+ 5 insightful for this day and age. People need to -earn- respect. The idea that I should respect someone beyond their individual merits is laughable. You should respect a soldier that did something heroic, being a soldier doesn't make you a hero. Now/some/ soldiers are heroes, I can think of Stanislav Petrov in particular along with Vasili Arkhipov. Those people were heroes.
Hell, there are so many sensors and so strict procedures in place that alarms go off like mad if there is even a tiny leak somewhere...
...And you don't think that could be part of the problem? Whenever alarms sound for tiny little problems, people grow deaf to them. Think about it, if your house has a malfunctioning smoke detector that goes off every time you cook a meal in the oven, you are going to grow accustom to that. On the other hand, if your smoke detectors rarely go off, you know there is a problem.
But those aren't all my songs though, I have a lot of songs I got from CDs, Amazon MP3, free downloads from bands, etc. On the other hand I can do the same thing through my phone and get -everything- faster, plus, on any halfway modern OS, you don't have to install anything.
Compared to my phone? No. With my phone I plug it in to a computer using a standard micro-USB cable, click a dialogue box and have full read/write access to the filesystem. On the other hand, the same thing with my iPod touch requires me to essentially install 2 pieces of software, iTunes to access it and a third-party program to retrieve the songs off of it.
And simplicity != Great.
A 4 function calculator is great at simplicity, good luck getting through calculus with that though.
The juror was 'very sorry' and the judge chastised her saying, 'You violated your oath. You had decided she was already guilty without hearing the other side.'"
Facebook had nothing to do with it, the problem is people aren't objective. The injustice would have happened no matter if she didn't post anything about it.
Apple has had some success in recent times, yes. But how many people actually -like- the Apple way and don't just use it because its the only thing they know thats out there? How many people actually -like- having to sync their music with iTunes, not having an easy way to back it up on a different machine without deleting your entire music library, etc. Until Android really took off this year, it was hard to get a phone that did everything that the iPhone did and even until recently it was hard to get a decent Android phone on AT&T, one of the largest cell providers.
Plus, Apple has really had its share of failures recently too. The "buttonless" iPod shuffle, Apple TV, etc.
The idea that everything that Apple touches is golden is false, historically Apple has been a company that leads and leads then when competition appears, they get so far behind that it is laughable, then they come out with a great new product and the cycle starts again.
The problem is, who really -wants- to use iTunes on Windows? Out of all the commonly used software on Windows iTunes is the biggest resource hog of them all. Even on a moderately fast computer, iTunes still seems to lag like crazy and if you have a low-end computer good luck getting that to work. iTunes on OS X is a very nice program, but on Windows its a pain in the ass to use. I can get Facebook on my Linux, Windows, OS X, Android, iOS, Dumb-phone (via texting), BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, WebOS, Wii, PS3, etc. I can only get Ping through um... a single program only available for Windows and OS X (and probably later iOS)
If a company was really interested in making a product, they'd check the relevant patent numbers online (which is pretty easy to do) and see that they had expired. No company that is/seriously/ interested in a product would simply look at it and give up. The company would certainly look up the patent to try to "get around it" and see that it had expired.
The question is primarily, how do you not have the means? Seriously. Its pretty damn easy to find charities, jobs, etc. if you are willing and really, really need it.
Yeah, living within your means might mean you can't afford to take that vacation to Cancun, yeah, living within your means might mean that you have to live in a crappier apartment, yeah, living within your means might mean your meals are ramen noodles and PB+J sandwiches.
For when *you're* "Joe the Bum* because you were unlucky enough to be rendered bankrupt and homeless.
Live within your means and that won't happen. You know, that might mean you can't afford that HDTV, that new car, it might mean you have to save/invest rather than take that vacation with your friends, etc.
The problem is, people don't do that. They spend all the money they have, they don't invest it, or if they do invest it they don't do the research, they buy the new car, the new gadgets, etc.
