19 century USA didn't even have indentured servitude anymore, slavery wasn't the driving factor behind the factory innovation - Sir James Watt was.
As to children - children were put to good use at young age by their parents much before the factories even appeared on the horizon. The wealth created by the free market capitalism required a more educated work force and so the children lost their job opportunities over time to more automation and more educated work force. Sure, there was abuse, but you can't make an omelet without braking some eggs in the process. It's not like a society can go from very poor to very wealthy in just 100 years without certain amount of suffering, but when it does, it's not due to anything any government can do, it's due to individuals trying to profit from the market and introducing real wealth into it - products and services, which are the actual wealth, not money - production capacity.
and if you don't pay taxes and don't have bank debts? Also banks accept real money.
besides, if you hold real money, then you can always draw a little bit of that to buy the fake garbage to pay the taxes with, however if you are really smart, you move somewhere that doesn't tax your work and doesn't crash the value of your currency into oblivion. In reality the only currency they cannot destroy is real money, they know it, so they'll try and do exchange controls again, will enact laws against owning real money, etc.etc. But you can't stop people from trying to avoid holding the garbage that's being devalued every second of the day.
the only difference between the paper he was taking out and paper he was putting in is that one was counterfeit by a crook, and the other was a bad duplicate of that counterfeit fiat.
You got it backwards. The huge corporations do not appear out of thin air, they appear from the government halls, printing money, giving out favors, regulations that kill other competition, laws, that force those companies to be the only providers, regulations that favor large companies in the first place, because those monopolies are preferable to the gov't officials, who want money to go their way for reelections etc., and since competing companies do not have extra money to burn, they are not interesting to the politicians, but monopolies are.
Get the government out of business, that's the way to fix the problem. If there is no gov't in business, there is no reason for business to be in gov't, because even by buying some politician, if the politician has no teeth to change the business outcomes, then it's just a waste of money for that business, not a sound financial decision.
Poor people are to blame for their poverty in current society, as they are a voting block, which demands bread and circuses paid by others, and the others end up being those, who actually do provide society with businesses (jobs), products and services, that make the society wealthier.
The 19 century USA gained so much wealth because of high levels of innovation and production based on capitalism and mostly free market.
My point is that cheap and plentiful boots are not a function of government intervention into the incomes of those, who actually do create products and services, but it is the function of those who create products and services. The more of those people are, the more products and services compete for the same money, this drives up efficiency and drives down the costs, and that's why USA had deflation in 19 century, which caused products to become cheaper and at the same time created huge amount of competition, which based on gov't idea that deflation is 'bad' is a paradox, but it is not, it is the idea that deflation based on competition is 'bad', that is wrong.
Get the businesses to compete not in the halls of government offices, but in the market for the customers' money, and you get more and more wealth, which is literally products, such as boots, and you get them cheaper and cheaper.
Get the government into that, start insuring businesses/individuals with government promises, start printing fiat, start living beyond the means, start borrowing and create inflation to write off the debt, and what you'll get is less and less investment, because savings get wiped out, and you get capital flight, which means production flight, and then you are left without wealth and so you are left without cheap good boots.
You are correct. Those who whip out their emotions rather than logic when talking about rights, as they do here, without understanding what the hell rights are, they are worthy of contempt, as they are part of the voting public, and that's the problem.
That's because people completely don't understand what they are talking about.
When one says: "I have a right to my property", all it means is that government cannot confiscate that property from you without due process.
This 'right' has nothing to do with others taking your property away, only that government cannot do so. When it comes to others stealing from you, that has to do with criminal code and not with your rights.
As to your 'right' to your body parts - again, the same thing. Gov't is not allowed to deprive you from liberty or life without due process (what a joke that is today also). However somebody eating your foot, while you are asleep, or just killing you - that is again not about your rights, but it is about criminal code.
Here is what I have a problem with: using government to promote 'rights' of things that we ourselves make, which will again, end up creating more various laws, regulations, taxes, etc., to enforce this. These brains on their own will not be generating any economic activity without somebody actually using them in some invention (imagine putting those brains onto a missile, train that brain to 'play a video-game', with the objective of the brain hitting a specific target), so that's usage of that brain matter as of any other machine we create, but we do not assign any rights to machines. Without themselves participating in the economy, and themselves being our creations, these things must not be used to increase the number of gov't laws that exist, as not to increase the financial burden on those, who actually do participate in the economy.
