Hehe. I agree completely. Even posted the same idea here before. I mean, we're just stating the basis of all of modern western liberal philosophy here, as set out by Hobbes, Locke, and Paine. Bellum omnium contra omnes, or the war of all against all. Lots of people (especially libertarians!) use the natural rights argument, and some times it helps to talk in their language.
Wrong. As I said, we have a social agreement. You agree not to attempt to look at my PIN or passwords, I do the same for you. It isn't a natural right. In any case, the responsibility for not letting those photons from the ATM machine into my eyes is YOURS. I'm going to turn away, because I'm polite, but lots of people aren't, so hide it.
As for your neighbor, I assume she is on her property with the blinds open. If she wants to give you a show, there's nothing wrong with watching. She can close the damn blinds if she doesn't want you to see.
Privacy is NOT the product of your life. It is not a natural right, like you being entitled to the fruits of your labor is. Privacy is something that you may have on your property, if it can be physically arranged.
But privacy is making demands on other people, "Don't look at me!" What gives you the right to determine what I can and can't experience? I mean, the light and sound waves coming off your body aren't yours. If those light and sound waves happen to enter my eyes and ears, they are MINE.
Now, if you and I have an agreement, "you don't look at me and I won't look at you" then that is fair, and that is what we generally have in society. But it is because we agreed to that, not from some inherent right of ownership of all sensory phenomenon.
This is what I hate about libertarians. All they have is the hammer of property, so every problem boils down to ownership. It is ridiculous.
In case you hadn't read the relevant bits in the article, here they are:
While inside the brain scanner, the students watched random letters stream across a screen. Whenever they felt the urge, they pressed a button with their right hand or a button with their left hand. Then they marked down the letter that had been on the screen in the instant they had decided to press the button.
Studying the brain behavior leading up to the moment of conscious decision, the researchers identified signals that let them know when the students had decided to move 10 seconds or so before the students knew it themselves. About 70% of the time, the researchers could also predict which button the students would push.
So this experiment doesn't seem to cover situations such as finding a note and making a quick decision. For instance, when you could get up to go get a snack while watching a TV show, you've actually decided ten seconds or so in advance.
Ah, but how do you know you've made that decision? And how do you know when? How do you know that the feeling that you'd made the decision instantaneously wasn't edited in later? Because your hand started to move towards the door handle, or your phone? How long did it take you to understand the note, versus reading the whole thing?
Easy, you actually made the decision before you received the last piece of data. And remember, your decision to make a decision was also ten seconds behind you being conscious of it. Your consciousness might not have been aware you had a decision to make, but your brain was.
And, so? Not all wealth was earned, either. Do you think Britney Spears has contributed more to society than, say, Stephen Hawking? Then why does she have more money?
The necessity is having a system where hard work and risks are properly rewarded.
Exactly. Hard work and risks should be rewarded. That isn't how things currently work. What we have is a system that rewards the most brutal and ruthless. Where the guy who is better at screwing over others and getting away with it wins. That's bad.
Taxing the rich isn't punishing them, it is simply keeping them from taking advantage of the hard work of others, thereby helping ensure that their success is actually merited and not a result of unfairness.
As the rich are already engaged in class warfare against you and I, I see no moral reason not to fight back. If you look at the policies supported by the rich you will see a common thread: they are aimed at taking money from the common person and giving it to themselves. The more poor and desperate people their are, the less the rich have to pay in wages.
I'm not bitter, because I have everything I want. I'm not so weak that I have to go on accumulating material wealth after I have enough. Now that I'm successful financially, I can focus on family, friends, hobbies, learning, and self improvement rather than compulsively overcompensating for my shortcomings.
You seem to assume that if the same amount of wealth existed, but was distributed more equitably, the system would somehow not work. You haven't proved the necessity of having rich people, only the necessity that someone has money to invest.
Now if we listen carefully we can hear the cry of the slope headed repug: "Nuh uh! Yer retarded! Yer retarded!" As you can see, this pathetic creature has no arguments and must resort to insults to defend its territory.
Nope. Small businesses are small and agile. They can make changes more quickly than larger businesses, who really need the stability. They also have less infrastructure to protect, and use fewer public resources.