The logic is where you don't automatically assume anyone who isn't wealthy and successful is worthless and lazy.
Then why aren't they successful? They aren't successful because of 1 main reason.
They value something different other than financial success (Drinking, Gadgets, Impressing Friends, etc)
Yeah, there are a few people who just were simply unlucky, but that is very, very few and thats why private charities exist that don't steal money out of my paycheck.
Exactly. It should be voluntary. I have no problems with giving a few bucks to a guitarist on the street, I have no problems with giving a homeless man a burger. I do have problems with giving up my hard earned money to "help" heaven-knows-who. The problem with government run charity is that I don't get to choose where my money goes to. Yeah, I'd donate money to help someone who truly needs help, but after working through high school as a cashier at a grocery store, that isn't who the government helps most of the time. Routinely you see people who would go in and buy their food with food stamps, then buy vodka and beer with cash! People with expensive purses and designer clothes. The government system simply encourages people to live beyond their means in hope that someone will "bail them out" just like the auto-makers.
There is no accountability in government bureaucracy, people can game the system all they want and redistribute wealth without creating any gain for society.
The abolition of government-sponsored charities will do more for the benefit of mankind and the betterment of the people. You can't just game a small charity out of lots of money, you actually have to have a need. You actually have to be looking for a job, etc. Not to mention, that the reduction in taxes mean that more people can afford to donate.
And out of your tax dollars how much is actually going to protect you? My guess is very, very little. Most tax dollars are spent on A) Imperialistic wars that do more harm than good (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc) B) Programs that don't benefit you C) Government waste.
Why is it that we tolerate the government dipping into our paycheck for something they didn't earn nor get consent for to spend however they choose? What we need are fee-based systems. Everyone pays a bit of money (a flat rate) for military protection, police protection and fire protection. If you wish to drive on government roads you can pay a bit of money and be able to drive on them, etc.
This way, you only fund programs you -use-, it becomes a contract with clearly defined roles and payment. Governments have one tyranny that even that most evil of corporations cannot exercise (well, legally) they can force you to pay for things you don't want.
Imagine an exchange at McDonalds going as follows:
You: I'd take a cheeseburger and a large coke
Employee: That will be $20 please
You: What?! A cheeseburger only costs $1 and a large coke only $1.50
Employee: Well, the rest of it goes to pay for a McFlurry (which you can't have because of your economic background) a large order of fries (which you can't have due to you not being disabled) 10 cheeseburgers (which you can't have due to you not being in a bailed out company) and 2 cookies (which you can't have because you aren't an employee here)
It doesn't make sense to have to pay for things you don't use. In that example above you could go to Burger King, or Wendys or another fast food place to get a sane order without much trouble, but the government is forcing you to pay for things you don't want! It doesn't make sense in a business and it doesn't make sense for a government. If the government does something for you, you should have the choice whether to use it and pay for it, just like every other business transaction.
Yes! Lets just redistribute wealth! Isn't that just grand? After all, those who don't do anything in society should be rewarded!
Food stamps, higher minimum wage and unemployment "benefits" only serve to give to the poor that which was taken from people who actually planned ahead. Explain to me how that is fair? Is it fair that you bust your ass studying for a test, then the teacher gives everyone a C no matter how much they worked? Explain to me why the hell I should have to pay for Joe the Bum's food? So because I bust my ass working, studied my ass off in college and actually had a sane financial plan I should be "punished" for that and Joe the Bum rewarded? I don't see the logic in that...
The thing is, people -won't- keep having kids to infinity. Things change, environments change. Think about it for a second, chances are your grandparents had a lot more siblings than your parents who had a lot more siblings than you. When societies become technically advanced there is no need, no desire to keep having kids left and right, there simply isn't. And societies will become technically advanced. How many laborers do you need in a field when you have a combine, planter and tractor? Very, very little. Yes, its still time consuming for a farmer, but a single person or two can now do the work it took 20 people to do a hundred and fifty years ago.
