Slashdot Mirror
Terrorist Link to Copyright Piracy Alleged
xbsd writes "John Stedman, a lieutenant in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in charge of IP violations, testified in front of the Senate Homeland Security committee that some associates of terrorist groups such as Hezbollah may be involved in copyright violations. According to CNET's Declean McCullagh: 'Even though Stedman's evidence is circumstantial, his testimony comes as Congress is expected to consider new copyright legislation this year. An invocation of terrorism, the trump card of modern American politics, could ease the passage of the next major expansion of copyright powers'."
Have comparisons to terrorism become like comparisons to Hitler and Nazi Germany on /.?
Is that a shock? Terrorism is the new buzz word, slap it onto anything you don't like and it's instantly evil.
Hell lets just call Nazis terrorists now. They are pretty much interchangable if you ignore the "short" gap between the end of the second world war and today
I like muppets.
remember those anit-drug ads, buying weed supports terrorism, sounds like the same bullshit again
Haven't you heard? Terrorism is the new communism now.
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
I thought that the main sources of Hezbollah funding were Iran ($100M/yr) and Blood Diamonds... silly me.
For prior art see The War on Drugs. Those ads after 9/11 linking buying a dimebag to supporting terrorists were another great example. It is sad to see this posted here where we all "get it" and aren't suckered into the same old FUD. Most however, politicians included, will take these statements at face value and begin to think accordingly.
And just like The War on Drugs it is a farce that ignores the realities of the world we live in in favor of making money on an outdated status quo.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
I think this is directed to the people who sell pirated DVDs on the street, not P2P users.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
With thunderous applause and nice little back-hands to the Trade Federation, i mean, RIAA/MPAA. How absolutely marvellous. So I guess there's no chance that Mickey Mouse will become public domain at any point in the next couple of centuries. I wonder how much more junk legislation can get passed due to "terrorism". We've already seen the patriot act, which everyone knows and loves. Now all the big business concerns are getting their little pet hates resolved as well. The ext time some "terrorist" event occurs, I wonder if the Senate will vote to give the Chancellor, (cough) I mean err President some 'emergency' powers. They do say that fact is often stranger than fiction. My concern is that maybe fact will become even 'darker' than fiction.
The truth shall always be free: Boris Floricic is Tron.
Yup. Except it's not just the left wing. BOTH parties are authoritarian.
I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans wanted to "get government out of our lives."
i.e. before they had all the power in government.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Well, okay.. it doesn't come as a big surprise that an organization that engages in a variety of criminal acts doesn't care about copyright laws either. Maybe they steal candy too. There's no point in making already illegal activities even more illegal. If they cared, they wouldn't do it anyway.
The article itself points out that they benefit from a range of different criminal activities. Further limiting domestic rights to fight foreign troublemakers doesn't seem to work.
see a Text Widget
My guess is that in two years (or less?), your right to think freely will also be considered a danger as it might be linked to terrorism in some way (as of yet to be discovered)...
You might call this a troll post, but seriously guys (and gals), doesn't anyone in the US Government think rationally anymore? Or is that also somehow an act of terrorism? Sheesh.
Yup. Except it's not just the left wing. BOTH parties are authoritarian.
Too true. How many bills had Bush vetoed?
I'm old enough to remember when the Republicans wanted to "get government out of our lives."
Yeah, they certainly enjoyed the Libertarian line until it came to their term in power.
Do you remember Reagan's acceptance speech?
"...Government *is* the problem"
How soon they forget.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
only outlaws will participate in piracy. So naturally the organised crime groups got involved. It's the same reason crime gangs run the drug trade, it's the same reason the Mafia controlled alcohol distribution in the Prohibition, and abortions before they became legal. Whenever legitimate businesses can't do something that's very much profitable, the illegitimate ones will. Piracy funds terrorism because it is illegal, not the other way around.
I am trolling
In related news I think there might be some possibility that one or more associates of the 535 members of Congress may be sort of involved in child molestation... or something.
Even though my evidence is circumstantial, nay... entirely nonexistant, my testimony comes as Congress is not expected to consider new congressional ethics legislation this year. An invocation of child abuse, the trump card of modern American politics, could ease the passage of the next major restriction of congressional powers.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Those are of course both extreme examples. Hitler was also a fascist.
Whatever you think about socialism, in this case (and the cases of Hitler and Stalin) the problem isn't so much socialism as it is extremism.