Gov't is only useful to society if it helps to create a level playing field for people, who make up this gov't. Those will be the people paying the bills, those will be the people who will negotiate their rights as individuals against the collective.
Cutting to the chase: if you want to protect your little brain in a jar in civil court, you are free to go and argue this point in front of courts, but if you want to provide it with the Rights - protections against the collective for the individual, then you are equating that thing with a human in full right, as only humans create their own governments and negotiate their rights against those governments, and it takes some idiot to argue that point.
you don't know what you are even saying. There is nothing esoteric about rights, they are very specific:
You have all the rights and government has only the rights that are given to it by the agreement between separate entities that make up the government.
There is nothing else about rights, but only this: it's about establishing the boundary of what the government can do to you and how you are protected from it.
There is nothing else at all that rights can mean. You cannot have a right to something. You can't have a right to health care or a house or your own airplane. You can buy those things, but you don't get the 'right' to them, because that would immediately imply indentured servitude by others, who would have to provide you with any of that stuff.
The rights are not a natural construct either. It's nonsense to say that you have the right not to be killed by a non-governmental agency. There is no such thing as having a right not to be beaten to death. Those situations we handle with security forces, backed up with another type of construct: criminal code. That's about actions of individuals, it's all relative, as it differs widely from place to place.
So you have to get your nomenclature and understanding of simplest concepts in order, before claiming something to be 'esoteric'.
The government is not allowed to deprive you of live, liberty, property, ability to do business, any of that at least without due process.
All this notion of positive rights: where you get the right to eat or to own a house or to get an education, guaranteed by the government, it's all nonsense. Those rights turn others into slaves of the system, not necessarily in the exact manner that Rand Paul expressed - forcing doctors to do their work, but instead by forcing the individuals to the will of the collective, force them to pay income taxes, prevent them from doing business the way they want, deprive them of their rights to live, liberty, pursuit of happiness, so that some Marxist can get his 'free' medical plan.
No, because most idiots who comment on 'rights' have no idea what rights are and why they exist in the first place. Go read this thread, I have no patience.
Right is only between the individual and the collective. All these small headed dumb asses here are mixing up the rights vs the criminal code, and the criminal code can be different from place to place, there is competition at least based on what criminal code says about various 'criminal' acts, it's all relative morality.
As to being in a minority while negotiating with the government - at least this was understood during the time US Constitution was established, since USA was never a direct democracy, but instead was a representative type of it, and that's the point - a mob will lynch you. However if you have only representatives from the mob deciding on laws, then the minorities have their chance.
Now, as to a piece of meat with memories - once it grows some organs, a mouth and eyes and starts working in the society, then it'll get its rights.
Of-course some dumb asses will try to push this non-issue on behalf of the petri-dish brain matter, but practically, a society that pushes this nonsense through and creates more and more laws to protect pieces of meat grown in dishes, that people can eat for breakfast, regardless of their memories, etc., well that's the kind of society that has gov't that's too heavy, too expensive, too nonsensical and will collapse due to economic reasons, as it must.
All other nonsense you are spewing here is about criminal code, but has nothing to do with rights.
A right is not to have government kill you for no reason.
If your neighbor does it, though, he is not in violation of your human rights, he is in violation of criminal code (whatever the local code is).
--
As to all the other shit, growing clones, etc. Once they can participate in a debate and negotiate their 'rights' with the government body (the collective vs the individual), and if they can get the upper hand, they'll have their rights.
As to me building a clone of yours without your permission - fuck you. You don't have a patent on any of that shit. If I have the technology and make a clone of anybody, they don't have a say if I use that clone in any way possible. If the criminal code is on the side of the clone, and recognizes the clone as a human individual - that's between me and the criminal code then and has nothing to do with you. Get your head out of your ass.
I think that's a little unfair. Personally, if I just so happened to be a brain grown in a lab, I don't think I'd like someone poking around in me.
- and?
