Well, son, take a seat and let me tell you 'bout the good ol' days. Back before there was this new fangled world wide web, we had this place called Usenet which was kinda like you young'ins web forums, only all in text and kinda all jumbled together. It evolved from something that came before the Internet even, UUCP, which was Unix to Unix Copy protocol, though it wasn't only used by unix, you see? (zzzzzz... zzzz... zznork?) Where was I?
Anyways, all these old timey bulletin boards (We called 'em BBSs back then) would all dial each other up over regular old phone lines and forward stuff on at pre-arranged intervals. All of them freely associating created a kind of world wide forum without the need for any of this fancy infrastructure we have now. It was kinda like anarchy in action, but each little bulliten board owner was god of his entire domain, see? (zzzzz.. zzzz... zzwhuh?)
Who took my meds? Nurse! Anyways, that situation got some o' them early sysadmins and BBS users to thinking. The more moon-headed of them got it in their heads that the whole world should be that way, no, in fact, would be that way, because of computers. And modems, and telephone lines, and, them, of course.
And then they all started read Ayn Rand. And then the seventh seal was broken, and we all wore an onion on our belt, as was the style of the time.
The rest, as they say, is history. (zzzzzz... damkidsgetoffmylawn... zzzz... zzzz...)
To paraphrase: "Oh, I'm not that kind of (Libertarian/Marxist)";-) But now we are discussing actual real world strategies and acknowledging that compromises must be made, and practicality trumps ideology every time. That is decidedly different than most conversations I have had with Libertarians, though oddly, no Libertarian I have ever talked to admits to being that kind of Libertarian.
I must admit that you are the first self described Libertarian I have met that believes in anti-trust laws. Hell, most of them won't even admit to the existence of natural monopolies. It's kind of a party line that monopolies only form through government intervention. I really suggest reading up on what orthodox Libertarians believe before calling yourself one.
It's kinda like someone picking up a copy of "Dianetics," reading three chapters, and calling themselves a Scientologist. You realize that certain other people might react negatively to that individual based on those other people's idea of what it means to be a Scientologist, right?
Myself, if I had to pick a name for what I believe in, I'd call myself an Anarchist. "But wait, spun! Isn't that just like a Libertarian?," you say? No. I have radically different ideas about property rights than do libertarians. If I had to narrow it down, I might choose Anarcho-Syndicalism as the label that fits the best. You sound more like a Minarchist than a Libertarian.
How about a society where we collectively decide to place limitations on certain freedoms in order to balance the good aspects of freedom with the bad? Kinda like the one we live in. But go ahead and ignore the failures of lassez faire capitalism, mercantalism, and so forth. As libertarianism is not practiced in the real world, it is free to ignore the lessons of the real world.
Answer me this. I'm free to go on your property and plant my own vegetable garden, unless you use force to stop me. If no other human beings lived on the planet, I could go wherever I wanted. How is it your right to initiate force against me in order to keep me off your property? I never signed a contract saying I would stay off your property, why should I be forced into somethign I don't agree with?
Sigh. Except that imbalances of power are not addressed in the libertarian ideology. So market forces would lead to the concentration of power, which would skew market forces and raise barriers of entry in all markets, which would lead to more concentration of power and so forth. Content owners have a right under libertarian philosophy to protect their content. They have a right to collude with content distributors and electronics manufacturers however they like. And those rights, unregulated by government, would lead to a situation where all the most popular content is protected.
Libertarians would have no problem with companies restricting your use of DVR technology through technical means. And if you don't think big business can collude with itself as well as it can with government, I have some waterfront property you might like to purchase. The end result of a Libertarian win would be no government regulation of big business at all, and they could do whatever they want.
This is one of my biggest pet peaves with Libertarians. They won't actually do anything except argue. There has never been and never will be a Libertarian country, because the damned Libertarians are too frickin' lazy.
Besides, if they never put their theories into practice, they'll never have to admit how nonsensical they are when everything falls apart.
You see, that's because fencing something off and keeping others from using it is not "initiation of force." It's a natural right to keep others from using something you own. So any force you use to protect your property is automatically "retaliatory force."
Hey, if I want to claim that I own all the air on the planet and suck it up into some kind of space hoover and charge all you poor suckers for breathing it, that's my right. And if you try to stop me you'll be commiting the cardinal sin of "initiating force."
Hmmm? Which article? Think for yourself, my ass. The points raised in those articles are valid criticism of libertarianism. Some of them were written by Libertarians criticising each other! Go ahead, try to refute them.
I'm waiting.
What's that? You can't be bothered to read criticisms of your favorite dogma? You might actually have to think for yourself instead of parroting back the libertarian party line? Maybe that's because Libertarianism makes you stupid.
This is the truth. Rags-to-riches is mostly a myth. In fact, if you want into the club, you pretty much have to sell out. You need to prove to them that you are just like them or they won't let you play. And once you are in, you are set for life. The one no-no is getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar, because the myth is that these guys are all fine upstanding citizens who would never do that. So you will get a slap on the wrist if you get caught in some kind of malfeasance, just to prove to the plebes that white collar crime is an aberation performed by a few bad apples, rather than a standard operating procedure. But they will never kick you out of the club just for screwing over the common citizen. That's pretty much what you have to do to prove you are one of them.
You know what makes me sick? That so many otherwise decent Americans aspire to be just like these sociopaths.
Xmodem was developed in 1977 by Ward Christensen. Kermit was developed by Columbia University in 1981. Ymodem was also a Ward Christensen innovation, made around 1985. Finally, Zmodem was developed by Chuck Forsburg in 1986.
And I was using Compuserve and GEnie in 1980 on a TRS-80 model 1 with an accoustic coupled 300 baud modem. Didn't start to get into the BBS scene until the mid 80s when I got a Commodore 64, which was about when I started paying attention to the whole X/Y/Zmodem/kermit thing.
But... but... what about all the posters whining about "Groupthink?" They can't all be wrong about that, can they? They couldn't just be whining because we don't all groupthink exactly the same way they do, could they? Because that would be so hypocritical.
Big corporations have been subverting capitalism as surely as they have been subverting democracy. We have to draw the line somewhere. Personally, I'm with Jesus on this, lending money for profit is a sin, but even if you are some kind of Libertarian Randroid you have to see that our current implementation of capitalism is being gamed by the rich and powerful.
Now, you may think you have interests in common with the ruling class, but unless you are making over a million a year, you have nothing in common with them. You are a worker, a drone, a number in their spreadsheet, nothing more. You will never be like them. Unless you sell your soul they will never let you in their little club. All your hard work makes them laugh, because real people don't get rich by working, they get rich by leeching off of others' work.
There is something inherently greedy about being a corporation. They exist simply to make a profit for their shareholders, and damn all consequences that can't be legally pinned on the corporation. That is greed taken to a sociopathic level. How can anyone argue with a straight face that putting greed on a pedastal and making a God out of money can lead to good things for society?
Being an American is inherently greedy too, given the disproportionate share of the world's resources we are consuming.
Finally, I love it when people say things like "I'm against (some natural outcome of capitalism) but not capitalism itself." It's like saying, "I'm against painful burning sensations in my hand, but not against touching a hot stove.
If you let them, the sociopaths and psychopaths in power will hold your hand to the stove again and again.
The phrase "Hoist by their own petard" means blown up by their own cannon. Petard==Bombard, an early form of seige cannon prone to blowing up due to poor metal-working at the time. Yes, I know you were making a joke, but there are probably plenty of people out there who have heard this phrase but have no idea what it means.
Is that "help people" in the libertarian sense of "any goddam selfish thing I do helps people," because selfishness and greed are good? Or do you really help people? (in which case, my apologies, and carry on with your criticisms, you've earned the right)
I vote for the former, in which case I suspect the next in line will be the sex slave LEGO-bots. Ouch. Then again, they do make every other kind of special purpose piece...
Oh, right, because you are a troll and couldn't give a rat's ass about the plight of others. This is the oldest troll in the book: some cool new thing comes along and some asshat who has never helped another human being in his life says, "What a waste of time! What about all the starving orphans in Africa?" or some such shit. Go crawl back under your bridge, troll, and let the grown ups talk.
How about we round them all up and put them on a big space ark with all the marketroids, politicians and telephone handset sanitizers. We could tell them all that a giant space goat is coming to eat the planet.
On second thought, lets keep the telephone handset sanitizers. They may come in handy some day.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, son, take a seat and let me tell you 'bout the good ol' days. Back before there was this new fangled world wide web, we had this place called Usenet which was kinda like you young'ins web forums, only all in text and kinda all jumbled together. It evolved from something that came before the Internet even, UUCP, which was Unix to Unix Copy protocol, though it wasn't only used by unix, you see? (zzzzzz... zzzz... zznork?) Where was I?
Anyways, all these old timey bulletin boards (We called 'em BBSs back then) would all dial each other up over regular old phone lines and forward stuff on at pre-arranged intervals. All of them freely associating created a kind of world wide forum without the need for any of this fancy infrastructure we have now. It was kinda like anarchy in action, but each little bulliten board owner was god of his entire domain, see?
(zzzzz.. zzzz... zzwhuh?)
Who took my meds? Nurse! Anyways, that situation got some o' them early sysadmins and BBS users to thinking. The more moon-headed of them got it in their heads that the whole world should be that way, no, in fact, would be that way, because of computers. And modems, and telephone lines, and, them, of course.
And then they all started read Ayn Rand. And then the seventh seal was broken, and we all wore an onion on our belt, as was the style of the time.
The rest, as they say, is history.
(zzzzzz... damkidsgetoffmylawn... zzzz... zzzz...)
To paraphrase: "Oh, I'm not that kind of (Libertarian/Marxist)" ;-)
But now we are discussing actual real world strategies and acknowledging that compromises must be made, and practicality trumps ideology every time. That is decidedly different than most conversations I have had with Libertarians, though oddly, no Libertarian I have ever talked to admits to being that kind of Libertarian.
I must admit that you are the first self described Libertarian I have met that believes in anti-trust laws. Hell, most of them won't even admit to the existence of natural monopolies. It's kind of a party line that monopolies only form through government intervention. I really suggest reading up on what orthodox Libertarians believe before calling yourself one.
It's kinda like someone picking up a copy of "Dianetics," reading three chapters, and calling themselves a Scientologist. You realize that certain other people might react negatively to that individual based on those other people's idea of what it means to be a Scientologist, right?
Myself, if I had to pick a name for what I believe in, I'd call myself an Anarchist. "But wait, spun! Isn't that just like a Libertarian?," you say? No. I have radically different ideas about property rights than do libertarians. If I had to narrow it down, I might choose Anarcho-Syndicalism as the label that fits the best. You sound more like a Minarchist than a Libertarian.
How about a society where we collectively decide to place limitations on certain freedoms in order to balance the good aspects of freedom with the bad? Kinda like the one we live in. But go ahead and ignore the failures of lassez faire capitalism, mercantalism, and so forth. As libertarianism is not practiced in the real world, it is free to ignore the lessons of the real world.
Answer me this. I'm free to go on your property and plant my own vegetable garden, unless you use force to stop me. If no other human beings lived on the planet, I could go wherever I wanted. How is it your right to initiate force against me in order to keep me off your property? I never signed a contract saying I would stay off your property, why should I be forced into somethign I don't agree with?
Sigh. Except that imbalances of power are not addressed in the libertarian ideology. So market forces would lead to the concentration of power, which would skew market forces and raise barriers of entry in all markets, which would lead to more concentration of power and so forth. Content owners have a right under libertarian philosophy to protect their content. They have a right to collude with content distributors and electronics manufacturers however they like. And those rights, unregulated by government, would lead to a situation where all the most popular content is protected.
Libertarians would have no problem with companies restricting your use of DVR technology through technical means. And if you don't think big business can collude with itself as well as it can with government, I have some waterfront property you might like to purchase. The end result of a Libertarian win would be no government regulation of big business at all, and they could do whatever they want.
Don't tell me you believe that load of hogwash? Got any non-biased sources for that claim?
This is one of my biggest pet peaves with Libertarians. They won't actually do anything except argue. There has never been and never will be a Libertarian country, because the damned Libertarians are too frickin' lazy.
Besides, if they never put their theories into practice, they'll never have to admit how nonsensical they are when everything falls apart.
You see, that's because fencing something off and keeping others from using it is not "initiation of force." It's a natural right to keep others from using something you own. So any force you use to protect your property is automatically "retaliatory force."
Hey, if I want to claim that I own all the air on the planet and suck it up into some kind of space hoover and charge all you poor suckers for breathing it, that's my right. And if you try to stop me you'll be commiting the cardinal sin of "initiating force."
Hmmm? Which article? Think for yourself, my ass. The points raised in those articles are valid criticism of libertarianism. Some of them were written by Libertarians criticising each other! Go ahead, try to refute them.
I'm waiting.
What's that? You can't be bothered to read criticisms of your favorite dogma? You might actually have to think for yourself instead of parroting back the libertarian party line? Maybe that's because Libertarianism makes you stupid.
Thinking about voting Libertarian? Check out Critiques of Libertarianism before you drink the cool-aide
"Potted meat can go very wrong, very quickly, and we'll all suffer the consequences!"
