According to this guy though hes starving because not enough people are buying his sheet music1!!!11!!11
If this is really an issue, then they need to realize that they are losing sales due to the high prices of what is really a byproduct of musical production.
So either the price is too high and people like him are suffering (Ha!) because of people who are downloading it, or the price is right and this guy has no reason to complain.
Still, economies of scale can't really justify a huge price increase for something that is essentially a by-product of making the MP3s. Yes, I know that not every band writes down the sheet music, but surely the transcription process is quite easy for any talented musician.
If you play a song in a band, and are a decent musician, the sheet music is just a minor inconvenience, a bit like writing out the steps to a math problem that you've done in your head. Why would a by-product be 400% higher than the finished product? Does it make any sense that the nails, boards, etc. in a shed would cost 400% more than the finished product?
This guy can't even give coherent examples on why "piracy" is bad because he treats them like physical property.
Friend of mine is building a house. He drew up the plans, he chopped down all the trees, he's got it all together. He doesn't have a screwdriver. He calls me up, says, "Dude, I need a screwdriver." I happen to have a screwdriver, so I give it to him, but I say, "Hey, I need that back later today, I have some work to do." He looks incredulous. "I have to build a house, my man. I'm not going to be done in a day. And what if someone likes my house and wants me to build one for them? I'll need the screwdriver to build their house too, yo." So I suggest he get his own screwdriver. "Why can't I just use yours?" he says. I tell him he can use mine, but then I need it back, it's my screwdriver, after all. He insists that he has the right to take my screwdriver, build his house, then keep that screwdriver forever so he can build other people's houses with it. This seems unfair to me.
But when I copy something, I'm not depriving someone of an original. If someone said "Hey, can I take your screwdriver for a few seconds, scan it in my computer and have my 3-D printer make me a replica?" I'd say sure. That is the closest thing to "piracy" in the physical world.
The screwdriver he wants is a tool that he is using to further his own aims. I went out, I bought a screwdriver, now I should just give it away to someone? Now let's say I wrote a song - it took a lot for me to write it, and it has been my full-time job for over twenty years to make sure that the songs I write go out into the world to be heard and sung. The way I support myself and my family is through the sale of those songs, on CD's, in sheet music, in tickets. Sheet music represents almost half of my yearly income. You seem to be saying that you should be able to take that song, that screwdriver, just take it for free, and go build your career and your happiness without ever compensating me.
...And to that I say, don't release it if it is -that- valuable to you. Seriously, there used to be a time not too long ago that if you published something it automatically pretty much became part of the public domain. One only needs to study where Shakespeare got the ideas for his plays to see that (and the majority of his stories would -not- be in the public domain today that he adapted)
If you don't want people using your stuff, don't release it. Don't write it down, don't publish it.
I collect first edition copies of the works of Thornton Wilder. I've been doing so for a long time, he's my favorite author in the world. Friend of mine comes over to the house, sees my collection, and says, "Wow, I've never read any of this stuff. This one looks cool." He takes down "The Bridge of San Luis Rey." "Can I read this?" Sure, I say. It would be rude of me not to let him borrow my book to read, after all. You might even say it would be "nasty." Two months go by; there's a big hole on my bookshelf where "The Bridge of San Luis Rey" is supposed to go. I call my friend, ask him for my book back. He comes over and says, "I love this book, yo. Make me a copy!" I look at him strangely. Why would I do that? He can just go to the bookstore and get a copy of his own. "No, dude, I love THIS book, you should just make me a copy of it." But the publishing company won't be able to survive if people just make copies of the book, I say, and the Thornton Wilder estate certainly deserves its share of the income it earns when people buy the book. He says I'm a jerk because I won't make him a copy of this genius book that I shared with him. I tell him he's a prick and he should get out of my house, and that's the last time I see him for years.
First off the guy is wrong in saying that the estate "deserves" to get a share of the profits. The book in question was published in 1927 just a decade or so shy of 100 years old. You don't "deserv
How many people does it take to make sheet music? One, maybe two. How many people does it take to make an MP3? About 5 or more. With sheet music do you need to hire a bassist/keyboard/vocalist/guitarist/etc. along with an editor and producer? No. Does making sheet music take days of editing to get it to sound just right? No.