In an agrarian society with little industry and little human development, kids are great to have. They can help around the house, go milk cows, help plow, help sow seeds, etc. When we get to 21st century human development kids are a luxury, no longer do you need 5 kids to go out and milk cows, if you have a farm a single person can be more productive than 5 kids were 150 years ago and for everyone else you can just run to the store. Etc.
Saying that populations will keep growing to infinity is as silly as saying typewriters sales will hold constant despite many businesses switching to PCs already, yeah, there are some countries that will remain with little human development but they will keep getting better as time goes on...
Atheism and science do involve faith though. Faith in the peer-edited journals, faith in your senses, faith in your calculations, etc. Its impossible to have science without faith in something. You have to have faith in uniformitarinism and a lot of other laws of science. When you get down to it, everything requires faith in something.
Ok, so we're running out of oil, we have other power sources, its just that either A) The people who don't want us to oil want to block those too or B) Because we aren't going to be running out of oil until sometime in the distant future, its still cheap enough for our needs.
Eventually, cheap, efficient solar cells will be able to provide a lot of power. Safe nuclear reactors will be able to provide a lot of other power. And wind and other energy sources will be able to provide the rest.
Fish can be farmed, just like any other animal. Yeah, so you might not be able to say that you are eating a 400 pound prized sport fish caught yesterday, but its very much possible to raise animals in captivity, just like humans have been doing with cattle, etc.
Clean water will also be solved through technology, and such. There isn't any water magically going out to Venus, we have a pretty much closed water cycle, the ocean is filled with water, if humanity -really- needed to we could simply build more desalination plants. Plus, if global warming happens the world would be filled with even -more- water in the water cycle.
This is why radical atheism should be considered to be a religion. Blind faith in ANYTHING can bring irrationality. Yes, not collecting stamps is not a hobby, but avoiding touching a stamp could be considered to be a hobby.
Actually, now it does. But if you look at pre-anarchy and post-anarchy Somalia, you will see that with the elimination of their corrupt government dramatically improved their living standards. Plus, you are confusing two separate things, you are confusing an absence of central authority as being the same thing as self-government, which it isn't.
True self-government cannot happen because of simply a demise of a previous power or by chaotic events, it can only happen by the gradual reduction in the role of the state which ends in the state being abolished.
Somalia was never a self-governed state, it was ruled by gangs and the like and yes, if you look at pre anarchy and post anarchy Somalia you will see that the people there were much, much, much, much better off without the central authority. The idea that chaos can bring true order is laughable at best and a stateless society may not ever be fully realized, but reductions of the state is possible to a minimal-state society until (if possible) the entirety is self-governed. Myself I do not think that a fully-self governed state is possible within the next 300 years, but I do think that, for the time being, governments must get smaller to only protect against force and fraud, that, is the next step.
Overpopulation is a silly concern. The only reason why people starve is because of corrupt governments, otherwise the industrialized countries could easily, easily feed the poorer nations. When Africa and parts of Asia turn industrialized, it becomes apparent that children are more of a hindrance than a help, think about it, while its pretty nice to have 5 extra hands helping out on your tiny farm, it becomes 5 hungry mouths to feed when you become industrialized, 5 large college tuition bills, more clothing, etc.
Not to mention that if space ever becomes an issue people will simply have fewer kids to save themselves space in their house/apartment.
There are legitimate things to be worried about, but overpopulation isn't one of them.
But the problem is that abortion, even if it is 100% legal still rests with an individual choice, privacy, on the other hand isn't. When the government discloses my information or uses census information for their own private gain, I have no (well, very little because the American public is too busy looking at petty issues) choice in that. There isn't anything I can really do to make them not do that. On the other hand, abortion all rests in a choice, abortion can be perfectly legal and there could be no babies aborted if given enough public pressure.
With privacy and a lot of other issues it can't be an individual's choice. No individual signs up to be part of the warrant-less wiretaps, etc.
Nearly all the things that the 2 major parties disagree on are things that can be left up to the individual to decide. The idea of democracy and a republic being the end to progress. Some things, rather most things should never be taken up on a vote, they should be left to the individual to do what he/she chooses, so long as it doesn't harm others. The sole (legitimate) purpose of government is to prevent people from hurting other people not to restrict their freedom of self-government.
Ok, but lets say for instance I did see an interesting article in Arabic, it used to be that I had about 3 ways to know what it said:
A) Hope the person is bi-lingual in Arabic and English
B) Take it to someone who is bi-lingual
C) Learn Arabic
But with the internet, it breaks down these barriers, I can use automatic translation services, which, although it kinda destroys some of the content, its pretty useful in getting the gist of what someone said. Plus, with the internet the chances of me being able to do options B and C are also more likely, because of the connection between countries. Think about it, right now, on this very site, you could be talking to someone from the US, Canada, the UK, Finland, South Africa, India and Russia, people who you'd never get to meet otherwise, yet linked through the same site.
Not to mention that English is becoming more and more relevant with each passing day, especially for anyone educated.
And even that is laughable. Why is it that we can have a huge debate over "In God We Trust" on our currency, yet we don't have any real debates over what our currency actually is? Any real debate doesn't exist. Oh sure, we can argue about whether to increase this tax and decrease this tax, but the issue of why are we even taxed never gets brought up.
Its really time the US has a political revolution. We need to stop looking at democracy and a republic as the end but rather think of them as starting points for a truly free government, one based on self-government of each individual, work to cut out the government.
The idea that the US is not fundamentally flawed is naive, we need real debates over real things.
Its censored, yes, but Iranian people are rather highly educated while the Iranian government isn't, which makes it possible to break through the censors. Granted, doing so basically puts a mark on your head, but it has been done.
Plus, the moment US tanks start driving across the Iranian border, you can bet that Iran will start letting bloggers show how inhumane the US occupation is (all the while censoring the many Iranian human rights abuses)
Slashdot Mirror
+ 5 insightful for this day and age. People need to -earn- respect. The idea that I should respect someone beyond their individual merits is laughable. You should respect a soldier that did something heroic, being a soldier doesn't make you a hero. Now /some/ soldiers are heroes, I can think of Stanislav Petrov in particular along with Vasili Arkhipov. Those people were heroes.
Hell, there are so many sensors and so strict procedures in place that alarms go off like mad if there is even a tiny leak somewhere...
But those aren't all my songs though, I have a lot of songs I got from CDs, Amazon MP3, free downloads from bands, etc. On the other hand I can do the same thing through my phone and get -everything- faster, plus, on any halfway modern OS, you don't have to install anything.
Compared to my phone? No. With my phone I plug it in to a computer using a standard micro-USB cable, click a dialogue box and have full read/write access to the filesystem. On the other hand, the same thing with my iPod touch requires me to essentially install 2 pieces of software, iTunes to access it and a third-party program to retrieve the songs off of it.
And simplicity != Great.
A 4 function calculator is great at simplicity, good luck getting through calculus with that though.
The juror was 'very sorry' and the judge chastised her saying, 'You violated your oath. You had decided she was already guilty without hearing the other side.'"
Facebook had nothing to do with it, the problem is people aren't objective. The injustice would have happened no matter if she didn't post anything about it.
Apple has had some success in recent times, yes. But how many people actually -like- the Apple way and don't just use it because its the only thing they know thats out there? How many people actually -like- having to sync their music with iTunes, not having an easy way to back it up on a different machine without deleting your entire music library, etc. Until Android really took off this year, it was hard to get a phone that did everything that the iPhone did and even until recently it was hard to get a decent Android phone on AT&T, one of the largest cell providers.
Plus, Apple has really had its share of failures recently too. The "buttonless" iPod shuffle, Apple TV, etc.
The idea that everything that Apple touches is golden is false, historically Apple has been a company that leads and leads then when competition appears, they get so far behind that it is laughable, then they come out with a great new product and the cycle starts again.
