This story is still in progress, but it's clear that this "Phobia" punk is intelligent enough in ways that really don't matter much and too stupid in ways that actually do matter. His father should have figured out what the son was doing a while ago, as his son is in the crime scene, stealing or helping to steal and use credit cards, SSNs, etc., breaking into private people's accounts and messing with them, paying for DDOS attacks against websites and sending SWAT teams to people's homes, so that somebody could actually get shot. This is all a punk move, what this idiot needs is about 3 years of labour camp, so that he'd at least repay some of the damage and 10 minutes of flogging on monthly basis, so that what could not be peacefully inserted into his brain would be painfully inserted into his back.
Impossible. That would require a level of personal responsibility that the government has long denied the people have. Though it is funny that the government is so vocal about democratic elections, as if the people who are so stupid in every day lives, that they can't choose what size soda to drink and how to save for retirement on their own can responsibly elect their own government in a democratic manner. How are people managing this level of dichotomy is beyond me, but I guess it's the age old adage about a person not understanding something if his paycheck depends on not understanding it.
Sure, companies go bankrupt, people die, but without moral hazard of hiding from personal liability people would make different decisions and they very likely would also have adequate liability insurance.
I explained it in this thread, it's not next of kin if they are not assuming the assets and liabilities, it's the original source of the pollution, which is a nuclear facility, that bought the services of this person to store waste. It is actually still their waste, read the comment.
As I mentioned a number of times in this thread, this type of moral hazard is created by the government, which provides people with ability to hide against personal liability behind a corporate front.
Clearly there is a case for aircraft that could be operated from ground and used by private companies for example for shipment, cargo delivery. UPS, Fedex, DHL, Purolator, etc., they could use drones that are just remotely piloted cargo planes.
OTOH is that what TFA is really about? Are these students going to end up 'working' for the military or maybe your local PD, flying a drone to spy on the citizens?
One time payment does not work for these, but let's say you do that.
If you don't have insurance and the 'barrels' pollute the ground while you are still alive, let's say you actually declare yourself bankrupt, you lose everything, that property is not yours, but you are free to go (probably, unless there is a criminal case, where your behaviour actually causes physical damage to others, and then it becomes a criminal matter).
However the private property is there, it's contaminated with some nuclear material and "nobody wants it". If that's the case then the private property owners around the property can argue that the responsibility is with the companies that accepted this type of service for the 'one time payment', it's there pollution that is on the ground, polluting the property in question, affecting the rest of the property owners.
The companies that stored the nuclear material would be liable, it's a situation that is very much the same as the BP situation. Nuclear facilities that have to outsource nuclear waste already have insurance.
Also private property owners around this property should have insurance, if they don't it's also their problem.
Basically you are trying to come up with the most stretched example, but even this example doesn't take into account all of the costs of dealing with private nuclear facilities that the pollution would come from. The pollution that a nuclear facility creates is still the responsibility of that nuclear facility if worst case scenario that you are trying to contrive happens in real life.
What we do know is that in our actual world there WAS a case of nuclear contamination of various property, including private and it was done by a government and people lost their property and they had no recourse against that government. People died and the government didn't give a shit, nobody was held really responsible for all that loss.
All of your complaints come from one source: ability of a person to set up a legal front that hides him from personal responsibility, which is another case of moral hazard created by the government.
Did you know that prior to 1970s the banks were all private partnerships? Today you won't find any in operation in USA for example, did you know that? At the same time no banker is charged with anything anymore for a number of reasons, all of which are related to lack of personal responsibility that the government 'insures' against.
5. Mother corporation sloughs off Timebomb as independent legal entity
- yeah, well, there is the problem: lack of responsibility provided by the government moral hazard of creating this fictional corporate front for actual individuals that they can hide behind.
Corporation that hides you from legal responsibility is just another moral hazard created by the government.
