You assume that votes can only be for someone. You can in fact vote against someone - ie, the worse of the two. In particular, if we are talking about the president, and both of the leading choices are horrible, it might be a good idea to vote for the one that is from the opposite party of the majority of Congress.
Well then what's the point of the quote? Obviously nobody is going to simply vote for what they don't want. But, if there are two choices that are both bad, but one is much worse, and there is a third choice that is great but not at all likely to get elected, it is better to vote for the lesser of the two evils - it is a vote against the greater evil.
A PC is not small/cheap. The point is to be extremely portable... much like a flash drive, so it feels like you're just casually giving your friend a CD when you meet them somewhere, then they can listen to it immediately on their drive home.
Is there a small cheap device for doing this - connect two flash drives, and sync them (differential or total sync, forward, retrieve)? I could see that making it ridiculously easy for people to send eachother stuff and make the CD obsolete.
Not just one, but three of them are 14: He Kexin, Yang Yilin (), and Jiang Yuyuan, based solely from that same government document linked in the article. He Kexin was born 1-1-1994, Yang Yilin was born 8-26-1993, and Jiang Yuyuan was born 10-1-1993. Their passports show the same dates, but with different years.
You are actually a spammer, trying to convince people that it is once again safe to visit indiscriminate websites and give out your email address to everybody and their dog. I am not falling for your tricks!
And your country has eradicated individual rights. Don't be shocked when the laws suddenly shift from what you agree with to what you do not, but it is too late to do anything about it.
There is no happy medium between complete and utter rights violations and complete freedom. A government-backed violation of an individual's rights is still a rights-violation no matter how many people voted for it. There is no justification for voting away your responsibility for yourself at the detriment of everyone else.
Please note: I only object to government-backed services such as these that are funded through force. If you would like to donate to a private service offering insurance to the needy, feel free to do so, and to encourage your friends and family to follow suit. Not only will you have more control over where your income goes, but competition will maximize efficiency while increasing benefits to the care recipient. The only cost, though, is taking responsibility for your own life.
"The fact of the matter is that individuals do not 'knowingly' agree to the terms -- they often don't read the terms."
Then why do they sign the contract? Do they not see where it says "I have read to agree to abide by the terms..."? I'm sure they at least read that part, since it is usually next to the signature. So they are essentially lying in their agreement with the organization. Remind me again why they should get a "back door" out of the contract for anything beyond rights violations.
I do not deny that debate exists about the enforcement of such a contract. It is obvious that any defendant in such a case is going to have a lawyer arguing on their side by saying, "but, your honor, he didn't read the contract!" So certainly debate exists, but the existence of a debate doesn't imply an actual problem (as opposed to a contrived problem). Are any of their arguments valid? Highly doubtful.
It's quite simple: if a person doesn't want to read a huge contract, they should ask for a summary to sign instead. If they are not offered one, they should either read the contract, hire a lawyer to read it for them, or refuse to sign and take their business elsewhere. Again, there is no "right to own a cell phone".
Whose airwaves? Does the government own certain frequencies of light? How is it possible to own a frequency - a specific periodic vibration of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is not something physical, so it cannot be property to be owned. As for air - air circulates and moves. If you want to claim you own the air over your house, you have to enclose that air to prevent it from being replaced with neighboring air. Is that what you mean by "OUR airwaves"? Or are you saying that the existence of a government claim to a frequency means that such a claim is valid? You are simply arguing for the status quo by the fact that it is the status quo - a circular, empty argument.
"Consumer can say "How much for the plan without the early-termination fee" and company says "won't sell it without it."
Then don't sign the contract. There is no "right to own a cell phone". If enough people bothered to actually take responsibility for their lives, rather than assume that "the government will help us out later", companies would be impelled to change or risk losing substantial business.
"it's called a contract of adhesion and is thus unenforceable"
And why is it unenforceable? Such lack of enforcement is certainly unjustifiable. People who knowingly sign a contract agree to abide by the terms of the contract (unless those terms imply rights violations). So in your reply, you must either argue that people have a right to a cell phone, or state that the government currently does not enforce such contracts, in which case you will have to explain why they should not enforce such contracts. You cannot simply argue that the status quo is right by the fact that it is the status quo. That is circular.
