonial trappings. In actuality, I don't know what we are; we democratically elect our officials, who are then legally required to vote according to party lines, no matter what the constituants actually want.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[Gaccm]

Small point:

In the book fahrenheit 451, the people hated books and things about them. The gov't had educated people in them that realized that the book burning was wrong. Congress sat there, biding its time, while the people watched tv.

Would it have been a better world if congress had 100% followed the will of the majority?

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[Citizen of Earth]

Look no further than the Southern lynchings to see "true Democracy" at work. Without a Constitution, "democracy" is merely synonymous with "mob mentality".

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[Permission Denied]

You:

If the majority of the public finds that there is no place for Communism in America, then policy should be made on that Will.

Some other people:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, what's the point here? Why were these words spoken?

If you read Rousseau, you'll see that he says almost exactly what you're saying: nobody can go against the will of the sovereign whole.

However, the writers of the above words also dealt with another issue, an issue that Rousseau didn't touch: the so-called "tyranny of the majority."

Perhaps I may quote someone to better express what I mean by this trite concept:

Majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. Because you can't have five wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.

Now, in an ideal democratic society, I wouldn't be afraid to attribute this citation, and the idea would be considered on its own merit rather than on preconceived ideas of the author; however, I'm afraid I'll lose all credibility if I mention the author of this quote, so I'll leave it to you to research google if you're interested.

The point? We don't live in a perfect representative republic; the founders of our republic realized that a perfect representative republic would be disasterous. We have limits on what we can vote on (for a more in-depth analysis, I would recommend Tocqueville's Democracy in America). Whether or not these limits have been respected is another debate, but I believe they were added for good reason.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[ragefan]

The only reason the Bill of Rights exist today is because the population agrees to adhere to it. Once they don't agree to it anymore, they have a right to change or amend to it.

IIRC, the major reason for the American Civil War was that the Southern States no longer agreed with the Federal government and wanted to form their own government, which the Union objected. Therefore the people do not have the right to change it. Only the Federal government does.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[duct_tape_n_wd40]

Point of order: Canada is not a democratic monarchy...

Quoting from the Government of Canada website: "Canada is a constitutional monarchy, a federation and a democracy."

As for our MPs voting according to party line, they aren't legally required to do so, it only looks that way because there's so much power concentrated in the PMO. Do what you're told kiddies, or it's the backbenches for you - and don't even think about any funding for your riding.

Once in a while the trained seals in the back-benches show some spine (C-68 comes to mind, some rural Grit MPs voted against it), but usually they do as they're told.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[Pig Hogger]

Point of order: Canada is not a democratic monarchy.

Er, have a close look at the flip side of all those coins burning your pocket. Who's face is that? Elizabeth the second, queen of England and of the United Kingdom. And whenever you do something naughty, the docket reads "The queen -vs- you"...

Canada is a social democracy

Now, that's a funny thing to hear from someone who lives under the "nonsense revolution"...

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[SuiteSisterMary]

Er, have a close look at the flip side of all those coins burning your pocket. Who's face is that? Elizabeth the second, queen of England and of the United Kingdom. And whenever you do something naughty, the docket reads "The queen -vs- you"...

Yeah, and the moment the queen tries to exercise any actual power, that'll change. :-)

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[ajna]

Also see James Madison's Federalist Paper #10, in which he speaks against the danger of factions. http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_10.html

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[pyros]

You don't remember correctly. The Civil War was started because one of the separating states believed a US military fort was theirs, and the US disagreed. After the War was over, the US government retroactively disagreed with the separation of the states, and made them amend their state Constitutions before considering them part of eh Republic again.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[Pig Hogger]

I don't think so; those morons come in their pants each time they look at her, so they'll probably be very glad...

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[Hoi Polloi]

You need to get a grip on a copy of the Constitution my friend. What you call "childish idealism" is the basis for it ("What, freedom of speech for all?! Even the landless slobs!?"). The fact of the matter is that one of the foundations of our country is the protection of the minority from the majority. Based on your logic if the people voted that blacks should be forced to pick cotton again you'd support that based on your robotic ideology. Last time I checked a majority of the SE US was very much in favor of cott'n pick'n in the 1800's.

Make sure you are never on the receiving end of your fire & brimstone beliefs. Poetic justice really sucks.

Re:And what about democracy? (Re:No surprising.)

[ahodgson]

The would be the fort ideally placed to blockade the harbour of the separating state? Yeah, can't imagine why the state wanted to take that.

