Bullshit. Do you have any idea what the average salary in this country is? What the cost of housing is? Tell me how a family of four can survive on $32,000 a year, please. Tell me where you can find a suitable dwelling for four for under $800/month, in a place that actually has jobs? You and I may be able to pull it off, hell, I DO pull it off, my wife doesn't work, and we don't have to cut back on anything, but for most people, a single breadwinner is a pipe dream.
Oh, and from experience I can state that my opinions will be shouted down/down modded/kickbanned as quickly on a libertarian / Objectivist / Anarcho-Capitalist forum as yours are here. As I have said before, libertarians only care about their own freedom.
Libertarianism / Objectivism / Anarcho capitalism: What are three philosophies that boil down to 'I've got mine, so screw you,' Alex?
What utter bullshit. What a complete non-sequiter. Were we talking about police response times, and how nice it is that libertarians have the firepower to slaughter each other? No, we weren't. Great. You've got guns, so you can shoot loudmouths. Tell you what, how about all you libertarians go buy yourselves a country somewhere, and you fuck that up instead of trying to fuck up ours? You don't give a shit about anyone's freedom but your own.
You claim there is a clear difference between sending an email and damaging someone's property. Okay, but that's beside the point, This is about control over your property. Do you believe you should have it, by right?
If I put up a sign saying, 'no solicitation, no trespassing' and you come into my yard, you are breaking the law, yes? You will face prosecution, because you have usurped my right to control my property.
Now, If my policy on my mail server is 'no commercial emails,' and you send me a commercial email, you are abusing my property and breaking the law. You face prosecution.
Yet you seem to think that you should not face prosecution for using my property against my wishes. Sorry, but this case is cut and dried. Your right to free speech does not trump my right to control my own property.
As for karma, yours will not drop through the floor for having a deep philosophical discussion. It might if you keep advocating for spammers' rights, but it shouldn't. Slashdot moderation seems to be a refuge of reactionaries of all stripes. It was not always this way...
Seriously, Slashdot moderation has become a wretched hive of reactionary scum who downmod anything they don't want to hear. The parent post is far from being a troll.
Let me make an analogy that I hope is a bit more clear, and illustrate that, under your definition of natural rights, spam presents a conflict.
You believe in the freedom to own property, yes? And the freedom of speech. Well, what if I were to scratch 'screw you!' into your car? Which freedom wins out, my freedom of expression, our your freedom to control your own property? Spam is a form of property vandalism, even if it is a form of free expression. And my right to control my property trumps your right to express yourself.
You seem to be arguing the opposite, so, please let us know where you park your car so we can come exercise our freedom of expression on it.
You argue that spamming is free expression. It is not. It is using my equipment in a way I do not condone. Your argument is akin to saying that wearing revealing clothing excuses rape, or having a faulty lock exonerates the thief. It is nonsensical.
No, natural rights do not exist like the laws of physics. They are, firstly, emergent phenomenon, dependent on SOCIETY, not the individual. This is because an individual has no rights. Individuals have what are known as abilities or capacities. Without society, and social contracts, there are no rights, only power.
It has not been demonstrated that fail to punish arbitrary murder fail. Citation definitely needed! The same applies to all other rights. You are simply making assertions that are not backed up by fact.
You have the power to kill others, but government limits that right in order to protect a right that people agree is more important. The ability to live is not inherently more or less natural than the ability to kill. It is only because people agree that being killed is rather more pleasant than the freedom to kill that we have the right to life.
You seem to want some kind of moral certainty. Some kind of solid ground on which to build the foundation of your morality. Sorry, there is no such thing. Or rather, even if there is we can not prove or disprove it, and even if we could, we could not get everyone to agree, and THAT is what rights are about: we all agree to uphold them, or they are worthless verbiage.
What you call government force, I call freedom of association and contract. You seem to be arguing that people can not come together and form agreements, then uphold those agreements through force if necessary. That is ALL that government is. Limiting what government can do is exactly the same thing as limiting what groups of people can do, and limiting groups of people is exactly the same as limiting individuals. Now, I've already stated that it is okay to limit what individuals can do, but it is then nonsensical to claim that limiting groups of freely associating individuals is any different than limiting individual freedoms.
And thus, we arrive at the logical contradiction inherent in libertarianism. Maybe you should educate yourself a little more about other, more viable and realistic forms of Anarchism. Libertarianism is preschool anarchy.
In libertarian la-la land, there is one freedom: to do whatever the hell I want without interference. But freedom isn't that cut and dried. My right to swing my fist ends at your face. Even on my property, I don't have the right to scream at the top of my lungs at 4 in the morning, because that impacts your freedoms.