Rights are there to establish what a government (the collective) can do to you and what cannot be done to you by the government. If you are some brain matter grown in a petri dish - good luck negotiating the terms of the government either leaving your alone there, and not using you for some purpose, such as a piece of functional equipment to fly ICBMs with nuclear bombs on them for more precise targeting, or getting some sort of gov't protection, so you can't legally be grown and pocked into by whoever decides to buy a petri dish and some brain sells from a shop on the Internet somewhere. You are not a paying contributor or voting constituency, you are not a pet even, you are a collection of cells, even if you have memories and ability to infer logical conclusions, you are an automaton we make for fun and maybe just out of pure sadism, so we can poke into you.
Grow some muscle, teeth, legs, eyes, arms, lungs, and some other organs, then you can start talking about negotiating 'rights' not to be poked.
yes, only an idiot would be concerned about morality and philosophy relating to how we treat man-made consciousness, just like only an idiot is concerned about robot 'rights'. AFAIC, the concept of rights is also completely misunderstood by these very idiots, who don't see that the only context, in which 'rights' make sense is how the individual right is protected against government intrusion upon those ideas, nothing else.
The only context, in which 'rights' make sense is the stand between the individual and the collective, expressed in a governmental body. Outside of limiting of the government power to protect the individual from the collective, there is no such thing as 'right', and since the humans are the creatures that create government, they get to negotiate this relationship between the collective and the individual, but a vacuum cleaner or a piece of cerebral matter without any ability to participate in the economy will get no say, will get no 'rights'.
Now, morons and idiots like you may decide to negotiate the concept of a 'right' on behalf of that piece of jelly sandwich with memories grown in a petri dish, but good luck with that, you punk.
Do you know what people (individuals), who are not vegetarians (like myself) get to do with meat? They eat it, sometimes even for breakfast.
What next? Maybe we aren't really related to monkey? Maybe there really is a God?
to find out the answers to these, and other interesting questions, such as: are all ACs on/. trolls or are some ACs more trollish than others stay tuned to our program at "Kinds of Questions that Ass-hats Like to Ask".
Except that if the site, one needs to go to is not indexed, then it's as good as dead, because it can't be reached without typing the URL into the address bar, and many business sites are exactly like that.
For Google's Chrome having URL address bar in the window IS broken.
They do not want you to be able to type in a URL and go around their wonderful search engine. Of-course this means they will exclude a very large number of people and businesses from their user base, who do not need to find the site they are going to, they know where they are going and if the site is not indexed by Google's search engine, then these people can't even get there, but Google doesn't care, they just want the majority of users to flow through their site for more ad revenue.
When a generic browser, like FF does this though, it shows that either they are clueless about who the users are, or they are also in on it with the search engines, but they are making the Internet unusable for business.
I predict that there will be at some point a browser, that will provide access to all the necessary features that Internet allows in the first place, but maybe this browser won't be free as in beer. Of-course it already exists - Opera. As FF ad-on contributor it saddens me, but as a person with a business based on users being able to type a URL address rather than use Google search to get there, it saddens me even more, but at least I will be able to recommend Opera, especially now, that it's available for GNU/Linux platform.
So how are users of my application supposed to be able to access it at all, because it is not an application that is indexed by Google?
So if Google cannot index my application (this is by choice) and Google does not want to let people to go to my site (people who need to go there to do the work they do with my site), then Google's move to remove URL bar makes sense.
However if FF does this, and it means that my users cannot come to my site AT ALL, then FF turns into a USELESS BROWSER for me and my users.
Now, I have contributed to FF ad-ons, built a small number of them, they are used by people around the world. If FF does this to me, I am removing my ad-ons from it. I know they don't care, but if they are going to try and destroy my business, I will make sure that those, who rely on my ad-ons can no longer do so either, and they then will be searching for alternatives.
If URL address bar disappears from the browser, then this is no longer an Internet browser, but it is a Google (or whatever other search engine/directory) browser, and I cannot use it.
Slashdot Mirror
19 century USA didn't even have indentured servitude anymore, slavery wasn't the driving factor behind the factory innovation - Sir James Watt was.