Exactly. Apple thinks that they must halfway recreate OS X on Windows to get iTunes to run.
The problem is, who really -wants- to use iTunes on Windows? Out of all the commonly used software on Windows iTunes is the biggest resource hog of them all. Even on a moderately fast computer, iTunes still seems to lag like crazy and if you have a low-end computer good luck getting that to work. iTunes on OS X is a very nice program, but on Windows its a pain in the ass to use. I can get Facebook on my Linux, Windows, OS X, Android, iOS, Dumb-phone (via texting), BlackBerry, Windows Mobile, WebOS, Wii, PS3, etc. I can only get Ping through um... a single program only available for Windows and OS X (and probably later iOS)
Bullshit.
/seriously/ interested in a product would simply look at it and give up. The company would certainly look up the patent to try to "get around it" and see that it had expired.
If a company was really interested in making a product, they'd check the relevant patent numbers online (which is pretty easy to do) and see that they had expired. No company that is
Stop making up scenarios that make no sense.
Yeah, living within your means might mean you can't afford to take that vacation to Cancun, yeah, living within your means might mean that you have to live in a crappier apartment, yeah, living within your means might mean your meals are ramen noodles and PB+J sandwiches.
For when *you're* "Joe the Bum* because you were unlucky enough to be rendered bankrupt and homeless.
Live within your means and that won't happen. You know, that might mean you can't afford that HDTV, that new car, it might mean you have to save/invest rather than take that vacation with your friends, etc.
The problem is, people don't do that. They spend all the money they have, they don't invest it, or if they do invest it they don't do the research, they buy the new car, the new gadgets, etc.
The logic is where you don't automatically assume anyone who isn't wealthy and successful is worthless and lazy.
Then why aren't they successful? They aren't successful because of 1 main reason.
They value something different other than financial success (Drinking, Gadgets, Impressing Friends, etc)
Yeah, there are a few people who just were simply unlucky, but that is very, very few and thats why private charities exist that don't steal money out of my paycheck.
Exactly. It should be voluntary. I have no problems with giving a few bucks to a guitarist on the street, I have no problems with giving a homeless man a burger. I do have problems with giving up my hard earned money to "help" heaven-knows-who. The problem with government run charity is that I don't get to choose where my money goes to. Yeah, I'd donate money to help someone who truly needs help, but after working through high school as a cashier at a grocery store, that isn't who the government helps most of the time. Routinely you see people who would go in and buy their food with food stamps, then buy vodka and beer with cash! People with expensive purses and designer clothes. The government system simply encourages people to live beyond their means in hope that someone will "bail them out" just like the auto-makers.
There is no accountability in government bureaucracy, people can game the system all they want and redistribute wealth without creating any gain for society.
The abolition of government-sponsored charities will do more for the benefit of mankind and the betterment of the people. You can't just game a small charity out of lots of money, you actually have to have a need. You actually have to be looking for a job, etc. Not to mention, that the reduction in taxes mean that more people can afford to donate.
And out of your tax dollars how much is actually going to protect you? My guess is very, very little. Most tax dollars are spent on A) Imperialistic wars that do more harm than good (Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc) B) Programs that don't benefit you C) Government waste.
Why is it that we tolerate the government dipping into our paycheck for something they didn't earn nor get consent for to spend however they choose? What we need are fee-based systems. Everyone pays a bit of money (a flat rate) for military protection, police protection and fire protection. If you wish to drive on government roads you can pay a bit of money and be able to drive on them, etc.
This way, you only fund programs you -use-, it becomes a contract with clearly defined roles and payment. Governments have one tyranny that even that most evil of corporations cannot exercise (well, legally) they can force you to pay for things you don't want.