Freedom isn't a simple thing. It isn't defined by imaginary and arbitrary natural rights. It is agreed upon and upheld by civilized people. For every freedom gained, there is a corresponding freedom lost, and so it is up to the group to decide what freedoms they are willing to trade for other more important freedoms. I, for instance, am willing to trade the freedom to scream at the top of my lungs at 4am, for the freedom to get a peaceful nights sleep.
And I don't give a rat's ass what YOU think your 'natural rights' entitle you to. Come into my neighborhood and start bellowing at 4am, and you will get a visit from the police, who will force you to stop, to protect my freedom. And THAT is as it should be, amongst civilized people.
Libertarians are akin to preschoolers, in that their idea of freedom is 'yer not the boss of me!' Well, the fact is that if you want to live in civilization, you have to let other people be the boss of you. If you don't like it, there is plenty of desolate wilderness where you can go be as free as you like, by yourself. But you DO NOT get to insert yourself into other people's lives and impose on them, claiming that if they try to stop you they are limiting your freedom. No, YOU are limiting THEIR freedom, and there are more of them than of you, so what they say goes. If you don't like it, well, there's always that lovely wilderness where you can be as free as you like without imposing on others.
Do you know the history of Haiti? Look it up. #2 is the actual truth. It doesn't require a conspiracy, only a powerful and imperialist neighbor. You know why the Dominican Republic doesn't have Haiti's problems? Because they kissed our ass at every opportunity, and did exactly what we told them to do. Haiti didn't.
Spammers aren't shouting on their own property. They are shouting on mine. They are, in effect, stealing from me.
There is no such thing as 'natural rights.' Natural rights are a type of con, by asserting your natural rights you are arguing from authority, your assertion that certain rights are 'natural' means it would be unnatural to oppose such rights. In the end, though, natural rights don't matter. The only things that matters are the rights that the majority agree to uphold. If no one agrees with your assessment of what constitutes a natural right, you can whine about it all you like, but it won't change anything.
You don't have the right to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater, incite a riot, or deliberately and maliciously spread damaging falsehoods. You don't have the right to lob garbage into my yard, even if that garbage consists of your poetry, written on napkins. In the same vein, you don't have the right to send me unsolicited commercial faxes, or to spam me.
What kind of ridiculous slipper slope must you concoct to imagine that CAN-SPAM will have 'very dangerous consequences?' Has the law against unsolicited commercial faxing had such consequences?
To what extent do contributing companies have the same motives as contributing individuals? To what extent do these, possibly disparate, motivations coincide with the needs of end users? I think this is the underlying question inherent in this article, but I don't really have any firm answers.
Today you have this: Show 1: Obama is an angel, he's saving the country, he's the best president ever Show 2: Obama is a liar, he misled Americans, he's not even a citizen (personal attacks)
That's not true for me and my friends. We never saw Obama in either of those lights. IMHO, he is a center right corporatist. He worried me from the get go. But I saw him as the lesser of two evils.
Don't get me wrong. Oppression of free speech, in any form, is wrong, to a greater or lesser degree based on circumstance. The use of propaganda, that is, the use of dishonest communication methods, is wrong, no matter what the goal, or how true the content of the communication. The use of the government as a pulpit to push a particular viewpoint is, at best, complicated and fraught with the potential for negative unintended consequences, whatever the validity of the viewpoint.
I'm just trying to put this in perspective and counter what I see as a dishonest appeal to emotion. This story is propaganda, whatever it's truth value.
Testosterone and dominance hierarchies. Bush supporters were, in a very real sense, castrated. Studies show they suffered a significant drop in testosterone. They're a bit touchy about it.
It's a matter of allocation of a public resource, not free speech, per se. The airwaves are limited. They belong to all of us. You are free to speak what you like, publish what you like in print or electronic form, and basically communicate however you like. But you can't come on my property and yell in my ear. And you can't monopolize a shared space so that I can't use it. That's limiting my free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. Do you have any idea what the average salary in this country is? What the cost of housing is? Tell me how a family of four can survive on $32,000 a year, please. Tell me where you can find a suitable dwelling for four for under $800/month, in a place that actually has jobs? You and I may be able to pull it off, hell, I DO pull it off, my wife doesn't work, and we don't have to cut back on anything, but for most people, a single breadwinner is a pipe dream.
Oh, and from experience I can state that my opinions will be shouted down/down modded/kickbanned as quickly on a libertarian / Objectivist / Anarcho-Capitalist forum as yours are here. As I have said before, libertarians only care about their own freedom.
