If labels are what works for you, feel free to throw them around, but you'll usually find that although it is easy to label someone, you end up make assumptions about that person that are incorrect. My question was really "are you willing to violate the rights of your constituents and the rest of the public", and his answer was "yes".
To me, it seems like he skipped over everything else in my statement and pulled the questions out of context, answering them independently of the rest of my statement. Maybe he just disagreed with the rest of my statement, but he should at least have addressed it. What my question basically said was: "Most politicians use legislation violating peoples' rights to help corrupt companies, in exchange for financial support", and he responded by listing off a variety of rights-violating legislation he would like to see passed.
"But what right do you have forcing your opinions down someone else's throat?"
It is now clear to me that if I were a resident of Oregon, I would not vote for you, and would also encourage my friends, families, and neighbors to do the same.
It is not off-topic; it is about China and the upcoming Olympics, just not specifically about cloud-seeding. At worst it's partially off-topic.
As for your appeal to emotion in the claim that I am cheapening a word; I guess you would also claim that the support Mussolini provided to Hitler was not support for genocide, or that Hitler was not directly responsible for genocide because his subordinates were the ones who actually committed the murders. Where do you draw the line of responsibility? (not a rhetorical question; I'm asking you where you personally would draw the line in cases like these.)
"Unfortunately you all remind me of those loonies that say something bad about China at every opportunity because they want to bring the "good old days" of the cold war back."
That's a fine piece of hyperbole. It could win awards in a... hyperbole... contest.
Yes, it's nice that you've laid it down in a logical way, but you have simply avoided responding to my post. It's simple. People don't want the genocide to occur. But everyone's government is unwilling to take on the Sudanese government because China will retaliate, and nobody wants to upset China. The only thing let after military intervention is ruled out is economic sanctions - pressuring companies to pull out of contracts with Sudan. Labeling it the "Genocide Olympics" is simply a method of pressuring China to pull out of contracts with Sudan as well. Nobody is "pretending" as you say. Nobody is trying to be "dishonest". It is simply the reality of the options that are left to employ. Economic sanctions are a commonly used tactic to apply pressure to governments to amend their ways.
"you have a promising future in the advertising industry selling cigarettes to kiddies."
Care to explain what you mean, or were you just rambling for effect?
Take a situation where a monopoly on a service exists, and ask yourself "why can't someone just start up a company to provide this service?" or, "why can't a company that provides this service in another region also provide this service here?"
The only thing that can stop them is force, and currently only the government has it in its head that it can violate peoples' rights through force and not expect any repercussions. As you try to answer the above questions, you will uncover the laws and regulations preventing the competition from springing up. If you want me to summarize it for you in a post, I will, but google can be your friend.
Obviously the state-run monopoly should have been ended ASAP as it was immoral. However, equally immoral was the state handing over the monopoly to a single company, essentially saying "here, all of this property is rightfully yours". It should have been sold off, possibly in several chunks, with the proceeds of the sale compensating victims.
Every country is obviously against military intervention to stop the genocide. The only alternative left is sanctions against the Sudanese government. China is supplying them with the helicopters they use to raid villages at night and mow down everyone. The government-paid thugs then ride in and gang rape the women and children before slaughtering them. It is ludicrous to ignore that they are the primary weapon source for the genocide as they go on this "one world, one dream" bullshit-fest they call the Olympics. China's hosting of the Olympics is of much less concern than their support of the genocide.
Look, the situation is actually very simple. In the US at least, people have "certain inalienable rights" that come with their existence and need to survive in this country. These include the right to property that is given to you by another person or company in exchange for some agreed-upon amount of productivity (now commonly supplanted by money). These rights should never be violated, and any such violations should be corrected by the executive and judicial powers of the government to uphold rights.
Now, you would like the government to proactively regulate the economy to stop these few companies from ever getting to the point of deceiving the public, but this could only be done at the expense of everyone's rights. In the case of your Disney example, of course the deceit would survive for some amount of time, but if and when the information gets out, the market would adjust accordingly (punishing Disney).
To clarify from my last post, I am not saying we should sympathize with them. I am saying increased regulation is the wrong approach and will only prop up past methods of rights violations and increase future violations. The enforced legislation that brought us to this point - the only way a monopoly could persist - should be wiped out.
"By your reasoning the cable companies already used the government to violate property rights to get what they want."
Yes, that is correct.
"So why any sympathy for them now?"
