That right there is the fundamental problem. What is it that keeps people from recognizing that other people are just like them? If it happens to other people it can happen to you too.
Deism: God created the universe which has since operated entirely according to natural laws. Atheism: Something created the universe, which has since operated entirely according to natural laws.
For all practical purposes they are identical, except for the small philosophical point of whether you want to call whatever created the universe "God" or not.
Also, "respecting" is like "regarding" or "concerning,"
Yes, and isn't a law funding faith-based initiative a law regarding religion?
your post made it seem like you were saying "the government shouldn't make decisions based on a positive attitude toward the established (Christian) religion,"
I think the key point is the definition of "respecting" you gave above. No law passed by congress should acknowledge religion in any way. Recognizing a religion in any way establishes (verb) that religion as a privileged group.
A nonprofit organization (abbreviated NPO, also not-for-profit) is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals.
When that goal is the personal enrichment of the leaders of the organization, it's a little disingenuous to describe them as not-for-profit.
This country was founded mostly by deists, aka atheists with a philosophical bent.
As for your pithy statement at the end, the 1st amendment states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. A law giving money to faith based organizations is definitely respecting an establishment of religion. It's that simple.
Shit, here in the US Churches don't even have to pay *tax*. And of course, you can't be discriminated against based on your religion. Nothing says you can't be discriminated against based on a lack of religion though. Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.
So they don't really have either prosperity or equality or enlightenment in that part of the world.
Where do they? Not in the US, that's for sure. Prosperity? Just look at our debt. Equality? We have the largest income inequality in the rich world. Enlightenment? Ok, so we let our women vote and own property. But that's about where it stops.
There's also c) "I believe this to be wrong, so I will do what I can to stop it". Different people may have different beliefs as to what is right and wrong. That doesn't stop them from acting according to their consciences, nor should it.
You're missing the point. That's not how the system is supposed to work, because of:
Maybe I'm missing the point, maybe I'm just not expressing myself correctly. I'll let Thoreau do it:
But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? -- in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.
No. No consequences to them. Yeah, they want to "effect (sic) change".
Off topic, but that was an intentional and valid use of the verb "effect".
If it's so important to leak, why not risk the punishment that society imposes for releasing classified information?
Why should someone have to sacrifice themselves to an unjust system? It's not my fault that the system is unjust, why should I suffer punishment for it? If I can do what is right without suffering, isn't that better than doing what is right and suffering?
Again, such activities in a free[1] society are wholly different than actions in a non-free society.
[1] Yes, I realize no society is completely "free", but I trust you get my point.
Every society is free if you're in the privileged class. Every society is non-free when you're among the oppressed. I don't think there's a fundamental difference, just one of magnitude. China has a constitution guaranteeing many individual rights. But they carve out large exceptions for national security. The only real difference between them and us is the size of the exception. But once you poke a hole in the protections afforded to us by our rights, that hole just gets bigger and bigger.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Personally, I'd rather live in a world where the government is accountable than one where it isn't. Currently, it isn't. Wikileaks is doing what they can to change that by the most expedient means possible.
This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old. His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice. However, those are some BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is making
You could say the same thing about the American electorate. As obviously flawed as these arguments are, they are convincing to a large proportion of the population.
If you don't think these methods are adequate...go to parent post.
I suppose you mean this bit:
then perhaps you should look inward and figure out why all these things you believe to be so terrible are not thought to be so by the people you elected
That's easy enough, because power corrupts. The hard part is doing anything about it. You can't change the corrupting nature of power, so the best you can do is limit how much power is available.
I am pretty sure, the answer is a resounding "Yes". Some things should be kept secret for some time... No one seriously argues against that, even if there are disagreements over whether a particular bit of information needs to be classified or not (and for how long).
There are some things that in an ideal world would be better off kept secret. However the consequences of allowing our government to keep secrets are worse than allowing those secrets to be heard.
Now, if anything needs to be hidden, then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on what gets classified, and enforcing them. Governments are the most natural pick for that, if only because they are -- by design -- charged with national security.
Governments are the worst choice, as they have the most to gain by abuses of secrecy.
Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks. Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors. Personally, I'd prefer the government officials...
"I was only following orders" has never been a valid defense. You have a conscience for a reason, use it. If you really trust the government more than your own conscience, then by all means obey the law. The rest of us will do what we feel is right.
Thus any leakers (and the Wikileaks personnel) are to be prosecuted
That's how it is in oppressive regimes. This is why it's important that we respect justice more than legality.
1. You don't get to make that determination yourself
Everyone has to make that determination themselves. In the end, you are only accountable to your own conscience.
People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences
I'd like to think that people leak to WikiLeaks because they believe there will be consequences. I don't think they do it for the hell of it, they want information to get out there and effect change.
There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.
And when those processes amount to nothing more than a rubber-stamp, what then?
