yeah, dumb ass, maybe you should read that actually. It does specify that so called 'positive rights' are entitlements.
However wikipedia is a political system of its own with some above others deciding what goes there and what does not. What do I care about priests deciding what things are? There are HUNDREDS of REVISIONS on that page, multiple revisions, where people are doing politics, and the 'ruling class' there consists of local priests with moderation power.
That's not a place to get impartial information on things like rights, that the last place. The place to get information is introspection. A thought, a rational argument.
You never have that, so I understand why you want somebody else to tell you what things are. Go ask somebody else, they'll tell you everything you need to know.
By the way, RENT SEEKING - that's funny. Almost every income stream that is based on investment is rent seeking.
So you buy a bond? (government or corporate) - that's rent seeking.
You own part of a mutual fund that invests into some farm land/farming? You are rent seeking.
You own a building that you rent out? Well, that's an obvious one.
--
What's the difference between any other strategy that is not a salary, and depends on somebody under-consuming - savings and investment and so called 'rent seeking'?
Do you want to own other people's property? How about you buy it?
How about you DEVELOP it? What about developing a mine? Finding it. Bringing the tools and labor to develop it?
How about starting your own city? Las Vegas was just a piece of desert before some 'rent seeker' decided it will be a city and developed it.
How about you actually DO WORK and SAVE YOUR MONEY and have a PLAN and do some INVESTMENT and enjoy your 'rent seeking'?
Or are you against people INVESTING? That plan will make everybody POOR, not rich.
If you are going to try and sell Randian horseshit, at least get your facts straight.
- ad-hominem. It's not a simple insult, an insult doesn't matter. Call me stupid, call me ignorant. When you get into 'Randian' - that's a logical fallacy right there.
You are clearly too stupid to understand
- yeah, that's just an insult, a flame, not a logical fallacy. Obviously you cannot actually have an argument without that.
I pointed out your argument was incorrect, and I insulted you.M
- no no, you did insult me, but there is nowhere there anything that points out that my argument was incorrect.
Argument did not depend on insult, therefore no an ad hom.
- no, the ad-hominem did not come from insult, it came from 'Randian'.
Writing reams of tedious ideological assumptions changes nothing.
- that's your domain, not mine.
You are ignorance (also, not an ad hom, in case you are still confused.)
- that's not even an insult, that's just bad grammar.
You jumped into ad-hominem without addressing one single point that I made, yet your contention is that I do not understand economics? I am explaining to you that people do not do work when forced to by government, but they do work even when they don't have to do it at all in a free capitalist system, when they are rich already, I am showing the direct examples and I don't understand economics?
You wrote this:
What we need is to provide people with a decent living regardless of what they do, and make anything earned through work a bonus.
Society that enforces that everybody has a 'decent living' regardless of what they do, that's the society that will be poor and totalitarian, not a free, wealthy society. It will be a society of oppression, bureaucracy, totalitarianism. That's not economics, that's ideology and it will destroy everybody's reasons to work and all progress and will oppress and kill people who are the triangle pegs that don't fit into your square holes.
It will destroy the overall wealth of the society by making it not a free society, the only society capable of producing new ideas and new technology, not for the sake of money, as clearly seen from people, who are rich already, but they keep working, and their capital keeps working.
go after the rent-seekers; money earned by not doing anything can't possibly be created due to an incentive for the person earning it to do anything, so lets have it. Start with the Earth's natural resources - I have always considered the notion of a creature with a maximum lifespan barely over 100 years claiming that part of a 4 billion year old planet is his and his only to exploit.
- it's absolutely NECESSARY that there is a PRICE on all natural resources.
It's absolutely NECESSARY that scarce natural resources have a price on them, which would create a natural queue for those resources, and the pricing mechanism would allow those, with the best market driven ideas to get those resources instead of just burning those same resources for the sake of 'common good'.
There is no such thing as 'common good' that can be dictated by government force.
