WTF, few copied biased statements of the conspiration theorists with no arguments, and, Insightful 5? Come on, slashdot., you can do better than that.
[..] If anyone, including noted scientists, say anything remotely the opposite of the climate change cabal, they are run out of town, belitted by their peers. They have their jobs & credentials taken away. That sounds more like the status quo is trying to hide something to me.
Bullshit. Show me any data showing systematic oppression of scientists with valid scientific results opposing climate change. (You probably forgot to copy the word "anthropogenic" somewhere in that sentence)
When I was growing up, I was always taught to question the mainstream. But if you do that when it comes to climate change, you are labeled a nut.
Well, you probably will be shocked, but the way you were taught is irrelevant to the way science works. Don't know about nuts, but anyone can question whatever scientific statements they want, just please use scientific method.
Friend, a corporation is a miniature society. It's an organization of people that divides labor for the purpose of maximizing the welfare of all, subject to an agreed-upon heirarchical distribution scheme. (That is, the wealth it creates is not usually distributed equally.) Society is merely the largest possible corporation, in which we are all, whether we like it nor not, employed.
But there is one very important difference between corporations and societies (in most places). Societies are more or less democratic, while corporations are strictly hierarchical and authoritarian (fascist). That's why it is a good idea to society to force some restrictions on corporations - there is bigger chance that people will get their say too.
Agreed-upon distribution scheme? - come on, how many capitalists discuss distribution of profits with their workers? I think it is more like forced-by-economic/social-situation distribution scheme.
Mind you, anyone who thinks that Japan was ready to surrender is easily disproved by history. If that was the case, we would not have to have used "two" bombs.
It's an absolute proof they were not ready to surrender.
Or USA wanted to test BOTH bombs, one made of uranium, and one made of plutonium.
Actually, they weren't ready to capitulate. What you had were two factions. One who were in control wanting to dig-in and die to the last man. (Like they were doing on numerous islands in the Pacific.)
The other faction realized they had lost, and that they could not hope to win. And that if they continued to fight then millions would die on both sides.
The atomic bombs gave them the leverage to displace the controlling faction.
****
Mind you, anyone who thinks that Japan was ready to surrender is easily disproved by history. If that was the case, we would not have to have used "two" bombs.
It's an absolute proof they were not ready to surrender.
Some people (who knew better than you) would like to disagree with your opinion (this was mentioned on slashdot before):
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." - then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
National Socialism "considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state."
How does this differ from Liberalism/Socialism? Better tell me what has this to do with socialism and liberalism? Socialism is about workers or/and communities owning means of labor (is it how its called in english?) and liberalism is about personal freedoms. Oh, I know, you are an american.
Or Hillary Clinton's famous "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." In case you forgot (or are an american), it is not Hillary Clinton who has defined socialism.
As far as I can tell, the one difference between Nazi's and Communists were their stances on private property - Nazi's believed in Private Property insofar as it did what the state directed it to do. And what about destroying labor unions and defending interests of industrialists (big capital)?
And Socialism has precious little to do with 'working cooperatively' and everything to do with wealth redistribution. I guess it depends on which side of the equation you're on, eh? Working cooperatively is the essence of socialism. Wealth redistribution is a mean to keep workers alive more than 30 years in a capitalist economy.
The other views of the party were that the government should control the economy so so that everyone (well everyone who was white non-Jewish) gets their fair share. This is socialism. It wasnt their view:
Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.
Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.
In February 1920, the NSDAP published its first programme which became known as the "Twenty-Five Points". [..] To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.
[..]
In an attempt to obtain financial contributions from industrialists, Hitler wrote a pamphlet in 1927 entitled The Road to Resurgence. Only a small number of these pamphlets were printed and they were only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany. The reason that the pamphlet was kept secret was that it contained information that would have upset Hitler's working-class supporters. In the pamphlet Hitler implied that the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power. Hitler began to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.
Agreed. And just take a look at the countries of Eastern Europe as long as we are citing examples. They are doing FAR better than they ever were under the socialist/communist policies they followed throughout the cold war.
First, state capitalism of USSR was neither socialism nor communism.
