If one has to accept the deal offered, no matter how bad, because otherwise one would starve, that is slavery. And you have no argument, so must resort to ad-hominem.
Survival is the most basic freedom of all. If I do not have access to the means of survival because I do not own property, I am at the mercy of property holders. I may technically have all the freedom in the world, but I would have to give it all away to survive. Redistributing assets would then amount to protecting basic freedoms.
All natural resources were originally shared by any who could use them. What gives a person the right to steal from us all for his own personal gain? Before a person works land, they have no valid reason to call the land their own. Yet to work it, they need to own it. So ownership of real property is theft, and society has a right to distribute property so that all men have the ability to support themselves without selling themselves into slavery.
Groups are not limited without individuals, they are non-existant. Duh. Yet without groups, as I mentioned, individuals are at the mercy of forces beyond their control. You seem to be taking my point to be that individuals should be subserviant to society. That is wrong. It is just as wrong to think that society should be subserviant to the individual.
Society and the individual exist in mutual interdependence, which is a concept most individualists are VERY uncomfortable with, yet which forms the basis of society. Most individualists are socially inept, uncomfortable with the messy reality of human interaction. They want to reduce the complexity down to a few simple rules, and they create a make-believe Authority (Natural Law! Don't Question It!) to force people into accepting their simplified interpretation of rights.
Here's a quote: no man is an island.
Here's another: I am my brother's keeper.
Here's what I'm basically hearing from the "rugged individualists," "Nyah, nyah. You're not the boss of me! No one is!"
Naziism is not a form of collectivism. Marx would be turning over in his grave if he knew what was being passed off as communism. Here's a clue: communism has never even been tried.
Individualists know that collectives priovide the weak with the best protection. Individualists feel the weak are their rightful prey, and resent anything that allows their prey to escape. That is the true reason they oppose collective action: they want to take advantage of people one by one.
Nah, not completely fake, probably just greatly exagerated. I'm guessing the dude really was a scumbag identity thief, and really did get popped by the FBI. They may have even made him rat on a few people. But I'm guessing most of what he says he did for them is a lie. Do you think they'd let him tell the truth? Do you think he'd really admit to screwing over the Russian mafia if he HAD? That's the kind of thing you ONLY brag about if you HAVEN'T done it, unless you happen to like the flavor of polonium.
Collectivism allows the individual to persue his goals. Without the support of others, people are very limited in what they can do. Without collectivism, we would each be at the mercy of the strong and amoral, as well as nature. There's an old African proverb that peaks to the reciprocal nature of individual freedom and social responsibility: Only free individuals can make a strong tribe. Only a strong tribe can make free individuals.
Re:Interested....
on
Water From Wind
·
· Score: 2, Informative
I have read of such things. Here is a good summary. I know it's possible, but this just smells of a scam. No details, no patent, and a plea for investors. Fishy.
If you believe that, will you believe that I have a penis optimized to provide pleasure to supermodels? It's not much of an innovation, especially not in relation to bone-thin bulemics. If you invest a paltry $1000, the secrets of my supermodel pleasuring penis can be yours. Cash or money orders only.
Re:Interested....
on
Water From Wind
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Things I would like to know:
Phillip Adams, this guy Max Whisson is your longtime friend. You give no details about how his device works, yet you ask for people to invest money with him. Is this a scam? You say you already have investors, yet you haven't managed to get a patent on this device yet, and so you need to keep the details secret. Why should we think this is anythign but a scam?
At least they managed to note that logs say whatever the person who writes them wants them to say. How many juries get to learn that at trial?
Any jury at the trial of a defandant who has a decent lawyer? There are strict rules for computer evidence. You need to be able to account for everyone that potentially had access to the data. Any basic computer security course will tell you how easy it is to have electronic evidence thrown out of court.
FTFA Footnotes "The logs appear to be legitimate but Wired News was unable to verify that they were recorded on behalf of the FBI or that they were unaltered by Thomas."
Translation: this guy made it all up and sold his story to Wired, the Weekly World News for techies.
So screw the guy who came up with the idea? How do you encourage people to share their ideas then? How do you know a trademark actually indicates a particular entity made the thing? Not that I necessarily think you're wrong, but copyright, patents and trademarks were>/i> invented for a reason.