Like Lincoln wouldn't have invaded in any case.

What did you expect?

[jopet]

You are living in a country that has "in god we trust" on every coin (not sure if this even the case in e.g. Iran), and the president's political categories are "good" and "evil". Ah yes, and communism was, is, and always will be "evil".

More FBI files

[Iamthefallen]

Seems like a little?

• Ku Klux Klan - 588 pages
• Aryan Brotherhood - 141 pages
• Adolph Hitler - 734 pages
• Hell's Angels - 233 pages

Seems like a lot?

• Martin Luther King Jr. - 55,896 pages
• Black Panther Party - 2,895 pages
• Gay Activists Alliance & GLA - 1,647 pages
• Abbie Hoffman - 13,262 pages

Glad an unbiased police is there to protect the citizens huh?

Re:More FBI files

[RKloti]

Can you tell me where you got that little gem of information?

Just so I know you didn't invent it...

Re:More FBI files

[Iamthefallen]

At http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex.htm, where you'll also find Einsteins and various others FBI acts.

Re:More FBI files

[Tablizer]

Don't forget John Lennon. He once joked on a talkshow about how people kept coming to fix his phones everywhere he went. It turned out he was right. The FBI bugged his phones.

Re:More FBI files

[lazelank]

though i'm no fbi genius, i would gather that it was a lot harder to get info on hitler than einstein. not to protect the fbi or anything, but sometimes things aren't always as black and white as they look.

Re:More FBI files

[alonsoac]

What is the source of this information? Is there a webpage we can see?

Re:More FBI files

[alonsoac]

Nevermind, I found it: http://foia.fbi.gov/alpha.htm

Re:More FBI files

[PhantomHarlock]

Consider the FBI's page count as a measure of perceived threat to the current regime. It will then come as no surpise to find out that the best and brightest of all people are targeted for monitoring.

Make sense? Martin Luther King was an incredibly charismatic public speaker. He had the ability to sway the hearts and minds of millions of people, whether they were black, white green or purple. Grass roots movements always pose the greatest threat to a body in power, thus they are always first to be targeted, destabilized and squashed. Look at any movement, right or left, and you will begin to see a subtle trend. It takes an incredible amount of human inertia to change or supplant an existing power base, but it is possible.

Coronation, n.:
The ceremony of investing a sovereign with the outward and visible signs of his divine right to be blown skyhigh with a dynamite bomb. -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Re:More FBI files

[Hoi Polloi]

Nothing pisses off a control freak more than having to accept someone or something they dislike ideologically and cannot control. Groups like the KKK and Hell's Angels are generally common criminals and don't bother rulers deeply (sometimes they are even helpful for doing dirty work). People like Abbie Hoffman and MLK though disturb rulers at an emotional level, yet they are not real criminals so they have to swallow their hate and accept them. That is something that REALLY bothers them.

Einstein lobbied to create the Manhattan Project

[Anonymous Coward]

...This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable--though much less certain--that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove to be too heavy for transportation by air.

The United States has only very poor ores of uranium in moderate quantities. There is good ore in Canada and the former Czechoslovakia, while the most important source of uranium is the Belgian Congo.

In view of this situation you may think it desirable to have some permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group of physicists working on chain reactions in America. One possible way of achieving this might be for you to entrust with this task a person who has your confidence who could perhaps serve in an unofficial capacity. His task might comprise the following:

a) to approach Government Departments, keep them informed of the further development, and put forward recommendations for Government action, giving particular attention to the problems of securing a supply of uranium ore for the United States...

from Einstein's letter to Roosevelt, 1939.

excellent post

[jopet]

some dumb moderator obviously didn't get the humor in it ...

What about the first amendement ?

[aepervius]

Being a communist isn't an opinion ? So peoplehave the right to belong to Klu Klux Klan (sp?) and say quote "niger are an inferior race", but saying "capitalism isn't the right way" and "the production should be in the hand of the people" is forbidden and the govt should have the right to find you suspicious and investigate you ? Ouch. So much for the country of freedom of thougth.

Re:What about the first amendement ?

[peddrenth]

Censorship is an all-or-nothing thing. There is physically no difference between you wanting to imprison people for holding KKK views to me wanting to imprison you for holding democratic or capitalist views.

It's like matter/antimatter - the only way you tell which is "right" and which is "wrong" is by saying that if you're right, everyone else must be wrong.

The US wants to wiretap communists? Fine, but let us wiretap conservatives as well then.

Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay?

[Anonymous Coward]

"William Faulkner was a leftist as well. Throughout his whole life he was involved in liberal and "progressive" causes such as integrationism and Federal intervention in the domestic affairs of the States.

All of these people posed (and the AFSC still poses) a clear threat to the welfare of this nation. Had the FBI neglected to maintain files on them, that agency would have been sorely remiss"

I see, so being leftist and liberal bears close investigation by the FBI? That is a truly scary, and hopefully .. let see, a small viewpoint held not in the majority of among most freedom loving Americans.

The FBI is nothing compared to Google

[Anonymous Coward]

Ku Klux Klan - 91,800 pages

Aryan Brotherhood - 2,630 pages

Adolph Hitler - 34,600 pages

Adolf Hitler - 195,000 pages

Hell's Angels - 21,300 pages

Martin Luther King Jr. - 613,000 pages

Black Panther Party - 21,100 pages

Gay Activists Alliance & GLA - 549,621 pages

Abbie Hoffman - 19,800 pages

Albert Einstein - 481,000 pages

Re:The FBI is nothing compared to Google

[PD]

Precious Bodily Fluids : 5810

Black Panthers

[Purple_Walrus]

Erm, the Black Panthers should not be put in the same cattegory as Martin Luther King or the Gay Activists... That's just wrong, do you know what the Panthers really stood for?

Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay?

[Thing 1]

Emphasis mine:

All of these people posed (and the AFSC still poses) a clear threat to the welfare of this nation.

Waitaminit -- these people are leftists, right? You'd think they'd be for welfare, wouldn't you? ;-)

Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay?

[TheLastUser]

Just because Einstein associated with a lot of socialists and communists does not establish that he believed in ALL of the tenants of these organizaions. Just as a person who votes Republican may be in favor of the "pro-choice" stance on abortion.

I have read some stuff written by Einstein and he was, I believe, merely scared to death that there was going to be a nuclear war. And he, as someone who could well imagine the implications, and as someone with a good moral compass, decided to use his celebrity status to try and save the world from destruction.

Its more srprising to me that after the slaughter of WW1 and WW2, that someone like Einstein, who was plainly looking for a novel solution to the problem or war, was under investigation by the government, instead of being supported by the government.

I think the root of this investigation is that governments like to have a ready pool of kids to send off to their death. Anyone that interferes with that ability touches on how government leaders define their power, and probably their manhood.

It is also interesting that 25 or so years later people would be practising what Einstein was proposing, to end the Vietnam vs. the USA war.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Surely Alan Turing must have a file?

[pommiekiwifruit]

After all, helping to crack Enigma, win WW2, invent Turing Test and Turing Machine etc. was enough to make the (UK) govt. pump him full of hormones until he committed suicide.

Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay?

[MaxVlast]

He may not have founded it, but he sure did create it. It was named the "Bureau of Investigation" in 1909, the first person to be called the "Director" was Flynn in 1919, the thing was a big mess and a general embarrassment until Coolidge's attorney general appointed Hoover in 1924. (Not to say it wasn't an embarrassment, but it was an embarrassment in a different way.) Hoover is quite responsible for everything that the FBI became until his death (1972?) and for a while beyond. I have no compunction agreeing with the poster who suggests that Hoover 'founded' the organization that the FBI became.

Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you Americans had something called "Freedom"?

Oh .. wait .. I forgot .. you only advocate freedom for those whose opinions you happen to agree with. God forbid someone should try spread opinions or political ideologies that you *don't* agree with - the government should lock them away!

Re:Indeed, this brings up a very important point.

[MaxVlast]

Summary of author's points:

1. Liberals are a cult/cabal/conspiracy. They hate America.

2. Liberals like America when America is in trouble. When America is no longer in trouble, they go back to plotting its destruction from the inside.

3. We (good Americans, that is) can deal with their destruction of America when we're at peace. When at war, though, we should kill them.

4. Liberals have no connection to reality, despite the fact that they apparently secretly run the world.

5. They are ungrateful for what God and America (the distinction seems fuzzy) gives them. We should batter them into compliance.

6. They are mentally unstable and have conditioned the rest of Us to not notice it.

7. They have bizarre sex and use drugs. This is horrible and unthinkable.

8. The pacifists have declared war on people who want to hate others and have to be punished.

9. Abolish all universities. Fire all administrators. Have the military take them over.

He raves and drools on, but I, in my liberal apathy and sloth, don't really want to click on the link to read the rest. You can at your leisure, and I won't oppose it because I'm a permissive milquetoast who is probably too busy having sex with an animal to stop you.

Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay?

[themurray]

I have problem with anyone trying to tell me how to run my life when I don't bother anyone nor do I like anyone attempting to "help" me through government laws. They can leave for a socialist country if they don't like it.

In a different light

[npsimons]

I view these numbers in a different light. It only takes 588 pages to tell that the Klu Klux Klan is evil because it's so obvious.

On the other hand, proving Martin Luther King Jr is the spawn of Satan is quite difficult, it takes about 100 times as much research!

As for the Aryan Brotherhood I figure a lot of it is "see article on Adolph Hitler" so they can save duplicate research.

Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay?

[joss]

Sounds reasonable. So, you're basically an anarchist libertarian then ? Or, are there any laws you do agree with. For instance, do you approve of laws demanding that you pay taxes in order to fund a police force and an army. You may object to paying taxes to pay welfare recipients, while others may object to funding an army and subsidising the tech/engineering industrial complex.

Then there are secondary questions - should roads be maintained by government, or should they all be build and tolled by private companies ? How about broadcast frequencies, should they be managed or just left as free for all ?

Just curious, where would you draw the line ?

Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay?

[TheCrazyFinn]

Actually neither the Doctrine of Sola Fides (Justification/Salvation by Faith Alone) or Sola Scriptura (The Bible is the only source of correct doctrine) are biblical, or even technically correct for Christianity. Both Doctrines originated with Martin Luther, the first is disproved by 2 James 2:24 (Faith without works is dead) and the second requires that you not beleive in the Trinity (The Trinity is only explained in the Nicean Creed). Also the vast majority of Christians do not adhere to these tenets (The Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Episcopalian and Pentecostal Churches explicitly deny both Sola Fides and Sola Scriptura, and with the exception of teh Pentecostals, never have taught either as doctrine) So if the Quakers don't beleive in Sola Fides, they're in good company.

The Crazy Finn

In defense of the Black Panthers

[alienmole]

Erm, the Black Panthers should not be put in the same cattegory as Martin Luther King or the Gay Activists... That's just wrong, do you know what the Panthers really stood for?

Yes, the freedom of themselves and their people from oppression by the racist American government and people of the time. For an alternative to the propaganda you've been exposed to, you might try reading this, or this (the latter with a good and honest summary of pros and cons). Search Google for plenty more.

Are you saying that in similar circumstances, you would just suck it up? When a people's pride, dignity and survival is at stake, in an unjust society and under unjust laws, conventions and law enforcement, some may claim that they would not choose violence as a solution - and a few might follow through, like King and Gandhi. Others may choose the coward's path, and suffer in silence.

But in these circumstances, violent rhetoric and violence is a very understandable and natural (as in human nature) course of action, and if you condemn the Black Panthers for that, it's only because you've never remotely been in a similar position.

You're probably a white male (as am I), and you probably grew up in an environment in which the closest you ever came to "oppression" was being grounded for not doing your homework.

The Black Panthers originated partly in response to police brutality in Oakland, CA. Police brutality against blacks in American cities is hardly a solved problem, but today, it gets dealt with much more effectively by society and the government. That wasn't the case in 1966. You can thank the Black Panthers directly for the relatively peaceful society you enjoy today, because they clearly demonstrated what can happen if you don't deal with issues such as police brutality and discrimination in a fair and open manner.

Murmurs from suburbia (somewhat OT)

[alext]

As an aside, I just helped organize a little local debate last Thursday on the proposition "American is a Rogue State". This was in Richmond-upon-Thames (west London) which boasts an American University among other institutions.

Rather than have a bunch of aging British lefties whinge about US imperialism, we thought we'd invite some students down from the college and get a more balanced opinion. You can guess the outcome - we couldn't get anyone to present the pro-US case at all, and the students were considerably more critical of US policy than our resident revolutionaries.

Point is that, the war on terror not withstanding, if the US cannot carry mainstream opinion in allied countries for its general foreign policy direction, the effect will be cataclysmic for its interests and the wider world's. No Blair or Berlusconi will be able to hold a line of international support for the US while the US is not seen as supporting international interests.

Re:Murmurs from suburbia (somewhat OT)

[alext]

And your evidence for thinking this would be...?