Second, about Eastern Europe. For example, there was a public opinion studies few years ago in Lithuania. They showed that 53% of respondents think, that it was better to live in USSR and 32% considered system in USSR good, 22% - average and 31% bad. Theres nothing "FAR better" here. Things only started getting better when Lithuania joined EU, and not because of capitalism, but because 1/7 population were able to run away from our new capitalists to UK, Ireland and Scandinavia to work, lack of workforce which then appeared in Lithuania forced wages to rise. Still socialy weak groups, such as pensioners are in a very abd state - there are a lot of them, who must choose (seriously) either to die frok hunger or from sickness, because they can't afford both medicine and food. Again, after joining EU they can now atleast get charity of groats, semolina and fineground barley. A lot of older people haven't went to cinema, theater or concert since independence, it's too expensive, they even can't afford new clothes, only the cheapest ones from second-hand shops. I bet situation in Russia is even worse.
Capitalism brought and some good things too, most of them in a form of shiny new things and services, but big price of human suffering has been and still is being paid for them.
And corruption is still here, only less people can profit from it, but with bigger sums. I could continue, but I think it is enough.
Webster: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"
Can anybody show me, where is a free market (as defined in economics) on this planet? Or does that dictionary by free only means "not controlled by state"?
And why term "capitalism", which only should mean workplace relationship (capital buys workforce) is always mixed with market? One can sell capitalist enterprise production in whatever market one wants (remember, for example, pepsi sold in USSR), it doesn't change a thing. Of course, there is a difference between enterprise-monopoly and small enterprise, but it doesn't define if it is capitalist or socialist or feodal or whatever.
My rights do not come from government. The constitution was written to limit the power of government and protect my rights, not to grant me rights from some "high and mighty" government. It doesn't matter where your rights "come" from. Rights still can be fostered or suppressed by ones community, society, government or local thugs.
Leftists do not believe this way. They believe the opposite. They believe that rights are granted by the state. And I don't think you are informed enough to explain what leftists believe. You say that "They believe that rights are granted by the state" about a diverse group of people, part (and not so small) of which even doesn't believe in state itself!
No true leftist/progressive/socialist believes in -individual- civil liberties. They pay lip service to group rights but don't believe in that either. And you probably are a true leftist/progressive/socialist to know that? Don't present your personal and subjective opinion as a absolute truth. I personaly know enough true leftists who believes in -individual- liberties far more than most of "rightists" do.
In the end all left theory boils down to the individual is a meaningless cog in the system who has no inalienable rights, existing only to serve the state. And how many left theories have you studied (or experienced practically) to make such a conclusion? Only those on authoritarian side do, but we should say 'did', because practically no one in the left takes them seriuosly anymore.
You really can't have civil liberties as we commonly understand them without the economic and property rights that make them real.
You can't really have the right to free speech for example if you aren't allowed to own a printing press or purchase access to other mass communication media. See the US McCain/Feingold bill for example. Not economic and property rights (whatever that is) make civil liberties real, that's only true in democratic capitalistic society, where you have to buy your rights (purchase access to media as you wrote). For example, in fascist society you could have as much property as you want and still could not exercise your rights. Another examle, some socialist community could allow access to it's printing press for anyone who wants it. It is societal order who makes civil liberties real or eliminates them.
This new French law is for one purpose only, to suppress knowledge of the ongoing riots by the Religiojn of Peace(tm) in the slums around Paris. Again you present your personal and subjective opinion as an absolute truth. But I can't comment on this since, probably unlike you:), I haven't spent much time studying french politics.
What a load of crap. NOBODY IS FORCING ANYBODY TO BUY MUSIC FROM THE ITUNES STORE. Case closed.
What case? What are you talking about? I know nobody reads articles here, but you should at least read the summary before making comments. I'll help you, there is a sentence there:
The crux of the issue is that the Fairplay DRM that is at the heart of the iTunes/iPod universe doesn't work with anything else, meaning that if you want access to the cast iTunes library, you have to buy an iPod. Nobody is forced to buy from the itunes store (and nobody says so), but everybody who bought music from the itunes is forced to listen it only on the ipod. And that is not legal. At least shouldn't be, because it hurts competition and consumers.