Moderation in all things.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
...in all the blather about this and other idiocy infringing on our rights and privacies... there's been studious willful ignorance of the left wing's similar tendencies. Except, they are even bigger abusers of the "for the children" FUD card.
I just wanted to point that out before a lot of anti-Bush crud started up yet again. Just remember Clinton and his cronies were no different, really. Political correctness, their own version of terrorists in the form of "right-wing hate groups", more political correctness...
I'll say it again, whoever wins, we lose. Next elections, we need to be looking to wipe out both Republicans and Democrats at the polls. Trouble is, the third parties out there are either left of Stalin, loopy wingnuts like Perot, or worse altogether than that. Sadly, the common public doesn't seem to have much interest in a party with a rights, privacy, and constitutionalist bent. In short, the only people truly belonging in government are those who really don't want to serve in their heart of hearts and the people are prone to electing whoever grubs and scrounges for it the hardest.
So I don't expect these copyright issues to change, I don't expect the undue influence of major corporations or noisy political groups to lessen. I really don't. Sadly... So now we have another reason to infringe on the civil rights of our people. Did we really need another reason? Did they need one? Do they ever?
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Last time I mentioned that the MPAA/RIAA were trying to equate copyright violations with terrorism this guy "Big Al B" kept pooh-poohing it saying I was overreacting. At least here's some more concrete evidence. Since we are now in the never-ending "War On Terror," the easiest way for corporate America to get the government to stop activities it finds unprofitable is to equate them with terrorism. Expect more of this as we slide down the slope.
And remember the old truism - just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
rooooar
JXTWDBJ
But you're right, that's a fucking joke
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
Before the Soviet Union collapsed, everything evil was blamed on communists, and any response, no matter how stupid, was deemed acceptible in order to fight communism. And it "worked". The Soviet Union's collapse occured after the US did all sorts of stupid things in the name of fighting communism, therefore the fall of communism *must* have been brought about by America's direct intervention!
Fighting terrorism is no different. And I quote:
Homeland Security is a bigger threat to the American way of life than anything Osama bin Forgotten can come up w/. Feel free to do something about it...
[o]_O
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And, as we all know, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea is a fully democratic state - oh, wait, it's not? Guess you can call something by a name that isn't truthful.
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
The word "terrorist" start to sound in US politics now like the word "Jew" sounded in Nazi Germany, "imperialist" sounded in the Communist countries.
Slapping the term on somebody or someone signals the beginning of the witchhunt, which was never criticized, since the government had blanche card against "the Jews", "the imperialists" and now "the terrorists".
Future generations always asked the question: how come, people did not realize this? How come people were able to just stand by?
Well, you see... it's not as difficult as it sounds like.
Watch carefully yourself, how you become silently a collaborator to madness. We are standing on the slippery slope again, as so many times in history.
"Socialism," by which you mean some sort of statism, and capitalism are inseparable. The origin of the modern state is indistinguishable from the formation of modern capitalism. Capitalism requires a labor force that can be moved around, made abstract, is not too tied to one way of living or another, has a certain basic education. Capitalism in its modern form requires considerable state infrastructure to create currency, manage trade policy, control monetary policy, provide infrastructure for transportation, to prop the system up when it is about to break (see the airline bail-outs) and the like. The creation of the modern citizenry that owes primary loyalty to a nation-state is completely in line with the creation of a consumer/producer who sells his work in the market place. There is no capitalism without socialism.
You are all socialists in that regard. The question is a matter of a degree, and who gets "serviced" by these government institutions. The government is really a whole network of institutions, and just who those institutions work for is often up for grabs. Many conservatives are quite happy to evoke the idea of "laissez-faire" after they hide or ignore the ways in which the interests of the powerful are being buttressed by the state. When the state provides any services to the not-powerful, though, it gets tarnished as "socialism."
Of course, this is a simplification, but offers a starting point. Next:
Stalin was a socialist. Hitler was a socialist.
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? The fact that "nazi" comes from "national-socialism" or that Lenin and Stalin claimed to have "embraced and extended" Marx's theories is circumstantial for the end result - everything must start somewhere. You might as well say that Napoleon was a republican, since he begun by serving the French Republic.
