I wasn't talking about Republicans, I was talking about conservatives. The Rockefeller Republicans are much closer to libertarian than conservative, ideologically.
And the Religious Right most certainly does want to destroy the barrier between church and state. Or, I suppose you might say they don't believe it exists in the first place.
That's why I called it little-L libertarianism. The political philosophy, not the party. What you appear to be describing (small government, low taxes, balanced budget, government staying out of people's lives, etc.) is libertarianism to a T.
Conservatism is economic libertarianism mixed with social authoritarianism. On the social scale, it's characterized by a respect for tradition and current social norms and a desire to shape policy to support and/or propagate those traditions and norms. Libertarianism on the other hand treats social issues the same as economic issues, saying the government should simply stay out of it, while liberalism (in the US definition) is defined by social libertarianism mixed with economic authoritarianism. All to different degrees of course.
That makes sense, then. Though I'm not sure what kind of doctor you'd go to for a gun prescription.:P Seems like it would be a better solution to just remove the old laws.
Oh and you'll find that the Castle Doctrine does not apply to someone stealing your car (unless you're in it). It's a matter of threat to your bodily safety, not a matter of it "costing a year of your life."
If someone stole your car stereo (as was the example), was immediately apprehended, and got convicted, they would face jail time. They would in no cases ever face execution. Without any threat to life or limb of you or anyone else, what do you think gives you the right to kill another for theft? Even the guilty have rights to trial by a jury of their peers, due process, and punishment commensurate with their crime.
Exactly. I don't "have" to carry a gun, any more than I "have" to not carry cash, or I "have" to stay out of bad neighborhoods, or follow any of the other proactive preventive measures I listed.
But it's not legitimate to say that the suggestions I gave are somehow unfairly burdensome while carrying a gun is not--I don't want to carry a gun. They're all various ways of protecting yourself that a free person can choose from (nor not choose any, if they wish).
U.S. conservatives (maybe you don't consider them "true" conservatives, but they're the center of the movement) are more concerned with destroying the barrier between church and state and with removing any restrictions placed on corporations than they are in size of government, amount of taxation, or self-defense.
The ideology you're describing is libertarianism, or as I like to call it, "conservatism without the douchebaggery."
And certainly the Republicans ended slavery, back when they were a brand new party formed by the Northern liberals as a counter to the conservative Southern Democrats.
Often I'm reading about cases where the elderly livinig alone are the prime targets for this...
The statistics disagree, as I posted earlier. Young people are more likely to be victimized by robbery and violent crime by orders of magnitude versus older people. Older people are much more likely to be victimized by scams and identity theft.
Anyway, none of this really gets to the heart of the matter. I have no problem marketing an ergonomic gun to elderly people, but why is it a "medical device"?
Why should I be forced to carry a gun everywhere I go if I want to feel safe outside? That's just as much forcing me to change my behavior as carrying less cash or walking in well-lit streets. The point is, crime exists, and we all have the choice to modify our behavior based on that reality, or not.
I was responding to the person who suggested the only possible way for someone to defend himself from victimization is to "shoot the asshole dead." That's one, legitimate way. But there are a plethora of other ways that are more proactive and, generally, more effective.
PS: by all means shoot someone if they break into your home. Castle doctrine and all that. But I suspect you would be tried for murder, and I hope you'd get convicted, if you "nailed a bastard" trying to steal a car stereo. Theft is not a capital crime and you are not judge, jury, and executioner.
I'm trying to parse this. It's difficult. Certainly Jefferson didn't fit into our label of "liberal" but he was slightly closer to it than to "conservative." He supported strictly limiting the power (and lifespan!) of corporations, advocated for the separation of church and state, advocated against slavery while it was still a cultural norm. And on the other hand, he supported limited central government and opposed restrictions on gun rights.
Aside from his beliefs about corporations and the economy in general, he's really closest to little-L libertarian than conservative.
It is worth noting that there are no serious methods of self-defense available to the physically disadvantaged other than firearms. If they are alone or with another weakened person, assailants have plenty of time to rob,/beat/snuff them.
It is also worth noting that, so far as I know, self-defense has never been considered a medical priority. Furthermore, anyone who could use this device could use a Taser or mace/pepper spray. And yet further, the people to whom this device is marketed are also among the least likely to be subjected to violent crime in the first place.