There is common good, but it's done by free individuals, who create new things that end up being for the good of everybody. The 'rent seekers' - it's their investment and work that was able to give them ability to BUY those locations you want to own for free.
You know what? Nobody stops you from doing better and from BUYING those locations from those very people who own it today. But it is absolutely necessary that there is a market price associated with those places. This is the only way to distribute those resource in the most efficient manner according to what the market really promotes via individual votes of purchasing power.
You think I don't understand economics? You think economics is a 'feel good' ideology, not a system that is aimed at producing best possible results at the correct prices. You think market is 'evil', and not a price discovery and discount mechanism.
Might it not work? Sure. But considering the current economic order is grinding to a halt, it is certainly worth a shot.
- the current economies are coming to a halt due to the government system that has put enough burden over the economy so that it can no longer provide good results for the market.
You want change that really would fix the problem? Minimize government involvement into economy, not do what you propose - more government force.
I'm dissing the idea of giving up about 40% of your waking hours to punching a clock, shuffling papers, and playing minesweeper when the boss isn't looking.
- yes, that's why you want ">more free market capitalism and not any form of government coercion, trying to force some to give up fruits of their labor, so that others can do nothing but consume those fruits.
Your problem is simple: you don't understand economics.
Money does NOT equal wealth.
Money is a bunch of tokens, but money is not a product.
If you print money and give it to many poor people, they will spend it. The will spend it to buy goods that somebody must create. So IS money wealth, or is it what people want to BUY for money, that is wealth? Or is it the ability to produce things that people want, that is wealth?
You think that the model of working is outdated, but then who is going to be doing the work? Work is what produces the wealth, and money is just a way to store whatever a person or a company OVERPRODUCES and gives to others as a consequence of this overproduction.
By requiring that SOME overproduce, so that others consume what these people overproduced without producing anything useful of their own, that the first group of over-producers can benefit from by trading, you are destroying the very reasons for over-production.
There is no way to trade in your imagined solution.
1 person works and saves some cash. He opens a small production facility with that cash, say he buys cotton and some tools and starts churning out socks. This is a simple example, but say that's what somebody does. So they under-consumed in order to save, and now they are overworking and they are using their savings as an investment to over-produce socks.
Clearly that person does not NEED all those socks for himself. Why does he do this? He wants to use the comparative advantage that the market offers - he wants to exchange the socks, that he over-produces for something else, somebody else over-produces. Like food, energy, TV, house, shoes, weapons, hookers, etc.
What is the problem that USA is facing? Think about it.
Was it Steve Jobs? A guy, who was an adopted orphan, poor, dropped out of college after one semester? Got fed once a week by some religious folks?
A guy who saw an opportunity and took it to build a company, then was kicked out of it?
Instead of kicking back on some vacation resort (he already had enough money for that), he started another company, produced new results, new ideas, created process to produce entertainment people enjoy, made more money?
Came back to the original company INSTEAD of kicking back with all that money he already made, did more work, created new products that nobody could even imagine before?
Do you think he CONSUMED all of that money he had? How do you think that money was used?
He consumed less than 1% of money he made, but over the 99% went into production. It was investments that were possible from all of that over-production that he did.
He over-produced so much, that most of his money were investments, not consumed.
When does a rich person benefit from his wealth, is it when he is working or is it when he is buying stuff for himself with it?
Anyway, so what exactly is wealth, is the monetary equivalent of the products that were created, or is it the products themselves? What about the production capacity that allows those products to be created? The organization that allows the products to be created?
What I am trying to bring across is this: most people will not work for nothing. Once they are successful (like Jobs), they can work for very little actually, for nothing basically, because they themselves are already rich. They already are not going to be able to CONSUME ANY MORE with 10 more years of work, then they could once they already made enough money to sustain their quality of life for 200 years say (of-course holding that cash in a bank would be a terrible idea, the best thing to do is to invest into an income stream, and consume from that income stream, not to hold cash in a bank where gov't will destroy the money via printing *inflation* and gov't creates moral hazards that cause banks to fail, so you don't want to fall for that).
