True communism is about leading people out of domination through the use of domination. Can you tell that I'm more of a Bakunin-ist than a Marxist?
Not everyone desires domination over others, some of us recognize that power used to control another's power lessens the overall power available to both parties, while power freely shared multiplies the available power, i.e. we both have 1 arbitrary unit of power, I use.2 units of power to take.8 units of power from you. I have 1.6, you have.2 for a total of 1.8. If we share power it is as if we each gave up.2 units to get.8 units back, I have 1.6 and so do you for a total of 3.2. Contrived example, I know, but the best I can come up with on short notice.
Humans naturally desire more to cooperate than to dominate, because cooperation is evolutionarily advantages for individuals and the gene pool as a whole. Competition may be advantages for individuals, but evolution takes place in species as a whole, and competition inside a species is destructive and inefficient.
Some competition is okay, but not at the level we see it today. Selfishness is only better than cooperation when resources are either extremely scarce or extremely plentiful (i.e. there is never a possibility of local shortages.) We have the genetic capacity for both cooperation and competition, but tend toward the former because in most situtations it is the most efficient.
We developed our current pathological state because we developed agriculture and a surplus. We settled down and gave up hunting and gathering. Then about 4500BC a huge part of the world, the Sahara and central Asian regions, dried up and we experienced mass famine for the first time (before that, we just moved on.) Because of our surplus and advanced social organization, humans could turn against humans for the first time. Mass starvation also leads to brain damage in infants, so we had an entire generation of post-traumatic parents raising brain damaged children. This locked the violent, competetive response into our culture.
That being said, I have NO respect for Hillary Clinton or Diane Feinstein, and little for Al Gore, and I think you are right about the fact that they want to dominate.
Prove that google removed these pieces because of the political viewpoint or ideology expressed in them, and not because they are tripe that doesn't deserve to be reprinted. Go ahead, you keep making that allegation, prove it. Or at least provide some kind of reasoned argument.
Can you point me to some news coverage, articles, essays, anything, or is this just your bias talking? Please, enlighten me on how liberals accept gay bashing from muslims.
This is what I love about arguing with conservatives, they will just make things up in order to discredit the other side, and they will never back down or admit they lied. And idiots will believe them and parrot back the lies as if they were truth.
So in your world, all liberals have the goal of total domination, and are simply communists in disguise? What an immature and self centered point of view. Are you just trying to be inflamatory, or do you really believe that?
Or anything else that might offend anyone, anywhere. The most important thing is to put on a happy face and never disagree. Just nod and smile, there ya go, uuuhhh, let me wipe that drool off your chin...
Seriously, wtf? Just because an issue is controversial we can't talk about it? What kind of PC thought policing happy-happy joy-joy troll ARE you? Me, I only read the flamebait articles. Sure, there's lots of immature asshats, but the amazing thing is, on any issue with any kind of controversy, you also get plenty of thoughtful and interesting arguments from both sides. Which lets you strengthen your own arguments by responding to criticism from intelligent people. It's a little technique known as dialectic, you may have heard of it.
Every time I see those commercials, I think about Hawaii. I lived in Waianae for a year. It's a very small town on the leeward coast of Oahu. My roommate's daughter, Chisa, HATED geckos, which were everywhere. And I do mean everywhere, I counted the geckos in just the living room one night and there were about 80 of the cute little things. She didn't think they were cute, one of them fell off the ceiling (because they flip out and fight ALL THE TIME!) and landed in her mouth while she was sleeping.
She would get her revenge though. They liked to hang out on the outside of the window screens catching bugs at night. She would go up and flick the inside of the screen and the adorable little lizards would go sailing off into the night, spinning as they went. Didn't hurt them, they'd be back in ten minutes, but it sure was funny to watch.
Me, I'm glad they were there, they ate tons of mosquitos, which were never in Hawaii until some European ship captain got pissed at the natives for some dumb thing way back when and dumped a barrel of mosquito larvae laden water into one of their streams.
I worked in that shop in 1991 and I threw out those prints years ago. It was all of three student class projects, one of which I asked the girl if I could copy. I kept some of the blown up scans of Monet & Renoir for a few years after that, but those are in the public domain.
Like I said to jcr above, I was young, a punk kid who traded CDs and warez. Honestly, it was only about three student pieces, mostly I scanned in stuff like Monet and Renoir paintings. I wouldn't do it now, I don't have any of the artwork anymore, and I feel bad if it caused anyone any harm.