The rich do not provide jobs. That's like saying prison wardens supply housing. Jobs exist because people need things and other people are willing to WORK to provide them. The rich provide nothing. They are fat, bloated parasites who have convinced their suffering hosts that they are necessary. What would happen if we shot all the rich? Would the money disappear? Would the jobs go away? No. Others would easily pick up the slack and do whatever 'job' the rich were doing.
Yes, I get that. But they should pay the same percentage in cases where they don't benefit any more because they are the ones making the money. I suppose you think the rich should be taxed less, because of how much good they must be doing society? If they want to operate within society and benefit from society, they operate by society's rules. If they didn't feel it was worth it, they would leave and start their own society. The reason the rich pay a larger percentage is because they reap a larger percentage of the gains.
Hey, you live in Los Alamos? I live in Albuquerque!
DU has been show to be a factor in Gulf War Syndrome. But the idea that you could carry it back and 'infect' another person is ludicrous, of course. Still, the guys lost his son, give him a break, okay? Most people have a hard time accepting the fact that shit just happens, and need to blame something or someone.
As for my sig, why do you think I chose it? You must be new here or you'd already know that I'm a bit of an ass.
Socio-economic stability is a prerequisite for business success. The rich benefit more from programs that help create such stability. Therefore, they should pay more.
You know, you are right. I like to laugh at anti-abortion activists, republican canvassers, pro-war rallies, anti-homosexual closet cases, and door to door religious wing-nuts, too. That was what you meant, right?
I've known more activists than you. I've been active in groups like Food Not Bombs, Homes, Not Jails, and the IWW. I've known and worked with literally thousands of activists in my lifetime. I can provide references. How many activists have you known, personally? What groups were they active with? What activities did they engage in?
Nice way to redefine words in ways no other English speaker agrees with, by the way.
That doesn't describe a single activist that I've known. Marching with signs generally only happens when the other options have produced no results. But I'm sure you've known a lot of activists personally and have direct experience with their activities, or you wouldn't have made such sweeping generalizations, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Hehe. I agree completely. Even posted the same idea here before. I mean, we're just stating the basis of all of modern western liberal philosophy here, as set out by Hobbes, Locke, and Paine. Bellum omnium contra omnes, or the war of all against all. Lots of people (especially libertarians!) use the natural rights argument, and some times it helps to talk in their language.
Wrong. As I said, we have a social agreement. You agree not to attempt to look at my PIN or passwords, I do the same for you. It isn't a natural right. In any case, the responsibility for not letting those photons from the ATM machine into my eyes is YOURS. I'm going to turn away, because I'm polite, but lots of people aren't, so hide it.
As for your neighbor, I assume she is on her property with the blinds open. If she wants to give you a show, there's nothing wrong with watching. She can close the damn blinds if she doesn't want you to see.
Privacy is NOT the product of your life. It is not a natural right, like you being entitled to the fruits of your labor is. Privacy is something that you may have on your property, if it can be physically arranged.
But privacy is making demands on other people, "Don't look at me!" What gives you the right to determine what I can and can't experience? I mean, the light and sound waves coming off your body aren't yours. If those light and sound waves happen to enter my eyes and ears, they are MINE.
Now, if you and I have an agreement, "you don't look at me and I won't look at you" then that is fair, and that is what we generally have in society. But it is because we agreed to that, not from some inherent right of ownership of all sensory phenomenon.
This is what I hate about libertarians. All they have is the hammer of property, so every problem boils down to ownership. It is ridiculous.
In case you hadn't read the relevant bits in the article, here they are:
While inside the brain scanner, the students watched random letters stream across a screen. Whenever they felt the urge, they pressed a button with their right hand or a button with their left hand. Then they marked down the letter that had been on the screen in the instant they had decided to press the button.
Studying the brain behavior leading up to the moment of conscious decision, the researchers identified signals that let them know when the students had decided to move 10 seconds or so before the students knew it themselves. About 70% of the time, the researchers could also predict which button the students would push.
So this experiment doesn't seem to cover situations such as finding a note and making a quick decision. For instance, when you could get up to go get a snack while watching a TV show, you've actually decided ten seconds or so in advance.
Ah, but how do you know you've made that decision? And how do you know when? How do you know that the feeling that you'd made the decision instantaneously wasn't edited in later? Because your hand started to move towards the door handle, or your phone? How long did it take you to understand the note, versus reading the whole thing?