Or you can simply choose not to reply, or call me a dumbass and appeal to authority, as you did in your reply.
Sorry, the discussion doesn't magically change just because you've decided to retroactively change your original intent.
OP: "why did they decide that fees that are clearly stated in a contract before people entered the contract are now illegal?"
You: "Because cell phone companies aren't willing to negotiate contracts with consumers, and the few cell phone companies that consumers can choose from all have equally evil contracts."
They asked why did the law decide to ignore the contract, and you replied to the why, by stating that cell phone companies' contracts all suck and are non-negotiable. You then implied that they were somehow illegal because they sucked - that is what I have been replying to ever since. If you did not intend to imply that, then we are back to square one. In which case, I will ask you: why should someone have any legal recourse simply because they signed a contract that was non-negotiable? They could have chosen not to get a cell phone. There is no "right to own a cell phone."
It is also convenient that you have ignored the rest of my reply. Again, you are only being disingenuous to yourself by opting not to think any further. Problems don't simply go away by choosing not to think about them.
"an article covering a history of the very philosophy you are espousing (without knowing it, apparently) is some mumbling about anarchism, then you need to do some further reading."
I checked the article's "Controversy" section, and every sentence was in reference to anarchy, which I am not espousing. That is why I asked you to clarify what problems you were specifically referring to. I am still waiting for this clarification. If you cannot be bothered to think, but simply spam links, then you are only being disingenuous to yourself. The Great Depression section of the articles gives views from both sides - economists who claim it was caused by capitalism, and economists who claim it was caused by government regulation. Is that what you are referring to? If so, what specifically about the causes of the Great Depression do you believe to have been caused by capitalism?
You cannot expect to be able to simply post a link and say, "there, discussion is done. That page has all the answers and I win." You have not said anything of content yet.
"For starters, money is a human invention."
Yes, but that does not make it "arbitrary", as you stated. It is not determined by chance or whim, but by the rationality of the traders involved. One individual earns money in exchange for his work, and voluntarily agrees with another individual to trade his money (his productivity) for the fruits of their labor. Only when the government is able to force people to accept a currency backed by no finite, physical standard (such as gold) does the possibility of arbitrary manipulation occur. So you are arguing for government intervention to counteract other government intervention.
"You want to open a bank in this country? You have to agree that the FDIC can put you into receivership if you fail."
Yes, and I am asking why we need such restrictions, not how such restrictions came about.
"You want to prepare food for people? You have to wash your hands when you finish in the bathroom. You want to sell shares of your company publically? You have to report your finances. You want to lay off half the town that works for you? You pay out a lot of extra severance. You want to make and sell cars? They have to meet emissions and crashworthiness standards."
And they can all be replaced by the private sector and voluntarily accepted by willing parties.
"These are all laws that protect consumers"
That may have been their intent, but I believe that they simply give consumers a false sense of safety and security. When people willingly hand over their responsibility for their lives to the government, all they get in return is arbitrary protection and enforcement (which is truly arbitrary) under the guise of full protection and enforcement.
"I suppose this is as reasonable a writeup as any."
What purpose does that link serve? The controversy section mentions only anarchism. Who is proposing anarchism? Did you have something else in mind when you pasted that link, or were you simply foregoing thought on the matter?
"Money is not a manifestation of some natural physical law. It is entirely arbitrary."
By what principle or rationale do you come to this conclusion? Money is simply a substitute for productivity. You produce, I produce, and we both voluntarily trade the fruits of our labor for mutual benefit. That is capitalism. It is by no means arbitrary. What has replaced "money" in the US, though - paper and credit backed by no physical, finite standard - may be manipulated, but only by a force-backed entity such as the government. What, again, does this have to do with businesses needing to be restricted for reasons unspecified by you?
"laws are ultimately justified by force or the threat of force, not necessarily by any moral code."
Denying the nature of man does not invalidate his rights. Those rights determine whether something is just or not. Forcing anyone to do with their property other than they decide is unjust and a violation of their rights as human beings.
"In the US, our legal system has generally come to the conclusion that market forces alone are not sufficient to keep the power of large corporations in check."