Again - Steve Jobs, and other rich people are doing work, which is much more than just charity.
You should go back to this thread and reread it. As I said, I would be as sad as they get while their brains would be flying all around. You wouldn't find a sadder person than me at that moment.
As I said, people misunderstand the concept of what a right is and they abuse that concept, turning what amounts to be entitlements to rights, which puts obligations on others.
Earlier it was reported that $2 Billion was lost in some shady trading transactions by Kweku Adoboli, a UBS trader. This of-course ran all sorts of alarm bells, having worked in banking it's difficult to imagine that it would be possible for a single trader to be able to trade with so much money without anybody noticing. It's much more likely that there is higher management involved in this and the poor sap, who will be set up for this will receive a few years of jail time, just like Jerome Kerviel of Societe Generale, who supposedly singlehandedly lost 4.9 Billion Euro in unauthorized transactions. Well, Jerome is serving a 3 year sentence, and it's unclear what will happen to Kweku, but what is clear is that what is being reported is just not the reality.
A bank does not just allow a trader to lose billions of Euro or Dollars. The most likely scenario is a robbery, likely done with knowledge (or at initiative of) one or more of banks' managers. I believe we are coming to a point, where it will become more dangerous to hold one's money at a bank, we are at a point in time that has never been tested before in history of human civilization, where all of the countries are on fiat currencies that are being devalued all at the same time. Anybody with real bank deposits (gold and otherwise), may want to think what is the most likely scenario that is going to play out when the proverbial fecal matter hits the rotary impeller device. It's likely that people closest to the funds will simply dump them into a truck and skip town, that is my contention.
Another interesting point to mention: in the same comment from 15 September, 2011, it is noted that 4 national banks (US Fed, UK, Swiss and Japanese national banks), have announced that they will devalue their currencies further to buy all sorts of short term sovereign debt (mostly 3-month US bills), and as was mentioned, DOW went up on these inflationary news, while the monetary commodities (gold/silver) took a sharp dive. As was explained, the commodities were most likely depressed on that day based on selling related to margin calls and leveraged trading, so it was predicted that the prices of these monetary metals are now going to go up higher on these bullish news (bullish for real money), and now the results are clear: gold and silver are sharply up. Obviously the traders realize what is in the bag - more inflation.
All of this combined together with more "weaker than expected" news on employment (who are these so called 'economists', that can never expect what is so obvious?), is yet another indication and proof that the fiat money based economies, and especially vendor financed economies are moving closer to the edge of the proverbial cliff.
Watch out and watch those banks, if you have real deposits, don't leave them there thinking that they are going to be safe.
You have the right to speak, and I don't have the right to stop you
- based on what do you believe such things? Now, if me 'stopping' you involves something that violates the criminal code or a private contract, then I could agree, but otherwise it's not the case.
So you are on my private property and you are doing some sort of thing, you believe is 'free speech' and I use my resources (let's say private security force), to kick you out of my private property. There is no way that I have 'violated your free speech', because it doesn't apply to a private interaction. It applies only when your right to speech is violated by the government. So for example you own a newspaper and you print something about a government agency, that the government doesn't like - for example you discover the true nature of what EPA is busy doing - violating people's right to own property and due process. The government doesn't like your article and it brings in some FBI agents or whatever cops to shut you down, in fact with a court order as well, and if you don't comply they fine you and throw you to jail or just shoot you.
THAT would be in violation of your rights. Not a private individual denying you access to private property to proclaim your messages.
There are only individual rights. The 'civil or labor rights' are actually entitlements given by government decree to some, while imposing obligations on others. Same with anything else that you have to be provided by somebody. It's an entitlement, not a right.
I had this same discussion a number of times, why do people never seem to understand basic concepts?
'Right' is a concept that is only meaningful to describe a relationship between an individual an government, because gov't is a system, not an individual.
Relationships between private individuals and businesses are covered by criminal and contract law.