Imagine an exchange at McDonalds going as follows:
You: I'd take a cheeseburger and a large coke
Employee: That will be $20 please
You: What?! A cheeseburger only costs $1 and a large coke only $1.50
Employee: Well, the rest of it goes to pay for a McFlurry (which you can't have because of your economic background) a large order of fries (which you can't have due to you not being disabled) 10 cheeseburgers (which you can't have due to you not being in a bailed out company) and 2 cookies (which you can't have because you aren't an employee here)
It doesn't make sense to have to pay for things you don't use. In that example above you could go to Burger King, or Wendys or another fast food place to get a sane order without much trouble, but the government is forcing you to pay for things you don't want! It doesn't make sense in a business and it doesn't make sense for a government. If the government does something for you, you should have the choice whether to use it and pay for it, just like every other business transaction.
Yes! Lets just redistribute wealth! Isn't that just grand? After all, those who don't do anything in society should be rewarded!
Food stamps, higher minimum wage and unemployment "benefits" only serve to give to the poor that which was taken from people who actually planned ahead. Explain to me how that is fair? Is it fair that you bust your ass studying for a test, then the teacher gives everyone a C no matter how much they worked? Explain to me why the hell I should have to pay for Joe the Bum's food? So because I bust my ass working, studied my ass off in college and actually had a sane financial plan I should be "punished" for that and Joe the Bum rewarded? I don't see the logic in that...
When the idea that not-god makes you live your life differently than someone who has never posed a question of if there is a god.
The thing is, people -won't- keep having kids to infinity. Things change, environments change. Think about it for a second, chances are your grandparents had a lot more siblings than your parents who had a lot more siblings than you. When societies become technically advanced there is no need, no desire to keep having kids left and right, there simply isn't. And societies will become technically advanced. How many laborers do you need in a field when you have a combine, planter and tractor? Very, very little. Yes, its still time consuming for a farmer, but a single person or two can now do the work it took 20 people to do a hundred and fifty years ago.
In an agrarian society with little industry and little human development, kids are great to have. They can help around the house, go milk cows, help plow, help sow seeds, etc. When we get to 21st century human development kids are a luxury, no longer do you need 5 kids to go out and milk cows, if you have a farm a single person can be more productive than 5 kids were 150 years ago and for everyone else you can just run to the store. Etc.
Saying that populations will keep growing to infinity is as silly as saying typewriters sales will hold constant despite many businesses switching to PCs already, yeah, there are some countries that will remain with little human development but they will keep getting better as time goes on...
Atheism and science do involve faith though. Faith in the peer-edited journals, faith in your senses, faith in your calculations, etc. Its impossible to have science without faith in something. You have to have faith in uniformitarinism and a lot of other laws of science. When you get down to it, everything requires faith in something.
Ok, so we're running out of oil, we have other power sources, its just that either A) The people who don't want us to oil want to block those too or B) Because we aren't going to be running out of oil until sometime in the distant future, its still cheap enough for our needs.
Eventually, cheap, efficient solar cells will be able to provide a lot of power. Safe nuclear reactors will be able to provide a lot of other power. And wind and other energy sources will be able to provide the rest.
Fish can be farmed, just like any other animal. Yeah, so you might not be able to say that you are eating a 400 pound prized sport fish caught yesterday, but its very much possible to raise animals in captivity, just like humans have been doing with cattle, etc.
Clean water will also be solved through technology, and such. There isn't any water magically going out to Venus, we have a pretty much closed water cycle, the ocean is filled with water, if humanity -really- needed to we could simply build more desalination plants. Plus, if global warming happens the world would be filled with even -more- water in the water cycle.
Exactly, I mean, have half these people ever been off of the coasts in their life? Ever driven through Kansas? The Dakotas? Wyoming?
The idea that we are suddenly running out of space is laughable at best.
This is why radical atheism should be considered to be a religion. Blind faith in ANYTHING can bring irrationality. Yes, not collecting stamps is not a hobby, but avoiding touching a stamp could be considered to be a hobby.
