When someone takes the rights away from people based on any criteria, your no better than the racists nazi's.
So tell me... What do you think of jails and police?
you should have the same "Right" as everyone on earth to medical attention.
Medical attention that has to be provided by other human beings... You're all in favour of the "right" to medical attention. What do you think of a person's right to not be forced to provide for all takers, regardless of what the provider stands to lose?
Discrimination against race is wrong...right? Or did the whole demographic of/. change while I was at Chevy's this afternoon. Well...if discrimination against race is wrong...how can discrimination against genetics be right?
Discrimination against race is wong only in the case that it's irrelevant. However, if I, a white (very white, danish ancestry) person were to apply for sunburn insurance while living in the Sahara, it seems only reasonable that I'd be charged higher rates than an otherwise-comperable black man. There's a simple reason: Black men are harder to sunburn.
There's nothing to be gained from denying the reality of what a person is. And, if that person is disposed to early death, the company stands to lose more by insuring them.
Sure, governments have never been as efficient as privitized organizations, and squandering can happen (see Canada), but at least everyone is treated equally.
So, essentially, what you're saying is that quality should be damned, if we're all in the mud together, that's perferable to some men being allowed to stand on their own feet, on clean ground?
All this does is provide a legal method of genetic cleansing. Deny insurance to the low/high-risk masses, and they wont have insurance for their children.
Let me offer an explanation: The Nazis were bad because they killed people. They stepped in, and made 'em dead.
That's totally incomperable to an insurance company refusing to insure someone. In this case, the company is not taking away something the person already owned (the person's life), but rather, refusing to provide a new benefit to that person (the policy.)
There's no such thing as a "right" that depends on another person - the "right" to insurance? How do you justify enslaving the human beings who provide insurance to provide that "right"?
What about the freedom to choose a career no matter what your talents or skills, or the genetic possibility that you might get hurt?
You know, I really am all about personal freedom. However, I am ALSO all about playing attention to reality. And let me tell you, I don't think there's much more defiant of reality that "the freedom to choose a career no matter what my talents or skills."
But, what the hell... I think I'll go become a doctor. Sure I'm an undergrad at a liberal arts school, but if the hospitals don't hire me, those bastards are interfering with my right to have a job regardles sof my skills.
but I think the Pledge is more unflichingly realistic than many movies I've seen, tho not more than "The Sweet Hereafter."" Talk about bleak..
You are quite correct. "Talk about bleak" does, in fact, apply to "The Sweet Hereafter."
However, so does "unflinchingly realistic". To speak of words, then, "tho not more that..." serves as a link between two different subjects, and to mean that the phrase "unflinchingly realistic" applies at least as much if not more so to "The Sweet Hereafter".
If the USA is to have a hope, it , like the stag, must cultivate a spirit of self sacrifice among its civil service and citizens.
So, essentially what you're saying here is that in order to defeat China, the USA must become a totalitarian state itself, cultivating a "spirit of self-sacrifice"? It wasn't a "spirit of selfishness" that killed millions in Russia, it was "sacrifice yourself for the good of the people."
In such a war, I might fight, but self-sacrifice would be the last thing on my mind. I'd be fighting for myself, and any person I actually care about. The last thing in this world I'll sacrifice is my self and what I hold dear.
That argument is simply bullshit. Most AIDS research is funded in whole or in part by governmental (aka OUR) money. The only reason these companies can charge that much for drugs is because governments act as their muscle.
So basically what you're saying is that, by recieving essentially what amounts to free money from the government, corporations are thus able to charge more? That's simply a bizarre idea.
they shouldn't be allowed to turn an obscene profit.
By whose standards? Who has the right to wave a gun in the direction of the individuals that make up said company, and say, "Sorry, I've decided your profits are obscene, and I'm going to fix that."?
Don't take a moral stand; just decide whether you'd rather the continent of Africa to collapse into complete anarchy, and much of east Asia, and perhaps Latin America too (oh no! where will we get our cheap processors and jeans?).
How exactly do you plan on deciding anything without a moral stand? Rolling dice, maybe? "Would it be a bad thing for Africa to be in anarchy?" is just as much a moral question as, "Is murder wrong?" or "Is Capitalism evil?"
Or is your attempt to avoid taking a moral stand simply so you can decide on whatever course of action fits your momentary whims?
. The only reason that I am attacking the drug companies so vociferously is that fools like you defend them.
"I attack X because you like X?"
-Fiore
There are two places money and power congregate: in business, and in the government. Taking away from one will inevitably cause it to flow into the other;
May I point out that there are two kinds of power, one government has, one business has? Business can do whatever it likes with the things it owns - hire people, fire them, advertise, etc.
