Everyone has all rights at all times in nature before a government exists. Natural rights are things you could do in nature if there were no government. E.g. If you spy on me, I will shoot an arrow into your skull. There, I have just exercised my right to privacy. At some point, people started organizing into a society. Then they decided its easier to exist as a society if they agree not to kill eachother, not to steal from eachother, ect. To this end, they created "government" to enforce consequences for those that break their agreement. If someone wants to leave the society to regain their rights they gave up in the agreement, they can do so (the US Civil War aside, but we wont get into that). The US constitution restricts the government from performing "unreasonable searches and seizures", "violating due process", ect. specifically because the right to privacy simply exists in nature, and was acknowledged by founding fathers. The problem with the world, and a subset of the world known as the US, today is that people think governments give you rights as if we all are subservient to government. This is simply not true. The governing documents of the world exist to prevent the government from doing things to YOU that violate YOUR natural rights not specifically given up by YOU as a price to live in a society.
The argument isn't whether or not its the right of someone to determine how they should distribute their innocuous works. The argument at hand is whether or not its OK to keep information from the people you govern. If we are truly democratic this is trivially proven to be the wrong way to do things.
Hollywood might overcharge and not provide a distribution model that the people agree with, but there are a lot of other legit businesses with honest hard working people that are not getting their honest pay for the work they did. The spread of "information" could be something YOU spent years working on, then you'd be pretty bitter too.
You said it yourself, the MPAA and RIAA are simply not interested in getting a fair amount for their work, they are interested in greater than fair returns (such is the stigma of capitalism). Furthermore, since the volume of works from those represented by the MPAA and RIAA dwarf the small number of "legit" people you describe, and the MPAA and RIAA are not interested in "legit" people's rights, you pretty much have a non-argument.
I would also propose another possibility, though I risk sounding like a tin foil hat nut job. Perhaps the MPAA actually has been "at it" so long they have a revolving door already with the Government, or some other subservient relationship, and they themselves are being used as an instrument of the Government to take Wikileaks down. It seems to me that their interests should be disjoint with regard to Wikileaks even if they try to ally themselves with government.
Point taken about the tuna farming. Still, the whole problem is that there are too many humans, and too many of them like to eat fish. We won't stop overfishing the seas until there is some international agreement to do so or we kill a bunch of us off. The only real solution of getting fish sustainably would be to farm them, and you would have to farm the fish that are suited to it.
I don't disagree that damages should be paid to the government for public lands. My disagreement is in how one determines the consequences of any particular event knowing its impossible to actually predict any consequences of that event. Do we assume the worse or the best case? Say a drought occurs during the court case in which you are suing me for damages to your crop and livestock and it is midway before the harvest of both. Furthermore, say the drought is so severe that you only have access to a finite, but insufficient amount of water that may be used to supply your crop and livestock. Am I then liable for damages based on the hypothetical assumption you would have had a full yield at the time of my accident? Or now am I somewhat "off the hook" because a drought happened? Things get too sticky when you talk about future events
Lets say you own a farm, and I accidentally burn your farm down killing all your crops and livestock. Should you not be paid for the lost money you could have made from the grain and livestock? I mean, who knows how much the crops would have actually made you since there is no accurate way to determine the total yield since the weather affects it as does market fluctiations. Furthermore, your livestock could have gotten sick and died or could maybe not have grown very big. I understand its a bit different with fish since its a "caught" item from a "shared" resource but its not too far of a stretch.
No, but BP is paying for those fisherman to go out and clean the oil. Also 40 years=number pulled out of your ass. The effects of the Ixtoc 1 oil spill were not that drastic and shrimp industries returned to normal in 2 years.
So then fishermen deserve compensation until the fishing industry goes "back to normal" which should be defined as when the fish and shrimp populations return to normal, not based on actual catch since there would be an incentive to under-perform.