Hey, wow, I worked nights as a digital color pressman in San Francisco doing prints on electrostatic plotters and Canon color copiers. The plotters used PCs as render engines, the plotters used what was probably the very same system, an SGI server running IRIX.
Haven't thought about that in years. Hehe, me and the mounting/laminating guy had a deal, I'd scan stuff in or snag good student art (we gave discounts to Art Academy students), print out two copies, and he'd mount and laminate 'em for us. I had the best art collection of any 22 year old in the city. Good times, good times.
Not that I advocate that sort of behavior, unless your company really, really deserves it (mine did, the blueprint division was a toxic sweatshop that made the whole floor I was on reek of ammonia, which I'm sure was no good for the poor pregnant Phillipino ladies who worked there.)
Oh suck it, ya fascist. Unless company policy specifically forbids listening to music at work, this shouldn't be an issue. I sincerely hope you don't have authority over anyone you work with, you sound like a perfect Lumbergh. I've got your TPS report right here, buddy, just bend over a little and you can see it...
I've been on the receiving end often enough to empathize. You were hoping for a nice argument and all you got was contradiction. I put that in my sig to try to remind myself to have a little patience. Anyway, my reply is done, have a read if you like, or don't, not like you owe me anything after me being a jerk like that.
Well put, Morosoph, very well put. No time to add anythign to the discussion, I just spent quite a bit of time answering carbonautomaton and I'm juggling three installs at work. Just wanted to say you have a very well developed political philosophy that matches my own quite well. I'm not actually an Anrcho-Syndicalist anymore, it's just a convenient shorthand. Hehe, I haven't paid my IWW dues in eight years or so...
1.) The question of original coercion is actually an interesting one and hotly debated. Some believe we are inherently violent, others think something triggered our current state of being. I believe the latter. There is very little evidence for mass human on human violence before 4000BC. No walled villages. No swords. No mass graves. Interestingly, that time period corresponds to the desertification of the Sahara and Central Asia. James DeMeo theorizes that we developed agriculture, created a surplus, gave up hunting & gathering, and then had the first mass famine. We are violent because of the lingering post-traumatic stress disorder of this initial incident. In this theory, government preceded violence. I lived in Crete for a while, and I can say that the Minoans had a much less coercive government than later governments in the area.
2.) Government fixes things when the market breaks. The free market is only efficient at distributing resources when certain conditions are met. Externalities, imbalance of information, and natural monopolies cause market breakdowns. Government regulation fixes them. But it need not be a coercive geovernment. Libertarianism is a form of government, it is not Ochlocracy, or mob rule.
3.) I partially agree. I think everyone deserves to have the basic necessities of life: clothing, clean water, sanitation, medicine, food and shelter. Beyond that, the people who are smart and work hard should get more, but reasonably so, not millions of times what others get.
4.) This is trying to point out the falacy of treating one grouping of individuals (government) differntly than others (corporations, partnershps, amrriages, etc.) You have not addressed the basic point here.
5.) Having argued with Libertarians on the Internet for over ten years now, I can say that this may not be true for all, but for many, they DO simply parrot back the same tired arguments without understanding them, all the while claiming to be free thinking individuals. It gets tiring after a while, and it IS okay to poke fun at Libertarians for this. If you are not like this, good, the point doesn't apply to you.
6.) This is rebutting a point that Libertarians make all the time, that they had no choice about what type of State they were born into, how unfair that is. Don't like it? Move. Make your own state. What's that? No place to move to? Everythings owned already? Too bad, that's what would happen under Libertarianism, too.
7.) This is pointing out the fact that Libertarians for the most part do not put their money where their mouth is. Every other political philosophy has put it's ideals into practice, even if it failed miserably. Not Libertarianism.
8.) This is again making fun of the Libertarian tendency to parrot back sound-bite arguments without understanding them. As I said, I have been debating Libertarians on the Internet for years, and this wouldn't be funny to people like me if there weren't a grain of truth to it.
9.) I have no idea what this point means.
10.) Not mindless babble, one of the more important points. Libertarians can not agree amongst themselves how much government is necessary, and as they are all rugged individualists, they will never compromise to come up with a working definition. You think I'm bad? Try debating some hard core Libertarians, they will tear you a new one if you disagree about certain basic points.