Ho ho ho, I see what you did there. You implied that any critique of property rights amounts to marxism, which you then implied is a dead philosophy. Very clever! Except I am critiquing real property ownership in an anarchist sense, as did Proudhon in his book, "Property is Theft!" You can hardly say marxism is dead when it has never been tried anywhere in the world. Marxism isn't communism, and even communism hasn't really been tried. Authoritarianism and oligarchy calling itself communism, sure. But not actual communism.
I hate it when dumbasses try to critique shit they know nothing about.
Also far superior to the "hit-to-tickle" technology. And much better than the proposed "stop-and-ask-for-directions-to-confuse" technology. Though the "bitchslap-to-subjugate" technology would have been pretty cool if it had worked wiuthout the "pimp-my-mizissle" add-on.
Hmm, yes, I should have clarified that I meant real property, not posessions, and certainly not IP.
As to your last point, I disagree, as it is not a matter of moving anything, but acquiring rights. You must acquire your monopoly rights in each jurisdiction you want protection in, and therefore you are beholden to play by the rules of that jurisdiction.
Ho ho ho, very clever. I did not say that any person has the right to limit what any other person does with any property. As an example, it is illegal for me to hit you over the head with my computer. It is illegal to put child porn on my computer. It is illegal to smuggle drugs in my computer. It is illegal to sell my computer as somethign it isn't.
The more societal force it takes to protect something, the more society has a right to regulate that thing. It takes much less societal force to protect personal posessions than it does to protect real property, so society has more of an interest in regulating real property than it does personal posession.
It is also about right to ownership. Only through working on a thing, mingling your labor with that thing, can you call it your own. Yet real property and natural resources must be claimed BEFORE they are worked. Thus, there is no justuification for the intiial taking of the resource. Until a private individual claims a resource, that resource can be shared by all. Therefore, absent any valid claim, and taking into account the vested interest society has in all unclaimed reources, all claims to real property amount to theft.
There is more than one person on the Internet and on Slashdot. Not all of them agree on all points. This does not make them hypocrites because, well, they aren't all the same person.
Did you know that the meaning of the word idiot, in the original Greek, is a private person, someone who does not engage in public life? Maybe you should get out more.
Actually, some places have two Starbucks per intersection. They found that it actually increases business to both Starbucks to have one on either side of the street. Because, you know, when you need your Starbucks, you can't be bothered to wait for the turn arrow. I mean, just the other day, I was seriously jonesing for some coffee. I saw a Starbucks on the other side of the street and I just said, "forget it, man, I'm not gonna waste my time turnin' here! There's sure to be a Starbucks on THIS side of the street within a block or two!"
Technically uninterupted by commercials, although if you want a good seat at a popular movie, you will have to show up early and watch commercials. lots and lots of commercials. Then there is the product placement in the movie itself. So, no, advertising is nearly as much a part of the movie experience as it is a part of the free-TV experience, and significantly more so than the pay-TV experience.
I'm glad we're taking a more enlightened view of property. Unrestrained property rights invariably lead to massive concentration of wealth and economic feudalism. People have the right to limit what others do with property, as property is a socially granted, positive right. Owning property is the freedom to take away from the shared resources of the world, it is not the freedom from having your stuff messed with.
Haha! Busted. He left a radioactive trail all over London, even in an airplane he travelled on. He's the only person who can be tied to all the locations they've found traces of radioactive polonium. Of course, he's claiming someone set him up by following him around and dropping the stuff wherever he went. We'll see if the Russians will hand him over. If they don't, it's gonna look mighty suspicious. If they do, he's gonna say Putin put him up to it, whether he did or not.
The UK may have to hand over a scummy billionaire who profited immensely off of the rush to privatize Russia, which would be cool: two scumbags busted for the price of one.
Slashdot Mirror
Just the other day, I got an email purporting to have found the cure for floppy di... oh wait, diSks, floppy disks. Nevermind.
If one has to accept the deal offered, no matter how bad, because otherwise one would starve, that is slavery. And you have no argument, so must resort to ad-hominem.