Now look up those definitions on your own if you don't trust these, but to spell it out for you: Hitler was the head of a fascist regime in its purest form ('extreme right wing' some would call it). Stalin was the head of an authoritarian regime whose ideology is usually known as Marxism-Leninism (or 'extreme left wing') - some people would say it was not communism, but a perverted form, while others will argue that it was indeed communism - and the logical conclusion of any attempt to follow the theoretical sequence capitalism -> socialism -> communism to its end.
To go back to the original point, in practice there is not a whole lot of difference in form between the two extremes, but you have to bear in mind that socialism means state ownership and in the extreme (communist) case no private property, while fascism means state control, which is a little less. Also, in theory socialism does not advocate an authoritarian government, but it can easily fall into one when pushed. Now, what we have here is neither
These days the industry seems to make no distinction at all between the two groups, at least when it comes to talking to congress and the media.
I mean think: If they were really concerned about loss of money, their major campaign would be against the vendors that sell counterfit goods, not the end users. There hasn't been much research done on P2P, but the one empirical study that has been done by Harvard and UNC showed that P2P has no stasticaly significant affect on music sales. So one would think they'd be after the counterfitters with a vengence, while doing some research on the P2P phenomena to see if it is really harmful, and how they can turn it to their advantage.
Instead we see massive campaigns against online traders, we see commercials, we see them giving night vision systems to projectionists to look for DV cams (really), we see them filing lawusits left and right without checking their facts first and so on. It's pretty clear from their actions that they see P2P as bad or worse than counterfitting, and they are willing to spend as much or more to shut it down.
Thus I have no doubt P2P will be included in this. Not because there's any actual link to terrorism, but because playing the terrorism card is a great method for getting your way with government these days.
"Socialist" is not the word you are looking for.
:)
There was another political philosophy, developed by Bennito Mussolini, that fits what you are trying to describe much better.
Bennito Mussolini, when asked to describe his philosophy, described it as follows:
"Fascism could better be referred to as Corporatism, because it is a system whereby the Corporations and the State share power."
Fascism is a system whereby the state directs the overall direction of the economy, but leaves the ownership of industry in a select few private hands. Those who own factories that prefer to work in a strategic direction other than that mandated by the State, will be arrested, and their property siezed and given to private owners who will get with the program. While such a system may bear superficial resemblance to a "free market" system because of private ownership, it is not a free market system because of the cooertion placed upon the putative "owners" by the State.
In addition (see parrent poster's comments on "Socialism" below), many people become confused by the fact that another well-known Fascist government, that of 1930s-1940s Germany, was run by a political party known by the accronym "NSDAP", which stood for National Socialist German Worker's Party. Despite the name, the NSDAP (Nazis) were not Socialists, but modeled their political party very closely after Mussolini's Fascist Party.
The primary reason for the Nazi Party having the word "Socialist" in it's name, was that it's Leader and the person most closely affiliated with the Nazi party in modern memory, Adolf Hitler, was not a founding member of that party.
He was originally a veteran of the first world war, who was sent by the German Army to spy on the small bavarian group that was calling itself the "National Socialist German Worker's Party", because socialist groups had been fomenting rebellion in the post world war one chaos in Germany. Hitler reported back that the group was no threat, and that the name they had chosen was a misnomer.... and then proceded to use his gift of oratory to seize control of the small group and expand it.
The group, despite it's name, was avowedly anti-Socialist and anti-Communist... they also later became involved in some unpleasantness involving mass genocide and the almost complete destruction of large parts of Europe.
So, to correct your statement in the post above mine, please say "Fucking Fascist Bastards!" when refering to the RIAA and MPAA, as "Fascist" is the word that applies, not Socialist.
Thanks
If true, all that does is demonstrate further that everybody does it, and harsher laws will in the end only provoke a harsher backlash when the law finally catches up to reality.
When everybody violates a law through natural action, that just means the law is out of step with reality. The law either reflects an extreme ideology or serves a special interest out of proportion to concern for general welfare.
It's worse than that, my friend, I hear those terrorists guys DRIVE CARS! Yep, it in the news!
Write your congressperson.
Write them a letter. With an envelope. And a stamp. It carries a tremendous amount of weight (it really does). Don't use a form letter. Don't type it. Don't call them. Write a legible, clean and concise letter expressing your viewpoint. Tell them that you do not agree with the upcoming changes to copyright laws. While you're at it, tell them you don't appreciate parts of the PATRIOT act becoming legitimate law either. Tell them that the erosion of your rights in the name of fighting "terrorists" isn't something that you're willing to tolerate anymore.