Libertarianism / Objectivism / Anarcho capitalism: What are three philosophies that boil down to 'I've got mine, so screw you,' Alex?
What utter bullshit. What a complete non-sequiter. Were we talking about police response times, and how nice it is that libertarians have the firepower to slaughter each other? No, we weren't. Great. You've got guns, so you can shoot loudmouths. Tell you what, how about all you libertarians go buy yourselves a country somewhere, and you fuck that up instead of trying to fuck up ours? You don't give a shit about anyone's freedom but your own.
You claim there is a clear difference between sending an email and damaging someone's property. Okay, but that's beside the point, This is about control over your property. Do you believe you should have it, by right?
If I put up a sign saying, 'no solicitation, no trespassing' and you come into my yard, you are breaking the law, yes? You will face prosecution, because you have usurped my right to control my property.
Now, If my policy on my mail server is 'no commercial emails,' and you send me a commercial email, you are abusing my property and breaking the law. You face prosecution.
Yet you seem to think that you should not face prosecution for using my property against my wishes. Sorry, but this case is cut and dried. Your right to free speech does not trump my right to control my own property.
As for karma, yours will not drop through the floor for having a deep philosophical discussion. It might if you keep advocating for spammers' rights, but it shouldn't. Slashdot moderation seems to be a refuge of reactionaries of all stripes. It was not always this way...
Seriously, Slashdot moderation has become a wretched hive of reactionary scum who downmod anything they don't want to hear. The parent post is far from being a troll.
Let me make an analogy that I hope is a bit more clear, and illustrate that, under your definition of natural rights, spam presents a conflict.
You believe in the freedom to own property, yes? And the freedom of speech. Well, what if I were to scratch 'screw you!' into your car? Which freedom wins out, my freedom of expression, our your freedom to control your own property? Spam is a form of property vandalism, even if it is a form of free expression. And my right to control my property trumps your right to express yourself.
You seem to be arguing the opposite, so, please let us know where you park your car so we can come exercise our freedom of expression on it.
Gah. Shoulda read the preview.
It has not been demonstrated that fail to punish arbitrary murder fail.
Should read:
It has not been demonstrated that societies that fail to punish arbitrary murder fail.
And
It is only because people agree that being killed is rather more pleasant than the freedom to kill that we have the right to life.
Should read
It is only because people agree that freedom from being killed is rather more pleasant than the freedom to kill that we have the right to life.
Hope that helps. :)
You argue that spamming is free expression. It is not. It is using my equipment in a way I do not condone. Your argument is akin to saying that wearing revealing clothing excuses rape, or having a faulty lock exonerates the thief. It is nonsensical.
No, natural rights do not exist like the laws of physics. They are, firstly, emergent phenomenon, dependent on SOCIETY, not the individual. This is because an individual has no rights. Individuals have what are known as abilities or capacities. Without society, and social contracts, there are no rights, only power.
It has not been demonstrated that fail to punish arbitrary murder fail. Citation definitely needed! The same applies to all other rights. You are simply making assertions that are not backed up by fact.
You have the power to kill others, but government limits that right in order to protect a right that people agree is more important. The ability to live is not inherently more or less natural than the ability to kill. It is only because people agree that being killed is rather more pleasant than the freedom to kill that we have the right to life.
You seem to want some kind of moral certainty. Some kind of solid ground on which to build the foundation of your morality. Sorry, there is no such thing. Or rather, even if there is we can not prove or disprove it, and even if we could, we could not get everyone to agree, and THAT is what rights are about: we all agree to uphold them, or they are worthless verbiage.
What you call government force, I call freedom of association and contract. You seem to be arguing that people can not come together and form agreements, then uphold those agreements through force if necessary. That is ALL that government is. Limiting what government can do is exactly the same thing as limiting what groups of people can do, and limiting groups of people is exactly the same as limiting individuals. Now, I've already stated that it is okay to limit what individuals can do, but it is then nonsensical to claim that limiting groups of freely associating individuals is any different than limiting individual freedoms.
And thus, we arrive at the logical contradiction inherent in libertarianism. Maybe you should educate yourself a little more about other, more viable and realistic forms of Anarchism. Libertarianism is preschool anarchy.
In libertarian la-la land, there is one freedom: to do whatever the hell I want without interference. But freedom isn't that cut and dried. My right to swing my fist ends at your face. Even on my property, I don't have the right to scream at the top of my lungs at 4 in the morning, because that impacts your freedoms.