Re:Murmurs from suburbia (somewhat OT)

[Platypii]

i find it funny that europe laughs at america for the exact same things it is guilty of -- a raging superiority complex

Re:Murmurs from suburbia (somewhat OT)

[alext]

Do you? Very good. Laughter is a frequently underestimated constituent of a balanced program of therapy. And indeed why should the context of a posting constrain what one wants to say? I look forward to the same message appearing in forthcoming KDE vs. GNOME and Burgundy vs. Zinfandel discussions. Oh, and don't forget to remind any German OpenOffice contributor about their dark Nazi past, they'll really appreciate hearing historical insights direct from someone who has a broad collection of armored vehicle pics. We now conclude this review of all-purpose knee-jerk posts and return to the scheduled program...

Book about the hidden activities of the U.S. gov.

[Futurepower(R)]

Second to last line of the parent of the parent to this comment: "The FBI of today is itself a danger to this nation."

Parent to this comment: I am thinking the FBI is about to start a file on you.

Exactly. No one should think that the FBI's actions always make sense. Probably no organization with a lot of money and a lot of secrecy is able to keep things in control. It is extremely difficult to keep everyone in an open organization contributing sensibly. It is impossible to manage an organization in which secrecy is part of the organizing philosophy.

I wrote a book about the hidden violent activities of the U.S. government. It is entirely free. Most of the explanation comes from links to articles at some of the most respected news agencies in the world: What should be the Response to Violence?

Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay?

[pajor]

Of course you can be a Christian without the Bible. All you have to believe in is the divinity of Christ and you are a christian. The New Testament(the Christ part) was created from vast array of documents all of which could have been included. The Catholic Church decided what and what was not to be included in the official bible with somewhat dubious logic (look it up some of it has to do with Jesse Jackson type numerical logic). So the documents which were included can be rejected individually without collapsing belief in the whole. The New Testament is not the word of god, and is never claimed to be. Rather it is a "historical" description of what happened, written decades after the events happened.

Gnuyen

Re:you're lost, man...

[symbolic]

Your comments leave me with the impression that any efforts backed by a right-wing and/or "Christian" agenda are outside the realm of criticism. The hard right is no more desirable than the hard left. They BOTH have their agendas, and they are both vying for the power, influence, and control of the masses. Maybe you can explain what you find so endearing about the history of religion and religious persecution, and why trading a leftist direction for something of this nature would be any better.

Re: anonimicity on /.

[guybarr]

Nobody's afraid of the FBI here (the ones that should will probably be too busy making bombs or serine gas, not posting /. )

what people are afraid of is the oppinion of their fellow readers: today a reader, tommorow a moderator, and he may be arab or israeli or chinese or whatever.

the tirany of the masses ... for which /. is a good testing-ground.

fuck that, posting un-anonimouly.

Re: A mathematical model

[guybarr]

My very simplistic model is this:

taking the distribution of wealth as a function, the amount of discontent is a function of it's gradient.

extreme comunism == gradient too low (everyone is equally dissadisfied) => no-one works very hard unnless in a gulag => society will deteriorate.
extreme capitalism == gradient too high , people starving even though food exists, eventually too much discontent creates a revolution.

add to that the subject of inheritance (of furtune, NOT properties ... )

extreme socialism (as in france) == the government redistributes wealth by heavy taxation of inheritance, some widdows have to sell their house (!!) to pay the tax, ,rich people flee the country.

extreme capitalism (USA): no taxation of inheritance whatsoever (AFAIK), hence the gaps widen with each generation (what do you need to become a billioner ? be a millioner, much easier when daddy's one.)

( that's what wrong with your assumption: you own what you produce + what father produced, hence the "equity lords" don't need to produce anything, they'll still get richer.)

so my metric is this: what balance will benefit our children the most ? property laws and morals should benefit human beings, not the other way around.

Re: A mathematical model

[foobar104]

taking the distribution of wealth as a function, the amount of discontent is a function of it's gradient

I think you mean "slope," not "gradient." The slope of a function of one variable is the time rate change of that function over an interval.

"Gradient," on the other hand, is the idea of slope applied to multivariable calculus. A function of two variables defines a surface, and the gradient of the surface at a given point is represented by a vector. The magnitude of the vector corresponds to the greatest rate of change of the surface away from that point, and the direction of the vector is the direction of greatest change.

property laws and morals should benefit human beings, not the other way around.

But that's not right at all. Morality is assumed to be an absolute system that dictates what people should and shouldn't do. Different moral systems are based on different fundamental assumptions-- rules handed down by a deity, or something else entirely-- but they're all considered to be absolute.