So are you under impression that the property of people who die and have no descendants just sits there? If you are storing nuclear waste in your basement, you are getting a revenue stream for it, it's business like any other and if you die, your land will be bought again, probably at an auction. Somebody will make money figuring out what to do with it next. There is value for everything, the only question is the price. So it can be valuable to buy a piece of land with nuclear materials on it and figure out how to keep using it to store more nuclear materials or how to move the materials to another storage facility that somebody else is running and re-purpose the land, etc. Clearly you are not thinking in the right terms, it's called restructuring. Everything can be restructured.
Did my share of contracts, some lasting over 3 years and some only going for a couple of weeks and many things in between.
That's the point of being a contractor - nothing is permanent, you get a different treatment and you get paid as much as you can manage given the market, and no bullshit, like pensions and benefits and all that nonsense. You get to deal with your own taxes without anybody withholding your money from you, that's the beauty of it.
So even though no one will ever be able to use the land again you are ok with it?
- you clearly think that a land owner is incapable of doing his own cost benefit analysis. There are lands that are not going to be mined on, they are very good for agriculture. There are lands that will have miners on them, there are resources there that will be mined one way or another.
By only allowing people to do business on their own private property we get rid of the externalities, which means of the ability to socialise costs. Once a person owns the land, it's his. If it's not, then we don't have rights. By buying and destroying a piece of property the owner makes a calculation that it will be more profitable to do that rather than to maintain that property. If he is right, then he allowed the economy to get the maximum effective output from that property at that time.
Yes, if a person buys and "destroys" a piece of property, he should have the right to do that, he paid for it.
Somebody will have to hold those nuclear barrels. Somebody will own that property at any time, it's not like once the owner disappears there is no other owner.
Roads are a private matter, like all other businesses, roads are also business. Actually for the longest time roads didn't need anything special, where bridges were needed, people built and operate them, special type of coating (asphalt, concrete), those were not necessary really for most roads. Today there are plenty private companies that build and operate roads and are doing it profitably as well, so they know it's not an unsustainable subsidy, there is a reason why that road is there, it's there because there is a business case for it. Forcing people to pay taxes to pay for roads they never use is not a good strategy for long term sustainability. Taxes always grow, government costs always rise, roads are just an excuse to grab power. Really, what is "interstate" Highway 1 doing in Hawaii except for providing the federal government with leverage over the control of the state?
So no, we don't need public roads, we don't need public schools either. Then again, we don't need public insurance or public energy policy or public food policy or public medical policy, or public housing policy, or public banking and finance policy, or public policy on money, etc. All of these are private decisions, made every day by millions of people. If there is a case for a road or a bridge, a person will want to make money by providing that infrastructure, same goes for everything else. At least this way the scarce resources are not wasted on global ideas that have no merit.
I wouldn't allow government to do any of it, I wouldn't allow government to build roads, fund education or health care or any type of insurance (moral hazard). I wouldn't allow government to get involved in money definition and creation and setting of price for money. I wouldn't allow government to get involved in housing or energy and even the Moon program would not have any government money in it. Then again, with my approach to government I would never be in it, I wouldn't give anybody any preferential treatment, there wouldn't be any programs but also there wouldn't be any taxes. The government would only do the absolute bare minimum that is authorised by the Constitution. But I can't be in government doing this, the people want subsidies, they want to steal from others, they don't care how they are given the subsidies, as long as they get them. To the mob it doesn't matter what the costs are and who bears them at this very moment.
In the long run that approach is self destructing but the mob doesn't care, so it only votes for people who promise stuff, who have 'vision', who offer 'solutions', who have silver bullets.
There are no silver bullets and government shouldn't be in a position to promise them.
very true. Ever asked yourself why are people able to socialise the risks? Think about what it means, to socialise the risks. It means that the property rights are not enforced. It also means that government owns so called "public property" and it doesn't care about it, so this is the huge way for corporations to be able to socialise risks by using "public property" to do business there. There shouldn't be any "public property", it's an oxymoron, but if there is such a thing, then nobody should be allowed to profit from it, to do business and use it for business.
