Freedom is a slippery concept. Let's examine the Citizens Councils of the south. What they did was to ensure that black people were put in their place, and they did it using economic coercion. So, a black person of the time might talk of their freedom to shop where they want, or to open a business. But the Citizens Councils would talk of their freedom to sell only to those they want to. Those two freedoms conflict, like the freedom to swing your arm might conflict with my freedom from getting hit in the face.
All liberties involve trading one freedom for another. If you don't want to get hit in the face, and you value "not getting punched" more than you value "Swinging my are wherever I feel like it" then you need to trade the freedom you desire less for the one you desire more.
In the end, all talk of natural law and freedom is simply an attempt to get another person to agree with you, and to uphold your ideals of law freedom. This is because all laws, all liberties, all rights come from agreement between individuals. Without the contract, there is only power: can you do it or can't you? On your own, all alone, it is pointless to talk of "freedom." You are "free" to do exactly and only what you have the power to do, so why separate the concepts of freedom and power? It is only when you have two or more people that freedom, rights, or laws even exist. Rights are what you agree to defend and uphold. Without that agreement, you can whine about your rights all you like, but it is simply your power against the world.
And that is why you use the concept of natural laws to try to convince other human beings to agree to your interpretation. If the laws were truly natural, you wouldn't need to convince anyone, but because laws, rights, and freedom derive ONLY from society and agreements between individuals, you need to convince others for your "natural laws" to even exist.
All laws are supported by the threat of consequences. Steal my stuff, I break your face goes WAY back.
I'm amused by your poor grasp of logic. Regulations are backed by the threat of violence, and so are morally wrong, while a damn GUN, the tool the violence is perpetrated with, is morally neutral. A gun is not a threat, but a law is. Riiiight. Sorry, but someone breaking the law is initiating the use of force, someone upholding the law is simply defending.
The definition of "the rule of law" is that it is NOT subjective. If it fails that test, it is not the rule of law.
Huge corporations can currently get what they want, because we, the people, let them. We do not have to, and we do not need a revolution to stop them, we simply need to exercise our authority as citizens.
There are other ways to appropriate money without earning it besides the State. In fact, one reason for government is to keep people from appropriating what isn't theirs. Whether it is outright stealing, or using non-market forces to achieve market domination, the end is the same: some people get rewards they have not earned.
If I don't want to compete with you, and I have more money than you, I can undercut you and drive you out of business, then double my prices to make up for it. I can do what the Citizens Councils did to black people: I can ensure no one buys anything from you or sells anything to you. I can ensure, using my money, that you starve to death or leave the area.
We use government as a tool to protect ourselves. We use it to keep the free market free. Without government intervention, a free market will always concentrate wealth to the point where a few people can use their wealth to make the market unfree.
Government is just a set of agreements between individuals. If you don't like it, you don't have to live here. There is a world wide free market in governance. If you don't like one, you are free to shop elsewhere. The free market makes no guarantees that you will find the product you like at the price you want to pay. A "free market in governance" is like any other free market, it does not mean you can walk into a McDonalds and order a Whopper for five cents. You get a Big Mac at McDonalds, and you pay two or three bucks for it. Similarly, you come to America, you get American style government, and you pay taxes. If you don't like the cost to benefit ratio, GO ELSEWHERE. That is your choice in a free market.
My current favorite theory on the origins of human violence and hierarchical runs like this: before agriculture, large scale famine events were rare, as people had no surplus and simply moved on when times were tight. When there was population pressure, low level "war" would break out between competing tribes, but this was more akin to an extreme sport than today's warfare, with most combatants risking nothing more than a serious maiming (which would render them unfit for breeding, and create more opportunity for the victor.) This was the case for hundreds of thousands of years.
Human beings have two modes of behavior, basically, we have only two societies. The society of feast, and the society of famine. When times are tight, it makes sense to be selfish, and take care of yourself and your family first. When times are good, cooperation makes much more sense than competition. We should be able to switch back and forth between modes as circumstances dictate, and for most of our history, we could.