Basically you're taking the opposite position from mine. You're trying to say that economic systems should be rational, based on such-and-such criteria. I'm saying that a perfectly rational system with a flawed moral foundation-- communism-- can't work, and should not be implemented. Any benefits gained from that system would be "poisoned."

In your post you implied-- although you didn't say, so I may be reading you wrong-- that wealth should be a reward for productivity: "that's what wrong with your assumption: you own what you produce + what father produced, hence the 'equity lords' don't need to produce anything, they'll still get richer." Therefore-- again, I'm inferring here-- you believe that the wealthiest individuals should be the most productive individuals.

That's where pure rationalism breaks down. If my father had left me one billion dollars when he died, then I would have inherited that one billion dollars and become very wealthy having produced nothing. According to your evaluation, that would be bad.

So your answer is taxation: the government should take from my inheritance to reduce the degree to which I gain wealth without being productive.

Whenever anybody says a sentence of the form, "The government should do X," I replace "the government" with "Joe Smith." If what's being proposed would be morally or ethically wrong for a person-- Joe Smith-- then it's wrong for the government.

So let's try that: "So your answer is taxation: Joe Smith should take from my inheritance to reduce the degree to which I gain wealth without being productive."

Taking something that rightfully belongs to me is tantamount, in my mind, to stealing from me. So that's wrong.

(Before you get all excited, the same argument doesn't apply to taxation in general. In that sense, the government [Joe Smith] is providing me with certain services in return for my money. That's a morally sound transaction. But I don't get anything in return for paying inheritance taxes. So that's morally unsound.)

Re: A mathematical model

[guybarr]

1) slope Vs gradient

talking of "wealth" as a single random vasriable (which is the way I described it) you are, of course right.

but this RV can be (and is) highly correlated with a function of many other parameters (education, societal values, ambition, talents ): to this I ment when I said "gradient": and the distribution of wealth is governed by a diffusion law on some manifold, created by other constraints.

but of course I did not say so on my original post, so you were right.

2) on morality
"Morality is assumed to be an absolute system that dictates what people should and shouldn't do..."

assumed (absolute) by who ? human laws are allways subject for change (formally- through legislation, and informally- through discussions and precedents)

and even If you are religous, and assume a deity gave you a set of absolute values, he in his eternal wisdom (no irony) can have an infinite set of values, but we have to interpret a final set as time and context changes; a live religion may have absolute values: but the (human) interpretations are very much in flux, since new situation occur.

so there can be no "absolute" set of values.
to be a moral person, in my view, is to balance the good of society and fellow citizens with your family, and act to the better interest of all. And social values are your "theoretical tools" with which you speculate what is the better way to act.

Theoretical tools can however be wrong, or even contradictory, they should be used and develloped, but allways with a grain of salt.

3) on taxation.
"[with taxation in general] the government [Joe Smith] is providing me with certain services in return for my money. "

so what is different here ? taxation is never "fair" , and you allways get less than you paid for. You also cannot (legally) choose not to be taxed, it is an inforced bargain.

but as for your question "what do I get in return?"
I say you may get a healthier, steadier society, where you are less afraid some poor joe will kidnap your daughter for ransom.

When is terrorism OK?

[alienmole]

Yes, terrorism can be "OK", even morally justifiable, although obviously questions like this can't be answered absolutely for everyone. I think terrorism in South Africa was a good thing, for example, when it was used to help bring down the racist government there. If the populace had been meek, world attention would not have been as intense, and the outcome might have been even slower than it was.

Would you be asking "is terrorism OK" if you found yourself living in a place where your basic rights were virtually nonexistent, where you were being subject to continual harrassment, and you were unable to live in peace and go about your own business without continual interference and oppression from powerful government and social forces?

Terrorism is a weapon most commonly used by the oppressed against the strong. The targets of terrorism don't usually think it's OK, but they're obviously biased.

There's a big difference, though, between terrorism by citizens against their own state, and terrorism by external agents against another state, as on 9/11. The latter is much more like a traditional war, in many respects.

A clearer example of traditional terrorism was the Oklahoma City bombing. That was executed by a misguided and disgruntled American citizen. If there were millions of such citizens attempting to take such actions, you can be sure that their grievances would not be taken lightly. Happily, Timothy McVeigh was a kook, and can't be defended the way the Black Panthers can. It's fairly unlikely that large internal terrorist organizations will arise within a fair and just state, but if and when they do, there's probably a serious problem that needs to be looked at, that goes beyond the symptom of terrorism.