All property where business is done must be private. If a corporation is doing business on its own property, then it the "externalities" are between the corporation and private property owners around it and "public property" around it as well, and private property must be protected for the system to work, and "public property" should not be an avenue to socialise costs, so there cannot be any way for a private property owner to shift his costs to the "public property".
2 private property owners can come to an agreement among each other, it's their business, but if one violates the rights of the other, there should be a recourse.
A private property owner and "public property" shouldn't even be able to enter into such an agreement. Either give up on the very idea that there is such thing as "public property" or ensure that nobody can dump their shit on it.
Instead government does things like creating moral hazards by passing laws like 75Million USD liability cap on deep water drilling (while denying companies ability to drill in the shallow waters near the shore). So don't allow a company to drill on public property at all, and if it drills anywhere, ensure that it gets its drilling rights from private property. Have an auction where people would bid on the land and own it, but they would have to buy it at a market rate, and then ensure that they can't dump their shit on "public property" but let other private owners to deal with the private agreements.
Capitalism is the right to own and operate private property.
Free market prevents government from denying this right to various people based on selective criteria that is not uniform, so the government can decide that some people will have different set of rules apply to them than other people. This steals the right to engage in capitalism, to own and operate private property without government interference from some people, while some others get extra entitlements at the expense of the rights that were stolen from others.
Nothing in the law would make that kind of contract unenforceable.
- nothing in the law says that simply by buying something you 'signed' any contract in the first place. The money was exchanged, not signatures and contract signings.
BS, easement doesn't have anything to do with this, there is no 'right of way', there is not even imminent domain (which in itself is an affront to the right of owning private property, most of the time it's used by the government to steal from an individual and give the property to a preferred individual, and has nothing to do with 'public good' (a nonsensical concept in itself) or anything like that).
They want to license you so that they can regulate you and thus censor you. That's all there is to it. It's one of the oldest tricks in the government's book. Make something illegal unless you have a government license to do it and then ensure that those who violate the license are prosecuted. While this does no longer apply to the bankers of the 'too big to fail' banks who also have licenses, that's because bankers are part of the government structure and so they are too big to fail and are also too big to jail regardless of what laws they break.
On the other hand talking about bankers and government officials and the laws they break is something that IS going to be punished and the government just wants to ensure that it has enough means, enough of a book to throw at you by forcing you to license so that you can be forced to behave in a certain manner or else...
Of-course the other part of it is the barrier to entry - this creates monopoly, as all government rules, regulations, taxes and even inflation (money printing and handing it to the preferred people) do. Very few people, relatively speaking, will apply for the license and comply with the costs and barriers needed to obtain it.
This is why you don't want government with all this power running your life, you'll eventually end up in prison, even if you are not physically within 4 walls and a barred window.
Many here do not understand event the definition of capitalism: private ownership and operation of property that's all it is.
Denying people's right to private ownership and operation of property is denying capitalism. It's a good thing that this judge went in the right direction, but what is troubling is that this was ever even a question: can people own property?
Can people own and operate private property? Can you sell your own stuff that you made or bought? Isn't that a strange thing to ask in a society that is supposedly capitalist? But of-course it is not a strange thing to ask, because the society is no longer capitalist. Capitalism really exists as a concept in a free market economy, because capitalism in fact requires individual freedom. Denying freedom to the individuals will automatically deny capitalism and what do you have when you do not have capitalism because you do not have freedom?
Well, you may still end up with some people owning and operating private property but not all people being able to do it, because the governing principles changed to deny all people equal protection against government intervention by law.
It is when you do not have equal treatment of people in the context of their relationship with their government by law when you really no longer have free market but you also lose the principles of capitalism for most people.
Again: capitalism is ownership and operation of private property. This is a basic fundamental right, all other rights are only an extension of this one right. If you have no right to own and operate private property, you will not be able to have resources, you will not even be allowed to own and operate your own body. And that's true even today, look at this lack of capitalism, lack of free market and thus lack of freedom even to do what you want with your own body. All these government officials telling you what you must or are not allowed to do, eat, smoke, drink, ingest, who you can and cannot have sex with, etc.