Government power is based on force - do what we say, or you go to jail.
If Sony/RCA/Universal had its way, there wouldn't be a way to distribute music online, legally or not.
In any sane society, they can control what they own. Specifically, if they had their way, you wouldn't be able to distribute music they own, and they'd have no way of controlling anything else.
On the other hand there is the government, which has no profit motive, and is beholden to the people. Now ask yourself, which entity would better serve as vanguard of our rights?
Let me ask you a question: Out of two options, in the last 30 years, which group forced a large percentage of Americans, at the point of a gun, to go and risk death or mutilation, for a cause the overwhelming majority didn't believe in? The US government, or McDonalds.
I'll give you a hint: McDonalds didn't enslave eighteen year olds in the Vietnam war.
I'll take a company any day. When a company screws up, they go under - that keeps 'em rational. When the government screws up, they raise taxes.
Um, actually, no, fascism and socialism are all but indistinguishable. One of them states that individuals should won property, but the government should control it. The other, that government owns and controls.
That's a hell of a difference right there... Oh, wait, no it isn't.
Re:Really, what's so "noble" about open-source eth
on
Antitrust
·
· Score: 1
I would not call selling people software without letting see the source very ethical.
That seems a bit odd. What is your actual idea here? Your examples seem to imply that you have issues with companies comitting fraud. I won't argue with that, I don't like the idea much myself. But, it's rather silly to equal fraud with not giving access to the source.
Also, the car metaphor is rather a bad one. Code is a trifle more... shall we say... transparent? Easier to copy? Even if one took the time to discern all the details of an engine through examination, it still leaves a person a long ways away from actually manufacturing an engine, ne?
Really, what's so "noble" about open-source ethos?
on
Antitrust
·
· Score: 1
I suppose there are really two breeds of open-source supporters. One of them finds it a method to produce quality software by joining the talents of large numbers of people. Fine. I have no arguement with that.
The other breed, however, is so wonderfully represented by the line, "the software belongs to the people." Really, what kind of hell is that? Software, like any other human creation, belongs to whoever creates it.
And that ethos is far from noble. It's the ethos of leeches. In the case of a producer (which frankly, is not where you're going to hear most of it), it's the ethos of a person who doesn't think he's entitled to keep that which he creates. In the case of a non-producer, it's nothing but the plea of a parasite.
"Unfortunately, the off-screen world already has plenty of heedless bio-tech companies, hard at work on profiting from gene mapping, promising to eliminate cancer, aging, heart disease -- perhaps one day, even death itself. History ought to have taught us to be wary of this Frankenstein-style hubris, but we live in a time when the inventors and purveyors of technology bristle with arrogance and greed as well as well as creativity and enterprise.
"
Those dirty bastards. How dare they go about trying to eliminate cancer, aging, heart disease, death, and trying to make a buck off of said elimination.
I don't know what Jon Katz's goals are. If I did, they'd probably scare the hell out of me. But this makes it quite obvious that whatever those goals are, human life and happiness are not among them.
You seem to have overlooked the fact that MS is, in fact, made up out of people. I certainly don't propose that a company unto itself has rights, but rather, that the people who own it have rights that are being trampled on.
After all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that punishing the most successful competitor is a sure-fire way to ensure and increase competition!
There's a pretty fundamental difference. MS is, in essence, being punished for being successful. Not quite the same thing as locking up a rapist, neh? I'm not aware of Gates ever holding a gun to anyone's head, and forcing them to use Windows.
Perhaps I've missed some comment to this effect - I'd like to think I'm not the only one to see this - but splitting Microsoft is a moral offense.
Does someone want to explain to me why ANYONE has the right to do with MS as they wish? People seem pleased that, perhaps, a split will provide benefits for the user.
Is it right that the owners of MS be forced to work for the benefit of the User? Is it right that their property and work be made subject to the user?
>>We need a conscious civilization that acknowledges individualism as a basic human right.
I'm not quite sure I understand the idea of "conscious civilization." Is this some kind of uber-mind, or statement that someone, society - civilization - is more than a collection of individuals, and can have a consciousness unto itself?
>>2. We should acknowledge that economics matters (a lot), but it can't be society's only common goal. Nothing could be more morally bankrupt than
Does the idea of a bunch of societal "common goals" seem to be totally contradictory to any form of individualism? Doesn't, rather individualism mean that each person is an end in and of themself, rather than just a cog in some "common goal"?