That's your answer to everything.
Easy, you actually made the decision before you received the last piece of data. And remember, your decision to make a decision was also ten seconds behind you being conscious of it. Your consciousness might not have been aware you had a decision to make, but your brain was.
And, so? Not all wealth was earned, either. Do you think Britney Spears has contributed more to society than, say, Stephen Hawking? Then why does she have more money?
The necessity is having a system where hard work and risks are properly rewarded.
Exactly. Hard work and risks should be rewarded. That isn't how things currently work. What we have is a system that rewards the most brutal and ruthless. Where the guy who is better at screwing over others and getting away with it wins. That's bad.
Taxing the rich isn't punishing them, it is simply keeping them from taking advantage of the hard work of others, thereby helping ensure that their success is actually merited and not a result of unfairness.
As the rich are already engaged in class warfare against you and I, I see no moral reason not to fight back. If you look at the policies supported by the rich you will see a common thread: they are aimed at taking money from the common person and giving it to themselves. The more poor and desperate people their are, the less the rich have to pay in wages.
I'm not bitter, because I have everything I want. I'm not so weak that I have to go on accumulating material wealth after I have enough. Now that I'm successful financially, I can focus on family, friends, hobbies, learning, and self improvement rather than compulsively overcompensating for my shortcomings.
You seem to assume that if the same amount of wealth existed, but was distributed more equitably, the system would somehow not work. You haven't proved the necessity of having rich people, only the necessity that someone has money to invest.
Well now I'm sorry I've been giving you a hard time, at least you're an equal opportunity hater. That, I can respect.
Now if we listen carefully we can hear the cry of the slope headed repug: "Nuh uh! Yer retarded! Yer retarded!" As you can see, this pathetic creature has no arguments and must resort to insults to defend its territory.
Nope. Small businesses are small and agile. They can make changes more quickly than larger businesses, who really need the stability. They also have less infrastructure to protect, and use fewer public resources.
The rich do not provide jobs. That's like saying prison wardens supply housing. Jobs exist because people need things and other people are willing to WORK to provide them. The rich provide nothing. They are fat, bloated parasites who have convinced their suffering hosts that they are necessary. What would happen if we shot all the rich? Would the money disappear? Would the jobs go away? No. Others would easily pick up the slack and do whatever 'job' the rich were doing.
Yes, I get that. But they should pay the same percentage in cases where they don't benefit any more because they are the ones making the money. I suppose you think the rich should be taxed less, because of how much good they must be doing society? If they want to operate within society and benefit from society, they operate by society's rules. If they didn't feel it was worth it, they would leave and start their own society. The reason the rich pay a larger percentage is because they reap a larger percentage of the gains.
Hey, you live in Los Alamos? I live in Albuquerque!
DU has been show to be a factor in Gulf War Syndrome. But the idea that you could carry it back and 'infect' another person is ludicrous, of course. Still, the guys lost his son, give him a break, okay? Most people have a hard time accepting the fact that shit just happens, and need to blame something or someone.
As for my sig, why do you think I chose it? You must be new here or you'd already know that I'm a bit of an ass.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about Ann Coulter, Fox News, The Drudge Report, Free Republic, and Rush Limbaugh?
I only hate books filled with manipulative lies and propaganda. So when did you stop beating your wife?
Ah, I see. You're an anti-activist activist. Meta-stupid!
Socio-economic stability is a prerequisite for business success. The rich benefit more from programs that help create such stability. Therefore, they should pay more.
True. But there is no evidence suggesting that there's a statistically significant difference in the number of stupid people who are activists.
You know, you are right. I like to laugh at anti-abortion activists, republican canvassers, pro-war rallies, anti-homosexual closet cases, and door to door religious wing-nuts, too. That was what you meant, right?
I've known more activists than you. I've been active in groups like Food Not Bombs, Homes, Not Jails, and the IWW. I've known and worked with literally thousands of activists in my lifetime. I can provide references. How many activists have you known, personally? What groups were they active with? What activities did they engage in?
Nice way to redefine words in ways no other English speaker agrees with, by the way.
That doesn't describe a single activist that I've known. Marching with signs generally only happens when the other options have produced no results. But I'm sure you've known a lot of activists personally and have direct experience with their activities, or you wouldn't have made such sweeping generalizations, right?