Unfortunately it is now news when a judge actually protects individual freedoms in a rare case of outbreak of common sense or decency or something like that, it's no longer the rule, it's the exception.
Up to this point,during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.
...
The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.
I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.
...
I did not see anything in the 15-6 report or its annexes that gave away sensitive information. Rather, the investigation and its conclusions were and what those involved should have done, and how to avoid an event like this from occurring again.
...
The only place that you could possibly be referring to would be this part:
I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations. In many ways these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip. I believed exposing this information might make some within the Department of State and other government entities unhappy. On 22 March 2010, I began downloading a copy of the SIPDIS cables using the program Wget, described above.
Yes, releasing very honest opinions behind the backs might be embarrassing to some organisations, you are however implying that it was his motive, which is false or a lie. It was not his motive, his motive was to ensure that the public knew what was done in its name:
The more I read, the more I was fascinated with the way that we dealt with other nations and organizations. I also began to think the documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity that didn't seem characteristic of the de facto leader of the free world.
...
It detailed corruption within the cabinet of al-Maliki's government and the financial impact of his corruption on the Iraqi people. After discovering this discrepancy between the Federal Police's report and the interpreter's transcript, I forwarded this discovery to the top OIC and the battle NCOIC. The top OIC and the overhearing battle captain informed me that they didn't need or want to know this information anymore. They told me to quote "drop it" unquote and to just assist them and the Federal Police in finding out, where more of these print shops creating quote "anti-Iraqi literature" unquote.
I couldn't believe what I heard and I returned to the T-SCIF and complained to the other analysts and my section NCOIC about what happened. Some were sympathetic, but no one wanted to do anything about it.
Slashdot Mirror
The neniTY y.o. teens salute your wisdome!
This story is still in progress, but it's clear that this "Phobia" punk is intelligent enough in ways that really don't matter much and too stupid in ways that actually do matter. His father should have figured out what the son was doing a while ago, as his son is in the crime scene, stealing or helping to steal and use credit cards, SSNs, etc., breaking into private people's accounts and messing with them, paying for DDOS attacks against websites and sending SWAT teams to people's homes, so that somebody could actually get shot. This is all a punk move, what this idiot needs is about 3 years of labour camp, so that he'd at least repay some of the damage and 10 minutes of flogging on monthly basis, so that what could not be peacefully inserted into his brain would be painfully inserted into his back.
Impossible. That would require a level of personal responsibility that the government has long denied the people have. Though it is funny that the government is so vocal about democratic elections, as if the people who are so stupid in every day lives, that they can't choose what size soda to drink and how to save for retirement on their own can responsibly elect their own government in a democratic manner. How are people managing this level of dichotomy is beyond me, but I guess it's the age old adage about a person not understanding something if his paycheck depends on not understanding it.
Sure, companies go bankrupt, people die, but without moral hazard of hiding from personal liability people would make different decisions and they very likely would also have adequate liability insurance.
I explained it in this thread, it's not next of kin if they are not assuming the assets and liabilities, it's the original source of the pollution, which is a nuclear facility, that bought the services of this person to store waste. It is actually still their waste, read the comment.
As I mentioned a number of times in this thread, this type of moral hazard is created by the government, which provides people with ability to hide against personal liability behind a corporate front.
Clearly there is a case for aircraft that could be operated from ground and used by private companies for example for shipment, cargo delivery. UPS, Fedex, DHL, Purolator, etc., they could use drones that are just remotely piloted cargo planes.
OTOH is that what TFA is really about? Are these students going to end up 'working' for the military or maybe your local PD, flying a drone to spy on the citizens?
One time payment does not work for these, but let's say you do that.
If you don't have insurance and the 'barrels' pollute the ground while you are still alive, let's say you actually declare yourself bankrupt, you lose everything, that property is not yours, but you are free to go (probably, unless there is a criminal case, where your behaviour actually causes physical damage to others, and then it becomes a criminal matter).