Sheet music is basically a one or two person affair, it takes a lot more people (and a lot more equipment) to make an MP3 even for "indie" bands.
Depends on what you are doing and where your past experience lies, myself I'm not a graphics person and before using the GIMP the most advanced image editor I had used was MS paint, so while learning The GIMP was hard, I don't think it would be any harder than learning Photoshop (and paying $200-ish for the privilege).
The reporters were quick to note that 'the proprietary software is designed to be efficient, reliable and relatively fast for the task of producing a daily newspaper. The free substitutes, not so much.'
...Well of course. The development ideologies are totally different, a F/OSS project starts with, "I need to do X, I like to do it in this way, I should write a program that does that", a proprietary project starts with "People do X, those people make money, if we can write a program to do X, we can make money" so when you start with a proprietary-software based shop, you end up conforming to the way that proprietary software does the tasks rather than any other way because that software becomes embedded in your job. With a F/OSS project, generally those biases aren't there so the software is written from the developer's perspective, and many of those developers don't work in the newspaper industry with the learning curve that comes with re-learning software.
There is even some debate on if the 16th amendment really passed correctly.
While legally it is part of the constitution, it was one of the few additions to the constitution that the Constitution completely opposed. One might make an argument about the 13th amendment, but the constitution never fully supported or rejected slavery, it simply accepted its existence without supporting it.
Ok, because I'm really going to need my lungs, eyes, liver, heart, etc. after I'm DEAD? Look, I'm not sure what whacko belief you believe in, but once you are dead you don't breath, you don't think, your heart doesn't pump, your liver doesn't do anything other than rot.
I'm a bit confused to what I need my organs for once I'm dead.
That is a very dangerous mindset to have and a mindset that the founding fathers avoided like the plague. That is why we have the constitution (which is basically ignored which is why we have a government comparable to King George III which ignored the rights that colonists had as English citizens) to limit the government so it doesn't -matter- who is elected, in short the founding fathers had a version of the Debian Free Software Guidelines called the "tentacles of evil test"
"The Tentacles of Evil test". Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation and, now in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the program: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the program, to expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-free, to discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a corporation bought out by a larger corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot allow even the author to take away the required freedoms.
Only the founding fathers changed it a bit with limited government with the constitution basically saying:
"The Tentacles of Evil test". Imagine that the people have voted in a dictator and, now that he/she is elected, attempts to do the worst to the citizens of the USA: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using their freedoms, to expose them to domestic or foreign harm, to make the citizens non-free, to expose all citizen's secrets, etc. The same can happen to a government bought out by a corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The constitution cannot allow even the government to take away the required freedoms.
If you look at dictators, a -lot- of them were voted in, the constitution is designed to prevent a voted-in dictator from taking freedoms. Our rights are natural rights, they should never be voted away like you are suggesting.
You are missing the point here. The primary objection is "kept among us"- this is an objection to quartering soldiers in private homes (which was then not allowed by the Third Amendment).
So rather than having to quarter soldiers we instead have to pay expensive monetary fees to support our imperialistic presence in almost every single country. Another main difference is that the soldiers granted by the king not only were supposed to keep the colonists in line but also to protect them against the very real threat of native American attack rather than the very vague "threat" of "terrorism" and "drugs".
So yes, we no longer have to house soldiers in our home, we have to essentially "house" soldiers in our paycheck. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of abolishing any defense, but do we really need to waste taxpayer money having a massive army spread out in all corners of the globe when we are really not at war?
But that's not at all the same. The judges being objected to weren't appointed for life. They were appointed to serve at the pleasure of the King. That's a very different circumstance. Hence the phrasing " on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices."
Fair enough of a distinction.
And of course almost all your objections ignore the fact that these events have all occurred with the consent of the legislator you voted for. That's very different then when things occur by an unelected monarch and a parliament which one can't vote.
What made you think that the person I voted for made office? Other than local elections, almost none of the people who I voted for actually made it to office. In fact, no one in congress is a member of the Libertarian party which is the party that I choose to vote for. So, no, in fact none of the laws were really made by my consent, just by the majority which I was not a part of.
Right, because we all know how the north loved their Africans right? Everyone thought that the African race was inferior to the European races whether in the north, south, in Europe, etc. for quite some time.