Only with agriculture could we develop a surplus, and social organization. But we lost mobility. About 4500BC, the Sahara grasslands started to turn into the Sahara desert. For the first time, humanity faced famine on a large scale. We had a surplus and social organization. We went to war, real brutal traumatic war, for the first time ever.
So you had a whole generation of people with post traumatic stress disorder raising a whole generation of kids with famine induced myelin sheath damage to the nerves. Essentially, the famine mode became locked in. This locked in famine mode culture spread across the globe. Feast mode cultures that tried to resist were killed, enslaved, or turned into that which they resisted. Today, you only see feast mode cultures in very isolated regions, like the bushmen of the Kalahari or some Amazon tribes.
Evidence in the archeological record supports this theory. We do not see mass graves before 4500BC. We do not see walled cities, defensive structures, or weapons primarily designed for killing humans.
The idea that hierarchy, dominance and control over others form a necessary part of human nature is simply culture-of-famine propaganda. Sure, some amount of hierarchy and dominance is natural. The selfish famine mode is part of our nature for a reason. But we have become locked into that mode of behavior and unable to access the cooperative feast mode of behavior, which is a more productive mode all around.
Glad you agree: law as a concept is morally neutral, like a gun. Guns can be used for good and for evil, but that does not make guns good or evil.
But I don't agree that there are natural and artificial laws. All laws are artificial. With only one person in the world, the concept of laws would be useless: they come about from social interactions. All laws are defined by agreement between individuals. The concept of 'natural law' is simply an argument used to get individuals to agree to a particular definition of law.
No human being knows by instinct that crapping in the street is wrong. No human being knows by instinct that pollution is wrong. Should it not be against the law to pollute, or crap in the street?
Okay, so what will this brand new shiny Internet actually DO for you? Who will use it? What content will it host? Why would anyone host content on it, when no one is using it? Why would anyone use it, when no one is hosting content on it?
First, law, as a concept, is morally neutral, but the rule of law where everyone is equal under the law, is unambiguously a good thing.
You claim that "IF" the law makes private interconnecting networks between two people without prior legal authorization, we will not be able to form a second Internet. What a huge If! Do you seriously think this will happen? Who would support such a law, and who would it benefit? What amazing logical leaps you make. If becomes when without explanation. In your final paragraph, you make the leap that your fever-dreams will certainly become reality, and if we want a free regulation, we will need to break the law. What a romantic and dashing freedom fighter you must imagine yourself to be. Too bad you have let the rich and powerful convince you to throw them into the briar patch of deregulation, and are thus fighting on the side opposing freedom.
You've just described walling ourselves off into a tiny techie ghetto. Who do you suppose will use your Net2, as you describe it? How will your proposal actually help anything?
Don't be stupid, we shouldn't give the Internet to policymakers, who are, after all, just tools of the rich. We should cut out the middleman and give it right to the rich.
As with all debates about regulations, the rich and powerful would like us to think that we have two choices: regulations they will control and thus get what they want, or no regulations, which means they get what they want. They want us to think we can't win. They want us to feel that our best weapon for controlling their abuses, government regulation (otherwise known as "the rule of law"), is a tool they control. But they only control it if we let them. Regulations are like guns, useful and morally neutral tools, but dangerous in the hands of the uninformed or evil. Well, the rich and powerful can pry regulations from my cold, dead hands.
To mix a metaphor, I am not going to throw the rich into the briar patch of deregulation, that is exactly what they want.
Okay sure, normal people change and mellow with age, but I thought rockers all gradually turned into leathery fruitbats, a la Keith Richards and Ozzie Osbourne. More "embalmed" than "mellowed."
I refuse to let anyone tell me what to do, especially past-me. Who does that fucker think he was, making decisions for me? When he told our wife "I'll pick up groceries on the way home," did he have any idea how tired I would be after work? No, and he didn't care, because it's not him picking up the groceries, he is gone, he is only a shadow of the past, and I am the one who has to pick up the groceries. Well, fuck it. It's not like I'm hungry now. If future me gets hungry, he can get his own damn food. But knowing him, he'll blame me for not getting it for him now, the sanctimonious prick.