However the private property is there, it's contaminated with some nuclear material and "nobody wants it". If that's the case then the private property owners around the property can argue that the responsibility is with the companies that accepted this type of service for the 'one time payment', it's there pollution that is on the ground, polluting the property in question, affecting the rest of the property owners.
The companies that stored the nuclear material would be liable, it's a situation that is very much the same as the BP situation. Nuclear facilities that have to outsource nuclear waste already have insurance.
Also private property owners around this property should have insurance, if they don't it's also their problem.
Basically you are trying to come up with the most stretched example, but even this example doesn't take into account all of the costs of dealing with private nuclear facilities that the pollution would come from. The pollution that a nuclear facility creates is still the responsibility of that nuclear facility if worst case scenario that you are trying to contrive happens in real life.
What we do know is that in our actual world there WAS a case of nuclear contamination of various property, including private and it was done by a government and people lost their property and they had no recourse against that government. People died and the government didn't give a shit, nobody was held really responsible for all that loss.
All of your complaints come from one source: ability of a person to set up a legal front that hides him from personal responsibility, which is another case of moral hazard created by the government.
Did you know that prior to 1970s the banks were all private partnerships? Today you won't find any in operation in USA for example, did you know that? At the same time no banker is charged with anything anymore for a number of reasons, all of which are related to lack of personal responsibility that the government 'insures' against.
5. Mother corporation sloughs off Timebomb as independent legal entity
- yeah, well, there is the problem: lack of responsibility provided by the government moral hazard of creating this fictional corporate front for actual individuals that they can hide behind.
Corporation that hides you from legal responsibility is just another moral hazard created by the government.
So are you under impression that the property of people who die and have no descendants just sits there? If you are storing nuclear waste in your basement, you are getting a revenue stream for it, it's business like any other and if you die, your land will be bought again, probably at an auction. Somebody will make money figuring out what to do with it next. There is value for everything, the only question is the price. So it can be valuable to buy a piece of land with nuclear materials on it and figure out how to keep using it to store more nuclear materials or how to move the materials to another storage facility that somebody else is running and re-purpose the land, etc. Clearly you are not thinking in the right terms, it's called restructuring. Everything can be restructured.
Did my share of contracts, some lasting over 3 years and some only going for a couple of weeks and many things in between.
That's the point of being a contractor - nothing is permanent, you get a different treatment and you get paid as much as you can manage given the market, and no bullshit, like pensions and benefits and all that nonsense. You get to deal with your own taxes without anybody withholding your money from you, that's the beauty of it.
So even though no one will ever be able to use the land again you are ok with it?
- you clearly think that a land owner is incapable of doing his own cost benefit analysis. There are lands that are not going to be mined on, they are very good for agriculture. There are lands that will have miners on them, there are resources there that will be mined one way or another.
By only allowing people to do business on their own private property we get rid of the externalities, which means of the ability to socialise costs. Once a person owns the land, it's his. If it's not, then we don't have rights. By buying and destroying a piece of property the owner makes a calculation that it will be more profitable to do that rather than to maintain that property. If he is right, then he allowed the economy to get the maximum effective output from that property at that time.
Yes, if a person buys and "destroys" a piece of property, he should have the right to do that, he paid for it.
Somebody will have to hold those nuclear barrels. Somebody will own that property at any time, it's not like once the owner disappears there is no other owner.
Roads are a private matter, like all other businesses, roads are also business. Actually for the longest time roads didn't need anything special, where bridges were needed, people built and operate them, special type of coating (asphalt, concrete), those were not necessary really for most roads. Today there are plenty private companies that build and operate roads and are doing it profitably as well, so they know it's not an unsustainable subsidy, there is a reason why that road is there, it's there because there is a business case for it. Forcing people to pay taxes to pay for roads they never use is not a good strategy for long term sustainability. Taxes always grow, government costs always rise, roads are just an excuse to grab power. Really, what is "interstate" Highway 1 doing in Hawaii except for providing the federal government with leverage over the control of the state?
