To look from a different angle, if a Chinese tourist will write on his immigration form that he is entering the USA to instigate a revolt against the government he'd be lucky to be only denied entry; if he lies and then instigates a revolt then he will visit Cuba, all expenses paid.
And you feel that this is fair and just treatment? Seditious speech should be met with indefinite incarceration without a trial, and possibly torture?
I guess I just don't understand why the fact that someone wasn't born in a particular place means he may not express his opinions about that place. If he were arming the natives, or bombing shit, I could understand, but this is speech we are talking about.
I've been an activist for a large part of my life. I've engaged in civil disobedience. I've been busted for serving free food to hungry people in a public place. In America, where I was born. I suppose that you would support that, me not being a foreigner and all, or are you really just against protest in general? Honestly, is it about the nationality, or the fact that he has the balls to stand up to power, and must be slapped down hard for that affront to the status quo?
So now Mr. Powderly is akin to a terrorist or hired killer for speaking his mind. Nice, will you liken him to Hitler next?
This isn't just about the Chinese, though, is it? It is also about the Tibetans, who have asked for help and support. If the Chinese don't wish international attention, perhaps they shouldn't invade other sovereign nations. Not that Tibet was a bastion of freedom, but they were sovereign and they have asked for help, so much of your argument falls flat.
Your arguments amount to reductio ad absurdum. Is calling attention to one country's invasion and mistreatment of another REALLY akin to telling someone to fuck themselves, or projecting graphic sexual images onto a score board?
How does one person going to a foreign country to express his desire that they stop oppressing others equate with interventionism? Does James Powderly have an army with which to back up his request? Is he holding a gun to anyone's head and saying, "Do it my way?" No, and you are way off base criticizing him.
Everyone has every right to tell anyone anything, and everyone is free to ignore others' requests. You are not advocating freedom, you are stating flat out that I do not or should not have the freedom to state what I find objectionable.
No one is forcing anyone to listen or act on Mr. Powderly's desires, yet you would force him to stop speaking out, and you have the absolute unmitigated gall to claim that you advocate freedom. Your position seems quite authoritarian.
Practically speaking, I have exactly as much power to tell you how to conduct your business as you give me, no more, no less, unless I use force, which Mr. Powderly did not do. And me refusing to do business with you is not force. Neither is me speaking my mind where you can hear me, EVEN IF you have declared that I am not allowed to speak.
We are all free to express our desires to anyone. We are free to demonstrate and protest that which we find morally objectionable, and no arbitrary borders or citizenship should stop us. I find your stance morally reprehensible, as it seeks to divide people into arbitrary groups who are not allowed to support each other in seeking redress for wrongs. You advocate a particularly sick form of authoritarianism.
He went over there to get publicity for a cause, and he got publicity for a cause. You could argue he achieved less than he might have, but to say he achieved nothing is idiotic.
Amen! Don't you love the way capitalism lets you profit without worrying about the moral standards of the companies you invest in? I mean, I can invest in a company that will do awful things I would never do personally, and I never even have to hear about it, let alone lose sleep over it. And even if I do hear about it, well, I'm just a little investor, I didn't make that decision, it's not my fault! I love diffusion of responsibility.
How do you know? Isn't it a tad/i hasty to be making assumptions? And hasn't he actually achieved at least something? When was the last time anything you did got mentioned on the front page of Slashdot?
What does the fact that he isn't Tibetan or a Chinese citizen have to do with anything? What I'm getting out of your post is, "people should mind their own business and not rock the boat." Is that the impression you meant to convey?
No defense of the status quo here. I just can't stand the 'I don't consent to be governed' argument. It usually comes from anti social types who feel they have the right to do whatever the hell they want, and no one else has the right to tell them 'no, you don't.'
Given that you deny your right to exclude me from your property, but claim the right to protect your property from arbitrary destruction, we don't have any argument at all. That is exactly how I feel. Ideally, there should be no nations, no borders, and no private real property. But there should be private personal property. The product of my effort is my own.
There are those who would do away with our form of government because they want the opportunity to oppress others with impunity. There are those who would do away with our form of government, and don't realize that what they would replace it with would lead to economic oppression. Most people who argue against the idea of collective decision making, and argue for the supremacy of the individual fall into one of those two camps.