By what principles and rationale was this concluded? If none, or nobody is certain, then by what logic can you maintain such a belief? It would be like enforcing Christianity as a state religion based on the statement, "we've general come to the conclusion that there is a God" without backing up that statement with any further explanation.
Me: "If not a right, then from where does this magical ability to avoid reality come?"
rcw-work: "As a result, there are numerous state and federal consumer protection laws on the books for everything from usury to warranties to fraud to antitrust (Uniform Commercial Code, Magnusen-Moss Act, Sherman Act, etc.)."
So the law permits individuals to avoid reality? Does that make the law just or moral? Is a law justified simply by its very existence?
"there are countries where people think (and vote) differently."
You can't vote your rights out of existence. You can simply vote to collectively violate those rights. The rights are still there, and the minorities, those whose opinions are disregarded after the votes are counted, are the ones who know they are experiencing the violation of their rights. The rest are simply denying reality.
Which individual right do you believe is being violated by the company when an individual knowingly and willingly signing such a contract? If not a right, then from where does this magical ability to avoid reality come?
The two examples you give, slavery and murder, both involve violating the right to life. Which right is being violated here, for that is the only means of denying the validity of a contract.
Hilarious. What right do you believe is being violated by the individual knowingly and willingly signing the contract? If not a right, then from where does this magical ability to avoid reality come?
The "public" (whatever that means) has no rights. There are only individual rights, and those rights are only valid so long as one individual does not violate the rights of others. One person walking on your lawn doesn't do damage, but hundreds of them, over the course of months, will tear it up. Suppose your lawn was a convenient shortcut for kids going home from school. Is it perfectly acceptable for them to destroy your lawn, and you to have to repair it at your expense? Of course not.
For a few weeks every four years, we get to pretend that all the problems of the world are nothing more than a few games between athletes, interspersed with advertisements for male enhancement and foot cream.
Slashdot Mirror
You assume that votes can only be for someone. You can in fact vote against someone - ie, the worse of the two. In particular, if we are talking about the president, and both of the leading choices are horrible, it might be a good idea to vote for the one that is from the opposite party of the majority of Congress.
Well then what's the point of the quote? Obviously nobody is going to simply vote for what they don't want. But, if there are two choices that are both bad, but one is much worse, and there is a third choice that is great but not at all likely to get elected, it is better to vote for the lesser of the two evils - it is a vote against the greater evil.
At least my sig isn't a false alternative.
Err.... damn.
Don't blame me, I voted for a';DROP TABLE users; SELECT * FROM data WHERE name LIKE '%.
A PC is not small/cheap. The point is to be extremely portable... much like a flash drive, so it feels like you're just casually giving your friend a CD when you meet them somewhere, then they can listen to it immediately on their drive home.
A PC is not small/cheap. The point is to be extremely portable... much like a flash drive.
Is there a small cheap device for doing this - connect two flash drives, and sync them (differential or total sync, forward, retrieve)? I could see that making it ridiculously easy for people to send eachother stuff and make the CD obsolete.
Not just one, but three of them are 14: He Kexin, Yang Yilin (), and Jiang Yuyuan, based solely from that same government document linked in the article. He Kexin was born 1-1-1994, Yang Yilin was born 8-26-1993, and Jiang Yuyuan was born 10-1-1993. Their passports show the same dates, but with different years.
PLoS has multiple videos of the magpies' behavior, all linked in the journal article.
You are actually a spammer, trying to convince people that it is once again safe to visit indiscriminate websites and give out your email address to everybody and their dog. I am not falling for your tricks!
And your country has eradicated individual rights. Don't be shocked when the laws suddenly shift from what you agree with to what you do not, but it is too late to do anything about it.
There is no happy medium between complete and utter rights violations and complete freedom. A government-backed violation of an individual's rights is still a rights-violation no matter how many people voted for it. There is no justification for voting away your responsibility for yourself at the detriment of everyone else.
Please note: I only object to government-backed services such as these that are funded through force. If you would like to donate to a private service offering insurance to the needy, feel free to do so, and to encourage your friends and family to follow suit. Not only will you have more control over where your income goes, but competition will maximize efficiency while increasing benefits to the care recipient. The only cost, though, is taking responsibility for your own life.