As to children - children were put to good use at young age by their parents much before the factories even appeared on the horizon. The wealth created by the free market capitalism required a more educated work force and so the children lost their job opportunities over time to more automation and more educated work force. Sure, there was abuse, but you can't make an omelet without braking some eggs in the process. It's not like a society can go from very poor to very wealthy in just 100 years without certain amount of suffering, but when it does, it's not due to anything any government can do, it's due to individuals trying to profit from the market and introducing real wealth into it - products and services, which are the actual wealth, not money - production capacity.
and if you don't pay taxes and don't have bank debts? Also banks accept real money.
besides, if you hold real money, then you can always draw a little bit of that to buy the fake garbage to pay the taxes with, however if you are really smart, you move somewhere that doesn't tax your work and doesn't crash the value of your currency into oblivion. In reality the only currency they cannot destroy is real money, they know it, so they'll try and do exchange controls again, will enact laws against owning real money, etc.etc. But you can't stop people from trying to avoid holding the garbage that's being devalued every second of the day.
the only difference between the paper he was taking out and paper he was putting in is that one was counterfeit by a crook, and the other was a bad duplicate of that counterfeit fiat.
You got it backwards. The huge corporations do not appear out of thin air, they appear from the government halls, printing money, giving out favors, regulations that kill other competition, laws, that force those companies to be the only providers, regulations that favor large companies in the first place, because those monopolies are preferable to the gov't officials, who want money to go their way for reelections etc., and since competing companies do not have extra money to burn, they are not interesting to the politicians, but monopolies are.
Get the government out of business, that's the way to fix the problem. If there is no gov't in business, there is no reason for business to be in gov't, because even by buying some politician, if the politician has no teeth to change the business outcomes, then it's just a waste of money for that business, not a sound financial decision.
Poor people are to blame for their poverty in current society, as they are a voting block, which demands bread and circuses paid by others, and the others end up being those, who actually do provide society with businesses (jobs), products and services, that make the society wealthier.
The 19 century USA gained so much wealth because of high levels of innovation and production based on capitalism and mostly free market.
My point is that cheap and plentiful boots are not a function of government intervention into the incomes of those, who actually do create products and services, but it is the function of those who create products and services. The more of those people are, the more products and services compete for the same money, this drives up efficiency and drives down the costs, and that's why USA had deflation in 19 century, which caused products to become cheaper and at the same time created huge amount of competition, which based on gov't idea that deflation is 'bad' is a paradox, but it is not, it is the idea that deflation based on competition is 'bad', that is wrong.
Get the businesses to compete not in the halls of government offices, but in the market for the customers' money, and you get more and more wealth, which is literally products, such as boots, and you get them cheaper and cheaper.
Get the government into that, start insuring businesses/individuals with government promises, start printing fiat, start living beyond the means, start borrowing and create inflation to write off the debt, and what you'll get is less and less investment, because savings get wiped out, and you get capital flight, which means production flight, and then you are left without wealth and so you are left without cheap good boots.
You are correct. Those who whip out their emotions rather than logic when talking about rights, as they do here, without understanding what the hell rights are, they are worthy of contempt, as they are part of the voting public, and that's the problem.
are you government? If you are government in USA, then any person in your nation has the right to free speech without you impeding on that right.
If you are not a government, your question is then nonsensical.
and how does your 'declaration' do anything to me, exactly? And if it is supposed to do something, how are you going to enforce it?
That's because people completely don't understand what they are talking about.
When one says: "I have a right to my property", all it means is that government cannot confiscate that property from you without due process.
This 'right' has nothing to do with others taking your property away, only that government cannot do so. When it comes to others stealing from you, that has to do with criminal code and not with your rights.
As to your 'right' to your body parts - again, the same thing. Gov't is not allowed to deprive you from liberty or life without due process (what a joke that is today also). However somebody eating your foot, while you are asleep, or just killing you - that is again not about your rights, but it is about criminal code.
Here is what I have a problem with: using government to promote 'rights' of things that we ourselves make, which will again, end up creating more various laws, regulations, taxes, etc., to enforce this. These brains on their own will not be generating any economic activity without somebody actually using them in some invention (imagine putting those brains onto a missile, train that brain to 'play a video-game', with the objective of the brain hitting a specific target), so that's usage of that brain matter as of any other machine we create, but we do not assign any rights to machines. Without themselves participating in the economy, and themselves being our creations, these things must not be used to increase the number of gov't laws that exist, as not to increase the financial burden on those, who actually do participate in the economy.