Re: A mathematical model

[snol]

Whenever anybody says a sentence of the form, "The government should do X," I replace "the government" with "Joe Smith." If what's being proposed would be morally or ethically wrong for a person-- Joe Smith-- then it's wrong for the govrnment.

You may believe this, but I doubt it. "The government decided John Doe did something bad so they locked him up." versus "Joe Smith decided John Doe did something bad so he locked him up." Maybe you're into anarchy, but AFAIK the prevailing view is that the point of the government is to be a representative of (roughly) the will of the general population, and therefore is supposed to exercise more power than individuals. Determining how much power you think they should use is up to your political philosophy.

As for the distinction you make in your last paragraph, it doesn't work out. First, what makes you think the government is providing you with services in exchange for your income tax but not inheritance tax? (Aside from silly jokes about how dead people don't get government services.) Second, is it actually OK with you for Joe Smith to demand money in return for services you didn't ask for? If you ask me, Joe Smith is an excellent rhetorial device and a poor device for actual politics.

Re: A mathematical model

[foobar104]

assumed (absolute) by who ?

I suggest you do some reading on the subject of morality and ethics. The existence of moral or ethical systems is predicated on the assumption that the actions of people are either right or wrong, just or unjust, virtue or vice. Moral systems attempt to provide a framework for deciding which actions are right and which are wrong. People can argue about the various pros and cons of the various moral systems if they want to, but frankly that kind of debate bores me. I have a set of values that I try to live by. If yours are different, that's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that my system is absolute for myself, just like yours is (should be!) absolute for yourself.

so there can be no "absolute" set of values.

What you're describing is what I was taught to call "moral relativism." And I believe it's fine in the abstract; if you're an anthropologist or a philosopher, it's important to put your own opinions and values aside in the process of studying your subject. But in practice, that is in actual interactions between people, I think "moral relativism" is dangerous and wrong.

to be a moral person, in my view, is to balance the good of society and fellow citizens with your family, and act to the better interest of all.

Fine. I have a different view. My view is basically, "I'll take care of mine. You take care of yours." If someone truly needs help, I believe the right thing to do is help them if you can. That's called charity, and it works on a person-to-person level. But I put absolutely zero stock in "the better interest of all."

You also cannot (legally) choose not to be taxed, it is an inforced bargain.

Oh, that's not literally true. I could choose to leave my city, county, state, or country. And I know people who have done that very thing (on the county, not national, level) over property taxes. Their opinion was different from mine, but I respect them for making a tough choice.

But in general, you're right. I can't opt out of paying my taxes in any direct way. The justification for this is that I am entitled to a voice in my government-- either simply through voting or through holding office myself-- that I can use to influence these policies. So while it's definitely not perfect, it's at least fair.

Re:In defense of the Taliban

[commodoresloat]

Actually, praise of the Taliban freedom fighters used to occur often in this country; for example look at Reagan's speech marking Afghanistan Day.

Re:Indeed, this brings up a very important point.

[MaxVlast]

so was mine.

Re:What you're insinuating may not really be the c

[ArizonaBay]

Well, I think the point that this all brings up is: When is it acceptable for the government to invade someone's privacy for 'investigative purposes'?

Two of the major tenents that the US government is based upon are:

1. The freedom of holding and expressing opinions, even if they are at odds with the prevailing majority opinion.

2. Respecting the privacy of it's citizens as much as possible.

If you exercise the rights granted to you in the former tenant, do you give up the rights granted to you in the latter?

I realize it's a thin line, but it seems to me that the government is saying: Yes, you are guaranteed your right to privacy...unless we don't like what you have to say. Perhaps that sounds paranoid, but when the FBI rounds up hundreds of thousands of pages about people and organizations whose only offense was expressing an opinion, you have to wonder.

Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay?

[Mahonrimoriancumer]

Social conscience is something you hell-bent-on-making-money-at-all-costs right-wing conservative nuts seem to lack.

What do we lack? A bleeding heart? lol

Seriously, I am extremely conservative and I do give to my community as much as I can (mostly in the form of man hours as I am a (poor) college student. After I graduate and start making more money, I will donate to causes that I support.

What upsets me is when some self-proclaimed "crusader" demands that I give them money and that if I don't, I "lack a social conscience". I'm sorry I want to KEEP THE MONEY I EARNED!! After all it is MY MONEY, not yours or "society's". If you want money, go earn it yourself.

Communism requires a perfect world to succeed.