Instead of whining and bitching to people who--by and large--agree with you, write to someone who can make a difference.
When you're finished with that, write your senator as well.
I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
A party name doesn't mean a lot. There wasn't much in common between the USSR Communist Party and the Italian Communist Party for example. And remember that Vicente Fox's party in Mexico is the Partido Revolucionario Institucional, the Institutional Revolutionary Party, proving that a party can live with about any name, even such a fantastic one.
Sometimes I wonder if the words "socialist, communist, liberal", derived and some others shouldn't be prohibited in the USA. Most people haven't any idea of their meaning.
The War on Terror" is supposed to be just that; Fighting Islamic extremist who wish to do America harm.
No, that's a Crusade.
Unless, off course, you approve of the Oklahoma City bombing (which, btw, was immediatly and erroneously blamed on islamists when it happened). Or the anthrax mailings (internal, and using the strain the U.S. military owns).
You can't take the sky from me...
I believe that the current administration is working as hard as it can to build a fascist state... perhaps not intentionally, but a fascist state nonetheless. I believe that if there isn't a major shake-up in the mid-term elections, we will have decades of work to repair the damage. And if, God forbid, we get another president with the same motivations as Bush next term, then there will be no turning back. The slide to fascism will be unstoppable, IMHO.
Sadly, I don't even think that revolution will work, since there are too few people concerned with Freedom and Liberty, but instead concerned with "Everyone Loves Raymond" and "Survivor".
I think the most likely cause of a reversal is a major war in which the United States is the bad guy. World War II, take 2, but we get to play the part of Germany this time, with our ass handed to us by the EU.
I'd suggest that anyone who really cares about values such as Freedom and Liberty move to a country that counts those values are core values. The United States clearly doesn't.
I have no-the-fuck idea where you pulled *your* definition of communism from
Oooh, ooh, ooh! I think I know! I think his definition of Communisim is based on every single instance of communist government that exist or ever existed. Yeah, that's probably were he got that. Not based on a book that was written by some quack who didn't understand human nature, and who wouldn't have been able to live under his own system anyway, if he weren't the one in control.
For sure, socialists want big governments but they also care a lot about personal liberties. In fact, socialists want a big government so it can protect its citizens' liberties.
Maybe the socialists actually believe, or want to believe, that; but it's simply not true. One of my essential rights is the right to maintain my property and the fruits and rewards of my labor. Socialists do not recognize that principle and believe that it's OK for "society" to take from individuals and redistribute wealth and resources in the name of "fairness" and equality. But no matter what the justification, if my property is stolen from me, it's still stolen. Just naming the thief "government" and calling it "taxation" instead of "robbery" doesn't change anything.
Anyway, all of that aside, rampant socialism just does not work anyway. Look at the former USSR... "from each according to his means, to each according to his need" or whatever, makes a nice sound bite. But in practice this means that the government leader types were "more equal" than the common folks because they had... wait for it.... power. After all, somebody had to be "in charge" to make sure the wealth redistribution stuff was carried out.
But there's the rub... no matter how you justify it, no matter how you try to structure it, if you create an institution that grants certain people power or dominion over others, it will eventually become corrupt as people attempt to manipulate the system for their own benefit. Socialism sounds good on paper, but in practice it leads to totalitarianism just like fascism does.
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
Oh, so you mean that if an application turns out differently in practice than in theory, we can change definition of the name of the theory to match the product of the application?
By that strand of logic, democracy is mob rule (see France, c. 1790), anarchism is ideal communism (see current countryside Argentinian industry), and Catholicism is a form of execution (Spain, 1481).
Communism has never been instituted as designed in practice. There have been attempts at communism, but every attempt to establish a communist nation has been foiled by power-hungry buzzards like the leadership of the Bolshevik party, who lost their communist nature before 1920.
No communist state has existed; there has been failed attempts and the hangovers of failed attempts, but no communism.
Stalin's regime was totalitarian with a planned economy; not communist. Fidel Castro runs a friendly socialist dictatorship; not communist. Mao garnered rural support and instituted a bastardized communal economy with rampant corruption and a nefarious overbearing government; still not communist.
Instead of trying to redefine 'communism' as you see fit, why don't you describe regimes according to their true nature?
Before you go off on the people that 'have it wrong', keep in mind many were actually taught this way.
I have noticed this in several cases, where depending on where you grow up, and when, primary education teaches different versions of 'facts'.