This does not even take into account the long term affect on the region. Oil slicks break up into some nasty stuff. If you strip mine a hill and leave arsenic puddles everywhere, you cause that region to be un-inhabitable and non-arable. You need to pay for that if its public lands and if its private land you need to prove the damage is completely localized beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, what would stop businesses from going around and polluting the shit out of everyone's properties making them unusable through runoff of various industrial processes or waste disposal, ect.
By your logic, I should be allowed to start a "waste disposal service". What I will do is locate myself in your neighborhood and burn tires, paint thinner, waste paint, and miscellaneous plastics in large heaping piles. You should just have to adapt to it and deserve no compensation down the road when you get cancer or poisoned by the toxic fumes in the air. Its not my fault you live there and use the neighborhood for your own personal enjoyment and living space. After all, this society is capitalist so I should be able to start a business like this cut out my niche in the market.
Because investors are fearful. Same thing happens in other markets. 1 piece of potentially bad news means people go into a selling frenzy and buy up safer assets. It doesn't have to actually be bad news at all, just has to be "potentially" bad. Its the nature of speculation.
What if the alien race has their own "Jesus"? And who's to say which "Jesus" is really the "son of good" and which one is the impostor.
Why, the answer is obvious. Our Jesus is really the "son of god" - you don't need aliens to show you that: despite the number of choices people have (Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc.) everyone believes that their god is the true god. So why would adding alien gods make any difference?
However, if they are a much more technologically advanced society (they would have to be, compared to our present level of tech.), they very well could have their "god" perform miracles. There will still be people who still remain "faithful" to their original religion, some who swap over, and some who reconcile the two gods (ours and theirs) as the same via imaginative interpretation of the holy books.
And some people like myself would just say "Fuck it".
I hope you are right, but that is a rather grandiose claim to make. What will fill the gaps of Christianity, Muslim and Judaism? Will it be Scientology? In my mind that is much worse.
At that age, 'life in prison' probably isn't much of a deterrent. The potential reward may well outweigh a decade of imprisonment.
especially if the reward isn't for you, and is for family members/loved ones
Yes. Let me sell nuclear secrets to a government who could potentially use them against the country my family members/ loved ones live in so that they can get some money. Hell, at least they will be happy before any potential event.
I don't understand how someone would even want to sell nuclear secrets to a government like Venezuela. Nuclear weapons are not cool. The development since the Manhattan project made the payload reach 25 megatons in the US and 50 in the former Soviet Union. Considering that Fat Man yielded about 21 kilotons and leveled Nagasaki, this is quite scary. Not to mention there is such a thing as a "salted bomb" which has fallout that is designed to have a high half-life. If I remember correctly, in the case of a cobalt "salted" bomb it could make an area uninhabitable for a period of 60 years. These people literally gave a technology that could potentially wipe out non-microbial life on this planet to people who actively hate us. Through their own greed and selfishness, they literally made the entire world much worse for their children or other peoples children. I would say they deserve worse than life in prison. It only takes 1 religious zealot or 1 over-confident military person or 1 selfish politician to get control over one of these devices before the potential outcome becomes worse than anything this planet has ever seen. And I say that simply because the nuclear technology since Hiroshima/Nagasaki has progressed to the point of absurd levels of destruction.
Prior art exists. What about Board games with video that displays current progression's of the game? An example is Clue derivatives. If they are patenting the computational process for distributing such games rapid fire, its a bit different than patenting the idea.
My family owns several AR-15 assault rifles. They are pretty much as lethal as anything else if not automatic. I think that Gun shows should be subject to the same rules of sale. I don't know if you used assault rifles as an example as something that shouldn't be sold there or not, but if so I disagree.