Actually, now it does. But if you look at pre-anarchy and post-anarchy Somalia, you will see that with the elimination of their corrupt government dramatically improved their living standards. Plus, you are confusing two separate things, you are confusing an absence of central authority as being the same thing as self-government, which it isn't.
True self-government cannot happen because of simply a demise of a previous power or by chaotic events, it can only happen by the gradual reduction in the role of the state which ends in the state being abolished.
Somalia was never a self-governed state, it was ruled by gangs and the like and yes, if you look at pre anarchy and post anarchy Somalia you will see that the people there were much, much, much, much better off without the central authority. The idea that chaos can bring true order is laughable at best and a stateless society may not ever be fully realized, but reductions of the state is possible to a minimal-state society until (if possible) the entirety is self-governed. Myself I do not think that a fully-self governed state is possible within the next 300 years, but I do think that, for the time being, governments must get smaller to only protect against force and fraud, that, is the next step.
Overpopulation is a silly concern. The only reason why people starve is because of corrupt governments, otherwise the industrialized countries could easily, easily feed the poorer nations. When Africa and parts of Asia turn industrialized, it becomes apparent that children are more of a hindrance than a help, think about it, while its pretty nice to have 5 extra hands helping out on your tiny farm, it becomes 5 hungry mouths to feed when you become industrialized, 5 large college tuition bills, more clothing, etc.
Not to mention that if space ever becomes an issue people will simply have fewer kids to save themselves space in their house/apartment.
There are legitimate things to be worried about, but overpopulation isn't one of them.
But the problem is that abortion, even if it is 100% legal still rests with an individual choice, privacy, on the other hand isn't. When the government discloses my information or uses census information for their own private gain, I have no (well, very little because the American public is too busy looking at petty issues) choice in that. There isn't anything I can really do to make them not do that. On the other hand, abortion all rests in a choice, abortion can be perfectly legal and there could be no babies aborted if given enough public pressure.
With privacy and a lot of other issues it can't be an individual's choice. No individual signs up to be part of the warrant-less wiretaps, etc.
Nearly all the things that the 2 major parties disagree on are things that can be left up to the individual to decide. The idea of democracy and a republic being the end to progress. Some things, rather most things should never be taken up on a vote, they should be left to the individual to do what he/she chooses, so long as it doesn't harm others. The sole (legitimate) purpose of government is to prevent people from hurting other people not to restrict their freedom of self-government.
Ok, but lets say for instance I did see an interesting article in Arabic, it used to be that I had about 3 ways to know what it said:
A) Hope the person is bi-lingual in Arabic and English
B) Take it to someone who is bi-lingual
C) Learn Arabic
But with the internet, it breaks down these barriers, I can use automatic translation services, which, although it kinda destroys some of the content, its pretty useful in getting the gist of what someone said. Plus, with the internet the chances of me being able to do options B and C are also more likely, because of the connection between countries. Think about it, right now, on this very site, you could be talking to someone from the US, Canada, the UK, Finland, South Africa, India and Russia, people who you'd never get to meet otherwise, yet linked through the same site.
Not to mention that English is becoming more and more relevant with each passing day, especially for anyone educated.
And even that is laughable. Why is it that we can have a huge debate over "In God We Trust" on our currency, yet we don't have any real debates over what our currency actually is? Any real debate doesn't exist. Oh sure, we can argue about whether to increase this tax and decrease this tax, but the issue of why are we even taxed never gets brought up.
Its really time the US has a political revolution. We need to stop looking at democracy and a republic as the end but rather think of them as starting points for a truly free government, one based on self-government of each individual, work to cut out the government.
The idea that the US is not fundamentally flawed is naive, we need real debates over real things.
Its censored, yes, but Iranian people are rather highly educated while the Iranian government isn't, which makes it possible to break through the censors. Granted, doing so basically puts a mark on your head, but it has been done.
Plus, the moment US tanks start driving across the Iranian border, you can bet that Iran will start letting bloggers show how inhumane the US occupation is (all the while censoring the many Iranian human rights abuses)