You made a correlation between "political activism and voting blocs" and "people who find themselves suddenly, violently, and fatally at war with their own government". Historically, american political threats haven't been met by force, but by bureaucracy and voter apathy. Since it seemed obvious to me that the Branch Davidias ran into trouble not because of their political agenda, but for other reasons, I found your correlation more amusing than apt, and responded accordingly. If you're able to show how the FSP participants might end up in a compound, heavily armed, worshipping a demagogue, and attracting an impressive array of government troops, then I'd probably take you more seriously.
At least we agree that Utopias won't work. You, however seem to believe that all attempts at Utopia will automatically end in state-sponsored violence against the reformers. How, then, do you propose to bring about social change? Voting, or guns?
This is a pleasant surprise, to lighten a bleak Tuesday with!
Why? Because it interferes with the media lies your liberal views rely on to make the world the feel good place you believe it should be?
Exactly! No, wait a minute... that can't be right. I get the impression that your definition of "liberal" is about as useful as the media depiction of the Waco incident: good for a laugh, but not very practical, accurate, or relevant.
Without making any assesment of what the various parties (the FBI, the media, you, &c.) claim, we can safely agree on a few facts, can't we?
The Branch Davidians existed (in some form), in Waco, TX. Government agents went to their compound. There was a media circus. There was a fire, and some shooting, and some running around, and a lot of Branch Davidians died.
I still haven't seen the logical correlation between "people focusing and coordinating their votes" and "people who have attracted the belligerent eye of the government". If, as Oobleck claims, the government goes anti-terrorist on voting blocs, all the political activists in this country would be dead or in prison. Since this is obviously not the case (both Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson still walk the streets as free men), Oobleck's scenario struck me as more humorous than serious, and I treated it accordingly.
Incidentally, when I said "I couldn't care less", I didn't mean "I care that the media has lied to me about the legal status of the guns". I meant "I do not care at all if the media lied to me or not. I do not care at all if the guns were legal or not. I do not care at all if the guns were the alleged motive for the attack. In fact, I care so very little about these issues that I could not care less about them."
Finally, why do you insist on polarizing this discussion along "liberal vs. conservative" lines? You know as much about me as I know about you--certainly not enough to make any sort of accurate guess about my political views. Do you find it easier to debate with "liberals" than with real people?
In a sense, it is an invasion. But it differs from other kinds of invasion in an important way.
"Normal" Invasion: 1. Start with a perfectly natural desire to bring about social change. 2. Become an agressor. 3. Throw a surprise party for the society you want to change. Make it a beating-themed party. 4. Force change at gunpoint. 5. Profit! Note that this kind of invasion is generally agreed to be a Bad Thing by all but the aggressor.
"Peaceful" Invasion: 1. Start with a perfectly natural desire to bring about social change. 2. Become a citizen. 3. Vote. 4. Use the established system for peacefully enacting social change to enact the changes you want. 5. Profit! Note that this approach to enacting social change is espoused by civilized nations everywhere.
This system is meant for those who use it, not those who don't. If you're not using it, you have no right to complain when somebody else uses it against you. In this sense, it's the hypothetical North Dakotans who are trying to enjoy the privileges of freedom without the responsibilities, not the Libertarians.
You must have mistaken me for nearly a decade ago. By the way, 1993 called. They want their Waco debate back.
Believe me when I say "I couldn't care less about the legal status of Koresh's gun collection". I do, however, find your humorless obsession with the Waco incident amusing. Dance for me some more, monkey-boy, and make my Monday bearable!
The locals are always free to get the hell out. They are also free to vote--just like the Libertarians are planning to do. I can't think of a better Utopia than one in which citizens are free to influence policy through voting, campaigning, and informed discussion. The same mechanism that you use to protect your way of life can also be used to change it. That's the beauty of the system.
Note also that the Libertarians are targetting areas with low voter turnout. People who can't be bothered to vote when it matters--Quite a Utopia you've got there.
Yes, I'm sure of it: The Libertarians want to get defense forces from the federal government for free. You better go and let them know that won't work. I'm sure they haven't thought it through, yet.
Or maybe--just maybe!--they'll expect protection from a foreign power because they've entered into a contract with that foreign power where military protection is exchanged for something else!
Wouldn't that be cool? Of course it would! You know what would be even cooler? Paying for what you want, and not having to pay for stuff you don't want. The best is when you pay for it yourself, if you can. I bet if you look real close, you'll see that this is what the Libertarians have in mind.