There are two types of anarchists: social and individualist anarchists. I'm the former. I believe in collective decision making and collective stewardship of natural resources. Arthur B. is an individualist anarchist. Reread his argument and tell me you support it. Here is the relevant portion that I strongly disagree with: "People is a collectivist abstraction; government of the people by the people for the people doesn't mean anything"
Sorry for the late reply, I was on vacation up at lake Abiquiu.
So, I can come onto your property any time I like because you don't have a right to tell me where I can or can't be? If you have the right to exclude me from your property, why doesn't an arbitrary group of people have the same right?
I have a stake in the property of the United States. It is partly mine. We, the owners of these United States, can exclude people from our property if they do not participate in the ways we have dictated necessary, such as paying taxes and performing jury duty. That is the way the property system works. If you don't consent, you are free to leave.
If we accept the idea of private ownership of natural resources, we must also accept the idea of nations. Personally, I would do away with both, but given that we do have private property, we need national governments to protect us from those that would hoard property and make us into their serfs.
People who think they have a right to use our collective property without playing by our rules are initiating force against us. We have the right to respond with force.
Everyone consents to be governed by staying in the country. It is not our duty to find a place for you with a government to your liking. We have the right, based on property rights of the individual and contract law, to govern our country how we like, whether you give your explicit consent or not.
I assume that you would not go into a restaurant, order food, eat it, and then refuse to pay on the grounds that you did not explicitly consent to pay when ordering. Why would you assume that you can benefit from our social order and then refuse to be governed? By your continued presence here you give your consent.
Those who reap the benefit of our social system and do not want to pay the cost are parasites who do not accept responsibility for themselves and their actions. They deserve nothing but scorn.
My favorite hot girl roommate was a paranoid schizophrenic model. Seriously. "Do I look okay? STOP LOOKING AT ME!" You'd think having a hot girl run into your room at night and jump into bed with you and your girlfriend would be, well, hot. But not when she's screaming about the demon voices and begging you to protect her from Satan.
There is animal language, art, culture, and economics. Animals aren't self-analytical, but they are minimally creative and have abstract communication.
Primates and parrots have been taught vocabularies equivalent to preschoolers. They recognize abstractions such as number and color. They not only make tools, but different populations make different kinds of tools. They pass this knowledge on to their offspring, indicating the existence of culture. Some animals have rudimentary economics and can recognize fair and unfair trades. And even birds create art, though if you are speaking of representational art, the list is much smaller.
Here's some advice. If you don't want others to be pedantic towards you, don't be a pedant. Don't tell people to go google phrases unless you are sure they don't know them already. And don't tell them that phrases they use don't mean what they think they mean, unless you are sure they are completely mistaken. Actually, even if you are sure, you don't need to be a dick unless you enjoy having other people be a dick right back to you.
You say 'I'm reluctant to make generalizations about what was, in fact, something like several hundred distinct cultures,' but then go on to do so. I know about counting coup, but it wasn't universal, and it only occurred in low level warfare. Basically, this was when a tribe had an excess of young men, they would engage in what amounts to more of an extreme sport than a war. Wives were often kidnapped in the same sorts of low level raids.
However, this is different than the wars over territory. Perhaps you should read up on the history of Pre Columbian Native Americans. You may be surprised to learn that there were huge empires in the Americas. You can't have empires without wars for territory.
You might like to read And Having Writ, a sci-fi book about aliens crash landing at Tunguska and attempting to jump start our technology by getting us into a world war. It's quite funny.
I still don't believe that you're old enough to vote, so this is all hypothetical anyway unless you can somehow prove that a.) you are over 18, b.) you weren't going to vote GOP anyway, c.) you know what state I live in. I'm eagerly awaiting your response, we both know you're not capable of avoiding it. But unless you can prove those three things, I'm done. You're starting to bore me.
I keep replying too you because I'm bored at work, and stringing along losers is a hobby of mine. You don't see me pouring over your journal hoping to find something to use against you.
Besides, you can't 'moot my vote,' as I've explained. I vote third party anyway, so how are you mooting anything? I can't wait for your cogent reply. And you still haven't said where you live.