Section 2
11.) But Libertarians act like this! Maybe you don't have as much experience debating them as I do. It sure feels like they believe this sometimes.
12.) See point 10 and try arguing that with a hard core Libertarian, you will have your ass chewed entirely off for taking that stance.
13.) People can be jerks to each other without government intervention. Many Libertarians think that without government, things like that wouldn't happen, which is bullshit.
14.) Listen to some Libertarian mathematics of economics sometime and get back to me with how silly this i
Oh don't get your panties in a bunch.;-) And don't go comparing yourself to minorities, there's no comparison. If I want to say that Libertarianism is a poorly thought out philosophy, that's not like putting people down for things they can't change. Hopefully you get the difference between, "I think you believe something silly" and "die, minority, die."
Okay, look, I actually don't want to hurt your feelings. I just wasn't in the mood for a debate about Libertarianism. However, since you responded, I will actually read your post and reply with something other than flip dismissal. Sorry. I haven't had my coffee yet. Forgive me?
You should understand, I come from a Anarcho-Syndicalist background, which is a slightly socialist leaning form of Anarchism, while Libertarianism is a very capitalist leaning form of Anarchy, and there's nothing an Anarchist hates more than another Anarchist who got it almost, but not quite right.;-)
Just give me a little while, I promise I will read your post but I'm at work so I have to do this while I'm installing SuSE on three virtual machines. But if it gives you any consolation, I feel bad about being mean to you so I will read it and give a decent response.
Yeah, I read some of the other comments and looked at the home page. Looks like a general purpose program that can trigger other programs when any number of different things happen on your system. Pretty neat, and I for one will be downloading it and giving it a try. I already use ClamWin.
It's a joke. The fact that you took it seriously and spent so much time rebutting a joke says all that anyone needs to know about what Libertarianism can do to your head.
No, this isn't David Bergland's evangelistic text. This is an outsider's view of the precepts of libertarianism. I hope you can laugh at how close this is to real libertarianism!
Introduction
One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign words like "proletariat".
This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need to hit the ground running as a freshly indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and proselytize!
Philosophy
In the beginning, man dwelt in a state of Nature, until the serpent Government tempted man into Initial Coercion.
Government is the Great Satan. All Evil comes from Government, and all Good from the Market, according to the Ayatollah Rand.
We must worship the Horatio Alger fantasy that the meritorious few will just happen to have the lucky breaks that make them rich. Libertarians happen to be the meritorious few by ideological correctness. The rest can go hang.
Government cannot own things because only individuals can own things. Except for corporations, partnerships, joint ownership, marriage, and anything else we except but government.
Parrot these arguments, and you too will be a singular, creative, reasoning individualist.
Parents cannot choose a government for their children any more than they can choose language, residence, school, or religion.
Taxation is theft because we have a right to squat in the US and benefit from defense, infrastructure, police, courts, etc. without obligation.
Magic incantations can overturn society and bring about libertopia. Sovereign citizenry! The 16th Amendment is invalid! States rights!
Objectivist/Neo-Tech Advantage #69i : The true measure of fully integrated honesty is whether the sucker has opened his wallet. Thus sayeth the Profit Wallace. Zonpower Rules Nerdspace!
The great Zen riddle of libertarianism: minimal government is necessary and unnecessary. The answer is only to be found by individuals.
Government
Libertarians invented outrage over government waste, bureaucracy, injustice, etc. Nobody else thinks they are bad, knows they exist, or works to stop them.
Enlightenment comes only through repetition of the sacred mantra "Government does not work" according to Guru Browne.
Only government is force, no matter how many Indians were killed by settlers to acquire their property, no matter how many blacks were enslaved and sold by private companies, no matter how many heads of union members are broken by private police.
Money that government touches spontaneously combusts, destroying the economy. Money retained by individuals grows the economy, even if literally burnt.
Private education works, public education doesn't. The publicly educated masses that have grown the modern economies of the past 150 years are an illusion.
Market failures, trusts, and oligopolies are lies spread by the evil economists serving the government as described in the "Protocols of the Elders of Statism".
Central planning cannot work. Which is why all businesses internally are run like little markets, with no centralized leadership.
Paternalism is the worst thing that can be inflicted upon people, as everyone knows that fathers are the most hated and reviled figures in the world.
Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearsome master. Therefore, we should avoid it entirely, as we do all forms of combustion.
Regulation
The FDA is solely responsible for any death or sickness where it might have prevented treatment by the latest unproven fad.
Children, criminals, death cultists, and you all have the same inalienable right to own any
I'm a Bush critic. I was no big fan of Clinton, but I voted for him. There is nothing wrong with being biased, just because I am biased does not mean I am wrong. You know very well why you are doing what you are doing, you just want the Bush critics to shut up, but you have no logical reasons to support your position.
It seems incredibly juvenile and it doesn't win you any points with logical thinkers. It's such a transparent ploy that it damages your credibility. What is your reason for alluding to the bias of Bush critics? Does the fact that they have bias somehow negate the allegations? Why else would you even raise the issue, if not to blunt the allegations? What you are doing is intellectually dishonest and a form of propaganda. It shows your bias and the negative effects of that bias far more clearly than it shows the bias of "the other side."
I put quotes around "The other side" because only people like you think in terms of sides on issues like this. The rest of us think in terms of right and wrong, and it doesn't matter what "side" we are on. This is not a fucking soccer match, okay? This is serious, and you are dragging it down to the level of the crazed sports fan rooting for his team no matter what.
I may be a Democrat, but I have several Republican friends. We debate the issues in a friendly (but loud!) manner all the time. I even agree with them on many issues, such as states rights and smaller, fiscally responsible government. Bush has set back the cause of states right and made government bigger through his fiscally irresponsible borrowing. Even Republicans are turning their backs on Bush because he is not a Republican.
You are not a Republican either, you are the type of ass-kissing hero worshiper that tyrants have built their dictatorships on since the beginning of society. You disgust me, and the world would be a better place without people like you.
There are plenty of other ways for an infected file to get onto a system besides Outlook, and a scheduled scan can't catch those files until it runs. On demand provides the ultimate protection for uneducated users, which is why ClamWin is adding it in.
From the FAQ:
Q.) Can ClamWin check files automatically as they are accessed
A.) The answer is not yet.
So far ClamWin does not have on-access scanner so you need to be careful and scan a suspicious file before opening it. If you do that you will be as safe as with a commercial antivirus. User awareness is sometimes better than automatic protection, as it may be easier to break the automatic protection than to fool an educated user.
However an average user with little knowledge about online and computer security the on-access component is a must and the ClamWin should be used only as a complimentary scanner. We are developing it and will release it in the next major version update.
If the "Integration with Windows Explorer" option is checked during installation, any file can be scanned from within Windows Explorer simply by right-clicking on it and selecting "Scan With ClamWin Free Antivirus"
It is not illegal to sell something below cost unless you are a convicted monopoly. If what you were saying were true, gift giving would be illegal and so would loss leaders and any sales event that lowered the price of an item below cost. I suspect you are just looking to get a rise out of people. Or perhaps you are simply stupid and/or misinformed. Can you really not think of any instances of things being given away or sold below cost?
Doing a little research I found that I was in fact partially misinformed. The term originiated as a perjorative word around 1647 in the English civil war. It wasn't until 1703 that the term was first used in a positive light, in Nouveaux voyages dans l'Amérique septentrionale, a book about Native American societies by Louis-Armand, Baron de Lahontan. The first self described anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who wrote What is Property? in 1840. His most famous answer is that property is theft, but he also stated, "Property [is] a triumph of Liberty. For it is born of Liberty... Property is the only power that can act as a counterweight to the State, because it shows no reverence for princes, rebels against society and is, in short, anarchist."
It was during the later half of the 19th century that American Individualist Anarchy (the direct ancestor of Libertarianism) developed, with a focus on private property and the market economy. In Europe, Anarchism developed in a different direction during this time. The First International Workingman's Association, held in 1864, included such notable figures as Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and of course Karl Marx. There was a big split, with Marx on one side and Bakunin on the other. Bakunin's camp saw Marx as authoritarian, and he predicted that if a Marxist party came to power its leaders would simply take the place of the ruling class they had fought against. Guess he was right, eh?
Around the turn of the century Anarchism played a large part in the formation of labor unions in the US. Many saw the International Workers of the World as Anarchist, specifically Anarcho-Syndicalist, but the group themselves refused to take an official political stance. Formed to combat what they saw as the excesses of trade-unionism with its fat-cat leaders, lack of accountability, and forced payment of dues, the IWW accepted members of any political stripe, but it could be argued that their goals were distinctly Anarcho-Syndicalist.