Having a 'right' to Internet would require this to be an obligation upon businesses that would have to provide this entitlement, obviously this would make it into an 'essential' service and the prices, by the way, would immediately be much higher than what they are now.
See health care, insurance, education and AT&T monopoly that was given to it by government, which destroyed 4000 competitors for a good example of how that shit works.
As Jobs died in America and there were protests at the wall at his funeral, jobs died in America and there were protests at the Wall street at that funeral.
I was thinking something in terms of these lines, but couldn't put my finger on it. Probably because there were no buttons left to push.
I fully support the fact that these people have freedom of speech and thus they cannot be attacked by the government for their hate, but I also fully support the fact, that their freedom of speech does not have to be tolerated by other individuals.
Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from a fist of an individual smashing their face. Of-course the criminal code says that freedom of fist smashing their face will not be tolerated, but what is civil disobedience for, right?
I see kids playing with iPads and iPhones and it's easy for them, they just know how to use the stuff immediately, just the way Steve Paul Jandali Simpson Jobs imagined people would interact with these tools.
Slashdot Mirror
You have all sorts of delusions about me, but I have none about you, since I can provide your quote that was a comment to me: For the record - I've actually modded you down more than once. Not today though. Ran out of modpoints before I reached your latest rant.
OK, I don't see you taking any particular point and showing how it is an ideological point rather than one that is based on reality.
You are telling me that I am basing my understanding on ideology and I am telling you: here is this fact, here is that fact.
I have history on my side. Long passed history as well as current history, all of the history. Give me anything, give me a point.
yeah, dumb ass, maybe you should read that actually. It does specify that so called 'positive rights' are entitlements.
However wikipedia is a political system of its own with some above others deciding what goes there and what does not. What do I care about priests deciding what things are? There are HUNDREDS of REVISIONS on that page, multiple revisions, where people are doing politics, and the 'ruling class' there consists of local priests with moderation power.
That's not a place to get impartial information on things like rights, that the last place. The place to get information is introspection. A thought, a rational argument.
You never have that, so I understand why you want somebody else to tell you what things are. Go ask somebody else, they'll tell you everything you need to know.
Property taxes are going up up up and away. Those bastard rent seekers, how dare they to own property? Tax them up the wazoo
By the way, RENT SEEKING - that's funny. Almost every income stream that is based on investment is rent seeking.
So you buy a bond? (government or corporate) - that's rent seeking.
You own part of a mutual fund that invests into some farm land/farming? You are rent seeking.
You own a building that you rent out? Well, that's an obvious one.
--
What's the difference between any other strategy that is not a salary, and depends on somebody under-consuming - savings and investment and so called 'rent seeking'?
Do you want to own other people's property? How about you buy it?
How about you DEVELOP it? What about developing a mine? Finding it. Bringing the tools and labor to develop it?
How about starting your own city? Las Vegas was just a piece of desert before some 'rent seeker' decided it will be a city and developed it.
How about you actually DO WORK and SAVE YOUR MONEY and have a PLAN and do some INVESTMENT and enjoy your 'rent seeking'?
Or are you against people INVESTING? That plan will make everybody POOR, not rich.
If you are going to try and sell Randian horseshit, at least get your facts straight.
- ad-hominem. It's not a simple insult, an insult doesn't matter. Call me stupid, call me ignorant. When you get into 'Randian' - that's a logical fallacy right there.
You are clearly too stupid to understand
- yeah, that's just an insult, a flame, not a logical fallacy. Obviously you cannot actually have an argument without that.
I pointed out your argument was incorrect, and I insulted you.M
- no no, you did insult me, but there is nowhere there anything that points out that my argument was incorrect.
Argument did not depend on insult, therefore no an ad hom.
- no, the ad-hominem did not come from insult, it came from 'Randian'.
Writing reams of tedious ideological assumptions changes nothing.
- that's your domain, not mine.
You are ignorance (also, not an ad hom, in case you are still confused.)
- that's not even an insult, that's just bad grammar.
As I said, you have no argument.