So no, we don't need public roads, we don't need public schools either. Then again, we don't need public insurance or public energy policy or public food policy or public medical policy, or public housing policy, or public banking and finance policy, or public policy on money, etc. All of these are private decisions, made every day by millions of people. If there is a case for a road or a bridge, a person will want to make money by providing that infrastructure, same goes for everything else. At least this way the scarce resources are not wasted on global ideas that have no merit.
I wouldn't allow government to do any of it, I wouldn't allow government to build roads, fund education or health care or any type of insurance (moral hazard). I wouldn't allow government to get involved in money definition and creation and setting of price for money. I wouldn't allow government to get involved in housing or energy and even the Moon program would not have any government money in it. Then again, with my approach to government I would never be in it, I wouldn't give anybody any preferential treatment, there wouldn't be any programs but also there wouldn't be any taxes. The government would only do the absolute bare minimum that is authorised by the Constitution. But I can't be in government doing this, the people want subsidies, they want to steal from others, they don't care how they are given the subsidies, as long as they get them. To the mob it doesn't matter what the costs are and who bears them at this very moment.
In the long run that approach is self destructing but the mob doesn't care, so it only votes for people who promise stuff, who have 'vision', who offer 'solutions', who have silver bullets.
There are no silver bullets and government shouldn't be in a position to promise them.
Of-course, it's your land. As long as your pollution stays on it and doesn't cross to the neighbouring property owners.
I said ALL people, capitalism started in USA on that day.
* Socialize the risks
* Privatize the profits
very true. Ever asked yourself why are people able to socialise the risks? Think about what it means, to socialise the risks. It means that the property rights are not enforced. It also means that government owns so called "public property" and it doesn't care about it, so this is the huge way for corporations to be able to socialise risks by using "public property" to do business there. There shouldn't be any "public property", it's an oxymoron, but if there is such a thing, then nobody should be allowed to profit from it, to do business and use it for business.
All property where business is done must be private. If a corporation is doing business on its own property, then it the "externalities" are between the corporation and private property owners around it and "public property" around it as well, and private property must be protected for the system to work, and "public property" should not be an avenue to socialise costs, so there cannot be any way for a private property owner to shift his costs to the "public property".
2 private property owners can come to an agreement among each other, it's their business, but if one violates the rights of the other, there should be a recourse.
A private property owner and "public property" shouldn't even be able to enter into such an agreement. Either give up on the very idea that there is such thing as "public property" or ensure that nobody can dump their shit on it.
Instead government does things like creating moral hazards by passing laws like 75Million USD liability cap on deep water drilling (while denying companies ability to drill in the shallow waters near the shore). So don't allow a company to drill on public property at all, and if it drills anywhere, ensure that it gets its drilling rights from private property. Have an auction where people would bid on the land and own it, but they would have to buy it at a market rate, and then ensure that they can't dump their shit on "public property" but let other private owners to deal with the private agreements.
Nothing. It's supposed to be but it is not. The reason to speak about it in this case is the surprise at the ruling.
Capitalism is the right to own and operate private property.
Free market prevents government from denying this right to various people based on selective criteria that is not uniform, so the government can decide that some people will have different set of rules apply to them than other people. This steals the right to engage in capitalism, to own and operate private property without government interference from some people, while some others get extra entitlements at the expense of the rights that were stolen from others.
Nothing in the law would make that kind of contract unenforceable.
- nothing in the law says that simply by buying something you 'signed' any contract in the first place. The money was exchanged, not signatures and contract signings.
BS, easement doesn't have anything to do with this, there is no 'right of way', there is not even imminent domain (which in itself is an affront to the right of owning private property, most of the time it's used by the government to steal from an individual and give the property to a preferred individual, and has nothing to do with 'public good' (a nonsensical concept in itself) or anything like that).
They want to license you so that they can regulate you and thus censor you. That's all there is to it. It's one of the oldest tricks in the government's book. Make something illegal unless you have a government license to do it and then ensure that those who violate the license are prosecuted. While this does no longer apply to the bankers of the 'too big to fail' banks who also have licenses, that's because bankers are part of the government structure and so they are too big to fail and are also too big to jail regardless of what laws they break.