I got no problem designing a gun that's ergonomically designed for the weak and elderly to use, but it's awfully silly to classify it as a medical device.
Uh, that's a bit of a shift. You were defending it as justified and important to the human rights of the elderly and the weak. Now the defense is just "there are more important things to worry about."
I don't find your comment very funny. The elderly are weak and most-likely to be attacked by criminals. Since they can't rely on aged muscles or frail bones like younger men/women, their ONLY recourse is to shoot the asshole dead.
These are Australian statistics (haven't found any similar report for the US), but the 15-19 years old [warn: PDF] age group is the most likely to be victimized by armed robbery. And, there are a few other options besides "shoot the asshole dead" anyway--like, say, not carrying around large amounts of cash. Avoiding bad neighborhoods. Walking with groups and staying in well-lit public areas. Locking your doors at night. The elderly and weak are the least-likely to leave their homes on a regular basis anyway.
And I agree that the right to self-defense is just as important as the right not to be enslaved or the right to self-determination, but none of those three rights are exactly a medical issue. Why shouldn't Medicaid buy everyone guns, in that case?
Unless you're joking, in which case, I knew all along.
$7.7 trillion is the amount of loan guarantees, not loans. Loan guarantees are still money in the government's coffers until they get defaulted on, and even then, there's no way ALL $7.7 trillion worth of guaranteed assets will default.
If you count the loan guarantees as a giveaway, then the FDC is on the hook for a hell of a lot more than that.
don't pay income taxes clamoring for their "fair share"... give tax money to people who don't pay taxes.
I see what you did there. But even people who have no income tax burden whatsoever because they make less than the standard deduction plus EITC and child tax credits still pay roughly 8% of their income in payroll taxes.
Indeed. We don't tell people they should PGP-encrypt their snail-mail if they want it to stay confidential. We declare that all mail is considered confidential and tampering with it is a felony. Somehow, applying that same standard to Internet traffic is considered wrong.
But if they don't look at what they're carrying, how will they know if and when child porn and copyrighted songs are being trafficked across their tubes? Won't somebody please think of the children and the megacorporations!
...is that it's modular. Protocols can be swapped out at your leisure and replaced with others that do the same thing in a better way.
It's why we have the network architecture separated into layers. Higher layers don't care what carries them as long as they're delivered. Lower layers don't care what they're carrying, they just deliver it. If the Internet is broken, fix it.
This smells like part one of a multi-part argument in favor of eliminating net neutrality. Part of a concerted attack on best-effort and the end-to-end principle.
Ubuntu has a taskbar!:D It's just moderately annoying. I tend to position my taskbar on the left or right side of my screen, rather than at the bottom, so that apps can stack in it top-to-bottom. That's not handled gracefully in GNOME--or at least, it wasn't the last time I used Ubuntu, which was several versions ago.
All the new features in the world can't fix a product that's fundamentally broken. We're still waiting on that complete rewrite.
I'm reminded of the old adage--you know your software is finished not when there's nothing else you can add, but when there's nothing else you can take away.
And it's not just the anti-circumvention clause. It's also the lack of any real penalties for sending bad-faith takedown notices, the requirement that takedowns must be assumed valid until proven invalid (and content must be taken down immediately upon receiving), and the lack of reliable protection for fair-use.
In fact, the entire law is a crapshoot. Safe harbor is the only thing they got right, and even then, you can't say that this "saved the Web" and brought about Web 2.0. The Web will always find a way. The only reason "Web 2.0" blossomed after the DMCA was signed is that the 2000's saw great advancement in broadband connectivity and speeds allowing content to be uploaded and downloaded at reasonable speeds by most people. YouTube and Flickr never would have worked when most people had dialup.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't talking about Republicans, I was talking about conservatives. The Rockefeller Republicans are much closer to libertarian than conservative, ideologically.
And the Religious Right most certainly does want to destroy the barrier between church and state. Or, I suppose you might say they don't believe it exists in the first place.
That's why I called it little-L libertarianism. The political philosophy, not the party. What you appear to be describing (small government, low taxes, balanced budget, government staying out of people's lives, etc.) is libertarianism to a T.