Man this is fun. I haven't made someone as this mad for ages. Please, keep entertaining me. The more you reply, the happier I am.
Fact is often capable of moving faster than fiction, it just takes a collective decision to make it so. We could have been to Mars already, just like we could be feeding everyone in the world. We just don't care enough.
My word, is that what you've been reduced too? Fingers in your ears shouting "IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT!" How sad for you, but don't feel too bad, Better men than you have tried to beat me in online pissing contests and lost. You just don't have the skills, and you made the CARDINAL mistake of such contests: you let your opponent know you care. After that, it's a completely one sided affair. You lose your cool, you lose the fight. Better luck next time.
Oh this is rich. I have a stalker, awesome! I mean, all the trouble you've gone to on my behalf, you really know how to make a guy feel special. I'm gonna be telling all my friends about you. "Yeah, this guy on the internet is SO into me, he read my journal to find out where I live (New Mexico, California, or Hawaii? They are all three in there, and I move around a lot.)
But you must have missed the part where I said I vote green. I can't stand Obama. You voting for McCain is just you wasting your vote, voting for a major party that's going to lose means nothing, but politicians pay attention to how many people vote for third parties, and make policy changes based on that, so my vote is neither wasted nor 'mooted.'
Ahh, you've really given me a sense of smug self satisfaction this morning, thanks!
I find it hard to believe you are even old enough to vote. So, how do you know where I live? and WHERE do you think I live? Anyway, seeing as how I vote third party, you aren't exactly mooting my vote even if you do live in my state. I vote to send a message, I don't actually think my candidate will get elected. Your vote won't change the message my vote sends to both parties. Your childish antics do amuse me, though. Call it schadenfreude, but I love watching pathetic losers fail miserably. Does it burn inside, knowing you've failed? I can only imagine how bad it must feel. I mean, I'm flattered that I matter that much to you, but maybe you should pick a new obsession.
Slashdot Mirror
To look from a different angle, if a Chinese tourist will write on his immigration form that he is entering the USA to instigate a revolt against the government he'd be lucky to be only denied entry; if he lies and then instigates a revolt then he will visit Cuba, all expenses paid.
And you feel that this is fair and just treatment? Seditious speech should be met with indefinite incarceration without a trial, and possibly torture?
I guess I just don't understand why the fact that someone wasn't born in a particular place means he may not express his opinions about that place. If he were arming the natives, or bombing shit, I could understand, but this is speech we are talking about.
I've been an activist for a large part of my life. I've engaged in civil disobedience. I've been busted for serving free food to hungry people in a public place. In America, where I was born. I suppose that you would support that, me not being a foreigner and all, or are you really just against protest in general? Honestly, is it about the nationality, or the fact that he has the balls to stand up to power, and must be slapped down hard for that affront to the status quo?
So now Mr. Powderly is akin to a terrorist or hired killer for speaking his mind. Nice, will you liken him to Hitler next?
This isn't just about the Chinese, though, is it? It is also about the Tibetans, who have asked for help and support. If the Chinese don't wish international attention, perhaps they shouldn't invade other sovereign nations. Not that Tibet was a bastion of freedom, but they were sovereign and they have asked for help, so much of your argument falls flat.
Your arguments amount to reductio ad absurdum. Is calling attention to one country's invasion and mistreatment of another REALLY akin to telling someone to fuck themselves, or projecting graphic sexual images onto a score board?
How does one person going to a foreign country to express his desire that they stop oppressing others equate with interventionism? Does James Powderly have an army with which to back up his request? Is he holding a gun to anyone's head and saying, "Do it my way?" No, and you are way off base criticizing him.
Everyone has every right to tell anyone anything, and everyone is free to ignore others' requests. You are not advocating freedom, you are stating flat out that I do not or should not have the freedom to state what I find objectionable.
No one is forcing anyone to listen or act on Mr. Powderly's desires, yet you would force him to stop speaking out, and you have the absolute unmitigated gall to claim that you advocate freedom. Your position seems quite authoritarian.
Practically speaking, I have exactly as much power to tell you how to conduct your business as you give me, no more, no less, unless I use force, which Mr. Powderly did not do. And me refusing to do business with you is not force. Neither is me speaking my mind where you can hear me, EVEN IF you have declared that I am not allowed to speak.
