What if I take away your stock options? You haven't lost anything.. but you have lost a *potential* gain..in this case the potential is higher but the reasoning is the same. I'm sure that you'd feel that some sort of loss was incurred, wouldn't you?
I agree with you entirely. I'm a thief. I'm a criminal. No doubt about it. If Dre put me to trial, I'd have no case - I'd plead guilty: "Yes, your honour, I stole music." Its rather frightening that other people are having difficulties realizing that this is blatant theft and go on to try and defend it. I don't. I'm a criminal.
wouldn't the decendants of these Original 7 women interact somewhere down the timeline and their children would interact with each other as would theirs etc etc to a point where every european can be traced to *all* 7 of the women... ??
Last year, of all the guns in America, 99.8% were not used in a crime
Considering all the guns there are in America that's a pretty large number of crimes. How many of those crimes could have been avoided if...well, getting off topic here.
No no no no no... I didn't mean to say violence was good. I'm sorry, I was rather vague in my earlier statement. I was trying to point out the hipocrisy of an American capitalist criticizing the rise of another society through violent means as it his own weren't anything but the same.
And actually, I am a Canadian and am very proud of our rather peaceful existence!
Had communism and socialism been anti-violent, no communists or socialists would have given Lenin or Mao the time of day, and the world would have been a better place. QED. Had democracy and the "American dream" been anti-violent no British colonialist would have given George Washington the time of day, and the world would have been a better place. QED.
Marx believed in dialectical communism. I don't think he mentioned anything about dictatorships. Rather he believed in the natural, eventual, unstoppable fall and rise of various economic orders:..., feudalism, then capitalism which is what we have now. Then there will be an overthrow of the capitalist system and a socialist system will be established. And then from that society we'll naturally achieve a communal society where nobody has any property (actually, i think he believed that the modes of production would all be automated and yields would be incredibly high that the value of everything would shrink to nothing, and so nobody really needed to own anything because everything was in overabundance.)
That is perfectly true *IF* you believe that a slave is in fact property. Slavery was abolished with the shift in paradigm: that people cannot be owned (i.e. they cannot be property). Something most of us in the world now acknowledge as basic human rights. I believe that people do have a right to work hard, and invest their resources to an end, and be appropriately compensated so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others to mutually to do the same. The issue of slavery is to be looked upon as an issue of *human rights* not *property rights*. You're mixing your paradigms in your analogy, my friend.
Slashdot Mirror
What if I take away your stock options? You haven't lost anything.. but you have lost a *potential* gain ..in this case the potential is higher but the reasoning is the same. I'm sure that you'd feel that some sort of loss was incurred, wouldn't you?
To steal you must take. A taking incurs a loss. There is no loss here.
You could just as well argue that taking incurs a gain. There is a gain here.
I agree with you entirely. I'm a thief. I'm a criminal. No doubt about it. If Dre put me to trial, I'd have no case - I'd plead guilty: "Yes, your honour, I stole music." Its rather frightening that other people are having difficulties realizing that this is blatant theft and go on to try and defend it. I don't. I'm a criminal.
wouldn't the decendants of these Original 7 women interact somewhere down the timeline and their children would interact with each other as would theirs etc etc to a point where every european can be traced to *all* 7 of the women... ??
Last year, of all the guns in America, 99.8% were not used in a crime
Considering all the guns there are in America that's a pretty large number of crimes. How many of those crimes could have been avoided if...well, getting off topic here.
What does that mean? That violence was good?
No no no no no... I didn't mean to say violence was good. I'm sorry, I was rather vague in my earlier statement. I was trying to point out the hipocrisy of an American capitalist criticizing the rise of another society through violent means as it his own weren't anything but the same.
And actually, I am a Canadian and am very proud of our rather peaceful existence!
Had communism and socialism been anti-violent, no communists or socialists would have given Lenin or Mao the time of day, and the world would have been a better place. QED. Had democracy and the "American dream" been anti-violent no British colonialist would have given George Washington the time of day, and the world would have been a better place. QED.
Marx believed in dialectical communism. I don't think he mentioned anything about dictatorships. Rather he believed in the natural, eventual, unstoppable fall and rise of various economic orders: ..., feudalism, then capitalism which is what we have now. Then there will be an overthrow of the capitalist system and a socialist system will be established. And then from that society we'll naturally achieve a communal society where nobody has any property (actually, i think he believed that the modes of production would all be automated and yields would be incredibly high that the value of everything would shrink to nothing, and so nobody really needed to own anything because everything was in overabundance.)
That is perfectly true *IF* you believe that a slave is in fact property. Slavery was abolished with the shift in paradigm: that people cannot be owned (i.e. they cannot be property). Something most of us in the world now acknowledge as basic human rights. I believe that people do have a right to work hard, and invest their resources to an end, and be appropriately compensated so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others to mutually to do the same. The issue of slavery is to be looked upon as an issue of *human rights* not *property rights*. You're mixing your paradigms in your analogy, my friend.