Sad really, how the education system pushes their twisted agenda, quietly, over generations...
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Let's read the Sheriff testimony shall we ? Here the link to the PDF
..I guess 20 years of War on Drugs have amply shown
..you would have seen criminal policing of terrorist activities.
.....Oh well, so as long as I'm not affected who cares about neighbours *waves little national flag*
I'll take some quotes that I find interesting, you're advise to read all the testimony for better comprehension
Victims of these organized criminal groups include the tobacco industry, luxury goods manufacturers, clothing companies, and the music and motion picture industries.
Indeed all those industry have something in common : a big difference between final sale price and production cost...meaning they have high profits for each unit they sell. Not surprisingly criminals can still produce something and sell the counterfeit good at a price
that is lower then the original good price..that's possible only if the real production cost is significantly lower then expected sale
price. Of course criminals can also use second quality raw materials for their production, but that's true of industries as well (that's why legitimate industries could use minimal open-2-review standards..but that's another problem)...most of the times consumers don't notice any significant difference, either because the difference is not significant to them or because it's factually minimal
Information in open sources indicates that across the globe anything that has a decent profit margin is being counterfeited.
And not surprisingly so..but I'd replace decent with "high"...decency is a rather vaporous measure.
During interviews, these suspects have admitted that IPR crime is attractive because of the high profit and minimal jail sentences. In the parlance of one suspect, "It's better than the dope business, no ones going to prison for DVDs."
So one would think "let's rise the bar, punish the crime and the crime will stop"
that this is not the case..drugs are still sold....while some argue that the total amount of drugs sold must have declined (because
of the seizures) they usually forget seizures make the business only marginally more expensive...and drugs are still sold.
There are mounting indicators of the involvement of terrorist groups and their supporters.
Criminal countefeit rings are those who benefit the most and they certainly don't want political/religious activists and extremists (therefore likely terrorists) among their ranks, because they're big noisy troublemakers attracting an hell of a lot of police AND government attention. One could argue that terrorism distract police from other duties, but assuming terrorist are profiting from the same rings of "ordinary" criminals
There must be the understanding that this crime affects all citizens through fraud, the diversion of tax revenue, and the empowerment of the criminal element.
I completely agree : let me remember Enron Corporation and other extremely dangerous criminal corporation who operate inside legitimate
markets..I wonder how many are hidden behind a curtain of weak or bought laws, complacent officials et al.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has, like most local agencies, suffered cutbacks in personnel over the past several years due to severe budget curtailments.
It did ? Amazing I would have tought boatloads of money were disbursed to police/firefighters after 9/11...mmhh one wonders were all the
money really went. Maybe at Homeland Security ? Maybe in Iraq ?
It all starts with the fact that it's legal for politicians to receive money. We'd call it corruption in the Netherlands.
Fix that fatal flaw in US government and you'll have fixed crap like this. In the long run.
It's really very simple, idiots. Most of you are programmers. You're supposed to see how decisions now influence events in the future but I dont' see anyone discussing the root cause of these things.
I don't think either democrats or republicans will do anything about finance reforms and While voting anything other than democrats will end up strengthening republicans (sherriffs of nottingham) in the PRESIDENTIAL elections.
There are still the votes for congress which are NOT winner take all. If you vote for guys like Ralph Nader for CONGRESS then your vote will put a couple of guys that are not corrupt in power. It's not the presidency but it's a start, a start on the way to finance reform. Only AFTER finance reform will you be able to get a non dem/rep president in office.
The goal is finance reform, the method is not dem/rep so vote something else for congressmen.
This is all my personal opinion, who agrees with me?
- -- Truth addict for life.
It's like saying the the crime rate would fall if everyone would just quit robbing, raping, and killing each other. Just because the statement is true, that doesn't make it useful. The "true communism has never been tried" argument is equally fatuous.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
you can bet this is going to be just another excuse to justify more draconian "copyright" laws that will undoubtedly infringe on the rights of americans. to fight those who would destroy American freedom, we Americans must remain FREE ourselves, for to do otherwise would be to FURTHER the cause of our enemies. yet, those very politicians who claim to fight for our protection are doing so at the COST of OUR freedoms. with these politicians left unchecked, "live free or die" will soon no longer be our choices. soon, it will be just "live or die." it seems to me that our enemies are winning without lifting a finger; OUR government is doing it FOR them.