Because if you ask supporters of the Arizona law they specifically point out that it is to get Arizona's laws up to the level of the federal laws. Whether or not you really believe them or not is one story but if you ask the supporters of it, that is what they say.
You don't even need to get sounding that paranoid to see it, one needs only to look at how our federal reserve was founded (yeah, "duck hunting"...) and the large amount of agencies with nearly unlimited powers with appointed positions (FCC, FTA, DEA, DHS, etc.)
...And really why shouldn't it be that way? Lets face it, unless you have some religious opposition to it, and most religions welcome it, its a -good- thing for society, after all, unless you plan on returning as a vampire/zombie or want to be cryogenicly frozen for resurrection at a later date, you aren't going to be using them, but there is someone who could.
Yes, there is always the question of letting you die to harvest your organs when your in the hospital, but wouldn't they neglect other patents who weren't organ donors too because if they don't need to keep the organs in good shape, whats the use of keeping you alive for longer?
Look at the Arizona immigration bill which pretty much forces people who look Mexican to keep papers on them at all times asserting that they are here legally whether they are or not.
The founding fathers (particularly Jefferson) knew that this would happen, from including the second amendment which, contrary to popular belief didn't give us the right to bear arms because the founding fathers wanted us to go deer hunting but rather as a last resort to oppose government force. In fact Jefferson was reported to say that every generation needed its own revolution along with quotes such as
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
and
I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.
The founding fathers knew that this apathy would happen because it did, it was the entire reason why they believed they had to gain independence from Britain.
If he kept in the paragraph banning slavery, we probably would have 13 independent countries rather than any sort of union, especially for the southern states which required the extra labor for agriculture. The founding fathers all had to make compromises in order to get the thing passed, otherwise we would still be a confederacy of independent states. (No, I'm not talking about the CSA, I'm talking about having 13 independent nations with a loose affiliation)
Not sure how this post is a troll, actually read the declaration and you will find striking similarities between the abuses of King George III and the abuses of congress today and the presidents of today. Look at the tax rates and you will see that we're taxed more today than we were under King George III! We still have taxation without representation in many ways, from taxes on minors who have no representation, to the lack of congressional representatives from territories and DC.
But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
Hm, sound like the immigration mess we have today?
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
Hm, appointing unfair judges for life... Based on the will of ~0.000033667% of the people? Sound familiar?
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.
Sound familiar? DEA, Homeland Security, etc.?
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.
Well, thats a bit different now, because we seem to think that there can't be any times of peace so instead we have a standing army always and find new conflicts to fight.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
Hm, people in the police force and the armed forces getting off easy for abuses of citizens, that of course has never happened in the USA... right?
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
And today we have embargoes that not only harm our own citizens but keep some parts of the world in poverty because we disagree with their government... -cough- Cuba -cough-
For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:
Lets see, Ben Franklin estimated taxes in the colonies at around 12.5%... Today we have a 15% income tax at the realistic minimum (unless you are like a kid at a summer job or something then its only 10%) and up to 35% if you are successful at what you do! Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)
All the abuses of King George III on America are very similar to the abuses we suffer under our recent presidents and congresses.
But it leads to instability which provides an opportunity for the Chinese people to form a government that actually supports their rights, they'd need to act quickly but it is possible.
Which is, like I stated previously, why China really needs a revolution, probably an armed revolution to restore a government that actually is by the people. Plus, if you look at a lot of the world, the military can act as a check against governmental power, it only takes a rogue wing of the army which has become enlightened to start over the restoration of basic rights.
Yes. Echoing the statements of many people throughout history. According to Locke there are three major natural rights (as in rights given to everyone at birth simply because they are human)
Life- everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty- everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate- everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
And the founders of the USA thought so, just look at the Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Such thought isn't limited to post-1600s thought either,
NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right
According to the Magna Carta signed in 1215.
So yes, it is a natural right because its liberty, you have a natural right to have property, part of that is a computer I'm sure we can all agree, if you have property then no one should deprive you of your use of said property unless it violates the rights of others. Considering that accessing various internet sites don't infringe on the rights of others, I'd say its a natural right to use the internet if you pay for it and a violation of natural rights for the government to control it.
Now, of course western thought doesn't mean shit in China.... But that doesn't mean that natural laws don't exist because China doesn't believe in them.