Pretty sure you have to be 18 to purchase a rifle. Depending on the state, I think any kid who has passed hunters safety courses can own a rifle, but cannot buy it for themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone has all rights at all times in nature before a government exists. Natural rights are things you could do in nature if there were no government. E.g. If you spy on me, I will shoot an arrow into your skull. There, I have just exercised my right to privacy. At some point, people started organizing into a society. Then they decided its easier to exist as a society if they agree not to kill eachother, not to steal from eachother, ect. To this end, they created "government" to enforce consequences for those that break their agreement. If someone wants to leave the society to regain their rights they gave up in the agreement, they can do so (the US Civil War aside, but we wont get into that). The US constitution restricts the government from performing "unreasonable searches and seizures", "violating due process", ect. specifically because the right to privacy simply exists in nature, and was acknowledged by founding fathers. The problem with the world, and a subset of the world known as the US, today is that people think governments give you rights as if we all are subservient to government. This is simply not true. The governing documents of the world exist to prevent the government from doing things to YOU that violate YOUR natural rights not specifically given up by YOU as a price to live in a society.
I think Im going to be rich off of my idea for harnessing the power of our founding fathers spinning in their graves.
The argument isn't whether or not its the right of someone to determine how they should distribute their innocuous works. The argument at hand is whether or not its OK to keep information from the people you govern. If we are truly democratic this is trivially proven to be the wrong way to do things.
Hollywood might overcharge and not provide a distribution model that the people agree with, but there are a lot of other legit businesses with honest hard working people that are not getting their honest pay for the work they did. The spread of "information" could be something YOU spent years working on, then you'd be pretty bitter too.
You said it yourself, the MPAA and RIAA are simply not interested in getting a fair amount for their work, they are interested in greater than fair returns (such is the stigma of capitalism). Furthermore, since the volume of works from those represented by the MPAA and RIAA dwarf the small number of "legit" people you describe, and the MPAA and RIAA are not interested in "legit" people's rights, you pretty much have a non-argument.
I would also propose another possibility, though I risk sounding like a tin foil hat nut job. Perhaps the MPAA actually has been "at it" so long they have a revolving door already with the Government, or some other subservient relationship, and they themselves are being used as an instrument of the Government to take Wikileaks down. It seems to me that their interests should be disjoint with regard to Wikileaks even if they try to ally themselves with government.
Point taken about the tuna farming. Still, the whole problem is that there are too many humans, and too many of them like to eat fish. We won't stop overfishing the seas until there is some international agreement to do so or we kill a bunch of us off. The only real solution of getting fish sustainably would be to farm them, and you would have to farm the fish that are suited to it.
I don't disagree that damages should be paid to the government for public lands. My disagreement is in how one determines the consequences of any particular event knowing its impossible to actually predict any consequences of that event. Do we assume the worse or the best case? Say a drought occurs during the court case in which you are suing me for damages to your crop and livestock and it is midway before the harvest of both. Furthermore, say the drought is so severe that you only have access to a finite, but insufficient amount of water that may be used to supply your crop and livestock. Am I then liable for damages based on the hypothetical assumption you would have had a full yield at the time of my accident? Or now am I somewhat "off the hook" because a drought happened? Things get too sticky when you talk about future events
Lets say you own a farm, and I accidentally burn your farm down killing all your crops and livestock. Should you not be paid for the lost money you could have made from the grain and livestock? I mean, who knows how much the crops would have actually made you since there is no accurate way to determine the total yield since the weather affects it as does market fluctiations. Furthermore, your livestock could have gotten sick and died or could maybe not have grown very big. I understand its a bit different with fish since its a "caught" item from a "shared" resource but its not too far of a stretch.
The reason they fished out the seas is because you and I eat too god damn much fish. Now farming them will have to do.
No, but BP is paying for those fisherman to go out and clean the oil. Also 40 years=number pulled out of your ass. The effects of the Ixtoc 1 oil spill were not that drastic and shrimp industries returned to normal in 2 years.
So then fishermen deserve compensation until the fishing industry goes "back to normal" which should be defined as when the fish and shrimp populations return to normal, not based on actual catch since there would be an incentive to under-perform.
This does not even take into account the long term affect on the region. Oil slicks break up into some nasty stuff. If you strip mine a hill and leave arsenic puddles everywhere, you cause that region to be un-inhabitable and non-arable. You need to pay for that if its public lands and if its private land you need to prove the damage is completely localized beyond a reasonable doubt. Otherwise, what would stop businesses from going around and polluting the shit out of everyone's properties making them unusable through runoff of various industrial processes or waste disposal, ect.