Freedom isn't a simple thing. It isn't defined by imaginary and arbitrary natural rights. It is agreed upon and upheld by civilized people. For every freedom gained, there is a corresponding freedom lost, and so it is up to the group to decide what freedoms they are willing to trade for other more important freedoms. I, for instance, am willing to trade the freedom to scream at the top of my lungs at 4am, for the freedom to get a peaceful nights sleep.
And I don't give a rat's ass what YOU think your 'natural rights' entitle you to. Come into my neighborhood and start bellowing at 4am, and you will get a visit from the police, who will force you to stop, to protect my freedom. And THAT is as it should be, amongst civilized people.
Libertarians are akin to preschoolers, in that their idea of freedom is 'yer not the boss of me!' Well, the fact is that if you want to live in civilization, you have to let other people be the boss of you. If you don't like it, there is plenty of desolate wilderness where you can go be as free as you like, by yourself. But you DO NOT get to insert yourself into other people's lives and impose on them, claiming that if they try to stop you they are limiting your freedom. No, YOU are limiting THEIR freedom, and there are more of them than of you, so what they say goes. If you don't like it, well, there's always that lovely wilderness where you can be as free as you like without imposing on others.
Do you know the history of Haiti? Look it up. #2 is the actual truth. It doesn't require a conspiracy, only a powerful and imperialist neighbor. You know why the Dominican Republic doesn't have Haiti's problems? Because they kissed our ass at every opportunity, and did exactly what we told them to do. Haiti didn't.
"Hey baby, want to see my John Hancock? It's like Paul Revere, it'll ride all night long."
Spammers aren't shouting on their own property. They are shouting on mine. They are, in effect, stealing from me.
There is no such thing as 'natural rights.' Natural rights are a type of con, by asserting your natural rights you are arguing from authority, your assertion that certain rights are 'natural' means it would be unnatural to oppose such rights. In the end, though, natural rights don't matter. The only things that matters are the rights that the majority agree to uphold. If no one agrees with your assessment of what constitutes a natural right, you can whine about it all you like, but it won't change anything.
You don't have the right to yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater, incite a riot, or deliberately and maliciously spread damaging falsehoods. You don't have the right to lob garbage into my yard, even if that garbage consists of your poetry, written on napkins. In the same vein, you don't have the right to send me unsolicited commercial faxes, or to spam me.
What kind of ridiculous slipper slope must you concoct to imagine that CAN-SPAM will have 'very dangerous consequences?' Has the law against unsolicited commercial faxing had such consequences?
To what extent do contributing companies have the same motives as contributing individuals? To what extent do these, possibly disparate, motivations coincide with the needs of end users? I think this is the underlying question inherent in this article, but I don't really have any firm answers.
Now you're just adding to the stereotype that mathematicians have no sense of humor.
Good lord. What an important point to arrive so late in the conversation.
Today you have this:
Show 1: Obama is an angel, he's saving the country, he's the best president ever
Show 2: Obama is a liar, he misled Americans, he's not even a citizen (personal attacks)
That's not true for me and my friends. We never saw Obama in either of those lights. IMHO, he is a center right corporatist. He worried me from the get go. But I saw him as the lesser of two evils.
Don't get me wrong. Oppression of free speech, in any form, is wrong, to a greater or lesser degree based on circumstance. The use of propaganda, that is, the use of dishonest communication methods, is wrong, no matter what the goal, or how true the content of the communication. The use of the government as a pulpit to push a particular viewpoint is, at best, complicated and fraught with the potential for negative unintended consequences, whatever the validity of the viewpoint.
I'm just trying to put this in perspective and counter what I see as a dishonest appeal to emotion. This story is propaganda, whatever it's truth value.
Testosterone and dominance hierarchies. Bush supporters were, in a very real sense, castrated. Studies show they suffered a significant drop in testosterone. They're a bit touchy about it.
Not buying the misdirection and hand waving, sorry. Explain yourself.
Oh, and my mom died of pancreatic cancer Christmas morning, asshole.
You think that line is going to fly? Prove it's true.
You think the Democrats will use the fairness doctrine to try to muzzle Rush Limbaugh? Really? How dumb do you think the Democrats are?
Websites don't use publicly owned networks, dipshit.
Then would you care to explain your logic?
DO you need a transcript? Here's a more succinct clip with commentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rElMVoZ-vQ&feature=related
It's a matter of allocation of a public resource, not free speech, per se. The airwaves are limited. They belong to all of us. You are free to speak what you like, publish what you like in print or electronic form, and basically communicate however you like. But you can't come on my property and yell in my ear. And you can't monopolize a shared space so that I can't use it. That's limiting my free speech.