>>markets are important, but corporate entities should also embrace moral and ideological values -- of their own choosing --apart from pleasing stockholders
Come now, you've already taken it upon yourself to dictate moral and ideologica values. Don't back down now. Or, is what you're trying to say is that corporate entities should embrace "moral and idological values - of their own choosing", at least, so long as it fits into your own preset notions?
>>3. Individualism values a humane workplace.
Individualism is an entity, now? This is as contradictory to any real form of individualism as referring to the State as an entity. I'd jsut love to see Mr. Katz's response if the goverment were to say, "The State values a humane workplace for it's little pawns."
>>Workers are entitled to safe, creative and secure work environments, to freedom from continuous downsizings, re-structurings, layoffs and "re-engineerings."
Entitled to... at cost to whom? Is this still an "entitlement," even if it involves sacrificing other individuals - the company owners - to supply these "entitlments"?
>>Though these practices unquestionably benefit the economy, they're rough on humanity.
No rougher on humanity than a weak economy...
>>4. Individualists celebrate, cherish and support non-conformity.
Non-conformity as a value in and of itself is one of the largest farces ever foisted upon the world. Who's the biggest individualist, Mr. Katz: the person who listens to the "corporatist" music I've seen you condem, or the person who is controlled by what the majority of people like, and force to do something "non-conforming"?
It's quite simple. Fundamentally, people are not born with equal abilities. That much is self-evident.
Therefore, if everyone is working together for the common good, that obviously means that some people are going to be contributing more to the common good than others.
In essence, what that means is that the able, intelligent, and driven are going to be supporting the weak and stupid.
And, if there is force behind this society (Say, welfare taxes or the GRU), you have an exploited class: the capable.
You don't consider men being forced to dispose of their products in certain ways "evil"? Am I the only person around here who has enough respect for people to not want to enslave them?
Slashdot Mirror
When someone takes the rights away from people based on any criteria, your no better than the racists nazi's.
So tell me... What do you think of jails and police?
you should have the same "Right" as everyone on earth to medical attention.
Medical attention that has to be provided by other human beings... You're all in favour of the "right" to medical attention. What do you think of a person's right to not be forced to provide for all takers, regardless of what the provider stands to lose?
Discrimination against race is wrong...right? Or did the whole demographic of /. change while I was at Chevy's this afternoon. Well...if discrimination against race is wrong...how can discrimination against genetics be right?
Discrimination against race is wong only in the case that it's irrelevant. However, if I, a white (very white, danish ancestry) person were to apply for sunburn insurance while living in the Sahara, it seems only reasonable that I'd be charged higher rates than an otherwise-comperable black man. There's a simple reason: Black men are harder to sunburn.
There's nothing to be gained from denying the reality of what a person is. And, if that person is disposed to early death, the company stands to lose more by insuring them.
Sure, governments have never been as efficient as privitized organizations, and squandering can happen (see Canada), but at least everyone is treated equally.
So, essentially, what you're saying is that quality should be damned, if we're all in the mud together, that's perferable to some men being allowed to stand on their own feet, on clean ground?
All this does is provide a legal method of genetic cleansing. Deny insurance to the low/high-risk masses, and they wont have insurance for their children.
Let me offer an explanation: The Nazis were bad because they killed people. They stepped in, and made 'em dead.
That's totally incomperable to an insurance company refusing to insure someone. In this case, the company is not taking away something the person already owned (the person's life), but rather, refusing to provide a new benefit to that person (the policy.)
There's no such thing as a "right" that depends on another person - the "right" to insurance? How do you justify enslaving the human beings who provide insurance to provide that "right"?
What about the freedom to choose a career no matter what your talents or skills, or the genetic possibility that you might get hurt?
You know, I really am all about personal freedom. However, I am ALSO all about playing attention to reality. And let me tell you, I don't think there's much more defiant of reality that "the freedom to choose a career no matter what my talents or skills."
But, what the hell... I think I'll go become a doctor. Sure I'm an undergrad at a liberal arts school, but if the hospitals don't hire me, those bastards are interfering with my right to have a job regardles sof my skills.
Speaking of such things:
but I think the Pledge is more unflichingly realistic than many movies I've seen, tho not more than "The Sweet Hereafter."" Talk about bleak..
You are quite correct. "Talk about bleak" does, in fact, apply to "The Sweet Hereafter."
However, so does "unflinchingly realistic". To speak of words, then, "tho not more that..." serves as a link between two different subjects, and to mean that the phrase "unflinchingly realistic" applies at least as much if not more so to "The Sweet Hereafter".
Baka.
Question...
movie I found so surprising was that it wasn't sugar coated in any way..no happy love, life or other outcome..
A happy love, life, or other happy ending is sugar coating?
but I think the Pledge is more unflichingly realistic than many movies I've seen, tho not more than "The Sweet Hereafter."" Talk about bleak..
Bleakness is the standard of "unfliching realism"?
Exactly what sort of nihilistic, depressing, utterly and totally useless worldview is required for these statements?
society is sufficiently mature
Society can't BE mature or immature... that term only pertains to individual people. What does it mean? Nothing.
If the USA is to have a hope, it , like the stag, must cultivate a spirit of self sacrifice among its civil service and citizens.
So, essentially what you're saying here is that in order to defeat China, the USA must become a totalitarian state itself, cultivating a "spirit of self-sacrifice"? It wasn't a "spirit of selfishness" that killed millions in Russia, it was "sacrifice yourself for the good of the people."
In such a war, I might fight, but self-sacrifice would be the last thing on my mind. I'd be fighting for myself, and any person I actually care about. The last thing in this world I'll sacrifice is my self and what I hold dear.
That argument is simply bullshit. Most AIDS research is funded in whole or in part by governmental (aka OUR) money. The only reason these companies can charge that much for drugs is because governments act as their muscle. So basically what you're saying is that, by recieving essentially what amounts to free money from the government, corporations are thus able to charge more? That's simply a bizarre idea. they shouldn't be allowed to turn an obscene profit. By whose standards? Who has the right to wave a gun in the direction of the individuals that make up said company, and say, "Sorry, I've decided your profits are obscene, and I'm going to fix that."? Don't take a moral stand; just decide whether you'd rather the continent of Africa to collapse into complete anarchy, and much of east Asia, and perhaps Latin America too (oh no! where will we get our cheap processors and jeans?). How exactly do you plan on deciding anything without a moral stand? Rolling dice, maybe? "Would it be a bad thing for Africa to be in anarchy?" is just as much a moral question as, "Is murder wrong?" or "Is Capitalism evil?" Or is your attempt to avoid taking a moral stand simply so you can decide on whatever course of action fits your momentary whims? . The only reason that I am attacking the drug companies so vociferously is that fools like you defend them. "I attack X because you like X?" -Fiore
There are two places money and power congregate: in business, and in the government. Taking away from one will inevitably cause it to flow into the other;
May I point out that there are two kinds of power, one government has, one business has? Business can do whatever it likes with the things it owns - hire people, fire them, advertise, etc.
Government power is based on force - do what we say, or you go to jail.
If Sony/RCA/Universal had its way, there wouldn't be a way to distribute music online, legally or not.
In any sane society, they can control what they own. Specifically, if they had their way, you wouldn't be able to distribute music they own, and they'd have no way of controlling anything else.
On the other hand there is the government, which has no profit motive, and is beholden to the people. Now ask yourself, which entity would better serve as vanguard of our rights?
Let me ask you a question: Out of two options, in the last 30 years, which group forced a large percentage of Americans, at the point of a gun, to go and risk death or mutilation, for a cause the overwhelming majority didn't believe in? The US government, or McDonalds.
I'll give you a hint: McDonalds didn't enslave eighteen year olds in the Vietnam war.
I'll take a company any day. When a company screws up, they go under - that keeps 'em rational. When the government screws up, they raise taxes.
Um, actually, no, fascism and socialism are all but indistinguishable. One of them states that individuals should won property, but the government should control it. The other, that government owns and controls.
That's a hell of a difference right there... Oh, wait, no it isn't.
I would not call selling people software without letting see the source very ethical.
That seems a bit odd. What is your actual idea here? Your examples seem to imply that you have issues with companies comitting fraud. I won't argue with that, I don't like the idea much myself. But, it's rather silly to equal fraud with not giving access to the source.
Also, the car metaphor is rather a bad one. Code is a trifle more... shall we say... transparent? Easier to copy? Even if one took the time to discern all the details of an engine through examination, it still leaves a person a long ways away from actually manufacturing an engine, ne?
I suppose there are really two breeds of open-source supporters. One of them finds it a method to produce quality software by joining the talents of large numbers of people. Fine. I have no arguement with that.
The other breed, however, is so wonderfully represented by the line, "the software belongs to the people." Really, what kind of hell is that? Software, like any other human creation, belongs to whoever creates it.
And that ethos is far from noble. It's the ethos of leeches. In the case of a producer (which frankly, is not where you're going to hear most of it), it's the ethos of a person who doesn't think he's entitled to keep that which he creates. In the case of a non-producer, it's nothing but the plea of a parasite.
Sounds kinda silly, but:
"Unfortunately, the off-screen world already has plenty of heedless bio-tech companies, hard at work on profiting from gene mapping, promising to eliminate cancer, aging, heart disease -- perhaps one day, even death itself. History ought to have taught us to be wary of this Frankenstein-style hubris, but we live in a time when the inventors and purveyors of technology bristle with arrogance and greed as well as well as creativity and enterprise.
" Those dirty bastards. How dare they go about trying to eliminate cancer, aging, heart disease, death, and trying to make a buck off of said elimination.
I don't know what Jon Katz's goals are. If I did, they'd probably scare the hell out of me. But this makes it quite obvious that whatever those goals are, human life and happiness are not among them.
You seem to have overlooked the fact that MS is, in fact, made up out of people. I certainly don't propose that a company unto itself has rights, but rather, that the people who own it have rights that are being trampled on.
Oh, by the way, how is MS hurting you?
After all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that punishing the most successful competitor is a sure-fire way to ensure and increase competition!
Er...
Wait, no, that's kinda dumb. Damn.
There's a pretty fundamental difference. MS is, in essence, being punished for being successful. Not quite the same thing as locking up a rapist, neh? I'm not aware of Gates ever holding a gun to anyone's head, and forcing them to use Windows.
Perhaps I've missed some comment to this effect - I'd like to think I'm not the only one to see this - but splitting Microsoft is a moral offense.
Does someone want to explain to me why ANYONE has the right to do with MS as they wish? People seem pleased that, perhaps, a split will provide benefits for the user.
Is it right that the owners of MS be forced to work for the benefit of the User? Is it right that their property and work be made subject to the user?
There's a word for the attitude that says yes.
Slavery.
Thank you, for a breath of reason...
Do I hear a whisper of Rand in those paragraphs, though? ^_^
>>We need a conscious civilization that acknowledges individualism as a basic human right.
I'm not quite sure I understand the idea of "conscious civilization." Is this some kind of uber-mind, or statement that someone, society - civilization - is more than a collection of individuals, and can have a consciousness unto itself?
>>2. We should acknowledge that economics matters (a lot), but it can't be society's only common goal. Nothing could be more morally bankrupt than
Does the idea of a bunch of societal "common goals" seem to be totally contradictory to any form of individualism? Doesn't, rather individualism mean that each person is an end in and of themself, rather than just a cog in some "common goal"?
>>markets are important, but corporate entities should also embrace moral and ideological values -- of their own choosing --apart from pleasing stockholders
Come now, you've already taken it upon yourself to dictate moral and ideologica values. Don't back down now. Or, is what you're trying to say is that corporate entities should embrace "moral and idological values - of their own choosing", at least, so long as it fits into your own preset notions?
>>3. Individualism values a humane workplace.
Individualism is an entity, now? This is as contradictory to any real form of individualism as referring to the State as an entity. I'd jsut love to see Mr. Katz's response if the goverment were to say, "The State values a humane workplace for it's little pawns."
>>Workers are entitled to safe, creative and secure work environments, to freedom from continuous downsizings, re-structurings, layoffs and "re-engineerings."
Entitled to... at cost to whom? Is this still an "entitlement," even if it involves sacrificing other individuals - the company owners - to supply these "entitlments"?
>>Though these practices unquestionably benefit the economy, they're rough on humanity.
No rougher on humanity than a weak economy...
>>4. Individualists celebrate, cherish and support non-conformity.
Non-conformity as a value in and of itself is one of the largest farces ever foisted upon the world. Who's the biggest individualist, Mr. Katz: the person who listens to the "corporatist" music I've seen you condem, or the person who is controlled by what the majority of people like, and force to do something "non-conforming"?
Hmmm... Interesting. I wasn't aware of this. Let me reexamine my Rand-loving situation in life...
My father, a professor, is apparently earning a lot more money than I was aware professors can do.
Hmmm... success. Well, I'm not much of an athlete, but managed to practice my way to be a decent fencer/rifle shooter, because I enjoyed the sports.
Oh, yes, did I mention that I'm a gay male, who's spent most of the past years fighting for my own ability to exist as an end in and of myself?
Oh, by the way, I do my laundry...
-Fiore
It's quite simple. Fundamentally, people are not born with equal abilities. That much is self-evident.
Therefore, if everyone is working together for the common good, that obviously means that some people are going to be contributing more to the common good than others.
In essence, what that means is that the able, intelligent, and driven are going to be supporting the weak and stupid.
And, if there is force behind this society (Say, welfare taxes or the GRU), you have an exploited class: the capable.
-Fiore
Domo arigato, Elf-dono.
You don't consider men being forced to dispose of their products in certain ways "evil"? Am I the only person around here who has enough respect for people to not want to enslave them?