You are shitting me. If you are going to ask a libertarian on his thoughts, then:
as a libertarian, here is what I wrote on basic income.
Here is what I think about "Occupy Wall Street Demands"
Here is what I think about the reasons of the current problems USA and others experience
This here explains why the GP post is idiotic in terms of who needs who more: productive China or unproductive but very much consumer based USA.
Here are my thoughts on SS and healthcare.
Obama's jobs destruction policy and the drug war.
Here is my reply to GP
You jumped into ad-hominem without addressing one single point that I made, yet your contention is that I do not understand economics? I am explaining to you that people do not do work when forced to by government, but they do work even when they don't have to do it at all in a free capitalist system, when they are rich already, I am showing the direct examples and I don't understand economics?
You wrote this:
What we need is to provide people with a decent living regardless of what they do, and make anything earned through work a bonus.
- which is ideological nonsense, which I addressed in my response to the "Occupy Wall Street Demand" list.
Society that enforces that everybody has a 'decent living' regardless of what they do, that's the society that will be poor and totalitarian, not a free, wealthy society. It will be a society of oppression, bureaucracy, totalitarianism. That's not economics, that's ideology and it will destroy everybody's reasons to work and all progress and will oppress and kill people who are the triangle pegs that don't fit into your square holes.
It will destroy the overall wealth of the society by making it not a free society, the only society capable of producing new ideas and new technology, not for the sake of money, as clearly seen from people, who are rich already, but they keep working, and their capital keeps working.
go after the rent-seekers; money earned by not doing anything can't possibly be created due to an incentive for the person earning it to do anything, so lets have it. Start with the Earth's natural resources - I have always considered the notion of a creature with a maximum lifespan barely over 100 years claiming that part of a 4 billion year old planet is his and his only to exploit.
- it's absolutely NECESSARY that there is a PRICE on all natural resources.
It's absolutely NECESSARY that scarce natural resources have a price on them, which would create a natural queue for those resources, and the pricing mechanism would allow those, with the best market driven ideas to get those resources instead of just burning those same resources for the sake of 'common good'.
There is no such thing as 'common good' that can be dictated by government force.
There is common good, but it's done by free individuals, who create new things that end up being for the good of everybody. The 'rent seekers' - it's their investment and work that was able to give them ability to BUY those locations you want to own for free.
You know what? Nobody stops you from doing better and from BUYING those locations from those very people who own it today. But it is absolutely necessary that there is a market price associated with those places. This is the only way to distribute those resource in the most efficient manner according to what the market really promotes via individual votes of purchasing power.
You think I don't understand economics? You think economics is a 'feel good' ideology, not a system that is aimed at producing best possible results at the correct prices. You think market is 'evil', and not a price discovery and discount mechanism.
Might it not work? Sure. But considering the current economic order is grinding to a halt, it is certainly worth a shot.
- the current economies are coming to a halt due to the government system that has put enough burden over the economy so that it can no longer provide good results for the market.
You want change that really would fix the problem? Minimize government involvement into economy, not do what you propose - more government force.
I'm dissing the idea of giving up about 40% of your waking hours to punching a clock, shuffling papers, and playing minesweeper when the boss isn't looking.
- yes, that's why you want ">more free market capitalism and not any form of government coercion, trying to force some to give up fruits of their labor, so that others can do nothing but consume those fruits.
Your problem is simple: you don't understand economics.
Money does NOT equal wealth.
Money is a bunch of tokens, but money is not a product.
If you print money and give it to many poor people, they will spend it. The will spend it to buy goods that somebody must create. So IS money wealth, or is it what people want to BUY for money, that is wealth? Or is it the ability to produce things that people want, that is wealth?
You think that the model of working is outdated, but then who is going to be doing the work? Work is what produces the wealth, and money is just a way to store whatever a person or a company OVERPRODUCES and gives to others as a consequence of this overproduction.
By requiring that SOME overproduce, so that others consume what these people overproduced without producing anything useful of their own, that the first group of over-producers can benefit from by trading, you are destroying the very reasons for over-production.