But when the law unfairly restricts your natural rights, then the breaking of that law is completely justified, hell, armed revolution in the case of China is very much justified for the Chinese people.
That said, I'm not sure if I'd really do it in China as a tourist, not that they'd probably do much (China gets western businessmen all the time) but I just wouldn't want to take the risk unless.
But really, if a law is unjust and violates natural rights, you have every right to break it, some may say you even have a responsibility to break it because by not breaking it you in essence prop the law up.
Slashdot Mirror
According to this guy though hes starving because not enough people are buying his sheet music1!!!11!!11
If this is really an issue, then they need to realize that they are losing sales due to the high prices of what is really a byproduct of musical production.
So either the price is too high and people like him are suffering (Ha!) because of people who are downloading it, or the price is right and this guy has no reason to complain.
Still, economies of scale can't really justify a huge price increase for something that is essentially a by-product of making the MP3s. Yes, I know that not every band writes down the sheet music, but surely the transcription process is quite easy for any talented musician.
If you play a song in a band, and are a decent musician, the sheet music is just a minor inconvenience, a bit like writing out the steps to a math problem that you've done in your head. Why would a by-product be 400% higher than the finished product? Does it make any sense that the nails, boards, etc. in a shed would cost 400% more than the finished product?
Friend of mine is building a house. He drew up the plans, he chopped down all the trees, he's got it all together. He doesn't have a screwdriver. He calls me up, says, "Dude, I need a screwdriver." I happen to have a screwdriver, so I give it to him, but I say, "Hey, I need that back later today, I have some work to do." He looks incredulous. "I have to build a house, my man. I'm not going to be done in a day. And what if someone likes my house and wants me to build one for them? I'll need the screwdriver to build their house too, yo." So I suggest he get his own screwdriver. "Why can't I just use yours?" he says. I tell him he can use mine, but then I need it back, it's my screwdriver, after all. He insists that he has the right to take my screwdriver, build his house, then keep that screwdriver forever so he can build other people's houses with it. This seems unfair to me.
But when I copy something, I'm not depriving someone of an original. If someone said "Hey, can I take your screwdriver for a few seconds, scan it in my computer and have my 3-D printer make me a replica?" I'd say sure. That is the closest thing to "piracy" in the physical world.
The screwdriver he wants is a tool that he is using to further his own aims. I went out, I bought a screwdriver, now I should just give it away to someone? Now let's say I wrote a song - it took a lot for me to write it, and it has been my full-time job for over twenty years to make sure that the songs I write go out into the world to be heard and sung. The way I support myself and my family is through the sale of those songs, on CD's, in sheet music, in tickets. Sheet music represents almost half of my yearly income. You seem to be saying that you should be able to take that song, that screwdriver, just take it for free, and go build your career and your happiness without ever compensating me.
If you don't want people using your stuff, don't release it. Don't write it down, don't publish it.
I collect first edition copies of the works of Thornton Wilder. I've been doing so for a long time, he's my favorite author in the world. Friend of mine comes over to the house, sees my collection, and says, "Wow, I've never read any of this stuff. This one looks cool." He takes down "The Bridge of San Luis Rey." "Can I read this?" Sure, I say. It would be rude of me not to let him borrow my book to read, after all. You might even say it would be "nasty." Two months go by; there's a big hole on my bookshelf where "The Bridge of San Luis Rey" is supposed to go. I call my friend, ask him for my book back. He comes over and says, "I love this book, yo. Make me a copy!" I look at him strangely. Why would I do that? He can just go to the bookstore and get a copy of his own. "No, dude, I love THIS book, you should just make me a copy of it." But the publishing company won't be able to survive if people just make copies of the book, I say, and the Thornton Wilder estate certainly deserves its share of the income it earns when people buy the book. He says I'm a jerk because I won't make him a copy of this genius book that I shared with him. I tell him he's a prick and he should get out of my house, and that's the last time I see him for years.
First off the guy is wrong in saying that the estate "deserves" to get a share of the profits. The book in question was published in 1927 just a decade or so shy of 100 years old. You don't "deserv
Yes, so shouldn't the sheet music be cheaper?