Survival is the most basic freedom of all. If I do not have access to the means of survival because I do not own property, I am at the mercy of property holders. I may technically have all the freedom in the world, but I would have to give it all away to survive. Redistributing assets would then amount to protecting basic freedoms.
All natural resources were originally shared by any who could use them. What gives a person the right to steal from us all for his own personal gain? Before a person works land, they have no valid reason to call the land their own. Yet to work it, they need to own it. So ownership of real property is theft, and society has a right to distribute property so that all men have the ability to support themselves without selling themselves into slavery.
Groups are not limited without individuals, they are non-existant. Duh. Yet without groups, as I mentioned, individuals are at the mercy of forces beyond their control. You seem to be taking my point to be that individuals should be subserviant to society. That is wrong. It is just as wrong to think that society should be subserviant to the individual.
Society and the individual exist in mutual interdependence, which is a concept most individualists are VERY uncomfortable with, yet which forms the basis of society. Most individualists are socially inept, uncomfortable with the messy reality of human interaction. They want to reduce the complexity down to a few simple rules, and they create a make-believe Authority (Natural Law! Don't Question It!) to force people into accepting their simplified interpretation of rights.
Here's a quote: no man is an island.
Here's another: I am my brother's keeper.
Here's what I'm basically hearing from the "rugged individualists," "Nyah, nyah. You're not the boss of me! No one is!"
Naziism is not a form of collectivism. Marx would be turning over in his grave if he knew what was being passed off as communism. Here's a clue: communism has never even been tried.
Individualists know that collectives priovide the weak with the best protection. Individualists feel the weak are their rightful prey, and resent anything that allows their prey to escape. That is the true reason they oppose collective action: they want to take advantage of people one by one.
Do not reply to this thread! You could be in deadly da
People who think "man" is not part of "mother nature" are probably too dumb to come in out of the cold anyway.
Nah, not completely fake, probably just greatly exagerated. I'm guessing the dude really was a scumbag identity thief, and really did get popped by the FBI. They may have even made him rat on a few people. But I'm guessing most of what he says he did for them is a lie. Do you think they'd let him tell the truth? Do you think he'd really admit to screwing over the Russian mafia if he HAD? That's the kind of thing you ONLY brag about if you HAVEN'T done it, unless you happen to like the flavor of polonium.
Collectivism allows the individual to persue his goals. Without the support of others, people are very limited in what they can do. Without collectivism, we would each be at the mercy of the strong and amoral, as well as nature. There's an old African proverb that peaks to the reciprocal nature of individual freedom and social responsibility: Only free individuals can make a strong tribe. Only a strong tribe can make free individuals.
I have read of such things. Here is a good summary. I know it's possible, but this just smells of a scam. No details, no patent, and a plea for investors. Fishy.
If you believe that, will you believe that I have a penis optimized to provide pleasure to supermodels? It's not much of an innovation, especially not in relation to bone-thin bulemics. If you invest a paltry $1000, the secrets of my supermodel pleasuring penis can be yours. Cash or money orders only.
Things I would like to know:
Phillip Adams, this guy Max Whisson is your longtime friend. You give no details about how his device works, yet you ask for people to invest money with him. Is this a scam? You say you already have investors, yet you haven't managed to get a patent on this device yet, and so you need to keep the details secret. Why should we think this is anythign but a scam?
At least they managed to note that logs say whatever the person who writes them wants them to say. How many juries get to learn that at trial?
Any jury at the trial of a defandant who has a decent lawyer? There are strict rules for computer evidence. You need to be able to account for everyone that potentially had access to the data. Any basic computer security course will tell you how easy it is to have electronic evidence thrown out of court.
FTFA Footnotes "The logs appear to be legitimate but Wired News was unable to verify that they were recorded on behalf of the FBI or that they were unaltered by Thomas."
Translation: this guy made it all up and sold his story to Wired, the Weekly World News for techies.
If by cute you mean "slightly puffy like it's bloated, or slightly over-inflated" then, yes, yes he can look cute.