On the other hand talking about bankers and government officials and the laws they break is something that IS going to be punished and the government just wants to ensure that it has enough means, enough of a book to throw at you by forcing you to license so that you can be forced to behave in a certain manner or else...
Of-course the other part of it is the barrier to entry - this creates monopoly, as all government rules, regulations, taxes and even inflation (money printing and handing it to the preferred people) do. Very few people, relatively speaking, will apply for the license and comply with the costs and barriers needed to obtain it.
This is why you don't want government with all this power running your life, you'll eventually end up in prison, even if you are not physically within 4 walls and a barred window.
I would kill for 2-days of battery life.
- stay away from me
Many here do not understand event the definition of capitalism:
private ownership and operation of property
that's all it is.
Denying people's right to private ownership and operation of property is denying capitalism. It's a good thing that this judge went in the right direction, but what is troubling is that this was ever even a question: can people own property?
Can people own and operate private property? Can you sell your own stuff that you made or bought? Isn't that a strange thing to ask in a society that is supposedly capitalist? But of-course it is not a strange thing to ask, because the society is no longer capitalist. Capitalism really exists as a concept in a free market economy, because capitalism in fact requires individual freedom. Denying freedom to the individuals will automatically deny capitalism and what do you have when you do not have capitalism because you do not have freedom?
Well, you may still end up with some people owning and operating private property but not all people being able to do it, because the governing principles changed to deny all people equal protection against government intervention by law.
It is when you do not have equal treatment of people in the context of their relationship with their government by law when you really no longer have free market but you also lose the principles of capitalism for most people.
Again: capitalism is ownership and operation of private property. This is a basic fundamental right, all other rights are only an extension of this one right. If you have no right to own and operate private property, you will not be able to have resources, you will not even be allowed to own and operate your own body. And that's true even today, look at this lack of capitalism, lack of free market and thus lack of freedom even to do what you want with your own body. All these government officials telling you what you must or are not allowed to do, eat, smoke, drink, ingest, who you can and cannot have sex with, etc.
Unfortunately it is now news when a judge actually protects individual freedoms in a rare case of outbreak of common sense or decency or something like that, it's no longer the rule, it's the exception.
Put down the crack pipe
- never.
Manning wanted to embarrass the United States and he made that very clear in his statement in his court martial.
- wrong, either you are misinformed or lying on purpose.
full transcript
excerpts:
Up to this point,during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.
...
The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.
I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.
...
I did not see anything in the 15-6 report or its annexes that gave away sensitive information. Rather, the investigation and its conclusions were and what those involved should have done, and how to avoid an event like this from occurring again.
...
The only place that you could possibly be referring to would be this part:
I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations.
In many ways these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip. I believed exposing this information might make some within the Department of State and other government entities unhappy. On 22 March 2010, I began downloading a copy of the SIPDIS cables using the program Wget, described above.
Yes, releasing very honest opinions behind the backs might be embarrassing to some organisations, you are however implying that it was his motive, which is false or a lie. It was not his motive, his motive was to ensure that the public knew what was done in its name:
The more I read, the more I was fascinated with the way that we dealt with other nations and organizations. I also began to think the documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity that didn't seem characteristic of the de facto leader of the free world.
...
It detailed corruption within the cabinet of al-Maliki's government and the financial impact of his corruption on the Iraqi people. After discovering this discrepancy between the Federal Police's report and the interpreter's transcript, I forwarded this discovery to the top OIC and the battle NCOIC. The top OIC and the overhearing battle captain informed me that they didn't need or want to know this information anymore. They told me to quote "drop it" unquote and to just assist them and the Federal Police in finding out, where more of these print shops creating quote "anti-Iraqi literature" unquote.
I couldn't believe what I heard and I returned to the T-SCIF and complained to the other analysts and my section NCOIC about what happened. Some were sympathetic, but no one wanted to do anything about it.