It is to this period that I am refering when I talk about the US fighting a propaganda war against Anarchism. The IWW was a pacifist movement, claiming that all wars were fought for the benefit of the rich. They earned the wrath of the US government during World War I for this stance, and the government fought back with raids and propaganda against the group. Anarchists were also conflated with communists during the Red Scare of 1919, although looking at the fight between Bakunin and Marx, we can see that many Anarchists had distinctly anti-communist ideas.
It can be argued that the end goal of Communism is Anarchism, with Communists believing that the masses need to be forced into it, while true Anarchists believe they can get their on their own.
So, I have learned that the story is far more complex than I first made out, with the word meaning many different things at different times, my own understanding being colored by my American Anarcho-Syndicalist background. My admittedly cursory research has opened my eyes to the larger history. Hope it helps you, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Hilarious. What are you, 12? Posts like this really give Conservatives a bad name. I can picture the froth and spittle flying as you type.
True communism is about leading people out of domination through the use of domination. Can you tell that I'm more of a Bakunin-ist than a Marxist?
.2 units of power to take .8 units of power from you. I have 1.6, you have .2 for a total of 1.8. If we share power it is as if we each gave up .2 units to get .8 units back, I have 1.6 and so do you for a total of 3.2. Contrived example, I know, but the best I can come up with on short notice.
Not everyone desires domination over others, some of us recognize that power used to control another's power lessens the overall power available to both parties, while power freely shared multiplies the available power, i.e. we both have 1 arbitrary unit of power, I use
Humans naturally desire more to cooperate than to dominate, because cooperation is evolutionarily advantages for individuals and the gene pool as a whole. Competition may be advantages for individuals, but evolution takes place in species as a whole, and competition inside a species is destructive and inefficient.
Some competition is okay, but not at the level we see it today. Selfishness is only better than cooperation when resources are either extremely scarce or extremely plentiful (i.e. there is never a possibility of local shortages.) We have the genetic capacity for both cooperation and competition, but tend toward the former because in most situtations it is the most efficient.
We developed our current pathological state because we developed agriculture and a surplus. We settled down and gave up hunting and gathering. Then about 4500BC a huge part of the world, the Sahara and central Asian regions, dried up and we experienced mass famine for the first time (before that, we just moved on.) Because of our surplus and advanced social organization, humans could turn against humans for the first time. Mass starvation also leads to brain damage in infants, so we had an entire generation of post-traumatic parents raising brain damaged children. This locked the violent, competetive response into our culture.
That being said, I have NO respect for Hillary Clinton or Diane Feinstein, and little for Al Gore, and I think you are right about the fact that they want to dominate.
Prove that google removed these pieces because of the political viewpoint or ideology expressed in them, and not because they are tripe that doesn't deserve to be reprinted. Go ahead, you keep making that allegation, prove it. Or at least provide some kind of reasoned argument.
Can you point me to some news coverage, articles, essays, anything, or is this just your bias talking? Please, enlighten me on how liberals accept gay bashing from muslims.
This is what I love about arguing with conservatives, they will just make things up in order to discredit the other side, and they will never back down or admit they lied. And idiots will believe them and parrot back the lies as if they were truth.
So in your world, all liberals have the goal of total domination, and are simply communists in disguise? What an immature and self centered point of view. Are you just trying to be inflamatory, or do you really believe that?
Or anything else that might offend anyone, anywhere. The most important thing is to put on a happy face and never disagree. Just nod and smile, there ya go, uuuhhh, let me wipe that drool off your chin...
Seriously, wtf? Just because an issue is controversial we can't talk about it? What kind of PC thought policing happy-happy joy-joy troll ARE you? Me, I only read the flamebait articles. Sure, there's lots of immature asshats, but the amazing thing is, on any issue with any kind of controversy, you also get plenty of thoughtful and interesting arguments from both sides. Which lets you strengthen your own arguments by responding to criticism from intelligent people. It's a little technique known as dialectic, you may have heard of it.
Every time I see those commercials, I think about Hawaii. I lived in Waianae for a year. It's a very small town on the leeward coast of Oahu. My roommate's daughter, Chisa, HATED geckos, which were everywhere. And I do mean everywhere, I counted the geckos in just the living room one night and there were about 80 of the cute little things. She didn't think they were cute, one of them fell off the ceiling (because they flip out and fight ALL THE TIME!) and landed in her mouth while she was sleeping.
She would get her revenge though. They liked to hang out on the outside of the window screens catching bugs at night. She would go up and flick the inside of the screen and the adorable little lizards would go sailing off into the night, spinning as they went. Didn't hurt them, they'd be back in ten minutes, but it sure was funny to watch.
Me, I'm glad they were there, they ate tons of mosquitos, which were never in Hawaii until some European ship captain got pissed at the natives for some dumb thing way back when and dumped a barrel of mosquito larvae laden water into one of their streams.
I worked in that shop in 1991 and I threw out those prints years ago. It was all of three student class projects, one of which I asked the girl if I could copy. I kept some of the blown up scans of Monet & Renoir for a few years after that, but those are in the public domain.
Like I said to jcr above, I was young, a punk kid who traded CDs and warez. Honestly, it was only about three student pieces, mostly I scanned in stuff like Monet and Renoir paintings. I wouldn't do it now, I don't have any of the artwork anymore, and I feel bad if it caused anyone any harm.
I deserve that, what can I say, I was young. I wouldn't do it now.
Hey, wow, I worked nights as a digital color pressman in San Francisco doing prints on electrostatic plotters and Canon color copiers. The plotters used PCs as render engines, the plotters used what was probably the very same system, an SGI server running IRIX.
Haven't thought about that in years. Hehe, me and the mounting/laminating guy had a deal, I'd scan stuff in or snag good student art (we gave discounts to Art Academy students), print out two copies, and he'd mount and laminate 'em for us. I had the best art collection of any 22 year old in the city. Good times, good times.
Not that I advocate that sort of behavior, unless your company really, really deserves it (mine did, the blueprint division was a toxic sweatshop that made the whole floor I was on reek of ammonia, which I'm sure was no good for the poor pregnant Phillipino ladies who worked there.)
Oh suck it, ya fascist. Unless company policy specifically forbids listening to music at work, this shouldn't be an issue. I sincerely hope you don't have authority over anyone you work with, you sound like a perfect Lumbergh. I've got your TPS report right here, buddy, just bend over a little and you can see it...
I've been on the receiving end often enough to empathize. You were hoping for a nice argument and all you got was contradiction. I put that in my sig to try to remind myself to have a little patience. Anyway, my reply is done, have a read if you like, or don't, not like you owe me anything after me being a jerk like that.
Well put, Morosoph, very well put. No time to add anythign to the discussion, I just spent quite a bit of time answering carbonautomaton and I'm juggling three installs at work. Just wanted to say you have a very well developed political philosophy that matches my own quite well. I'm not actually an Anrcho-Syndicalist anymore, it's just a convenient shorthand. Hehe, I haven't paid my IWW dues in eight years or so...
Section 1
1.) The question of original coercion is actually an interesting one and hotly debated. Some believe we are inherently violent, others think something triggered our current state of being. I believe the latter. There is very little evidence for mass human on human violence before 4000BC. No walled villages. No swords. No mass graves. Interestingly, that time period corresponds to the desertification of the Sahara and Central Asia. James DeMeo theorizes that we developed agriculture, created a surplus, gave up hunting & gathering, and then had the first mass famine. We are violent because of the lingering post-traumatic stress disorder of this initial incident. In this theory, government preceded violence. I lived in Crete for a while, and I can say that the Minoans had a much less coercive government than later governments in the area.
2.) Government fixes things when the market breaks. The free market is only efficient at distributing resources when certain conditions are met. Externalities, imbalance of information, and natural monopolies cause market breakdowns. Government regulation fixes them. But it need not be a coercive geovernment. Libertarianism is a form of government, it is not Ochlocracy, or mob rule.
3.) I partially agree. I think everyone deserves to have the basic necessities of life: clothing, clean water, sanitation, medicine, food and shelter. Beyond that, the people who are smart and work hard should get more, but reasonably so, not millions of times what others get.
4.) This is trying to point out the falacy of treating one grouping of individuals (government) differntly than others (corporations, partnershps, amrriages, etc.) You have not addressed the basic point here.
5.) Having argued with Libertarians on the Internet for over ten years now, I can say that this may not be true for all, but for many, they DO simply parrot back the same tired arguments without understanding them, all the while claiming to be free thinking individuals. It gets tiring after a while, and it IS okay to poke fun at Libertarians for this. If you are not like this, good, the point doesn't apply to you.
6.) This is rebutting a point that Libertarians make all the time, that they had no choice about what type of State they were born into, how unfair that is. Don't like it? Move. Make your own state. What's that? No place to move to? Everythings owned already? Too bad, that's what would happen under Libertarianism, too.
7.) This is pointing out the fact that Libertarians for the most part do not put their money where their mouth is. Every other political philosophy has put it's ideals into practice, even if it failed miserably. Not Libertarianism.
8.) This is again making fun of the Libertarian tendency to parrot back sound-bite arguments without understanding them. As I said, I have been debating Libertarians on the Internet for years, and this wouldn't be funny to people like me if there weren't a grain of truth to it.
9.) I have no idea what this point means.
10.) Not mindless babble, one of the more important points. Libertarians can not agree amongst themselves how much government is necessary, and as they are all rugged individualists, they will never compromise to come up with a working definition. You think I'm bad? Try debating some hard core Libertarians, they will tear you a new one if you disagree about certain basic points.
Section 2
11.) But Libertarians act like this! Maybe you don't have as much experience debating them as I do. It sure feels like they believe this sometimes.
12.) See point 10 and try arguing that with a hard core Libertarian, you will have your ass chewed entirely off for taking that stance.
13.) People can be jerks to each other without government intervention. Many Libertarians think that without government, things like that wouldn't happen, which is bullshit.
14.) Listen to some Libertarian mathematics of economics sometime and get back to me with how silly this i
Oh don't get your panties in a bunch. ;-) And don't go comparing yourself to minorities, there's no comparison. If I want to say that Libertarianism is a poorly thought out philosophy, that's not like putting people down for things they can't change. Hopefully you get the difference between, "I think you believe something silly" and "die, minority, die."
;-)
Okay, look, I actually don't want to hurt your feelings. I just wasn't in the mood for a debate about Libertarianism. However, since you responded, I will actually read your post and reply with something other than flip dismissal. Sorry. I haven't had my coffee yet. Forgive me?
You should understand, I come from a Anarcho-Syndicalist background, which is a slightly socialist leaning form of Anarchism, while Libertarianism is a very capitalist leaning form of Anarchy, and there's nothing an Anarchist hates more than another Anarchist who got it almost, but not quite right.
Just give me a little while, I promise I will read your post but I'm at work so I have to do this while I'm installing SuSE on three virtual machines. But if it gives you any consolation, I feel bad about being mean to you so I will read it and give a decent response.
Yeah, I read some of the other comments and looked at the home page. Looks like a general purpose program that can trigger other programs when any number of different things happen on your system. Pretty neat, and I for one will be downloading it and giving it a try. I already use ClamWin.
It's a joke. The fact that you took it seriously and spent so much time rebutting a joke says all that anyone needs to know about what Libertarianism can do to your head.
Works like a windows app, systray integration and everything.
No, this isn't David Bergland's evangelistic text. This is an outsider's view of the precepts of libertarianism. I hope you can laugh at how close this is to real libertarianism!
Introduction
One of the most attractive features of libertarianism is that it is basically a very simple ideology. Maybe even simpler than Marxism, since you don't have to learn foreign words like "proletariat".
This brief outline will give you most of the tools you need to hit the ground running as a freshly indoctrinated libertarian ideologue. Go forth and proselytize!
Philosophy
Government
Regulation
I'm a Bush critic. I was no big fan of Clinton, but I voted for him. There is nothing wrong with being biased, just because I am biased does not mean I am wrong. You know very well why you are doing what you are doing, you just want the Bush critics to shut up, but you have no logical reasons to support your position.
It seems incredibly juvenile and it doesn't win you any points with logical thinkers. It's such a transparent ploy that it damages your credibility. What is your reason for alluding to the bias of Bush critics? Does the fact that they have bias somehow negate the allegations? Why else would you even raise the issue, if not to blunt the allegations? What you are doing is intellectually dishonest and a form of propaganda. It shows your bias and the negative effects of that bias far more clearly than it shows the bias of "the other side."
I put quotes around "The other side" because only people like you think in terms of sides on issues like this. The rest of us think in terms of right and wrong, and it doesn't matter what "side" we are on. This is not a fucking soccer match, okay? This is serious, and you are dragging it down to the level of the crazed sports fan rooting for his team no matter what.
I may be a Democrat, but I have several Republican friends. We debate the issues in a friendly (but loud!) manner all the time. I even agree with them on many issues, such as states rights and smaller, fiscally responsible government. Bush has set back the cause of states right and made government bigger through his fiscally irresponsible borrowing. Even Republicans are turning their backs on Bush because he is not a Republican.
You are not a Republican either, you are the type of ass-kissing hero worshiper that tyrants have built their dictatorships on since the beginning of society. You disgust me, and the world would be a better place without people like you.
There are plenty of other ways for an infected file to get onto a system besides Outlook, and a scheduled scan can't catch those files until it runs. On demand provides the ultimate protection for uneducated users, which is why ClamWin is adding it in.
From the FAQ:
Q.) Can ClamWin check files automatically as they are accessed
A.) The answer is not yet.
So far ClamWin does not have on-access scanner so you need to be careful and scan a suspicious file before opening it. If you do that you will be as safe as with a commercial antivirus. User awareness is sometimes better than automatic protection, as it may be easier to break the automatic protection than to fool an educated user.
However an average user with little knowledge about online and computer security the on-access component is a must and the ClamWin should be used only as a complimentary scanner. We are developing it and will release it in the next major version update.
If the "Integration with Windows Explorer" option is checked during installation, any file can be scanned from within Windows Explorer simply by right-clicking on it and selecting "Scan With ClamWin Free Antivirus"
I suggest calling nuclear fusion "Natural Organic Save Our Animals Power," or NOSOAP. Something tells me hippies would love to have NOSOAP.
It is not illegal to sell something below cost unless you are a convicted monopoly. If what you were saying were true, gift giving would be illegal and so would loss leaders and any sales event that lowered the price of an item below cost. I suspect you are just looking to get a rise out of people. Or perhaps you are simply stupid and/or misinformed. Can you really not think of any instances of things being given away or sold below cost?
Doing a little research I found that I was in fact partially misinformed. The term originiated as a perjorative word around 1647 in the English civil war. It wasn't until 1703 that the term was first used in a positive light, in Nouveaux voyages dans l'Amérique septentrionale, a book about Native American societies by Louis-Armand, Baron de Lahontan. The first self described anarchist was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who wrote What is Property? in 1840. His most famous answer is that property is theft, but he also stated, "Property [is] a triumph of Liberty. For it is born of Liberty ... Property is the only power that can act as a counterweight to the State, because it shows no reverence for princes, rebels against society and is, in short, anarchist."
It was during the later half of the 19th century that American Individualist Anarchy (the direct ancestor of Libertarianism) developed, with a focus on private property and the market economy. In Europe, Anarchism developed in a different direction during this time. The First International Workingman's Association, held in 1864, included such notable figures as Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and of course Karl Marx. There was a big split, with Marx on one side and Bakunin on the other. Bakunin's camp saw Marx as authoritarian, and he predicted that if a Marxist party came to power its leaders would simply take the place of the ruling class they had fought against. Guess he was right, eh?
Around the turn of the century Anarchism played a large part in the formation of labor unions in the US. Many saw the International Workers of the World as Anarchist, specifically Anarcho-Syndicalist, but the group themselves refused to take an official political stance. Formed to combat what they saw as the excesses of trade-unionism with its fat-cat leaders, lack of accountability, and forced payment of dues, the IWW accepted members of any political stripe, but it could be argued that their goals were distinctly Anarcho-Syndicalist.
It is to this period that I am refering when I talk about the US fighting a propaganda war against Anarchism. The IWW was a pacifist movement, claiming that all wars were fought for the benefit of the rich. They earned the wrath of the US government during World War I for this stance, and the government fought back with raids and propaganda against the group. Anarchists were also conflated with communists during the Red Scare of 1919, although looking at the fight between Bakunin and Marx, we can see that many Anarchists had distinctly anti-communist ideas.
It can be argued that the end goal of Communism is Anarchism, with Communists believing that the masses need to be forced into it, while true Anarchists believe they can get their on their own.
So, I have learned that the story is far more complex than I first made out, with the word meaning many different things at different times, my own understanding being colored by my American Anarcho-Syndicalist background. My admittedly cursory research has opened my eyes to the larger history. Hope it helps you, too.