So screw the guy who came up with the idea? How do you encourage people to share their ideas then? How do you know a trademark actually indicates a particular entity made the thing? Not that I necessarily think you're wrong, but copyright, patents and trademarks were>/i> invented for a reason.
Ho ho ho, I see what you did there. You implied that any critique of property rights amounts to marxism, which you then implied is a dead philosophy. Very clever! Except I am critiquing real property ownership in an anarchist sense, as did Proudhon in his book, "Property is Theft!" You can hardly say marxism is dead when it has never been tried anywhere in the world. Marxism isn't communism, and even communism hasn't really been tried. Authoritarianism and oligarchy calling itself communism, sure. But not actual communism.
I hate it when dumbasses try to critique shit they know nothing about.
Also far superior to the "hit-to-tickle" technology. And much better than the proposed "stop-and-ask-for-directions-to-confuse" technology. Though the "bitchslap-to-subjugate" technology would have been pretty cool if it had worked wiuthout the "pimp-my-mizissle" add-on.
Hmm, yes, I should have clarified that I meant real property, not posessions, and certainly not IP.
As to your last point, I disagree, as it is not a matter of moving anything, but acquiring rights. You must acquire your monopoly rights in each jurisdiction you want protection in, and therefore you are beholden to play by the rules of that jurisdiction.
Ho ho ho, very clever. I did not say that any person has the right to limit what any other person does with any property. As an example, it is illegal for me to hit you over the head with my computer. It is illegal to put child porn on my computer. It is illegal to smuggle drugs in my computer. It is illegal to sell my computer as somethign it isn't.
The more societal force it takes to protect something, the more society has a right to regulate that thing. It takes much less societal force to protect personal posessions than it does to protect real property, so society has more of an interest in regulating real property than it does personal posession.
It is also about right to ownership. Only through working on a thing, mingling your labor with that thing, can you call it your own. Yet real property and natural resources must be claimed BEFORE they are worked. Thus, there is no justuification for the intiial taking of the resource. Until a private individual claims a resource, that resource can be shared by all. Therefore, absent any valid claim, and taking into account the vested interest society has in all unclaimed reources, all claims to real property amount to theft.
There is more than one person on the Internet and on Slashdot. Not all of them agree on all points. This does not make them hypocrites because, well, they aren't all the same person.
Did you know that the meaning of the word idiot, in the original Greek, is a private person, someone who does not engage in public life? Maybe you should get out more.
I have, however, put an undecipherable squiggle next to plenty of things I haven't read.
Actually, some places have two Starbucks per intersection. They found that it actually increases business to both Starbucks to have one on either side of the street. Because, you know, when you need your Starbucks, you can't be bothered to wait for the turn arrow. I mean, just the other day, I was seriously jonesing for some coffee. I saw a Starbucks on the other side of the street and I just said, "forget it, man, I'm not gonna waste my time turnin' here! There's sure to be a Starbucks on THIS side of the street within a block or two!"
Technically uninterupted by commercials, although if you want a good seat at a popular movie, you will have to show up early and watch commercials. lots and lots of commercials. Then there is the product placement in the movie itself. So, no, advertising is nearly as much a part of the movie experience as it is a part of the free-TV experience, and significantly more so than the pay-TV experience.
You mean "ends with the same sound" and "starts with the same sound" don't mean the same thing in America? What a country!
Oh, and smurf rhymes with turf, not quite so much with earth or birth
I'm glad we're taking a more enlightened view of property. Unrestrained property rights invariably lead to massive concentration of wealth and economic feudalism. People have the right to limit what others do with property, as property is a socially granted, positive right. Owning property is the freedom to take away from the shared resources of the world, it is not the freedom from having your stuff messed with.
Haha! Busted. He left a radioactive trail all over London, even in an airplane he travelled on. He's the only person who can be tied to all the locations they've found traces of radioactive polonium. Of course, he's claiming someone set him up by following him around and dropping the stuff wherever he went. We'll see if the Russians will hand him over. If they don't, it's gonna look mighty suspicious. If they do, he's gonna say Putin put him up to it, whether he did or not.
The UK may have to hand over a scummy billionaire who profited immensely off of the rush to privatize Russia, which would be cool: two scumbags busted for the price of one.