Past rights violations do not justify future rights violations. The laws that have made these violations legal should be nullified by the courts, and compensation should be awarded where applicable. The same should be done for any such laws in which the legislature interferes with the economy (which is pretty much any law proposed these days).
As I said, property rights do not disappear just because laws have been passed that violate them, or because large parts of society want to violate them to get what they want as quickly as possible. If there is a large enough demand, the service providers will find a way to fulfill that demand with the contractual agreement of everyone necessary to make that fulfillment happen. Fantasizing about situations where this would be impossible is useless because the requirements for that fantasy to be maintained are unrealistic - in short, a huge demand is a huge influence upon suppliers.
If you have a pet desire that service X be provided to as many people in the US as possible, you can freely donate whatever amount you desire to service providers to help make that happen, and influence your friends, family, and neighbors to do the same. Using legislation to make this happen is an immoral violation of property rights and makes a mockery of your own rights and the rights of those same friends, family, and neighbors.
Unfortunately, these pet desires have made it an accepted practice to use legislation to violate property rights, making it easier for those same legislators to accept violations of other rights (for examples, see the countless YRO, censorship, and privacy stories that occur daily on/.).
"The Hollywood studios howled that their business was being destroyed by government interference, but without it we would never have a system that gave the directors more power over their films and Jaws, the first blockbuster, wouldn't have been released - the rest is history. Regulation can open up markets and increase creativity and profits, if it's done correctly."
This is laughable. A director signs a contract with a studio, which agrees to exchange their property (money) for the director's talent. If the director doesn't like the terms of the agreement, he can refuse to sign the contract unless and until it is modified to his pleasing. If after signing the contract, that studio reneges on any part of the contract, the director can sue the studio for losses. If there is any gray area, such as the studio knowingly hiding something important from the director, a lawsuit will also clear that up. Where in this is a need for regulation to "give directors more power over their films"?
Whether or not the great films of the 70s would have occurred is of no concern; the ends do not justify the means, because that would eliminate the basic principles by which one guides one's actions (these principles are explained in the documents of the founding fathers). Most likely those films still would have occurred, because in most cases their stories were floating around in their respective writers' heads well before the increased regulation was put in place; it would simply be a matter of finding a studio willing to agree to their terms. If none exists, then there is a demand without a supply, and the necessary supply is likely to spring up to fulfill that demand.
No matter how hard they try, the legislature cannot regulate property rights out of existence. Anytime the government gets involved in the economy in this way, rights violations occur.
"The Comcast-BitTorrent dispute has been a cause celebre among Internet advocacy groups and others who called for greater regulation for an open Internet, citing Comcast."
I fail to see how greater regulation would ever be the solution. It was regulation that made Comcast's monopoly possible in the first place, allowing them to pull idiotic stunts like traffic filtering. No company in a competitive environment could ever get away with that, because users would simply switch to another provider. Greater regulation is definitely not the answer. Instead, the government should be keeping its claws out of the economy in the first place.
The Chinese government gives the Sudanese government weapons in exchange for oil. The Sudanese government uses those weapons to slaughter civilians in the Darfur region. A representative of the government has actually stating that they delayed a peace agreement to end the north-south civil war in order to make sure they had a "lasting solution in Darfur" (ie, to make sure the region could not recover).
Saying "Foreign involvement and investment in Sudan might actually be helping the place" is ridiculous. It's like saying that you can send 10,000 pounds of cereal to a corrupt African government and actually expect them to pass the food on to their starving citizens. The reason their citizens are starving is precisely because of government corruption and interference. Those people are never going to see the food if you give it to their government.
Likewise, expecting a government that is actively slaughtering its people to somehow pass on any of their profits to those same people is ludicrous. The companies you reference are doing business with the government, not with the country's population, and certainly not with any resident of the Darfur region.
The Chinese government wants to use the Olympics to inject a dose of normalcy into their demeanor, but there is nothing normal about purposely and continually funding a genocide despite the requests and demands of every other nation in the world.
Probably what happened is that one of the components was built in Taiwan, and someone saw the "Made in Taiwan" label and thought that "in" meant "for" and... nevermind... it's just easier to call them stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd call this 98% color reduction a healthy, green approach, great for the environment... except that green was one of the colors that was removed...
They're destined to pick women who are younger versions of their mothers.
"
I miss the John McCain from 1989. At least back then the corruption was more easily discovered. Don't expect that today from any of the candidates.
Hilarious. Do you do stand-up?
If I am in the US, and do not pay taxes, I am sent to prison or forced to leave. No force, you say?
You're assuming that insurance premiums are at a competitively low rate, which they are not.
