Slashdot Mirror
Newspapers Cut Wikileaks Out of Shield Law
An anonymous reader writes "The US press has been pushing for a (much needed) federal shield law, that would allow reporters to protect their sources. It's been something of a political struggle for a few years now, and things were getting close when Wikileaks suddenly got a bunch of attention for leaking all those Afghan war documents. Suddenly, the politicians involved started working on an amendment that would specifically carve out an exception for Wikileaks so that it would not be covered by such a shield law. And, now, The First Amendment Center is condemning the newspaper industry for throwing Wikileaks under the bus, as many in the industry are supporting this new amendment, and saying that Wikileaks doesn't deserve source protection because 'it's not journalism.'"
So the answer to poverty is welfare, welfare, higher minimum wage, and welfare? And the only answer that isn't welfare there is a short term bandaid that only results in higher cost of living meaning they're truly no better off once prices adjust to the higher minimum wage. If welfare is the only answer to poverty, then the only way to fight world poverty is to tax Americans at 99% on any income over $1,000 and we'd better learn how to get by on a couple bucks per day.
Yeah, living within your means might mean you can't afford to take that vacation to Cancun, yeah, living within your means might mean that you have to live in a crappier apartment, yeah, living within your means might mean your meals are ramen noodles and PB+J sandwiches.
For when *you're* "Joe the Bum* because you were unlucky enough to be rendered bankrupt and homeless.
Live within your means and that won't happen. You know, that might mean you can't afford that HDTV, that new car, it might mean you have to save/invest rather than take that vacation with your friends, etc.
The problem is, people don't do that. They spend all the money they have, they don't invest it, or if they do invest it they don't do the research, they buy the new car, the new gadgets, etc.
The logic is where you don't automatically assume anyone who isn't wealthy and successful is worthless and lazy.
Then why aren't they successful? They aren't successful because of 1 main reason.
They value something different other than financial success (Drinking, Gadgets, Impressing Friends, etc)
Yeah, there are a few people who just were simply unlucky, but that is very, very few and thats why private charities exist that don't steal money out of my paycheck.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Of course I have a right to do so. It's a democracy. As soon as 51% of us decide it is so, then taxes go up, the ability to export jobs goes down.
Having a majority in a democracy doesn't make your actions right, just popular. Your 51% could vote to murder the other 49%, too; it's still murder. Others have a right to their property just as much as to their lives; both are aspects of self-ownership. You have no more right to take one than the other, no matter how many others may agree with your actions.
I think you would agree if they have 100% of the resources and income that the rest of society is not going to stand for it (and it's a bad thing).
I disagree that it would be a bad thing. There is nothing inherently good or bad about any particular allocation of resources. Unlike theft, for example, which is always wrong.
It's bad for the wealthy too- once they get too excessive, there is a revolt, everything they have is taken and a lot of them are killed.
I agree that this is bad, although the blame lies squarely with the aggressors, not the wealthy. It's also purely destructive; people are generally no better off after the revolt than they were before, in absolute terms. They may live a bit better for a while, but only by borrowing heavily against their own future productivity.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat