Bullshit, do you not know history? Corporations have done far worse to the citizens of this country than our government has. Unsafe work places, 80 hour work weeks, company towns, a wage no one could live on, child labor, thugs beating and killing union organizers, economic manipulation of free markets using extra-market forces, pollution, habitat destruction, stifling innovation to protect obsolete markets and failing business models, the list goes on.
What can the government do to you that comes close to all that? Nothing, and if it does, you have recourse. When a corporation screws you over, without the government there to help you, you are powerless to redress the wrong.
But please, enlighten me as to how the government can screw you over? What would 'they' get out of it? Who would benefit?
It was also founded to protect the people from those who would hold power over them.
When we vote for regulations, it is because we have determined there is a problem, and the regulations are the most efficacious method of correcting it.
Lack of regulation is even easier to exploit than bad regulation. Look at history, child labor, unsafe workplaces, eighty hour work weeks, people were forced into all kinds of things that hurt them because they were economically desperate. Saying "Do what I say or starve" is the same as holding a gun to someone's head and demanding they comply. Especially when the government is there, with guns, saying "Yeah, he's right, you'd better do what he says, and we're here to protect his stuff so don't get any funny ideas about evening things out for yourselves."
I never said protecting property is bad. I said, a government whose sole purpose is protecting the property of the powerful from the less fortunate is a corrupt and evil government. That is what gives the powerful their power over others: without government there to protect their property, they could not oppress others, because others would simply say "Fuck you, you aren't bargaining fairly so we are taking your shit, bitch. Be glad we don't kill you, now, play nice with others or go away." That's what happens when someone tries to lord it over others, but they don't have thugs with guns backing them up.
That is what you want your government to be: thugs with guns, protecting the powerful from the wrath of the less fortunate.
Funny how you claim the Tea Party is not under anyone's control, yet they espouse policies that benefit only the rich. I call them the cheap labor conservatives, because every single policy they create is designed to make workers too desperate to demand their fair share.
Bullshit, corporations are polluting the fucking air I breathe right this very second. I did not agree to that. They are buying politicians with money they stole using economic coercion, "Do what I say or die of hunger" is the same as holding a gun to someone's head. I did not agree to any of that, you fucking corporate stooge.
Less government power is a meaningless phrase, be specific about what parts you want to do away with.
Anarchy means 'no archons' or 'no rulers' it does not mean 'no state' which would be written 'anocracy.' It means 'no arbitrary heirarchy.' I AM an anarchist, but I am a social anarchist, and pragmatic. And I know what anarchism really means, how it works, and where the philosophy came from. I've been part of anarchist collectives.
Libertarian party platform states all regulation is bad. If you call yourself a libertarian, you shouldn't have to qualify things with, "Oh, but THIS regulation is good, despite what the party says." If you need to qualify things like that, you ARE NOT a libertarian, so stop identifying as one, you are telling people a lie, and most of us know what libertarians really are, so you are telling a not very nice lie about yourself.
Again, "Less government power"is a meaningless phrase. Say what you want to do away with. I'm hoping your philosophy is based on something more solid than that of moist libertarians, whose philosophy boils down to "You're not the boss of me! I'll do what I want!" and you have something sensible to say about what parts to get rid of.
Perhaps you want more of what Clinton did, cutting the fat while keeping vital services uncut? Perhaps you want to get rid of 90% of the military? Maybe cut all tax breaks for big business?
But you aren't talking about those sorts of things, are you? No, you are talking 'deregulation.' As in, "Get yer grubby government paws offa those poor, defenseless megacorporations cute little profits!"
Certain choices do in fact mean 'too lazy to make a difference in the world' whether made by me or someone else. It is not about the fact that this choice is different from mine, it is about the fact that it is an excuse, a self serving cop out. If he'd said, "I'm too lazy to vote, I just don't care, and I have better things to do with my time," I would have more respect for his position, because it would be, at least, honest.
No, most people are all the same in certain, limited ways. But some people are born without empathy or a sense of remorse. They are not like you and me. Those people are the reason we have laws and society, most of us would do the right thing without being told. Those people are flat out monsters, not human beings, and they want to own you, control you, and utterly dominate you, because to them, you are an object, not a person.
Putting power into a democratically controlled system is very different from putting power into an autocratically controlled system.
We are the watchers. That is what elections are for. We don't need watchers watching us.
When regulations are broken, people are punished. Without regulations, they can just say, "Yeah, and what are you going to do about it? Nothing, now sit down and shut up."
Bullshit, insurance companies fought tooth and nail against HCR. They spent billions fighting it. The watered down crap we got is because we let them use their money to buy policy. We believed their lies, because they have the money to repeat them often and loudly enough. And we are to blame for letting money dominate politics. We, the citizens and voters, and no one else.
But that means we have the power to change it, too.
Without regulation, we have no possible handle on the situation. With regulation, we have a handle, but that handle can be used by anyone. So we need to be careful and ensure that the people we are trying to regulate don't get hold of the handle. If they do, we are to blame. Without any regulation, though, we are just accepting that they will do whatever they like to us, and we can't stop it.
No, refusing to vote means accepting any pimp who wants to beat you. Voting means rejecting at least one pimp. By not voting, you are saying you don't even care who your pimp is. You are not hurting them by not voting. No one even notices. Refusing to vote in no way hurts anyone or refutes anything. It is a meek and passive stance, the stance of a powerless whore. Sorry, that is my opinion. I will never respect the refusal to vote.
We, the people, allow regulatory capture to take place, by falling asleep at the wheel. Without any regulations, though, what is to stop the powerful from abusing the less fortunate?
We can at least agree that allowing the powerful to abuse the less fortunate is a bad thing, right?
How does feeling a personal obligation to make the world a better place make you a slave? It is obvious you feel no such obligation, and in fact do not even understand such a feeling, unlike most of us.
Absolutely, yes. Some pimps won't beat a ho. Others are quite liberal with the pimp slaps. Refusing to vote does not get you out of being someone's bitch, someone is going to win, you might as well make an effort to ensure that you get a pimp who won't beat you too much.
Bullshit. Without government regulation, there is nothing stopping corporations and other powerful players from using extra-market forces to skew the market in their favor.
Government is not evil. We can, at least in theory, exercise control over it, and use it as a tool to protect ourselves from oppression by the powerful. We can not exercise control over the powerful, or over corporations, in any other way. Unless we control and regulate the powerful, they will control and regulate us. That is what power is, and what it does.
Getting rid of government will not decrease the power imbalance between the haves and the have-nots, it will only increase it. Getting rid of the rules that prevent the powerful from taking advantage of the weak will not protect the weak.
Amazingly enough, NOT casting your vote is consenting to ANYONE representing you. You basically put on a blindfold, pull down your pants and bend yourself over a fire hydrant on a busy street corner with a sign reading "Use me however you like." You are not mounting some brave resistance to the system by not voting. You are saying you don't even care whose bitch you are.
If our politicians continue to enact such policies, then isn't that 'staying the same?' In any case, 'continuing to enact bad polices' is what I meant by the status quo.
Without any evidence to the contrary, my default assumption is that this sort of attitude is merely self serving lazy cynicism, meant to excuse someone's complete lack of effort. Think about it, if there were even one good choice out there amongst all this drek, wouldn't you feel morally obligated to campaign for that one good politician? But that is hard work! What are your other options, hmm, you could admit you are too lazy to try to make a difference in the world, nah! That doesn't fit with your self image, and so you go with the third option: make up a story excusing your lack of action as the only sane decision.
Well, okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then. There are places without any good choices.
On the other hand, what if one side is owned lock stock and barrel by corporate interests, and the other side is only fifty percent in the pocket of big money? Then all the policies coming from one side would be geared towards making more money for the rich, while only half the policies from the other side had that goal. Just an example, but I still think you've given up fighting for your own interests too easily. Remember, by default the powerful remain powerful, the status quo stays the same.
By not voting you are voting for things to stay the same, and I don't think that's what you want, or what is in your best interest.
The party which wins will be the party which is more successful in hacking electronic voting machines.
That is the line Republicans are pre-feeding to the press, in case they lose or do not win as much as expected, they will simply trot out voter fraud and whine like the bitchy princesses they are.
Libertarians are run by big money. There is nothing big money likes better than total deregulation and a government whose only function is to protect the property of the haves from the have nots. You are a willing tool of folks like the billionaire Koch brothers, who fund libertarian and tea party candidates who promise to destroy the only thing keeping them in check: government regulation. Thankfully, by voting libertarian you are just throwing your vote away, the majority of Americans can see through the scam and would never vote diametrically opposite their true interests.
There are good politicians. Not all of them are hopelessly corrupt. You are just too lazy to do the research. Finding a good one to support is too much work, and your self serving and frankly lazy cynicism makes you seem wise to the ignorant, so why bother?
Of course people in open source cooperate. Distributions DO talk upstream, most of them. Upstream talks to distributions all the time. The only duplication of effort you see is in front end stuff, everyone wants their own installer.
You can get ten shitty solutions for free. Or you can pay for ten shitty solutions. Or you can get a good one, for pay or for free. It's up to you and if you are getting shitty free solutions, then you need to educate yourself on open source a bit more than your bias indicates you have.
As for the paradox of choice, how does that apply to open source and not commercial software? I knew someone would walk right into that one. Go on, I'm all ears waiting for you to explain how free market choice is good, but just plain free choice is bad.
That's exactly right, that is what Oracle would do, and why they will fail. Come after us with IP lawyers? Yeah, uh, we got that covered, no problem. Oracle does not understand open source, so they will come after OO as if it were a for profit they were trying to kill. That is what they understand. It also won't work. In the end, all they will end up doing is pissing off the smart people. Oh well, it is not as if Oracle had any standing with smart people to begin with...
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit, do you not know history? Corporations have done far worse to the citizens of this country than our government has. Unsafe work places, 80 hour work weeks, company towns, a wage no one could live on, child labor, thugs beating and killing union organizers, economic manipulation of free markets using extra-market forces, pollution, habitat destruction, stifling innovation to protect obsolete markets and failing business models, the list goes on.
What can the government do to you that comes close to all that? Nothing, and if it does, you have recourse. When a corporation screws you over, without the government there to help you, you are powerless to redress the wrong.
But please, enlighten me as to how the government can screw you over? What would 'they' get out of it? Who would benefit?
It was also founded to protect the people from those who would hold power over them.
When we vote for regulations, it is because we have determined there is a problem, and the regulations are the most efficacious method of correcting it.
Lack of regulation is even easier to exploit than bad regulation. Look at history, child labor, unsafe workplaces, eighty hour work weeks, people were forced into all kinds of things that hurt them because they were economically desperate. Saying "Do what I say or starve" is the same as holding a gun to someone's head and demanding they comply. Especially when the government is there, with guns, saying "Yeah, he's right, you'd better do what he says, and we're here to protect his stuff so don't get any funny ideas about evening things out for yourselves."
I never said protecting property is bad. I said, a government whose sole purpose is protecting the property of the powerful from the less fortunate is a corrupt and evil government. That is what gives the powerful their power over others: without government there to protect their property, they could not oppress others, because others would simply say "Fuck you, you aren't bargaining fairly so we are taking your shit, bitch. Be glad we don't kill you, now, play nice with others or go away." That's what happens when someone tries to lord it over others, but they don't have thugs with guns backing them up.
That is what you want your government to be: thugs with guns, protecting the powerful from the wrath of the less fortunate.
Funny how you claim the Tea Party is not under anyone's control, yet they espouse policies that benefit only the rich. I call them the cheap labor conservatives, because every single policy they create is designed to make workers too desperate to demand their fair share.
Bullshit, corporations are polluting the fucking air I breathe right this very second. I did not agree to that. They are buying politicians with money they stole using economic coercion, "Do what I say or die of hunger" is the same as holding a gun to someone's head. I did not agree to any of that, you fucking corporate stooge.
Less government power is a meaningless phrase, be specific about what parts you want to do away with.
Anarchy means 'no archons' or 'no rulers' it does not mean 'no state' which would be written 'anocracy.' It means 'no arbitrary heirarchy.' I AM an anarchist, but I am a social anarchist, and pragmatic. And I know what anarchism really means, how it works, and where the philosophy came from. I've been part of anarchist collectives.
Libertarian party platform states all regulation is bad. If you call yourself a libertarian, you shouldn't have to qualify things with, "Oh, but THIS regulation is good, despite what the party says." If you need to qualify things like that, you ARE NOT a libertarian, so stop identifying as one, you are telling people a lie, and most of us know what libertarians really are, so you are telling a not very nice lie about yourself.
Again, "Less government power"is a meaningless phrase. Say what you want to do away with. I'm hoping your philosophy is based on something more solid than that of moist libertarians, whose philosophy boils down to "You're not the boss of me! I'll do what I want!" and you have something sensible to say about what parts to get rid of.
Perhaps you want more of what Clinton did, cutting the fat while keeping vital services uncut? Perhaps you want to get rid of 90% of the military? Maybe cut all tax breaks for big business?
But you aren't talking about those sorts of things, are you? No, you are talking 'deregulation.' As in, "Get yer grubby government paws offa those poor, defenseless megacorporations cute little profits!"
Certain choices do in fact mean 'too lazy to make a difference in the world' whether made by me or someone else. It is not about the fact that this choice is different from mine, it is about the fact that it is an excuse, a self serving cop out. If he'd said, "I'm too lazy to vote, I just don't care, and I have better things to do with my time," I would have more respect for his position, because it would be, at least, honest.
This is a democracy. We are the government. What do we have to gain by colluding with those who would dominate and control us?
No, most people are all the same in certain, limited ways. But some people are born without empathy or a sense of remorse. They are not like you and me. Those people are the reason we have laws and society, most of us would do the right thing without being told. Those people are flat out monsters, not human beings, and they want to own you, control you, and utterly dominate you, because to them, you are an object, not a person.
Putting power into a democratically controlled system is very different from putting power into an autocratically controlled system.
We are the watchers. That is what elections are for. We don't need watchers watching us.
When regulations are broken, people are punished. Without regulations, they can just say, "Yeah, and what are you going to do about it? Nothing, now sit down and shut up."
Bullshit, insurance companies fought tooth and nail against HCR. They spent billions fighting it. The watered down crap we got is because we let them use their money to buy policy. We believed their lies, because they have the money to repeat them often and loudly enough. And we are to blame for letting money dominate politics. We, the citizens and voters, and no one else.
But that means we have the power to change it, too.
Without regulation, we have no possible handle on the situation. With regulation, we have a handle, but that handle can be used by anyone. So we need to be careful and ensure that the people we are trying to regulate don't get hold of the handle. If they do, we are to blame. Without any regulation, though, we are just accepting that they will do whatever they like to us, and we can't stop it.
No, refusing to vote means accepting any pimp who wants to beat you. Voting means rejecting at least one pimp. By not voting, you are saying you don't even care who your pimp is. You are not hurting them by not voting. No one even notices. Refusing to vote in no way hurts anyone or refutes anything. It is a meek and passive stance, the stance of a powerless whore. Sorry, that is my opinion. I will never respect the refusal to vote.
We, the people, allow regulatory capture to take place, by falling asleep at the wheel. Without any regulations, though, what is to stop the powerful from abusing the less fortunate?
We can at least agree that allowing the powerful to abuse the less fortunate is a bad thing, right?
How does feeling a personal obligation to make the world a better place make you a slave? It is obvious you feel no such obligation, and in fact do not even understand such a feeling, unlike most of us.
Absolutely, yes. Some pimps won't beat a ho. Others are quite liberal with the pimp slaps. Refusing to vote does not get you out of being someone's bitch, someone is going to win, you might as well make an effort to ensure that you get a pimp who won't beat you too much.
Bullshit. Without government regulation, there is nothing stopping corporations and other powerful players from using extra-market forces to skew the market in their favor.
Government is not evil. We can, at least in theory, exercise control over it, and use it as a tool to protect ourselves from oppression by the powerful. We can not exercise control over the powerful, or over corporations, in any other way. Unless we control and regulate the powerful, they will control and regulate us. That is what power is, and what it does.
Getting rid of government will not decrease the power imbalance between the haves and the have-nots, it will only increase it. Getting rid of the rules that prevent the powerful from taking advantage of the weak will not protect the weak.
You have to be quick when the joke is this obvious...
Amazingly enough, NOT casting your vote is consenting to ANYONE representing you. You basically put on a blindfold, pull down your pants and bend yourself over a fire hydrant on a busy street corner with a sign reading "Use me however you like." You are not mounting some brave resistance to the system by not voting. You are saying you don't even care whose bitch you are.
If our politicians continue to enact such policies, then isn't that 'staying the same?' In any case, 'continuing to enact bad polices' is what I meant by the status quo.
I'm just wondering...
Without any evidence to the contrary, my default assumption is that this sort of attitude is merely self serving lazy cynicism, meant to excuse someone's complete lack of effort. Think about it, if there were even one good choice out there amongst all this drek, wouldn't you feel morally obligated to campaign for that one good politician? But that is hard work! What are your other options, hmm, you could admit you are too lazy to try to make a difference in the world, nah! That doesn't fit with your self image, and so you go with the third option: make up a story excusing your lack of action as the only sane decision.
Well, okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt then. There are places without any good choices.
On the other hand, what if one side is owned lock stock and barrel by corporate interests, and the other side is only fifty percent in the pocket of big money? Then all the policies coming from one side would be geared towards making more money for the rich, while only half the policies from the other side had that goal. Just an example, but I still think you've given up fighting for your own interests too easily. Remember, by default the powerful remain powerful, the status quo stays the same.
By not voting you are voting for things to stay the same, and I don't think that's what you want, or what is in your best interest.
The party which wins will be the party which is more successful in hacking electronic voting machines.
That is the line Republicans are pre-feeding to the press, in case they lose or do not win as much as expected, they will simply trot out voter fraud and whine like the bitchy princesses they are.
Libertarians are run by big money. There is nothing big money likes better than total deregulation and a government whose only function is to protect the property of the haves from the have nots. You are a willing tool of folks like the billionaire Koch brothers, who fund libertarian and tea party candidates who promise to destroy the only thing keeping them in check: government regulation. Thankfully, by voting libertarian you are just throwing your vote away, the majority of Americans can see through the scam and would never vote diametrically opposite their true interests.
There are good politicians. Not all of them are hopelessly corrupt. You are just too lazy to do the research. Finding a good one to support is too much work, and your self serving and frankly lazy cynicism makes you seem wise to the ignorant, so why bother?
Of course people in open source cooperate. Distributions DO talk upstream, most of them. Upstream talks to distributions all the time. The only duplication of effort you see is in front end stuff, everyone wants their own installer.
You can get ten shitty solutions for free. Or you can pay for ten shitty solutions. Or you can get a good one, for pay or for free. It's up to you and if you are getting shitty free solutions, then you need to educate yourself on open source a bit more than your bias indicates you have.
As for the paradox of choice, how does that apply to open source and not commercial software? I knew someone would walk right into that one. Go on, I'm all ears waiting for you to explain how free market choice is good, but just plain free choice is bad.
That's exactly right, that is what Oracle would do, and why they will fail. Come after us with IP lawyers? Yeah, uh, we got that covered, no problem. Oracle does not understand open source, so they will come after OO as if it were a for profit they were trying to kill. That is what they understand. It also won't work. In the end, all they will end up doing is pissing off the smart people. Oh well, it is not as if Oracle had any standing with smart people to begin with...