There was no attempt to apologize any executioners. There are lot of innocent people killed in the name of [communism, Christ, Alach, civilization, democracy, freedom,...]. Most of these killings have nothing to do with alleged purpose. So please educate yourself too and judge people by their actions, not according labels, which some propaganda sticks to them. China is not "communist", and if it were "communist", it still wouldn't make them evil, all those bad things which they do make them evil.
Slashdot Mirror
[..] If anyone, including noted scientists, say anything remotely the opposite of the climate change cabal, they are run out of town, belitted by their peers. They have their jobs & credentials taken away. That sounds more like the status quo is trying to hide something to me.
Bullshit. Show me any data showing systematic oppression of scientists with valid scientific results opposing climate change. (You probably forgot to copy the word "anthropogenic" somewhere in that sentence)
When I was growing up, I was always taught to question the mainstream. But if you do that when it comes to climate change, you are labeled a nut.
Well, you probably will be shocked, but the way you were taught is irrelevant to the way science works. Don't know about nuts, but anyone can question whatever scientific statements they want, just please use scientific method.
But there is one very important difference between corporations and societies (in most places). Societies are more or less democratic, while corporations are strictly hierarchical and authoritarian (fascist). That's why it is a good idea to society to force some restrictions on corporations - there is bigger chance that people will get their say too.
Agreed-upon distribution scheme? - come on, how many capitalists discuss distribution of profits with their workers? I think it is more like forced-by-economic/social-situation distribution scheme.
sorry, made a moderation mistake, undoing
It's an absolute proof they were not ready to surrender.
Or USA wanted to test BOTH bombs, one made of uranium, and one made of plutonium.
The other faction realized they had lost, and that they could not hope to win. And that if they continued to fight then millions would die on both sides.
The atomic bombs gave them the leverage to displace the controlling faction.
****
Mind you, anyone who thinks that Japan was ready to surrender is easily disproved by history. If that was the case, we would not have to have used "two" bombs.
It's an absolute proof they were not ready to surrender.
Some people (who knew better than you) would like to disagree with your opinion (this was mentioned on slashdot before): "In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives." - then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower "The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet. "The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.
How does this differ from Liberalism/Socialism? Better tell me what has this to do with socialism and liberalism? Socialism is about workers or/and communities owning means of labor (is it how its called in english?) and liberalism is about personal freedoms. Oh, I know, you are an american. Or Hillary Clinton's famous "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." In case you forgot (or are an american), it is not Hillary Clinton who has defined socialism. As far as I can tell, the one difference between Nazi's and Communists were their stances on private property - Nazi's believed in Private Property insofar as it did what the state directed it to do. And what about destroying labor unions and defending interests of industrialists (big capital)? And Socialism has precious little to do with 'working cooperatively' and everything to do with wealth redistribution. I guess it depends on which side of the equation you're on, eh? Working cooperatively is the essence of socialism. Wealth redistribution is a mean to keep workers alive more than 30 years in a capitalist economy.
Hitler had always been hostile to socialist ideas, especially those that involved racial or sexual equality. However, socialism was a popular political philosophy in Germany after the First World War. This was reflected in the growth in the German Social Democrat Party (SDP), the largest political party in Germany.
Hitler, therefore redefined socialism by placing the word 'National' before it. He claimed he was only in favour of equality for those who had "German blood". Jews and other "aliens" would lose their rights of citizenship, and immigration of non-Germans should be brought to an end.
In February 1920, the NSDAP published its first programme which became known as the "Twenty-Five Points". [..] To appeal to the working class and socialists, the programme included several measures that would redistribute income and war profits, profit-sharing in large industries, nationalization of trusts, increases in old-age pensions and free education.
[..]
In an attempt to obtain financial contributions from industrialists, Hitler wrote a pamphlet in 1927 entitled The Road to Resurgence. Only a small number of these pamphlets were printed and they were only meant for the eyes of the top industrialists in Germany. The reason that the pamphlet was kept secret was that it contained information that would have upset Hitler's working-class supporters. In the pamphlet Hitler implied that the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power.
Hitler began to argue that "capitalists had worked their way to the top through their capacity, and on the basis of this selection they have the right to lead." Hitler claimed that national socialism meant all people doing their best for society and posed no threat to the wealth of the rich.