This is the truth. Rags-to-riches is mostly a myth. In fact, if you want into the club, you pretty much have to sell out. You need to prove to them that you are just like them or they won't let you play. And once you are in, you are set for life. The one no-no is getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar, because the myth is that these guys are all fine upstanding citizens who would never do that. So you will get a slap on the wrist if you get caught in some kind of malfeasance, just to prove to the plebes that white collar crime is an aberation performed by a few bad apples, rather than a standard operating procedure. But they will never kick you out of the club just for screwing over the common citizen. That's pretty much what you have to do to prove you are one of them.
You know what makes me sick? That so many otherwise decent Americans aspire to be just like these sociopaths.
Xmodem was developed in 1977 by Ward Christensen. Kermit was developed by Columbia University in 1981. Ymodem was also a Ward Christensen innovation, made around 1985. Finally, Zmodem was developed by Chuck Forsburg in 1986.
And I was using Compuserve and GEnie in 1980 on a TRS-80 model 1 with an accoustic coupled 300 baud modem. Didn't start to get into the BBS scene until the mid 80s when I got a Commodore 64, which was about when I started paying attention to the whole X/Y/Zmodem/kermit thing.
Good times, good times.
But... but... what about all the posters whining about "Groupthink?" They can't all be wrong about that, can they? They couldn't just be whining because we don't all groupthink exactly the same way they do, could they? Because that would be so hypocritical.
I'm just burnin'.
Big corporations have been subverting capitalism as surely as they have been subverting democracy. We have to draw the line somewhere. Personally, I'm with Jesus on this, lending money for profit is a sin, but even if you are some kind of Libertarian Randroid you have to see that our current implementation of capitalism is being gamed by the rich and powerful.
Now, you may think you have interests in common with the ruling class, but unless you are making over a million a year, you have nothing in common with them. You are a worker, a drone, a number in their spreadsheet, nothing more. You will never be like them. Unless you sell your soul they will never let you in their little club. All your hard work makes them laugh, because real people don't get rich by working, they get rich by leeching off of others' work.
There is something inherently greedy about being a corporation. They exist simply to make a profit for their shareholders, and damn all consequences that can't be legally pinned on the corporation. That is greed taken to a sociopathic level. How can anyone argue with a straight face that putting greed on a pedastal and making a God out of money can lead to good things for society?
Being an American is inherently greedy too, given the disproportionate share of the world's resources we are consuming.
Finally, I love it when people say things like "I'm against (some natural outcome of capitalism) but not capitalism itself." It's like saying, "I'm against painful burning sensations in my hand, but not against touching a hot stove.
If you let them, the sociopaths and psychopaths in power will hold your hand to the stove again and again.
The phrase "Hoist by their own petard" means blown up by their own cannon. Petard==Bombard, an early form of seige cannon prone to blowing up due to poor metal-working at the time. Yes, I know you were making a joke, but there are probably plenty of people out there who have heard this phrase but have no idea what it means.
First, there are dorks. Dorks have no social skills, and while they try to enagage in geek-like technical things, they don't really have the brains.
Next, there are the nerds. They still have no social skills, but in one or two areas they have impressive tech-fu.
Finally, the geeks, who have social skills, although they don't always bother to use them, and who have ultimate tech-fu in any areas they care about.
This is why, for instance, "Star Trek Geek" is a compliment, while a "Star Trek Nerd" is sad, and a "Star Trek Dork" is just pathetic.
Please keep your terminology straight.
Is that "help people" in the libertarian sense of "any goddam selfish thing I do helps people," because selfishness and greed are good? Or do you really help people? (in which case, my apologies, and carry on with your criticisms, you've earned the right)
I vote for the former, in which case I suspect the next in line will be the sex slave LEGO-bots.
Ouch. Then again, they do make every other kind of special purpose piece...
"Using a turn signal is giving information to the enemy."
Oh, right, because you are a troll and couldn't give a rat's ass about the plight of others. This is the oldest troll in the book: some cool new thing comes along and some asshat who has never helped another human being in his life says, "What a waste of time! What about all the starving orphans in Africa?" or some such shit. Go crawl back under your bridge, troll, and let the grown ups talk.
How about we round them all up and put them on a big space ark with all the marketroids, politicians and telephone handset sanitizers. We could tell them all that a giant space goat is coming to eat the planet.
On second thought, lets keep the telephone handset sanitizers. They may come in handy some day.
So what stereotypes will they use from the 00's?
..
In the 1980's we had:
Pot smoking as rebellion (is that still true?)
No. Now everyone I know who smokes pot does it for their glaucoma and arthritis pain. Now where's my meds? Those damn kids stole my meds again!
If it involves Tom Cruise coming out of the closet, it'll be even better.