Gov't is only useful to society if it helps to create a level playing field for people, who make up this gov't. Those will be the people paying the bills, those will be the people who will negotiate their rights as individuals against the collective.
Cutting to the chase: if you want to protect your little brain in a jar in civil court, you are free to go and argue this point in front of courts, but if you want to provide it with the Rights - protections against the collective for the individual, then you are equating that thing with a human in full right, as only humans create their own governments and negotiate their rights against those governments, and it takes some idiot to argue that point.
you don't know what you are even saying. There is nothing esoteric about rights, they are very specific:
You have all the rights and government has only the rights that are given to it by the agreement between separate entities that make up the government.
There is nothing else about rights, but only this: it's about establishing the boundary of what the government can do to you and how you are protected from it.
There is nothing else at all that rights can mean. You cannot have a right to something. You can't have a right to health care or a house or your own airplane. You can buy those things, but you don't get the 'right' to them, because that would immediately imply indentured servitude by others, who would have to provide you with any of that stuff.
The rights are not a natural construct either. It's nonsense to say that you have the right not to be killed by a non-governmental agency. There is no such thing as having a right not to be beaten to death. Those situations we handle with security forces, backed up with another type of construct: criminal code. That's about actions of individuals, it's all relative, as it differs widely from place to place.
So you have to get your nomenclature and understanding of simplest concepts in order, before claiming something to be 'esoteric'.
There are only negative rights.
The government is not allowed to deprive you of live, liberty, property, ability to do business, any of that at least without due process.
All this notion of positive rights: where you get the right to eat or to own a house or to get an education, guaranteed by the government, it's all nonsense. Those rights turn others into slaves of the system, not necessarily in the exact manner that Rand Paul expressed - forcing doctors to do their work, but instead by forcing the individuals to the will of the collective, force them to pay income taxes, prevent them from doing business the way they want, deprive them of their rights to live, liberty, pursuit of happiness, so that some Marxist can get his 'free' medical plan.
No, because most idiots who comment on 'rights' have no idea what rights are and why they exist in the first place. Go read this thread, I have no patience.
Right is only between the individual and the collective. All these small headed dumb asses here are mixing up the rights vs the criminal code, and the criminal code can be different from place to place, there is competition at least based on what criminal code says about various 'criminal' acts, it's all relative morality.
As to being in a minority while negotiating with the government - at least this was understood during the time US Constitution was established, since USA was never a direct democracy, but instead was a representative type of it, and that's the point - a mob will lynch you. However if you have only representatives from the mob deciding on laws, then the minorities have their chance.
Now, as to a piece of meat with memories - once it grows some organs, a mouth and eyes and starts working in the society, then it'll get its rights.
Of-course some dumb asses will try to push this non-issue on behalf of the petri-dish brain matter, but practically, a society that pushes this nonsense through and creates more and more laws to protect pieces of meat grown in dishes, that people can eat for breakfast, regardless of their memories, etc., well that's the kind of society that has gov't that's too heavy, too expensive, too nonsensical and will collapse due to economic reasons, as it must.
preserve our rights from each other
- nonsense.
Rights can only be violated by government.
All other nonsense you are spewing here is about criminal code, but has nothing to do with rights.
A right is not to have government kill you for no reason.
If your neighbor does it, though, he is not in violation of your human rights, he is in violation of criminal code (whatever the local code is).
--
As to all the other shit, growing clones, etc. Once they can participate in a debate and negotiate their 'rights' with the government body (the collective vs the individual), and if they can get the upper hand, they'll have their rights.
As to me building a clone of yours without your permission - fuck you. You don't have a patent on any of that shit. If I have the technology and make a clone of anybody, they don't have a say if I use that clone in any way possible. If the criminal code is on the side of the clone, and recognizes the clone as a human individual - that's between me and the criminal code then and has nothing to do with you. Get your head out of your ass.
read this thread again, you'll get the idea. It's not 'impossible to resolve' - there is nothing to resolve, it's a non-issue.
I think that's a little unfair. Personally, if I just so happened to be a brain grown in a lab, I don't think I'd like someone poking around in me.
- and?