How many people does it take to make sheet music? One, maybe two. How many people does it take to make an MP3? About 5 or more. With sheet music do you need to hire a bassist/keyboard/vocalist/guitarist/etc. along with an editor and producer? No. Does making sheet music take days of editing to get it to sound just right? No.
Sheet music is basically a one or two person affair, it takes a lot more people (and a lot more equipment) to make an MP3 even for "indie" bands.
Depends on what you are doing and where your past experience lies, myself I'm not a graphics person and before using the GIMP the most advanced image editor I had used was MS paint, so while learning The GIMP was hard, I don't think it would be any harder than learning Photoshop (and paying $200-ish for the privilege).
The reporters were quick to note that 'the proprietary software is designed to be efficient, reliable and relatively fast for the task of producing a daily newspaper. The free substitutes, not so much.'
nor has our income tax ever been unconstitutional (i.e. the Constitution allowed it at the time of the tax's inception).
Wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_%26_Trust_Co. where the Supreme Court basically said direct taxes were unconstitutional.
There is even some debate on if the 16th amendment really passed correctly.
While legally it is part of the constitution, it was one of the few additions to the constitution that the Constitution completely opposed. One might make an argument about the 13th amendment, but the constitution never fully supported or rejected slavery, it simply accepted its existence without supporting it.
Ok, because I'm really going to need my lungs, eyes, liver, heart, etc. after I'm DEAD? Look, I'm not sure what whacko belief you believe in, but once you are dead you don't breath, you don't think, your heart doesn't pump, your liver doesn't do anything other than rot.
I'm a bit confused to what I need my organs for once I'm dead.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1707500&cid=32788680 that poster at least thinks so and has a link.
"The Tentacles of Evil test". Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation and, now in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the program: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the program, to expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-free, to discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a corporation bought out by a larger corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot allow even the author to take away the required freedoms.
Only the founding fathers changed it a bit with limited government with the constitution basically saying:
"The Tentacles of Evil test". Imagine that the people have voted in a dictator and, now that he/she is elected, attempts to do the worst to the citizens of the USA: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using their freedoms, to expose them to domestic or foreign harm, to make the citizens non-free, to expose all citizen's secrets, etc. The same can happen to a government bought out by a corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The constitution cannot allow even the government to take away the required freedoms.
If you look at dictators, a -lot- of them were voted in, the constitution is designed to prevent a voted-in dictator from taking freedoms. Our rights are natural rights, they should never be voted away like you are suggesting.
You are missing the point here. The primary objection is "kept among us"- this is an objection to quartering soldiers in private homes (which was then not allowed by the Third Amendment).
So rather than having to quarter soldiers we instead have to pay expensive monetary fees to support our imperialistic presence in almost every single country. Another main difference is that the soldiers granted by the king not only were supposed to keep the colonists in line but also to protect them against the very real threat of native American attack rather than the very vague "threat" of "terrorism" and "drugs".
So yes, we no longer have to house soldiers in our home, we have to essentially "house" soldiers in our paycheck. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of abolishing any defense, but do we really need to waste taxpayer money having a massive army spread out in all corners of the globe when we are really not at war?
But that's not at all the same. The judges being objected to weren't appointed for life. They were appointed to serve at the pleasure of the King. That's a very different circumstance. Hence the phrasing " on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices."
Fair enough of a distinction.
And of course almost all your objections ignore the fact that these events have all occurred with the consent of the legislator you voted for. That's very different then when things occur by an unelected monarch and a parliament which one can't vote.
What made you think that the person I voted for made office? Other than local elections, almost none of the people who I voted for actually made it to office. In fact, no one in congress is a member of the Libertarian party which is the party that I choose to vote for. So, no, in fact none of the laws were really made by my consent, just by the majority which I was not a part of.
Right, because we all know how the north loved their Africans right? Everyone thought that the African race was inferior to the European races whether in the north, south, in Europe, etc. for quite some time.
Because if you ask supporters of the Arizona law they specifically point out that it is to get Arizona's laws up to the level of the federal laws. Whether or not you really believe them or not is one story but if you ask the supporters of it, that is what they say.
You don't even need to get sounding that paranoid to see it, one needs only to look at how our federal reserve was founded (yeah, "duck hunting"...) and the large amount of agencies with nearly unlimited powers with appointed positions (FCC, FTA, DEA, DHS, etc.)