Also please read
http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/10/31/hitler-socialism.htm
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
First, state capitalism of USSR was neither socialism nor communism. Second, about Eastern Europe. For example, there was a public opinion studies few years ago in Lithuania. They showed that 53% of respondents think, that it was better to live in USSR and 32% considered system in USSR good, 22% - average and 31% bad. Theres nothing "FAR better" here. Things only started getting better when Lithuania joined EU, and not because of capitalism, but because 1/7 population were able to run away from our new capitalists to UK, Ireland and Scandinavia to work, lack of workforce which then appeared in Lithuania forced wages to rise. Still socialy weak groups, such as pensioners are in a very abd state - there are a lot of them, who must choose (seriously) either to die frok hunger or from sickness, because they can't afford both medicine and food. Again, after joining EU they can now atleast get charity of groats, semolina and fineground barley. A lot of older people haven't went to cinema, theater or concert since independence, it's too expensive, they even can't afford new clothes, only the cheapest ones from second-hand shops. I bet situation in Russia is even worse. Capitalism brought and some good things too, most of them in a form of shiny new things and services, but big price of human suffering has been and still is being paid for them. And corruption is still here, only less people can profit from it, but with bigger sums. I could continue, but I think it is enough.
Webster: "an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market"
Can anybody show me, where is a free market (as defined in economics) on this planet? Or does that dictionary by free only means "not controlled by state"? And why term "capitalism", which only should mean workplace relationship (capital buys workforce) is always mixed with market? One can sell capitalist enterprise production in whatever market one wants (remember, for example, pepsi sold in USSR), it doesn't change a thing. Of course, there is a difference between enterprise-monopoly and small enterprise, but it doesn't define if it is capitalist or socialist or feodal or whatever.No true leftist/progressive/socialist believes in -individual- civil liberties. They pay lip service to group rights but don't believe in that either. And you probably are a true leftist/progressive/socialist to know that? Don't present your personal and subjective opinion as a absolute truth. I personaly know enough true leftists who believes in -individual- liberties far more than most of "rightists" do. In the end all left theory boils down to the individual is a meaningless cog in the system who has no inalienable rights, existing only to serve the state. And how many left theories have you studied (or experienced practically) to make such a conclusion? Only those on authoritarian side do, but we should say 'did', because practically no one in the left takes them seriuosly anymore.
You really can't have civil liberties as we commonly understand them without the economic and property rights that make them real. You can't really have the right to free speech for example if you aren't allowed to own a printing press or purchase access to other mass communication media. See the US McCain/Feingold bill for example. Not economic and property rights (whatever that is) make civil liberties real, that's only true in democratic capitalistic society, where you have to buy your rights (purchase access to media as you wrote). For example, in fascist society you could have as much property as you want and still could not exercise your rights. Another examle, some socialist community could allow access to it's printing press for anyone who wants it. It is societal order who makes civil liberties real or eliminates them.
This new French law is for one purpose only, to suppress knowledge of the ongoing riots by the Religiojn of Peace(tm) in the slums around Paris. Again you present your personal and subjective opinion as an absolute truth. But I can't comment on this since, probably unlike you
What a load of crap. NOBODY IS FORCING ANYBODY TO BUY MUSIC FROM THE ITUNES STORE. Case closed.
What case? What are you talking about? I know nobody reads articles here, but you should at least read the summary before making comments. I'll help you, there is a sentence there: The crux of the issue is that the Fairplay DRM that is at the heart of the iTunes/iPod universe doesn't work with anything else, meaning that if you want access to the cast iTunes library, you have to buy an iPod. Nobody is forced to buy from the itunes store (and nobody says so), but everybody who bought music from the itunes is forced to listen it only on the ipod. And that is not legal. At least shouldn't be, because it hurts competition and consumers.There was no attempt to apologize any executioners. There are lot of innocent people killed in the name of [communism, Christ, Alach, civilization, democracy, freedom, ...]. Most of these killings have nothing to do with alleged purpose. So please educate yourself too and judge people by their actions, not according labels, which some propaganda sticks to them. China is not "communist", and if it were "communist", it still wouldn't make them evil, all those bad things which they do make them evil.