We are all free to express our desires to anyone. We are free to demonstrate and protest that which we find morally objectionable, and no arbitrary borders or citizenship should stop us. I find your stance morally reprehensible, as it seeks to divide people into arbitrary groups who are not allowed to support each other in seeking redress for wrongs. You advocate a particularly sick form of authoritarianism.
This happened yesterday. You expect to see results in google a day later? Are you daft?
He went over there to get publicity for a cause, and he got publicity for a cause. You could argue he achieved less than he might have, but to say he achieved nothing is idiotic.
Amen! Don't you love the way capitalism lets you profit without worrying about the moral standards of the companies you invest in? I mean, I can invest in a company that will do awful things I would never do personally, and I never even have to hear about it, let alone lose sleep over it. And even if I do hear about it, well, I'm just a little investor, I didn't make that decision, it's not my fault! I love diffusion of responsibility.
How do you know? Isn't it a tad/i hasty to be making assumptions? And hasn't he actually achieved at least something? When was the last time anything you did got mentioned on the front page of Slashdot?
What does the fact that he isn't Tibetan or a Chinese citizen have to do with anything? What I'm getting out of your post is, "people should mind their own business and not rock the boat." Is that the impression you meant to convey?
No defense of the status quo here. I just can't stand the 'I don't consent to be governed' argument. It usually comes from anti social types who feel they have the right to do whatever the hell they want, and no one else has the right to tell them 'no, you don't.'
Given that you deny your right to exclude me from your property, but claim the right to protect your property from arbitrary destruction, we don't have any argument at all. That is exactly how I feel. Ideally, there should be no nations, no borders, and no private real property. But there should be private personal property. The product of my effort is my own.
There are those who would do away with our form of government because they want the opportunity to oppress others with impunity. There are those who would do away with our form of government, and don't realize that what they would replace it with would lead to economic oppression. Most people who argue against the idea of collective decision making, and argue for the supremacy of the individual fall into one of those two camps.
There are two types of anarchists: social and individualist anarchists. I'm the former. I believe in collective decision making and collective stewardship of natural resources. Arthur B. is an individualist anarchist. Reread his argument and tell me you support it. Here is the relevant portion that I strongly disagree with: "People is a collectivist abstraction; government of the people by the people for the people doesn't mean anything"
Sorry for the late reply, I was on vacation up at lake Abiquiu.
So, I can come onto your property any time I like because you don't have a right to tell me where I can or can't be? If you have the right to exclude me from your property, why doesn't an arbitrary group of people have the same right?
I have a stake in the property of the United States. It is partly mine. We, the owners of these United States, can exclude people from our property if they do not participate in the ways we have dictated necessary, such as paying taxes and performing jury duty. That is the way the property system works. If you don't consent, you are free to leave.
If we accept the idea of private ownership of natural resources, we must also accept the idea of nations. Personally, I would do away with both, but given that we do have private property, we need national governments to protect us from those that would hoard property and make us into their serfs.
People who think they have a right to use our collective property without playing by our rules are initiating force against us. We have the right to respond with force.
Everyone consents to be governed by staying in the country. It is not our duty to find a place for you with a government to your liking. We have the right, based on property rights of the individual and contract law, to govern our country how we like, whether you give your explicit consent or not.
I assume that you would not go into a restaurant, order food, eat it, and then refuse to pay on the grounds that you did not explicitly consent to pay when ordering. Why would you assume that you can benefit from our social order and then refuse to be governed? By your continued presence here you give your consent.
Those who reap the benefit of our social system and do not want to pay the cost are parasites who do not accept responsibility for themselves and their actions. They deserve nothing but scorn.
Could it be seppuku? Please?
Cheers
Now that is an Uwe Boll production I'd pay to see!
My favorite hot girl roommate was a paranoid schizophrenic model. Seriously. "Do I look okay? STOP LOOKING AT ME!" You'd think having a hot girl run into your room at night and jump into bed with you and your girlfriend would be, well, hot. But not when she's screaming about the demon voices and begging you to protect her from Satan.