Conservatism is economic libertarianism mixed with social authoritarianism. On the social scale, it's characterized by a respect for tradition and current social norms and a desire to shape policy to support and/or propagate those traditions and norms. Libertarianism on the other hand treats social issues the same as economic issues, saying the government should simply stay out of it, while liberalism (in the US definition) is defined by social libertarianism mixed with economic authoritarianism. All to different degrees of course.
The Political Compass is an interesting site.
That makes sense, then. Though I'm not sure what kind of doctor you'd go to for a gun prescription. :P Seems like it would be a better solution to just remove the old laws.
Oh and you'll find that the Castle Doctrine does not apply to someone stealing your car (unless you're in it). It's a matter of threat to your bodily safety, not a matter of it "costing a year of your life."
If someone stole your car stereo (as was the example), was immediately apprehended, and got convicted, they would face jail time. They would in no cases ever face execution. Without any threat to life or limb of you or anyone else, what do you think gives you the right to kill another for theft? Even the guilty have rights to trial by a jury of their peers, due process, and punishment commensurate with their crime.
Nobody says you "have" to carry a gun.
Exactly. I don't "have" to carry a gun, any more than I "have" to not carry cash, or I "have" to stay out of bad neighborhoods, or follow any of the other proactive preventive measures I listed.
But it's not legitimate to say that the suggestions I gave are somehow unfairly burdensome while carrying a gun is not--I don't want to carry a gun. They're all various ways of protecting yourself that a free person can choose from (nor not choose any, if they wish).
PS: by all means shoot someone if they break into your home. Castle doctrine and all that.
-me
Ah, the good old no-true-Scotsman fallacy.
U.S. conservatives (maybe you don't consider them "true" conservatives, but they're the center of the movement) are more concerned with destroying the barrier between church and state and with removing any restrictions placed on corporations than they are in size of government, amount of taxation, or self-defense.
The ideology you're describing is libertarianism, or as I like to call it, "conservatism without the douchebaggery."
And certainly the Republicans ended slavery, back when they were a brand new party formed by the Northern liberals as a counter to the conservative Southern Democrats.
Was anybody questioning the right of the elderly to own a gun for self defense?
Often I'm reading about cases where the elderly livinig alone are the prime targets for this...
The statistics disagree, as I posted earlier. Young people are more likely to be victimized by robbery and violent crime by orders of magnitude versus older people. Older people are much more likely to be victimized by scams and identity theft.
Anyway, none of this really gets to the heart of the matter. I have no problem marketing an ergonomic gun to elderly people, but why is it a "medical device"?
Why should I be forced to carry a gun everywhere I go if I want to feel safe outside? That's just as much forcing me to change my behavior as carrying less cash or walking in well-lit streets. The point is, crime exists, and we all have the choice to modify our behavior based on that reality, or not.
I was responding to the person who suggested the only possible way for someone to defend himself from victimization is to "shoot the asshole dead." That's one, legitimate way. But there are a plethora of other ways that are more proactive and, generally, more effective.
PS: by all means shoot someone if they break into your home. Castle doctrine and all that. But I suspect you would be tried for murder, and I hope you'd get convicted, if you "nailed a bastard" trying to steal a car stereo. Theft is not a capital crime and you are not judge, jury, and executioner.
I am a conservative (technically a Jeffersonian)
I'm trying to parse this. It's difficult. Certainly Jefferson didn't fit into our label of "liberal" but he was slightly closer to it than to "conservative." He supported strictly limiting the power (and lifespan!) of corporations, advocated for the separation of church and state, advocated against slavery while it was still a cultural norm. And on the other hand, he supported limited central government and opposed restrictions on gun rights.
Aside from his beliefs about corporations and the economy in general, he's really closest to little-L libertarian than conservative.
It is worth noting that there are no serious methods of self-defense available to the physically disadvantaged other than firearms. If they are alone or with another weakened person, assailants have plenty of time to rob,/beat/snuff them.
It is also worth noting that, so far as I know, self-defense has never been considered a medical priority. Furthermore, anyone who could use this device could use a Taser or mace/pepper spray. And yet further, the people to whom this device is marketed are also among the least likely to be subjected to violent crime in the first place.