[eyegor]

Communism failed because it requires a perfect world and people within it who are not motivated by greed. Look at every communist or socialist country . In nearly every case you'll find a leadership wholly corrupted by greed and the lust for power. People are people. They're weak and greedy (except for Bill Clinton, of course).

Capitalism works so well because the world and the people in it are imperfect and incapable (as a whole) of not wanting their own "stuff". In spite of what many people think, the brand of capitalism here in good old US of A, has been heavily watered down by socialism.

Capitalism is its purest form is darwinian in nature. If you're incapable of cutting the mustard, you starve or (at a minimum) are less likely likely to reproduce. If only it were so. :)

For a nice easy read, check out "Animal Farm". Honestly, It's not about animals!!! heh.

Re:YES! Someone finally gets it

[BenitoM]

Is this just a clever way of calling me a fascist? There are fascists everywhere. Fascism is a state of mind, not a political party. Fascists believe in the supremacy of the state, in patriotism, in obedience, in submission to natural leaders. Some people are fascists and don't even know it. It's my just to enlighten them.

Re: anonimicity on /.

[Malcontent]

Maybe nobody is afraid of the FBI but I bet nobody is afraid of the moderator either. You have to admit that this administration has very successfully instituted an atmosphere of paranoia and fear which suits their purposes just fine. They are able to shut down all dissent on all topics. Like the attorney general said "if you disagree with us you are giving aid and comfort to the terrorists". People are afraid to critize the govt and that should scare you.

Einstein essay on socialism

[jdfox]

Read a capsule summary of his views here, if you want to know where the man himself stood.

Re:moderation abuse

[-brazil-]

Sorry, but declaring everyone with political views opposed to your own to be "at war with America" IS either trolling or being an amazingly dumb hypocrite. Both deserve to be moderated down.

Re: Communism is not ideal

[maunleon]

It is a long whitstanding argument that in a perfect society communism would make a perfect system.

Would it? Why would a system that rewards mediocrity and punish independence and make a perfect system? What incentive does a communist system give for the advancement of science, arts, and humanities? It is in human nature to profit from his own work, and yet communism tells you that you may not profit more than your brother who sits home and does nothing.

The working class? In an ideal capitalist society, the "working class" would have as much opportunity as all the other classes. They can choose to rise themselves from the slums and become financially independent. It is in the interest of a capitalist society to reward those who work hard and make something of themselves. A capitalist society will not reward you for just being born, true. But it will reward you greatly if you work hard.

Ideal capitalism IS the ideal system. It is the only system that fits in with human nature, and it is the only system that can provide for the advancement of the human race, the discarding of useless elements in our society, and the propagation of beneficial ones. Communism gets in the way of progress, because it goes against human nature. Humans are selfish by nature, and yet cannot gratify their selfishness without being rewarded by other humans. That is our greatest strength.

The word "We" is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.

What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and the impotent, are my masters? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?

-Ayn Rand

Re:HELLO, people, the FBI was *right*, okay?

[feron]

Hmmmm...Blast it all, mayhap they should just stick to making oats :)

All American Hypocrites

[Hoi Polloi]

Since Einstein got into the US anyway I assume, like a number of ex-Nazi scientists, that his genius overshadowed his supposedly evil Commie tendencies. The ideology of convenience at work.

I'm turning you in!!!

[Hoi Polloi]

You are obviously a commie^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hterrorist lover! No REAL American would ever say such a thing. I bet you don't even have the required flags on your car antennae and bumper.

(Getting out my "Little Bastard Snitch" kit)

Communism still exists everywhere...

[Hoi Polloi]

Communism is, at it's heart, about communal ownership of property and resources. The family unit then is basically communist. Legally the parents have the ownership rights but functionally everyone does and everyone (unless you have a dysfunctional family) pitches in for the common good and has access to resources (the refrigerator, the car, the tv, etc). Volunteer organizations wouldn't exist unless this was the case also.

The catch is that this only works for groups who believe in the common cause (our family, the Red Cross, etc). As soon as you try to force people who don't care it falls apart and you have to resort to pure self interest (capitalism).

Dana Scully

[Bram Stolk]

Ok, surely the FBI had its dark sides.
However, Dana Scully works there, so it
can't be all bad!

Bram (Dana's biggest fan).

The Einstein File On-Line

[colintm]

I just read the book, it was great! Jerome has a lot to offer not just about Einstein but about the history of McCarthyism. There is a great website about the book that I found www.theeinsteinfile.com