This just in: it appears that Oobleck has reached the finals in Solo Mental Gymnastics--Freestyle Event. Starting with "Wouldn't it be nice if my neighbors shared my views on important political issues, and we all voted", this incredible athlete vaulted an amazing distance, to land squarely in "we're a compound-living, arms-stockpiling, demagogue-worshipping cult, based on the teachings of a madman, and eligible for government antiterroist action".
This unbelievable leap, executed without any intermediate steps, has broken world records, and is virtually guaranteed to win Oobleck the gold this year. The sheer audacity of the maneuver is sure to win the hearts of many moderators here today. Let's wish this great athlete the best of luck.
The people who win an election always drown out what the losers want, by definition. Saying that the Libertarian plan to win elections through concerted voting is kind of silly.
Also, it's a free country. People can move anywhere they want, and vote however they want. Libertarians moving to North Dakota (or wherever) is little different from Indians moving to California, or actors moving to Hollywood.
Nobody's forcing the "locals" to stay, or to give in without contesting disputed points. The Libertarians aren't even violating any law or principle of this nation.
Finally, you seem to think that a political platform can either win votes by surprise, or on merit, but not both. Clearly, this isn't true. A good platform may win by surprise to begin with, and then, once its value is proven, win on consecutive occasions based on merit.
But hey, way to prohibit the North Dakotans from moving out of North Dakota, and/or voting in their local elections. Congrats also on prohibiting the Libertarians from living anywhere they damn well please. Not to mention that bit of either/or pessimism about political platforms. Well done.
Funny, I've never actually read anything outside the canon, other than the Silmarillion, which has nothing new, or really nothing at all, to say about Tom. So I've satisfied your prerequisite of taking all the other stuff away.
Com gosto nao se discute. You can't argue with taste, as the Brazilians say.
That's a very good question, even if it wasn't terminated with a question mark. You might want to ask the guy who came up with the plan, though. I never said it was a good plan, did I?
The main difference between the two is that an in-depth study of LOTR will reveal a richly textured and very interesting character, while an in-depth study of Ep1 will not only underscore how inane Jar Jar really is, but reveal the poverty of the story as a whole.
While Tom and Jar Jar are similar at first glance, a closer look will reveal pretty quickly how completely different from each other the two characters really are.
1. File patents on methods for using Palladium-like solutions to enforce software licensing. 2. If the patent is not challenged, then Palladium cannot be used to enforce software licensing. 3. If the patent is challenged, then Microsoft's true intentions become obvious.
Note that this plan doesn't care if Microsoft wins the contest or not, it simply intends to discredit Microsoft.
I don't think Larry Niven has become a nation yet, but Iain Banks has written Against A Dark Background, a story in which the line between nations and corporations has been completely erased. Countries contract out for government services, and it's not uncommon for a nation's capitol to be halfway across the continent, far outside the borders of the country it governs.
well some countries are declaring wars on other things too, if you can declare war on "the threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances."
People are declaring war on war? How very... postmodern.
But this makes me think that war is essentially a human thing: it's a kind of interaction between humans. It can be interesting to look at some recent "wars" in this light. The "war" on drugs, for example, sounds like it might be a good thing, until you realize that it's really about people vs. people--that is, a war against drug users. Suddenly it seems a lot more serious. You begin to get the impression that the enemy has been objectfied ("drugs", instead of "drug users), to obfuscate the true nature of the conflict.
How would our perception of certain U.S. policies change, if instead of fighting a war against terrorism, we were fighting a war against terrorists?
Seriously, though, the Army Civil Affairs and Psyop organizations participate in a lot of peacekeeping and nation-building projects around the world, from well-digging to landmine-awareness classes, and they're always hurting for educated personnel with one or more foreign languages at their disposal.
My dad just got back from a community-service trip to Vietnam and Lebanon. One could argue that now, more than ever, the world needs people who are willing to put their lives on the line to help those who need it. The Peace Corps probably has more use for one geek who's willing to live up to the principles of compassion and service than for 100 geeks who'll go into hiding the moment things start getting iffy.
No kidding. At home, my girlfriend and I sometimes jokingly refer to doing something stupid as "posting on Slashdot"; e.g., "I'm sorry I missed the trash pickup again, honey--I must have been posting on Slashdot."