You're assuming that medical insurance premiums are at a competitively low rate, which they are not.
Err... I think you need to re-read his comments again. There is no contradiction.
If labels are what works for you, feel free to throw them around, but you'll usually find that although it is easy to label someone, you end up make assumptions about that person that are incorrect. My question was really "are you willing to violate the rights of your constituents and the rest of the public", and his answer was "yes".
"What is the base of your opinion?"
His answers to my questions.
"He answered your question very well..."
To me, it seems like he skipped over everything else in my statement and pulled the questions out of context, answering them independently of the rest of my statement. Maybe he just disagreed with the rest of my statement, but he should at least have addressed it. What my question basically said was: "Most politicians use legislation violating peoples' rights to help corrupt companies, in exchange for financial support", and he responded by listing off a variety of rights-violating legislation he would like to see passed.
"But what right do you have forcing your opinions down someone else's throat?"
Whose throat am I forcing my opinion down?
It is now clear to me that if I were a resident of Oregon, I would not vote for you, and would also encourage my friends, families, and neighbors to do the same.
It is not off-topic; it is about China and the upcoming Olympics, just not specifically about cloud-seeding. At worst it's partially off-topic.
As for your appeal to emotion in the claim that I am cheapening a word; I guess you would also claim that the support Mussolini provided to Hitler was not support for genocide, or that Hitler was not directly responsible for genocide because his subordinates were the ones who actually committed the murders. Where do you draw the line of responsibility? (not a rhetorical question; I'm asking you where you personally would draw the line in cases like these.)
"Unfortunately you all remind me of those loonies that say something bad about China at every opportunity because they want to bring the "good old days" of the cold war back."
That's a fine piece of hyperbole. It could win awards in a... hyperbole... contest.
Yes, it's nice that you've laid it down in a logical way, but you have simply avoided responding to my post. It's simple. People don't want the genocide to occur. But everyone's government is unwilling to take on the Sudanese government because China will retaliate, and nobody wants to upset China. The only thing let after military intervention is ruled out is economic sanctions - pressuring companies to pull out of contracts with Sudan. Labeling it the "Genocide Olympics" is simply a method of pressuring China to pull out of contracts with Sudan as well. Nobody is "pretending" as you say. Nobody is trying to be "dishonest". It is simply the reality of the options that are left to employ. Economic sanctions are a commonly used tactic to apply pressure to governments to amend their ways.
"you have a promising future in the advertising industry selling cigarettes to kiddies."
Care to explain what you mean, or were you just rambling for effect?
Take a situation where a monopoly on a service exists, and ask yourself "why can't someone just start up a company to provide this service?" or, "why can't a company that provides this service in another region also provide this service here?"
The only thing that can stop them is force, and currently only the government has it in its head that it can violate peoples' rights through force and not expect any repercussions. As you try to answer the above questions, you will uncover the laws and regulations preventing the competition from springing up. If you want me to summarize it for you in a post, I will, but google can be your friend.
Obviously the state-run monopoly should have been ended ASAP as it was immoral. However, equally immoral was the state handing over the monopoly to a single company, essentially saying "here, all of this property is rightfully yours". It should have been sold off, possibly in several chunks, with the proceeds of the sale compensating victims.
Every country is obviously against military intervention to stop the genocide. The only alternative left is sanctions against the Sudanese government. China is supplying them with the helicopters they use to raid villages at night and mow down everyone. The government-paid thugs then ride in and gang rape the women and children before slaughtering them. It is ludicrous to ignore that they are the primary weapon source for the genocide as they go on this "one world, one dream" bullshit-fest they call the Olympics. China's hosting of the Olympics is of much less concern than their support of the genocide.
Look, the situation is actually very simple. In the US at least, people have "certain inalienable rights" that come with their existence and need to survive in this country. These include the right to property that is given to you by another person or company in exchange for some agreed-upon amount of productivity (now commonly supplanted by money). These rights should never be violated, and any such violations should be corrected by the executive and judicial powers of the government to uphold rights.
Now, you would like the government to proactively regulate the economy to stop these few companies from ever getting to the point of deceiving the public, but this could only be done at the expense of everyone's rights. In the case of your Disney example, of course the deceit would survive for some amount of time, but if and when the information gets out, the market would adjust accordingly (punishing Disney).
"So why any sympathy for them now?"
To clarify from my last post, I am not saying we should sympathize with them. I am saying increased regulation is the wrong approach and will only prop up past methods of rights violations and increase future violations. The enforced legislation that brought us to this point - the only way a monopoly could persist - should be wiped out.