There is animal language, art, culture, and economics. Animals aren't self-analytical, but they are minimally creative and have abstract communication.
Primates and parrots have been taught vocabularies equivalent to preschoolers. They recognize abstractions such as number and color. They not only make tools, but different populations make different kinds of tools. They pass this knowledge on to their offspring, indicating the existence of culture. Some animals have rudimentary economics and can recognize fair and unfair trades. And even birds create art, though if you are speaking of representational art, the list is much smaller.
Here's some advice. If you don't want others to be pedantic towards you, don't be a pedant. Don't tell people to go google phrases unless you are sure they don't know them already. And don't tell them that phrases they use don't mean what they think they mean, unless you are sure they are completely mistaken. Actually, even if you are sure, you don't need to be a dick unless you enjoy having other people be a dick right back to you.
You say 'I'm reluctant to make generalizations about what was, in fact, something like several hundred distinct cultures,' but then go on to do so. I know about counting coup, but it wasn't universal, and it only occurred in low level warfare. Basically, this was when a tribe had an excess of young men, they would engage in what amounts to more of an extreme sport than a war. Wives were often kidnapped in the same sorts of low level raids.
However, this is different than the wars over territory. Perhaps you should read up on the history of Pre Columbian Native Americans. You may be surprised to learn that there were huge empires in the Americas. You can't have empires without wars for territory.
You might like to read And Having Writ, a sci-fi book about aliens crash landing at Tunguska and attempting to jump start our technology by getting us into a world war. It's quite funny.
I still don't believe that you're old enough to vote, so this is all hypothetical anyway unless you can somehow prove that a.) you are over 18, b.) you weren't going to vote GOP anyway, c.) you know what state I live in. I'm eagerly awaiting your response, we both know you're not capable of avoiding it. But unless you can prove those three things, I'm done. You're starting to bore me.
"I'll keep an eye out for you."
Isn't that what the hooker with the glass eye said to her loyal customer?
I keep replying too you because I'm bored at work, and stringing along losers is a hobby of mine. You don't see me pouring over your journal hoping to find something to use against you.
Besides, you can't 'moot my vote,' as I've explained. I vote third party anyway, so how are you mooting anything? I can't wait for your cogent reply. And you still haven't said where you live.
Man this is fun. I haven't made someone as this mad for ages. Please, keep entertaining me. The more you reply, the happier I am.
Fact is often capable of moving faster than fiction, it just takes a collective decision to make it so. We could have been to Mars already, just like we could be feeding everyone in the world. We just don't care enough.
My word, is that what you've been reduced too? Fingers in your ears shouting "IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT!" How sad for you, but don't feel too bad, Better men than you have tried to beat me in online pissing contests and lost. You just don't have the skills, and you made the CARDINAL mistake of such contests: you let your opponent know you care. After that, it's a completely one sided affair. You lose your cool, you lose the fight. Better luck next time.
Oh this is rich. I have a stalker, awesome! I mean, all the trouble you've gone to on my behalf, you really know how to make a guy feel special. I'm gonna be telling all my friends about you. "Yeah, this guy on the internet is SO into me, he read my journal to find out where I live (New Mexico, California, or Hawaii? They are all three in there, and I move around a lot.)
But you must have missed the part where I said I vote green. I can't stand Obama. You voting for McCain is just you wasting your vote, voting for a major party that's going to lose means nothing, but politicians pay attention to how many people vote for third parties, and make policy changes based on that, so my vote is neither wasted nor 'mooted.'
Ahh, you've really given me a sense of smug self satisfaction this morning, thanks!
I find it hard to believe you are even old enough to vote. So, how do you know where I live? and WHERE do you think I live? Anyway, seeing as how I vote third party, you aren't exactly mooting my vote even if you do live in my state. I vote to send a message, I don't actually think my candidate will get elected. Your vote won't change the message my vote sends to both parties. Your childish antics do amuse me, though. Call it schadenfreude, but I love watching pathetic losers fail miserably. Does it burn inside, knowing you've failed? I can only imagine how bad it must feel. I mean, I'm flattered that I matter that much to you, but maybe you should pick a new obsession.
Damn, that's a cool name, "Red Adair." With a name like that, you practically have to get into some kind of hero business.