Rights are there to establish what a government (the collective) can do to you and what cannot be done to you by the government. If you are some brain matter grown in a petri dish - good luck negotiating the terms of the government either leaving your alone there, and not using you for some purpose, such as a piece of functional equipment to fly ICBMs with nuclear bombs on them for more precise targeting, or getting some sort of gov't protection, so you can't legally be grown and pocked into by whoever decides to buy a petri dish and some brain sells from a shop on the Internet somewhere. You are not a paying contributor or voting constituency, you are not a pet even, you are a collection of cells, even if you have memories and ability to infer logical conclusions, you are an automaton we make for fun and maybe just out of pure sadism, so we can poke into you.
Grow some muscle, teeth, legs, eyes, arms, lungs, and some other organs, then you can start talking about negotiating 'rights' not to be poked.
yes, only an idiot would be concerned about morality and philosophy relating to how we treat man-made consciousness, just like only an idiot is concerned about robot 'rights'. AFAIC, the concept of rights is also completely misunderstood by these very idiots, who don't see that the only context, in which 'rights' make sense is how the individual right is protected against government intrusion upon those ideas, nothing else.
The only context, in which 'rights' make sense is the stand between the individual and the collective, expressed in a governmental body. Outside of limiting of the government power to protect the individual from the collective, there is no such thing as 'right', and since the humans are the creatures that create government, they get to negotiate this relationship between the collective and the individual, but a vacuum cleaner or a piece of cerebral matter without any ability to participate in the economy will get no say, will get no 'rights'.
Now, morons and idiots like you may decide to negotiate the concept of a 'right' on behalf of that piece of jelly sandwich with memories grown in a petri dish, but good luck with that, you punk.
Do you know what people (individuals), who are not vegetarians (like myself) get to do with meat? They eat it, sometimes even for breakfast.
I look forward to reading the moral and philosophical debates that will erupt over the idea of creating a functional brain.
- well, yes, all of those debates will be started by those, who are in possession of non-functional brains.
What next? Maybe we aren't really related to monkey? Maybe there really is a God?
to find out the answers to these, and other interesting questions, such as: are all ACs on /. trolls or are some ACs more trollish than others stay tuned to our program at "Kinds of Questions that Ass-hats Like to Ask".
I am actually talking about sites that have no DNS entry and only go by the IP address.
Except that if the site, one needs to go to is not indexed, then it's as good as dead, because it can't be reached without typing the URL into the address bar, and many business sites are exactly like that.
For Google's Chrome having URL address bar in the window IS broken.
They do not want you to be able to type in a URL and go around their wonderful search engine. Of-course this means they will exclude a very large number of people and businesses from their user base, who do not need to find the site they are going to, they know where they are going and if the site is not indexed by Google's search engine, then these people can't even get there, but Google doesn't care, they just want the majority of users to flow through their site for more ad revenue.
When a generic browser, like FF does this though, it shows that either they are clueless about who the users are, or they are also in on it with the search engines, but they are making the Internet unusable for business.
I predict that there will be at some point a browser, that will provide access to all the necessary features that Internet allows in the first place, but maybe this browser won't be free as in beer. Of-course it already exists - Opera. As FF ad-on contributor it saddens me, but as a person with a business based on users being able to type a URL address rather than use Google search to get there, it saddens me even more, but at least I will be able to recommend Opera, especially now, that it's available for GNU/Linux platform.
So how are users of my application supposed to be able to access it at all, because it is not an application that is indexed by Google?
So if Google cannot index my application (this is by choice) and Google does not want to let people to go to my site (people who need to go there to do the work they do with my site), then Google's move to remove URL bar makes sense.
However if FF does this, and it means that my users cannot come to my site AT ALL, then FF turns into a USELESS BROWSER for me and my users.
Now, I have contributed to FF ad-ons, built a small number of them, they are used by people around the world. If FF does this to me, I am removing my ad-ons from it. I know they don't care, but if they are going to try and destroy my business, I will make sure that those, who rely on my ad-ons can no longer do so either, and they then will be searching for alternatives.
If URL address bar disappears from the browser, then this is no longer an Internet browser, but it is a Google (or whatever other search engine/directory) browser, and I cannot use it.
Well fuck, first Small Pox, then Ebola, now this? Fucking fuck. THE END IS NEAR!!!