"The fact of the matter is that individuals do not 'knowingly' agree to the terms -- they often don't read the terms."
Then why do they sign the contract? Do they not see where it says "I have read to agree to abide by the terms..."? I'm sure they at least read that part, since it is usually next to the signature. So they are essentially lying in their agreement with the organization. Remind me again why they should get a "back door" out of the contract for anything beyond rights violations.
I do not deny that debate exists about the enforcement of such a contract. It is obvious that any defendant in such a case is going to have a lawyer arguing on their side by saying, "but, your honor, he didn't read the contract!" So certainly debate exists, but the existence of a debate doesn't imply an actual problem (as opposed to a contrived problem). Are any of their arguments valid? Highly doubtful.
It's quite simple: if a person doesn't want to read a huge contract, they should ask for a summary to sign instead. If they are not offered one, they should either read the contract, hire a lawyer to read it for them, or refuse to sign and take their business elsewhere. Again, there is no "right to own a cell phone".
Better nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
"Because they're using OUR airwaves, dumbass."
Whose airwaves? Does the government own certain frequencies of light? How is it possible to own a frequency - a specific periodic vibration of the electromagnetic spectrum. It is not something physical, so it cannot be property to be owned. As for air - air circulates and moves. If you want to claim you own the air over your house, you have to enclose that air to prevent it from being replaced with neighboring air. Is that what you mean by "OUR airwaves"? Or are you saying that the existence of a government claim to a frequency means that such a claim is valid? You are simply arguing for the status quo by the fact that it is the status quo - a circular, empty argument.
"Consumer can say "How much for the plan without the early-termination fee" and company says "won't sell it without it."
Then don't sign the contract. There is no "right to own a cell phone". If enough people bothered to actually take responsibility for their lives, rather than assume that "the government will help us out later", companies would be impelled to change or risk losing substantial business.
"it's called a contract of adhesion and is thus unenforceable"
And why is it unenforceable? Such lack of enforcement is certainly unjustifiable. People who knowingly sign a contract agree to abide by the terms of the contract (unless those terms imply rights violations). So in your reply, you must either argue that people have a right to a cell phone, or state that the government currently does not enforce such contracts, in which case you will have to explain why they should not enforce such contracts. You cannot simply argue that the status quo is right by the fact that it is the status quo. That is circular.
Or you can simply choose not to reply, or call me a dumbass and appeal to authority, as you did in your reply.
Sorry, the discussion doesn't magically change just because you've decided to retroactively change your original intent.
OP: "why did they decide that fees that are clearly stated in a contract before people entered the contract are now illegal?"
You: "Because cell phone companies aren't willing to negotiate contracts with consumers, and the few cell phone companies that consumers can choose from all have equally evil contracts."
They asked why did the law decide to ignore the contract, and you replied to the why, by stating that cell phone companies' contracts all suck and are non-negotiable. You then implied that they were somehow illegal because they sucked - that is what I have been replying to ever since. If you did not intend to imply that, then we are back to square one. In which case, I will ask you: why should someone have any legal recourse simply because they signed a contract that was non-negotiable? They could have chosen not to get a cell phone. There is no "right to own a cell phone."
It is also convenient that you have ignored the rest of my reply. Again, you are only being disingenuous to yourself by opting not to think any further. Problems don't simply go away by choosing not to think about them.
"an article covering a history of the very philosophy you are espousing (without knowing it, apparently) is some mumbling about anarchism, then you need to do some further reading."
I checked the article's "Controversy" section, and every sentence was in reference to anarchy, which I am not espousing. That is why I asked you to clarify what problems you were specifically referring to. I am still waiting for this clarification. If you cannot be bothered to think, but simply spam links, then you are only being disingenuous to yourself. The Great Depression section of the articles gives views from both sides - economists who claim it was caused by capitalism, and economists who claim it was caused by government regulation. Is that what you are referring to? If so, what specifically about the causes of the Great Depression do you believe to have been caused by capitalism?
You cannot expect to be able to simply post a link and say, "there, discussion is done. That page has all the answers and I win." You have not said anything of content yet.
"For starters, money is a human invention."