There is no way to trade in your imagined solution.
1 person works and saves some cash. He opens a small production facility with that cash, say he buys cotton and some tools and starts churning out socks. This is a simple example, but say that's what somebody does. So they under-consumed in order to save, and now they are overworking and they are using their savings as an investment to over-produce socks.
Clearly that person does not NEED all those socks for himself. Why does he do this? He wants to use the comparative advantage that the market offers - he wants to exchange the socks, that he over-produces for something else, somebody else over-produces. Like food, energy, TV, house, shoes, weapons, hookers, etc.
What is the problem that USA is facing? Think about it.
Was it Steve Jobs? A guy, who was an adopted orphan, poor, dropped out of college after one semester? Got fed once a week by some religious folks?
A guy who saw an opportunity and took it to build a company, then was kicked out of it?
Instead of kicking back on some vacation resort (he already had enough money for that), he started another company, produced new results, new ideas, created process to produce entertainment people enjoy, made more money?
Came back to the original company INSTEAD of kicking back with all that money he already made, did more work, created new products that nobody could even imagine before?
Do you think he CONSUMED all of that money he had? How do you think that money was used?
He consumed less than 1% of money he made, but over the 99% went into production. It was investments that were possible from all of that over-production that he did.
He over-produced so much, that most of his money were investments, not consumed.
When does a rich person benefit from his wealth, is it when he is working or is it when he is buying stuff for himself with it?
Anyway, so what exactly is wealth, is the monetary equivalent of the products that were created, or is it the products themselves? What about the production capacity that allows those products to be created? The organization that allows the products to be created?
What I am trying to bring across is this: most people will not work for nothing. Once they are successful (like Jobs), they can work for very little actually, for nothing basically, because they themselves are already rich. They already are not going to be able to CONSUME ANY MORE with 10 more years of work, then they could once they already made enough money to sustain their quality of life for 200 years say (of-course holding that cash in a bank would be a terrible idea, the best thing to do is to invest into an income stream, and consume from that income stream, not to hold cash in a bank where gov't will destroy the money via printing *inflation* and gov't creates moral hazards that cause banks to fail, so you don't want to fall for that).
Again - Steve Jobs, and other rich people are doing work, which is much more than just charity.
The real way to be charitable
You should go back to this thread and reread it. As I said, I would be as sad as they get while their brains would be flying all around. You wouldn't find a sadder person than me at that moment.
As I said, people misunderstand the concept of what a right is and they abuse that concept, turning what amounts to be entitlements to rights, which puts obligations on others.
Ensure access to some 2 year olds, have prototypes and watch them use the system. If they can figure it out, you are golden.
no you wouldn't. Why? Would you be happy about killing them? I think it's possible to do so with the saddest face ever.
As I said of-course this is nonsense.
Earlier it was reported that $2 Billion was lost in some shady trading transactions by Kweku Adoboli, a UBS trader. This of-course ran all sorts of alarm bells, having worked in banking it's difficult to imagine that it would be possible for a single trader to be able to trade with so much money without anybody noticing. It's much more likely that there is higher management involved in this and the poor sap, who will be set up for this will receive a few years of jail time, just like Jerome Kerviel of Societe Generale, who supposedly singlehandedly lost 4.9 Billion Euro in unauthorized transactions. Well, Jerome is serving a 3 year sentence, and it's unclear what will happen to Kweku, but what is clear is that what is being reported is just not the reality.
A bank does not just allow a trader to lose billions of Euro or Dollars. The most likely scenario is a robbery, likely done with knowledge (or at initiative of) one or more of banks' managers. I believe we are coming to a point, where it will become more dangerous to hold one's money at a bank, we are at a point in time that has never been tested before in history of human civilization, where all of the countries are on fiat currencies that are being devalued all at the same time. Anybody with real bank deposits (gold and otherwise), may want to think what is the most likely scenario that is going to play out when the proverbial fecal matter hits the rotary impeller device. It's likely that people closest to the funds will simply dump them into a truck and skip town, that is my contention.