You keep posting that link. What exactly in it do you believe supports your proposition?
- AJ
That the US saw Saddam Hussein as anti-communist, and thus an ally. That is our criteria for supporting dictatorships. Look at the history of Central and South America for more glaring examples. Whether we support or attack a dictatorship is not governed by how evil the dictator is, but whether he supports or opposes global capitalism.
Note that this is not meant to denigrate the real work we have done promoting democracy around the globe. We are a complicated country, with many factions working towards sometimes disparate ends.
He was also, and more importantly, seen as anti-communist and thus "on our side." I do believe that the US removed a psychopathic dictator from power. But I also believe that we have put more psychopaths into power, and completely ignored an even greater number.
Okay, I think I get your point now: we must judge these leaks on their social relevance and value, which can only be known over time. I can understand that point of view. But I would posit that the only way we can ever know the value of such leaks is if they are actually leaked, and therefore, we should protect the act of leaking such secrets. I guess I should add that I am assuming based on past experience that, in general, such leaks provide more value than harm.
You do know who sold him that nerve gas, right? The good old US of A. No one was calling them WMDs when he was gassing the Kurds, that phrasing came in the push for war. By the time we started accusing him as opposed to covering up for him, he had none left, so what BobMcD says is arguably true.
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom is a slippery concept. Let's examine the Citizens Councils of the south. What they did was to ensure that black people were put in their place, and they did it using economic coercion. So, a black person of the time might talk of their freedom to shop where they want, or to open a business. But the Citizens Councils would talk of their freedom to sell only to those they want to. Those two freedoms conflict, like the freedom to swing your arm might conflict with my freedom from getting hit in the face.
All liberties involve trading one freedom for another. If you don't want to get hit in the face, and you value "not getting punched" more than you value "Swinging my are wherever I feel like it" then you need to trade the freedom you desire less for the one you desire more.
In the end, all talk of natural law and freedom is simply an attempt to get another person to agree with you, and to uphold your ideals of law freedom. This is because all laws, all liberties, all rights come from agreement between individuals. Without the contract, there is only power: can you do it or can't you? On your own, all alone, it is pointless to talk of "freedom." You are "free" to do exactly and only what you have the power to do, so why separate the concepts of freedom and power? It is only when you have two or more people that freedom, rights, or laws even exist. Rights are what you agree to defend and uphold. Without that agreement, you can whine about your rights all you like, but it is simply your power against the world.
And that is why you use the concept of natural laws to try to convince other human beings to agree to your interpretation. If the laws were truly natural, you wouldn't need to convince anyone, but because laws, rights, and freedom derive ONLY from society and agreements between individuals, you need to convince others for your "natural laws" to even exist.
But you keep agreeing with me! Specific laws may be good or bad, but the CONCEPT of law is neither.
All laws are supported by the threat of consequences. Steal my stuff, I break your face goes WAY back.
I'm amused by your poor grasp of logic. Regulations are backed by the threat of violence, and so are morally wrong, while a damn GUN, the tool the violence is perpetrated with, is morally neutral. A gun is not a threat, but a law is. Riiiight. Sorry, but someone breaking the law is initiating the use of force, someone upholding the law is simply defending.
The definition of "the rule of law" is that it is NOT subjective. If it fails that test, it is not the rule of law.
Huge corporations can currently get what they want, because we, the people, let them. We do not have to, and we do not need a revolution to stop them, we simply need to exercise our authority as citizens.
There are other ways to appropriate money without earning it besides the State. In fact, one reason for government is to keep people from appropriating what isn't theirs. Whether it is outright stealing, or using non-market forces to achieve market domination, the end is the same: some people get rewards they have not earned.
If I don't want to compete with you, and I have more money than you, I can undercut you and drive you out of business, then double my prices to make up for it. I can do what the Citizens Councils did to black people: I can ensure no one buys anything from you or sells anything to you. I can ensure, using my money, that you starve to death or leave the area.
We use government as a tool to protect ourselves. We use it to keep the free market free. Without government intervention, a free market will always concentrate wealth to the point where a few people can use their wealth to make the market unfree.
Government is just a set of agreements between individuals. If you don't like it, you don't have to live here. There is a world wide free market in governance. If you don't like one, you are free to shop elsewhere. The free market makes no guarantees that you will find the product you like at the price you want to pay. A "free market in governance" is like any other free market, it does not mean you can walk into a McDonalds and order a Whopper for five cents. You get a Big Mac at McDonalds, and you pay two or three bucks for it. Similarly, you come to America, you get American style government, and you pay taxes. If you don't like the cost to benefit ratio, GO ELSEWHERE. That is your choice in a free market.
My current favorite theory on the origins of human violence and hierarchical runs like this: before agriculture, large scale famine events were rare, as people had no surplus and simply moved on when times were tight. When there was population pressure, low level "war" would break out between competing tribes, but this was more akin to an extreme sport than today's warfare, with most combatants risking nothing more than a serious maiming (which would render them unfit for breeding, and create more opportunity for the victor.) This was the case for hundreds of thousands of years.
Human beings have two modes of behavior, basically, we have only two societies. The society of feast, and the society of famine. When times are tight, it makes sense to be selfish, and take care of yourself and your family first. When times are good, cooperation makes much more sense than competition. We should be able to switch back and forth between modes as circumstances dictate, and for most of our history, we could.
Only with agriculture could we develop a surplus, and social organization. But we lost mobility. About 4500BC, the Sahara grasslands started to turn into the Sahara desert. For the first time, humanity faced famine on a large scale. We had a surplus and social organization. We went to war, real brutal traumatic war, for the first time ever.
So you had a whole generation of people with post traumatic stress disorder raising a whole generation of kids with famine induced myelin sheath damage to the nerves. Essentially, the famine mode became locked in. This locked in famine mode culture spread across the globe. Feast mode cultures that tried to resist were killed, enslaved, or turned into that which they resisted. Today, you only see feast mode cultures in very isolated regions, like the bushmen of the Kalahari or some Amazon tribes.
Evidence in the archeological record supports this theory. We do not see mass graves before 4500BC. We do not see walled cities, defensive structures, or weapons primarily designed for killing humans.
The idea that hierarchy, dominance and control over others form a necessary part of human nature is simply culture-of-famine propaganda. Sure, some amount of hierarchy and dominance is natural. The selfish famine mode is part of our nature for a reason. But we have become locked into that mode of behavior and unable to access the cooperative feast mode of behavior, which is a more productive mode all around.
There will always be violence, no matter how well you mitigate it in society. Taking that to mean you shouldn't try to mitigate it is just stupid.
No, man controlling other men is unnatural. Men, seeing a good, smart leader, and following him of their own free will, that is natural.
Lets say someone shoots you with a gun. That's wrong. Doesn't make guns wrong.
Glad you agree: law as a concept is morally neutral, like a gun. Guns can be used for good and for evil, but that does not make guns good or evil.
But I don't agree that there are natural and artificial laws. All laws are artificial. With only one person in the world, the concept of laws would be useless: they come about from social interactions. All laws are defined by agreement between individuals. The concept of 'natural law' is simply an argument used to get individuals to agree to a particular definition of law.
No human being knows by instinct that crapping in the street is wrong. No human being knows by instinct that pollution is wrong. Should it not be against the law to pollute, or crap in the street?
Okay, so what will this brand new shiny Internet actually DO for you? Who will use it? What content will it host? Why would anyone host content on it, when no one is using it? Why would anyone use it, when no one is hosting content on it?
First, law, as a concept, is morally neutral, but the rule of law where everyone is equal under the law, is unambiguously a good thing.
You claim that "IF" the law makes private interconnecting networks between two people without prior legal authorization, we will not be able to form a second Internet. What a huge If! Do you seriously think this will happen? Who would support such a law, and who would it benefit? What amazing logical leaps you make. If becomes when without explanation. In your final paragraph, you make the leap that your fever-dreams will certainly become reality, and if we want a free regulation, we will need to break the law. What a romantic and dashing freedom fighter you must imagine yourself to be. Too bad you have let the rich and powerful convince you to throw them into the briar patch of deregulation, and are thus fighting on the side opposing freedom.
You've just described walling ourselves off into a tiny techie ghetto. Who do you suppose will use your Net2, as you describe it? How will your proposal actually help anything?
Don't be stupid, we shouldn't give the Internet to policymakers, who are, after all, just tools of the rich. We should cut out the middleman and give it right to the rich.
As with all debates about regulations, the rich and powerful would like us to think that we have two choices: regulations they will control and thus get what they want, or no regulations, which means they get what they want. They want us to think we can't win. They want us to feel that our best weapon for controlling their abuses, government regulation (otherwise known as "the rule of law"), is a tool they control. But they only control it if we let them. Regulations are like guns, useful and morally neutral tools, but dangerous in the hands of the uninformed or evil. Well, the rich and powerful can pry regulations from my cold, dead hands.
To mix a metaphor, I am not going to throw the rich into the briar patch of deregulation, that is exactly what they want.
Okay sure, normal people change and mellow with age, but I thought rockers all gradually turned into leathery fruitbats, a la Keith Richards and Ozzie Osbourne. More "embalmed" than "mellowed."
How can ye have artistic integrity if ye won't allow downloads?
How can ye have downloads if ye don't have artistic integrity?
With God as my witness, I thought lawyers could fly.
I refuse to let anyone tell me what to do, especially past-me. Who does that fucker think he was, making decisions for me? When he told our wife "I'll pick up groceries on the way home," did he have any idea how tired I would be after work? No, and he didn't care, because it's not him picking up the groceries, he is gone, he is only a shadow of the past, and I am the one who has to pick up the groceries. Well, fuck it. It's not like I'm hungry now. If future me gets hungry, he can get his own damn food. But knowing him, he'll blame me for not getting it for him now, the sanctimonious prick.
Why not just fit everyone with a V-chip. If they have impure/illegal/un-patriotic/ thoughts they get a shock.
AT least then we will all have the means to send Saddam back to hell if he ever escapes.
I wonder how long until the lawyers start raining down from the sky.
That sounds... very nice. I mean, assuming they are falling a long enough distance, that is.
You keep posting that link. What exactly in it do you believe supports your proposition?
- AJ
That the US saw Saddam Hussein as anti-communist, and thus an ally. That is our criteria for supporting dictatorships. Look at the history of Central and South America for more glaring examples. Whether we support or attack a dictatorship is not governed by how evil the dictator is, but whether he supports or opposes global capitalism.
Note that this is not meant to denigrate the real work we have done promoting democracy around the globe. We are a complicated country, with many factions working towards sometimes disparate ends.
He was also, and more importantly, seen as anti-communist and thus "on our side." I do believe that the US removed a psychopathic dictator from power. But I also believe that we have put more psychopaths into power, and completely ignored an even greater number.
Okay, I think I get your point now: we must judge these leaks on their social relevance and value, which can only be known over time. I can understand that point of view. But I would posit that the only way we can ever know the value of such leaks is if they are actually leaked, and therefore, we should protect the act of leaking such secrets. I guess I should add that I am assuming based on past experience that, in general, such leaks provide more value than harm.
Well, you are right, it might be more correct to say we strongly supported his rise to power without giving him material aid at the beginning. The aid came a bit later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Rise_to_power
Soviet client? BWAHAHAHA! You couldn't be further from the truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Rise_to_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Rise_to_power
You do know who sold him that nerve gas, right? The good old US of A. No one was calling them WMDs when he was gassing the Kurds, that phrasing came in the push for war. By the time we started accusing him as opposed to covering up for him, he had none left, so what BobMcD says is arguably true.