Or maybe he omitted the sarcasm tags because he was actually using irony, which is like sarcasm, except instead of telegraphing your true meaning, you rely on your audience having wit to figure it out for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
At least we agree that Utopias won't work. You, however seem to believe that all attempts at Utopia will automatically end in state-sponsored violence against the reformers. How, then, do you propose to bring about social change? Voting, or guns?
Why? Because it interferes with the media lies your liberal views rely on to make the world the feel good place you believe it should be?
Exactly! No, wait a minute... that can't be right. I get the impression that your definition of "liberal" is about as useful as the media depiction of the Waco incident: good for a laugh, but not very practical, accurate, or relevant.
Without making any assesment of what the various parties (the FBI, the media, you, &c.) claim, we can safely agree on a few facts, can't we?
The Branch Davidians existed (in some form), in Waco, TX. Government agents went to their compound. There was a media circus. There was a fire, and some shooting, and some running around, and a lot of Branch Davidians died.
I still haven't seen the logical correlation between "people focusing and coordinating their votes" and "people who have attracted the belligerent eye of the government". If, as Oobleck claims, the government goes anti-terrorist on voting blocs, all the political activists in this country would be dead or in prison. Since this is obviously not the case (both Ralph Nader and Jesse Jackson still walk the streets as free men), Oobleck's scenario struck me as more humorous than serious, and I treated it accordingly.
Incidentally, when I said "I couldn't care less", I didn't mean "I care that the media has lied to me about the legal status of the guns". I meant "I do not care at all if the media lied to me or not. I do not care at all if the guns were legal or not. I do not care at all if the guns were the alleged motive for the attack. In fact, I care so very little about these issues that I could not care less about them."
Finally, why do you insist on polarizing this discussion along "liberal vs. conservative" lines? You know as much about me as I know about you--certainly not enough to make any sort of accurate guess about my political views. Do you find it easier to debate with "liberals" than with real people?
I am chastened.
Then why bother standing up for it?
Anyway, my knowledge of "situations" doesn't have to be complete: my judgement is based on the premise that my knowledge of good and evil is complete.
In a sense, it is an invasion. But it differs from other kinds of invasion in an important way.
"Normal" Invasion:
1. Start with a perfectly natural desire to bring about social change.
2. Become an agressor.
3. Throw a surprise party for the society you want to change. Make it a beating-themed party.
4. Force change at gunpoint.
5. Profit!
Note that this kind of invasion is generally agreed to be a Bad Thing by all but the aggressor.
"Peaceful" Invasion:
1. Start with a perfectly natural desire to bring about social change.
2. Become a citizen.
3. Vote.
4. Use the established system for peacefully enacting social change to enact the changes you want.
5. Profit!
Note that this approach to enacting social change is espoused by civilized nations everywhere.
This system is meant for those who use it, not those who don't. If you're not using it, you have no right to complain when somebody else uses it against you. In this sense, it's the hypothetical North Dakotans who are trying to enjoy the privileges of freedom without the responsibilities, not the Libertarians.
Perhaps because successive generations are iterated at a much faster rate? Compare seconds to centuries: do you see the difference?
You must have mistaken me for nearly a decade ago. By the way, 1993 called. They want their Waco debate back.
Believe me when I say "I couldn't care less about the legal status of Koresh's gun collection". I do, however, find your humorless obsession with the Waco incident amusing. Dance for me some more, monkey-boy, and make my Monday bearable!
The locals are always free to get the hell out. They are also free to vote--just like the Libertarians are planning to do. I can't think of a better Utopia than one in which citizens are free to influence policy through voting, campaigning, and informed discussion. The same mechanism that you use to protect your way of life can also be used to change it. That's the beauty of the system.
Note also that the Libertarians are targetting areas with low voter turnout. People who can't be bothered to vote when it matters--Quite a Utopia you've got there.
Yes, I'm sure of it: The Libertarians want to get defense forces from the federal government for free. You better go and let them know that won't work. I'm sure they haven't thought it through, yet.
Or maybe--just maybe!--they'll expect protection from a foreign power because they've entered into a contract with that foreign power where military protection is exchanged for something else!
Wouldn't that be cool? Of course it would! You know what would be even cooler? Paying for what you want, and not having to pay for stuff you don't want. The best is when you pay for it yourself, if you can. I bet if you look real close, you'll see that this is what the Libertarians have in mind.