Another interesting point to mention: in the same comment from 15 September, 2011, it is noted that 4 national banks (US Fed, UK, Swiss and Japanese national banks), have announced that they will devalue their currencies further to buy all sorts of short term sovereign debt (mostly 3-month US bills), and as was mentioned, DOW went up on these inflationary news, while the monetary commodities (gold/silver) took a sharp dive. As was explained, the commodities were most likely depressed on that day based on selling related to margin calls and leveraged trading, so it was predicted that the prices of these monetary metals are now going to go up higher on these bullish news (bullish for real money), and now the results are clear: gold and silver are sharply up. Obviously the traders realize what is in the bag - more inflation.
All of this combined together with more "weaker than expected" news on employment (who are these so called 'economists', that can never expect what is so obvious?), is yet another indication and proof that the fiat money based economies, and especially vendor financed economies are moving closer to the edge of the proverbial cliff.
Watch out and watch those banks, if you have real deposits, don't leave them there thinking that they are going to be safe.
Some are targeted more than others, some people just have personal issues and fixes have been proposed.
You have the right to speak, and I don't have the right to stop you
- based on what do you believe such things? Now, if me 'stopping' you involves something that violates the criminal code or a private contract, then I could agree, but otherwise it's not the case.
So you are on my private property and you are doing some sort of thing, you believe is 'free speech' and I use my resources (let's say private security force), to kick you out of my private property. There is no way that I have 'violated your free speech', because it doesn't apply to a private interaction. It applies only when your right to speech is violated by the government. So for example you own a newspaper and you print something about a government agency, that the government doesn't like - for example you discover the true nature of what EPA is busy doing - violating people's right to own property and due process. The government doesn't like your article and it brings in some FBI agents or whatever cops to shut you down, in fact with a court order as well, and if you don't comply they fine you and throw you to jail or just shoot you.
THAT would be in violation of your rights. Not a private individual denying you access to private property to proclaim your messages.
No, I will be totally saddened by their sudden demise, you won't see ME cheering.
A right?
I don't think you know what that word is.
There are only individual rights. The 'civil or labor rights' are actually entitlements given by government decree to some, while imposing obligations on others. Same with anything else that you have to be provided by somebody. It's an entitlement, not a right.
I had this same discussion a number of times, why do people never seem to understand basic concepts?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37575982
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37554214
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37558726
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37558814
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37558814
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37556278
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2450838&cid=37553622
'Right' is a concept that is only meaningful to describe a relationship between an individual an government, because gov't is a system, not an individual.
Relationships between private individuals and businesses are covered by criminal and contract law.
Having a 'right' to Internet would require this to be an obligation upon businesses that would have to provide this entitlement, obviously this would make it into an 'essential' service and the prices, by the way, would immediately be much higher than what they are now.
See health care, insurance, education and AT&T monopoly that was given to it by government, which destroyed 4000 competitors for a good example of how that shit works.
As Jobs died in America and there were protests at the wall at his funeral, jobs died in America and there were protests at the Wall street at that funeral.
I was thinking something in terms of these lines, but couldn't put my finger on it. Probably because there were no buttons left to push.
As Jobs died in America, jobs died in America.
I fully support the fact that these people have freedom of speech and thus they cannot be attacked by the government for their hate, but I also fully support the fact, that their freedom of speech does not have to be tolerated by other individuals.
Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from a fist of an individual smashing their face. Of-course the criminal code says that freedom of fist smashing their face will not be tolerated, but what is civil disobedience for, right?
Don't you look at these people, who cheer when others die and think - wish I had a military drone of my own on stand by?
Do you think it'll screw up his reception?
Saddened to hear this.
I see kids playing with iPads and iPhones and it's easy for them, they just know how to use the stuff immediately, just the way Steve Paul Jandali Simpson Jobs imagined people would interact with these tools.
RIP