Yes, but that does not make it "arbitrary", as you stated. It is not determined by chance or whim, but by the rationality of the traders involved. One individual earns money in exchange for his work, and voluntarily agrees with another individual to trade his money (his productivity) for the fruits of their labor. Only when the government is able to force people to accept a currency backed by no finite, physical standard (such as gold) does the possibility of arbitrary manipulation occur. So you are arguing for government intervention to counteract other government intervention.
"You want to open a bank in this country? You have to agree that the FDIC can put you into receivership if you fail."
Yes, and I am asking why we need such restrictions, not how such restrictions came about.
"You want to prepare food for people? You have to wash your hands when you finish in the bathroom. You want to sell shares of your company publically? You have to report your finances. You want to lay off half the town that works for you? You pay out a lot of extra severance. You want to make and sell cars? They have to meet emissions and crashworthiness standards."
And they can all be replaced by the private sector and voluntarily accepted by willing parties.
"These are all laws that protect consumers"
That may have been their intent, but I believe that they simply give consumers a false sense of safety and security. When people willingly hand over their responsibility for their lives to the government, all they get in return is arbitrary protection and enforcement (which is truly arbitrary) under the guise of full protection and enforcement.
"I suppose this is as reasonable a writeup as any."
What purpose does that link serve? The controversy section mentions only anarchism. Who is proposing anarchism? Did you have something else in mind when you pasted that link, or were you simply foregoing thought on the matter?
"Money is not a manifestation of some natural physical law. It is entirely arbitrary."
By what principle or rationale do you come to this conclusion? Money is simply a substitute for productivity. You produce, I produce, and we both voluntarily trade the fruits of our labor for mutual benefit. That is capitalism. It is by no means arbitrary. What has replaced "money" in the US, though - paper and credit backed by no physical, finite standard - may be manipulated, but only by a force-backed entity such as the government. What, again, does this have to do with businesses needing to be restricted for reasons unspecified by you?
"laws are ultimately justified by force or the threat of force, not necessarily by any moral code."
Denying the nature of man does not invalidate his rights. Those rights determine whether something is just or not. Forcing anyone to do with their property other than they decide is unjust and a violation of their rights as human beings.
"In the US, our legal system has generally come to the conclusion that market forces alone are not sufficient to keep the power of large corporations in check."
By what principles and rationale was this concluded? If none, or nobody is certain, then by what logic can you maintain such a belief? It would be like enforcing Christianity as a state religion based on the statement, "we've general come to the conclusion that there is a God" without backing up that statement with any further explanation.
Me: "If not a right, then from where does this magical ability to avoid reality come?"
rcw-work: "As a result, there are numerous state and federal consumer protection laws on the books for everything from usury to warranties to fraud to antitrust (Uniform Commercial Code, Magnusen-Moss Act, Sherman Act, etc.)."
So the law permits individuals to avoid reality? Does that make the law just or moral? Is a law justified simply by its very existence?
"there are countries where people think (and vote) differently."
You can't vote your rights out of existence. You can simply vote to collectively violate those rights. The rights are still there, and the minorities, those whose opinions are disregarded after the votes are counted, are the ones who know they are experiencing the violation of their rights. The rest are simply denying reality.
Which individual right do you believe is being violated by the company when an individual knowingly and willingly signing such a contract? If not a right, then from where does this magical ability to avoid reality come?
The two examples you give, slavery and murder, both involve violating the right to life. Which right is being violated here, for that is the only means of denying the validity of a contract.
Hilarious. What right do you believe is being violated by the individual knowingly and willingly signing the contract? If not a right, then from where does this magical ability to avoid reality come?
The "public" (whatever that means) has no rights. There are only individual rights, and those rights are only valid so long as one individual does not violate the rights of others. One person walking on your lawn doesn't do damage, but hundreds of them, over the course of months, will tear it up. Suppose your lawn was a convenient shortcut for kids going home from school. Is it perfectly acceptable for them to destroy your lawn, and you to have to repair it at your expense? Of course not.
For a few weeks every four years, we get to pretend that all the problems of the world are nothing more than a few games between athletes, interspersed with advertisements for male enhancement and foot cream.