By your logic, I should be allowed to start a "waste disposal service". What I will do is locate myself in your neighborhood and burn tires, paint thinner, waste paint, and miscellaneous plastics in large heaping piles. You should just have to adapt to it and deserve no compensation down the road when you get cancer or poisoned by the toxic fumes in the air. Its not my fault you live there and use the neighborhood for your own personal enjoyment and living space. After all, this society is capitalist so I should be able to start a business like this cut out my niche in the market.
Because investors are fearful. Same thing happens in other markets. 1 piece of potentially bad news means people go into a selling frenzy and buy up safer assets. It doesn't have to actually be bad news at all, just has to be "potentially" bad. Its the nature of speculation.
Neat article. Thanks for that.
What if the alien race has their own "Jesus"? And who's to say which "Jesus" is really the "son of good" and which one is the impostor.
Why, the answer is obvious. Our Jesus is really the "son of god" - you don't need aliens to show you that: despite the number of choices people have (Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc.) everyone believes that their god is the true god. So why would adding alien gods make any difference? However, if they are a much more technologically advanced society (they would have to be, compared to our present level of tech.), they very well could have their "god" perform miracles. There will still be people who still remain "faithful" to their original religion, some who swap over, and some who reconcile the two gods (ours and theirs) as the same via imaginative interpretation of the holy books.
And some people like myself would just say "Fuck it".
The almighty Cthulhu begs to differ.
I hope you are right, but that is a rather grandiose claim to make. What will fill the gaps of Christianity, Muslim and Judaism? Will it be Scientology? In my mind that is much worse.
The simple answer is that every thing any priest has ever told you regarding religion is a lie.
The Quantum Lord prohibits such blasphemy! You must bow down to his holy quark and kiss his many gluons of kindess.
At that age, 'life in prison' probably isn't much of a deterrent. The potential reward may well outweigh a decade of imprisonment.
especially if the reward isn't for you, and is for family members/loved ones
Yes. Let me sell nuclear secrets to a government who could potentially use them against the country my family members/ loved ones live in so that they can get some money. Hell, at least they will be happy before any potential event.
I don't understand how someone would even want to sell nuclear secrets to a government like Venezuela. Nuclear weapons are not cool. The development since the Manhattan project made the payload reach 25 megatons in the US and 50 in the former Soviet Union. Considering that Fat Man yielded about 21 kilotons and leveled Nagasaki, this is quite scary. Not to mention there is such a thing as a "salted bomb" which has fallout that is designed to have a high half-life. If I remember correctly, in the case of a cobalt "salted" bomb it could make an area uninhabitable for a period of 60 years. These people literally gave a technology that could potentially wipe out non-microbial life on this planet to people who actively hate us. Through their own greed and selfishness, they literally made the entire world much worse for their children or other peoples children. I would say they deserve worse than life in prison. It only takes 1 religious zealot or 1 over-confident military person or 1 selfish politician to get control over one of these devices before the potential outcome becomes worse than anything this planet has ever seen. And I say that simply because the nuclear technology since Hiroshima/Nagasaki has progressed to the point of absurd levels of destruction.
Prior art exists. What about Board games with video that displays current progression's of the game? An example is Clue derivatives. If they are patenting the computational process for distributing such games rapid fire, its a bit different than patenting the idea.
My family owns several AR-15 assault rifles. They are pretty much as lethal as anything else if not automatic. I think that Gun shows should be subject to the same rules of sale. I don't know if you used assault rifles as an example as something that shouldn't be sold there or not, but if so I disagree.
Pretty sure you have to be 18 to purchase a rifle. Depending on the state, I think any kid who has passed hunters safety courses can own a rifle, but cannot buy it for themselves.
Agreed. If a parent catches their kid with a video game they don't want them to have, then they need to handle it. Getting the law involved is a joke.
Well, Id imagine it takes quite a bit longer than the IBM super computer to do an equal amount of work.