This just in: it appears that Oobleck has reached the finals in Solo Mental Gymnastics--Freestyle Event. Starting with "Wouldn't it be nice if my neighbors shared my views on important political issues, and we all voted", this incredible athlete vaulted an amazing distance, to land squarely in "we're a compound-living, arms-stockpiling, demagogue-worshipping cult, based on the teachings of a madman, and eligible for government antiterroist action".
This unbelievable leap, executed without any intermediate steps, has broken world records, and is virtually guaranteed to win Oobleck the gold this year. The sheer audacity of the maneuver is sure to win the hearts of many moderators here today. Let's wish this great athlete the best of luck.
Good luck to you, Oobleck!
The people who win an election always drown out what the losers want, by definition. Saying that the Libertarian plan to win elections through concerted voting is kind of silly.
Also, it's a free country. People can move anywhere they want, and vote however they want. Libertarians moving to North Dakota (or wherever) is little different from Indians moving to California, or actors moving to Hollywood.
Nobody's forcing the "locals" to stay, or to give in without contesting disputed points. The Libertarians aren't even violating any law or principle of this nation.
Finally, you seem to think that a political platform can either win votes by surprise, or on merit, but not both. Clearly, this isn't true. A good platform may win by surprise to begin with, and then, once its value is proven, win on consecutive occasions based on merit.
But hey, way to prohibit the North Dakotans from moving out of North Dakota, and/or voting in their local elections. Congrats also on prohibiting the Libertarians from living anywhere they damn well please. Not to mention that bit of either/or pessimism about political platforms. Well done.
Com gosto nao se discute.
Com gosto nao se discute. You can't argue with taste, as the Brazilians say.
That's a very good question, even if it wasn't terminated with a question mark. You might want to ask the guy who came up with the plan, though. I never said it was a good plan, did I?
I never said it was a good plan ;P
The main difference between the two is that an in-depth study of LOTR will reveal a richly textured and very interesting character, while an in-depth study of Ep1 will not only underscore how inane Jar Jar really is, but reveal the poverty of the story as a whole.
While Tom and Jar Jar are similar at first glance, a closer look will reveal pretty quickly how completely different from each other the two characters really are.
You missed the plan:
1. File patents on methods for using Palladium-like solutions to enforce software licensing.
2. If the patent is not challenged, then Palladium cannot be used to enforce software licensing.
3. If the patent is challenged, then Microsoft's true intentions become obvious.
Note that this plan doesn't care if Microsoft wins the contest or not, it simply intends to discredit Microsoft.
Oh, I almost forgot:
4. Profit!
I don't think Larry Niven has become a nation yet, but Iain Banks has written Against A Dark Background, a story in which the line between nations and corporations has been completely erased. Countries contract out for government services, and it's not uncommon for a nation's capitol to be halfway across the continent, far outside the borders of the country it governs.
People are declaring war on war? How very... postmodern.
But this makes me think that war is essentially a human thing: it's a kind of interaction between humans. It can be interesting to look at some recent "wars" in this light. The "war" on drugs, for example, sounds like it might be a good thing, until you realize that it's really about people vs. people--that is, a war against drug users. Suddenly it seems a lot more serious. You begin to get the impression that the enemy has been objectfied ("drugs", instead of "drug users), to obfuscate the true nature of the conflict.
How would our perception of certain U.S. policies change, if instead of fighting a war against terrorism, we were fighting a war against terrorists?
Seriously, though, the Army Civil Affairs and Psyop organizations participate in a lot of peacekeeping and nation-building projects around the world, from well-digging to landmine-awareness classes, and they're always hurting for educated personnel with one or more foreign languages at their disposal.
My dad just got back from a community-service trip to Vietnam and Lebanon. One could argue that now, more than ever, the world needs people who are willing to put their lives on the line to help those who need it. The Peace Corps probably has more use for one geek who's willing to live up to the principles of compassion and service than for 100 geeks who'll go into hiding the moment things start getting iffy.
Of course! After all, we've already beta-tested the combination car-bomb/airplane hijacking with great success!
No kidding. At home, my girlfriend and I sometimes jokingly refer to doing something stupid as "posting on Slashdot"; e.g., "I'm sorry I missed the trash pickup again, honey--I must have been posting on Slashdot."
Or maybe he omitted the sarcasm tags because he was actually using irony, which is like sarcasm, except instead of telegraphing your true meaning, you rely on your audience having wit to figure it out for themselves.
[Insert obvious remark here.]