Is that a shock? Terrorism is the new buzz word, slap it onto anything you don't like and it's instantly evil.
True, but counterfeiting (money, CDs, DVDs, designer labels, etc.) is popular with terrorists, its a source of income. Don't let your knee jerk reaction cause you to miss that detail. THings are more complicated than you suggest.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
Though some dhave died in war [...] Point is, as over zelous that Christians are, they want to PRESERVE life.
Your logic is as good as your spelling.
You can't take the sky from me...
I have to giggle at your post. The former USSR was far more than 'socialist.' It was a totalitarian state with centrally controlled economics.
'Socialism' has become a dirty word in America, mostly as a side-note of the Cold War. In reality, America is *very* socialist in very many ways. As is just about every first-world Western nation.
Social safety nets, public health-care (yes, it exists in America, you just have to fit very specific criteria), publically funded roads, schools, etc.
Socialists do not recognize that principle and believe that it's OK for "society" to take from individuals and redistribute wealth and resources in the name of "fairness" and equality
This is not strictly true. The very nature of taxation is taking money from society and using it to 'better' society (roads, schools, etc). It's just so much more extreme in a centrally-controlled economy.
The rest of your post is very typical misinformation. You mean to rag on socialism with statements like:
if you create an institution that grants certain people power or dominion over others, it will eventually become corrupt as people attempt to manipulate the system for their own benefit
This is a statement that can be made in general, of all goverments of all time. Hell, that's what this whole article is about, power over others being abused.
Let me finish with this:
One of my essential rights is the right to maintain my property and the fruits and rewards of my labor.
The fruits of your labour would be significantly less if society had not created structures for you to work within. The very concept that you have an 'essential right' to not be taxed is laughable at best. Society works as a collective effort. If noone paid taxes, we wouldn't have a society within which to work.
Having said that, taxation is a burden on productivity after a certain threshold. We must always hold our governments accountable for how they spend our money and must always try to give them only what they need. Of course, that'll never happen, especially under the current administration.
Maybe the socialists actually believe, or want to believe, that; but it's simply not true. One of my essential rights is the right to maintain my property and the fruits and rewards of my labor.
You think you would in a purely capitalist society, where no effort were made to stop monopolies through anti-trust laws, where the company could sack you at any time, with no regulation of work? How many of the basic utilities would you have to pay blood for because there's one provider? Oh you want sewage, pay us $$$ or build an outhouse.
If you live in an apartment building, you have to pay shared costs, even if you personally didn't agree to a janitor. On a grand scale, same with a country. You have to pay shared costs (taxes), even if you personally didn't agree with their use. If you don't like it, you can move.
Any system that deals with money has to deal with corruption. It is no different if your boss was dipping into the company's profits, resulting in less "fruits and rewards" of your labor. That is why we have internal audits in government too.
But there's the rub... no matter how you justify it, no matter how you try to structure it, if you create an institution that grants certain people power or dominion over others, it will eventually become corrupt as people attempt to manipulate the system for their own benefit.
Oh, you mean like Congress, which are given the power to "represent the People"? That must certainly lead to totaliarianism too. Your statement falls on its own unreasonability as most of Europe is a socialist and democratic, unlike USSR which was socialist and totalitarian. And fascism is the marriage of corporations and a totalitarian state, so how can it lead to totaliarism? Unless you claim the source of that is the corporations, in which case you should also be very worried about the US of A.
You are looking at socialism, creating shared utilities for the entire people with a single-loop logic. What happens when it is economically efficient to have a public utility? In some way, your capitalistic little company's is paying for the health of your employees. If it is through a health plan, higher demands for wages or taxes may vary, but you do. It is simply a question of how much.
Most civilized countries have realized that a balance is needed. I assume even the US have figured that out, at least I keep hearing that these Social Security Numbers keep getting stolen...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Intresting thing to deduce from what I said. The problem that west has with Hitles is that he has been canonized as ultimate evil. Yet it is considered politically incorrect to look out how this evil functioned and gained it's power.
<p>
It gained power by:
<ol>
<li>frightening majority of it's people by telling them that nation was constantly threathened from inside and outside,
<li>convincing that majority that they as a nation had special place and destiny in the world,
<li>ridiculing opposite viewpoints and making them look unpatriotic.
</ol>
Nowdays people look out and despise flags with svastika and naziuniforms. Modern version of evil may gain it's power looking wery different but using the same method.
Dyslexics have more fnu.