I got no problem designing a gun that's ergonomically designed for the weak and elderly to use, but it's awfully silly to classify it as a medical device.
Uh, that's a bit of a shift. You were defending it as justified and important to the human rights of the elderly and the weak. Now the defense is just "there are more important things to worry about."
I'll agree with the second defense at least. :P
I don't find your comment very funny. The elderly are weak and most-likely to be attacked by criminals. Since they can't rely on aged muscles or frail bones like younger men/women, their ONLY recourse is to shoot the asshole dead.
These are Australian statistics (haven't found any similar report for the US), but the 15-19 years old [warn: PDF] age group is the most likely to be victimized by armed robbery. And, there are a few other options besides "shoot the asshole dead" anyway--like, say, not carrying around large amounts of cash. Avoiding bad neighborhoods. Walking with groups and staying in well-lit public areas. Locking your doors at night. The elderly and weak are the least-likely to leave their homes on a regular basis anyway.
And I agree that the right to self-defense is just as important as the right not to be enslaved or the right to self-determination, but none of those three rights are exactly a medical issue. Why shouldn't Medicaid buy everyone guns, in that case?
Unless you're joking, in which case, I knew all along.
$7.7 trillion is the amount of loan guarantees, not loans. Loan guarantees are still money in the government's coffers until they get defaulted on, and even then, there's no way ALL $7.7 trillion worth of guaranteed assets will default. If you count the loan guarantees as a giveaway, then the FDC is on the hook for a hell of a lot more than that.
don't pay income taxes clamoring for their "fair share" ... give tax money to people who don't pay taxes.
I see what you did there. But even people who have no income tax burden whatsoever because they make less than the standard deduction plus EITC and child tax credits still pay roughly 8% of their income in payroll taxes.
Jesus, it's dropping like a stone!
Indeed. We don't tell people they should PGP-encrypt their snail-mail if they want it to stay confidential. We declare that all mail is considered confidential and tampering with it is a felony. Somehow, applying that same standard to Internet traffic is considered wrong.
But if they don't look at what they're carrying, how will they know if and when child porn and copyrighted songs are being trafficked across their tubes? Won't somebody please think of the children and the megacorporations!
I'd bet money that iiNet is being targeted because of this story.
In other news, iiNet dropped from largest ISP to second largest ISP in Australia over the course of a week&interrobang;
You're right. We should just reclassify humanity as an extinction event, like a giant meteor impact, beyond our control!, and move on with our lives.
Oh, right. That whole 'food chain' thing that we're at the top of. What's that old saying about chains and weakest links?
...is that it's modular. Protocols can be swapped out at your leisure and replaced with others that do the same thing in a better way.
It's why we have the network architecture separated into layers. Higher layers don't care what carries them as long as they're delivered. Lower layers don't care what they're carrying, they just deliver it. If the Internet is broken, fix it.
This smells like part one of a multi-part argument in favor of eliminating net neutrality. Part of a concerted attack on best-effort and the end-to-end principle.
Ubuntu has a taskbar! :D It's just moderately annoying. I tend to position my taskbar on the left or right side of my screen, rather than at the bottom, so that apps can stack in it top-to-bottom. That's not handled gracefully in GNOME--or at least, it wasn't the last time I used Ubuntu, which was several versions ago.
"New Features"
All the new features in the world can't fix a product that's fundamentally broken. We're still waiting on that complete rewrite.
I'm reminded of the old adage--you know your software is finished not when there's nothing else you can add, but when there's nothing else you can take away.
You're right, the DMCA ain't perfect.
And it's not just the anti-circumvention clause. It's also the lack of any real penalties for sending bad-faith takedown notices, the requirement that takedowns must be assumed valid until proven invalid (and content must be taken down immediately upon receiving), and the lack of reliable protection for fair-use.
In fact, the entire law is a crapshoot. Safe harbor is the only thing they got right, and even then, you can't say that this "saved the Web" and brought about Web 2.0. The Web will always find a way. The only reason "Web 2.0" blossomed after the DMCA was signed is that the 2000's saw great advancement in broadband connectivity and speeds allowing content to be uploaded and downloaded at reasonable speeds by most people. YouTube and Flickr never would have worked when most people had dialup.