...And really why shouldn't it be that way? Lets face it, unless you have some religious opposition to it, and most religions welcome it, its a -good- thing for society, after all, unless you plan on returning as a vampire/zombie or want to be cryogenicly frozen for resurrection at a later date, you aren't going to be using them, but there is someone who could.
Yes, there is always the question of letting you die to harvest your organs when your in the hospital, but wouldn't they neglect other patents who weren't organ donors too because if they don't need to keep the organs in good shape, whats the use of keeping you alive for longer?
Look at the Arizona immigration bill which pretty much forces people who look Mexican to keep papers on them at all times asserting that they are here legally whether they are or not.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
and
I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.
The founding fathers knew that this apathy would happen because it did, it was the entire reason why they believed they had to gain independence from Britain.
If he kept in the paragraph banning slavery, we probably would have 13 independent countries rather than any sort of union, especially for the southern states which required the extra labor for agriculture. The founding fathers all had to make compromises in order to get the thing passed, otherwise we would still be a confederacy of independent states. (No, I'm not talking about the CSA, I'm talking about having 13 independent nations with a loose affiliation)
Not sure how this post is a troll, actually read the declaration and you will find striking similarities between the abuses of King George III and the abuses of congress today and the presidents of today. Look at the tax rates and you will see that we're taxed more today than we were under King George III! We still have taxation without representation in many ways, from taxes on minors who have no representation, to the lack of congressional representatives from territories and DC.
But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.
The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.
He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
Hm, sound like the immigration mess we have today?
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.
Hm, appointing unfair judges for life... Based on the will of ~0.000033667% of the people? Sound familiar?
He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.
Sound familiar? DEA, Homeland Security, etc.?
He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.
Well, thats a bit different now, because we seem to think that there can't be any times of peace so instead we have a standing army always and find new conflicts to fight.
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
Hm, people in the police force and the armed forces getting off easy for abuses of citizens, that of course has never happened in the USA... right?
For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:
And today we have embargoes that not only harm our own citizens but keep some parts of the world in poverty because we disagree with their government... -cough- Cuba -cough-
For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:
Lets see, Ben Franklin estimated taxes in the colonies at around 12.5%... Today we have a 15% income tax at the realistic minimum (unless you are like a kid at a summer job or something then its only 10%) and up to 35% if you are successful at what you do! Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)
All the abuses of King George III on America are very similar to the abuses we suffer under our recent presidents and congresses.
But it leads to instability which provides an opportunity for the Chinese people to form a government that actually supports their rights, they'd need to act quickly but it is possible.
Which is, like I stated previously, why China really needs a revolution, probably an armed revolution to restore a government that actually is by the people. Plus, if you look at a lot of the world, the military can act as a check against governmental power, it only takes a rogue wing of the army which has become enlightened to start over the restoration of basic rights.
Life- everyone is entitled to live once they are created.
Liberty- everyone is entitled to do anything they want to so long as it doesn't conflict with the first right.
Estate- everyone is entitled to own all they create or gain through gift or trade so long as it doesn't conflict with the first two rights.
And the founders of the USA thought so, just look at the Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Such thought isn't limited to post-1600s thought either,
NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right
According to the Magna Carta signed in 1215.
So yes, it is a natural right because its liberty, you have a natural right to have property, part of that is a computer I'm sure we can all agree, if you have property then no one should deprive you of your use of said property unless it violates the rights of others. Considering that accessing various internet sites don't infringe on the rights of others, I'd say its a natural right to use the internet if you pay for it and a violation of natural rights for the government to control it.
Now, of course western thought doesn't mean shit in China.... But that doesn't mean that natural laws don't exist because China doesn't believe in them.
But when the law unfairly restricts your natural rights, then the breaking of that law is completely justified, hell, armed revolution in the case of China is very much justified for the Chinese people.
That said, I'm not sure if I'd really do it in China as a tourist, not that they'd probably do much (China gets western businessmen all the time) but I just wouldn't want to take the risk unless.
But really, if a law is unjust and violates natural rights, you have every right to break it, some may say you even have a responsibility to break it because by not breaking it you in essence prop the law up.
And that page really needs to be updated...
China randomly blocks and unblocks pages for no real reason, one day something may be totally unblocked and the next day its blocked.