"By your reasoning the cable companies already used the government to violate property rights to get what they want."
Yes, that is correct.
"So why any sympathy for them now?"
Past rights violations do not justify future rights violations. The laws that have made these violations legal should be nullified by the courts, and compensation should be awarded where applicable. The same should be done for any such laws in which the legislature interferes with the economy (which is pretty much any law proposed these days).
As I said, property rights do not disappear just because laws have been passed that violate them, or because large parts of society want to violate them to get what they want as quickly as possible. If there is a large enough demand, the service providers will find a way to fulfill that demand with the contractual agreement of everyone necessary to make that fulfillment happen. Fantasizing about situations where this would be impossible is useless because the requirements for that fantasy to be maintained are unrealistic - in short, a huge demand is a huge influence upon suppliers.
/.).
If you have a pet desire that service X be provided to as many people in the US as possible, you can freely donate whatever amount you desire to service providers to help make that happen, and influence your friends, family, and neighbors to do the same. Using legislation to make this happen is an immoral violation of property rights and makes a mockery of your own rights and the rights of those same friends, family, and neighbors.
Unfortunately, these pet desires have made it an accepted practice to use legislation to violate property rights, making it easier for those same legislators to accept violations of other rights (for examples, see the countless YRO, censorship, and privacy stories that occur daily on
"But it's ok that the US has been doing all that for the past 30 years?"
The existence of one evil never justifies the existence of another. But we were talking about China...
"The Hollywood studios howled that their business was being destroyed by government interference, but without it we would never have a system that gave the directors more power over their films and Jaws, the first blockbuster, wouldn't have been released - the rest is history. Regulation can open up markets and increase creativity and profits, if it's done correctly."
This is laughable. A director signs a contract with a studio, which agrees to exchange their property (money) for the director's talent. If the director doesn't like the terms of the agreement, he can refuse to sign the contract unless and until it is modified to his pleasing. If after signing the contract, that studio reneges on any part of the contract, the director can sue the studio for losses. If there is any gray area, such as the studio knowingly hiding something important from the director, a lawsuit will also clear that up. Where in this is a need for regulation to "give directors more power over their films"?
Whether or not the great films of the 70s would have occurred is of no concern; the ends do not justify the means, because that would eliminate the basic principles by which one guides one's actions (these principles are explained in the documents of the founding fathers). Most likely those films still would have occurred, because in most cases their stories were floating around in their respective writers' heads well before the increased regulation was put in place; it would simply be a matter of finding a studio willing to agree to their terms. If none exists, then there is a demand without a supply, and the necessary supply is likely to spring up to fulfill that demand.
No matter how hard they try, the legislature cannot regulate property rights out of existence. Anytime the government gets involved in the economy in this way, rights violations occur.
The article states:
"The Comcast-BitTorrent dispute has been a cause celebre among Internet advocacy groups and others who called for greater regulation for an open Internet, citing Comcast."
I fail to see how greater regulation would ever be the solution. It was regulation that made Comcast's monopoly possible in the first place, allowing them to pull idiotic stunts like traffic filtering. No company in a competitive environment could ever get away with that, because users would simply switch to another provider. Greater regulation is definitely not the answer. Instead, the government should be keeping its claws out of the economy in the first place.
The Chinese government gives the Sudanese government weapons in exchange for oil. The Sudanese government uses those weapons to slaughter civilians in the Darfur region. A representative of the government has actually stating that they delayed a peace agreement to end the north-south civil war in order to make sure they had a "lasting solution in Darfur" (ie, to make sure the region could not recover).
Saying "Foreign involvement and investment in Sudan might actually be helping the place" is ridiculous. It's like saying that you can send 10,000 pounds of cereal to a corrupt African government and actually expect them to pass the food on to their starving citizens. The reason their citizens are starving is precisely because of government corruption and interference. Those people are never going to see the food if you give it to their government.
Likewise, expecting a government that is actively slaughtering its people to somehow pass on any of their profits to those same people is ludicrous. The companies you reference are doing business with the government, not with the country's population, and certainly not with any resident of the Darfur region.
The Chinese government wants to use the Olympics to inject a dose of normalcy into their demeanor, but there is nothing normal about purposely and continually funding a genocide despite the requests and demands of every other nation in the world.
Probably what happened is that one of the components was built in Taiwan, and someone saw the "Made in Taiwan" label and thought that "in" meant "for" and... nevermind... it's just easier to call them stupid.