Governments DO keep secrets for the hell of it. Time and time again information is withheld, for years or decades. Then when every asshat involved with the project retires, it's declassified. What do we find? Absolutely nothing that would have jeopardized national security.
You'd have to be naive to trust the government to decide what to withhold. Remember, any power that can be abused will be abused. Chances are it will be abused more often than not. Who's a bigger threat? Our own government, with the largest military budget in the world, that operates in unaccountable secrecy, which has repeatedly and reliably abused every power afforded it? Or a third world country half way across the globe?
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Corruption at home is a bigger danger than "evildoers" abroad. And you know what? Taking care of the former can help take care of the latter.
Why not? The state already owns your body when you're alive. Just try putting certain substances into it without permission, and you'll see how much control you have over "your" body.
Slashdot Mirror
I ignored the primary difference because it makes no practical difference. It's a minor philosophical point of no consequence to our lives.
And since it only happens to other people
That right there is the fundamental problem. What is it that keeps people from recognizing that other people are just like them? If it happens to other people it can happen to you too.
Deism != atheism
Deism: God created the universe which has since operated entirely according to natural laws.
Atheism: Something created the universe, which has since operated entirely according to natural laws.
For all practical purposes they are identical, except for the small philosophical point of whether you want to call whatever created the universe "God" or not.
Also, "respecting" is like "regarding" or "concerning,"
Yes, and isn't a law funding faith-based initiative a law regarding religion?
your post made it seem like you were saying "the government shouldn't make decisions based on a positive attitude toward the established (Christian) religion,"
I think the key point is the definition of "respecting" you gave above. No law passed by congress should acknowledge religion in any way. Recognizing a religion in any way establishes (verb) that religion as a privileged group.
Any atheist group would be rejected as it's not faith based. That should be enough.
A nonprofit organization (abbreviated NPO, also not-for-profit) is an organization that does not distribute its surplus funds to owners or shareholders, but instead uses them to help pursue its goals.
When that goal is the personal enrichment of the leaders of the organization, it's a little disingenuous to describe them as not-for-profit.
This country was founded mostly by deists, aka atheists with a philosophical bent.
As for your pithy statement at the end, the 1st amendment states that no law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion. A law giving money to faith based organizations is definitely respecting an establishment of religion. It's that simple.
Shit, here in the US Churches don't even have to pay *tax*. And of course, you can't be discriminated against based on your religion. Nothing says you can't be discriminated against based on a lack of religion though. Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, my ass.
Maybe *you* don't transport goods on high speed rail, but I'd bet good money that China will.
Why would you transport goods on high speed rail? What matters for freight is throughput, not latency.
So they don't really have either prosperity or equality or enlightenment in that part of the world.
Where do they? Not in the US, that's for sure. Prosperity? Just look at our debt. Equality? We have the largest income inequality in the rich world. Enlightenment? Ok, so we let our women vote and own property. But that's about where it stops.
Only the good ones. I'm playing through Ocarina of Time right now. Still brilliant.
And?
There's also c) "I believe this to be wrong, so I will do what I can to stop it". Different people may have different beliefs as to what is right and wrong. That doesn't stop them from acting according to their consciences, nor should it.
Only under a structure of moral relativism.
What basis do you have to think that morality is absolute?
The government IS accountable, just not as quickly as you would like.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
You're missing the point. That's not how the system is supposed to work, because of:
Maybe I'm missing the point, maybe I'm just not expressing myself correctly. I'll let Thoreau do it:
No. No consequences to them. Yeah, they want to "effect (sic) change".
Off topic, but that was an intentional and valid use of the verb "effect".
If it's so important to leak, why not risk the punishment that society imposes for releasing classified information?
Why should someone have to sacrifice themselves to an unjust system? It's not my fault that the system is unjust, why should I suffer punishment for it? If I can do what is right without suffering, isn't that better than doing what is right and suffering?
Again, such activities in a free[1] society are wholly different than actions in a non-free society.
[1] Yes, I realize no society is completely "free", but I trust you get my point.
Every society is free if you're in the privileged class. Every society is non-free when you're among the oppressed. I don't think there's a fundamental difference, just one of magnitude. China has a constitution guaranteeing many individual rights. But they carve out large exceptions for national security. The only real difference between them and us is the size of the exception. But once you poke a hole in the protections afforded to us by our rights, that hole just gets bigger and bigger.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Personally, I'd rather live in a world where the government is accountable than one where it isn't. Currently, it isn't. Wikileaks is doing what they can to change that by the most expedient means possible.
This guy reminds me of a cute little 5 year old. His heart is in the right place and he just wants everything fair and nice. However, those are some BIG ASSUMPTIONS he is making
You could say the same thing about the American electorate. As obviously flawed as these arguments are, they are convincing to a large proportion of the population.
If you don't think these methods are adequate...go to parent post.
I suppose you mean this bit:
That's easy enough, because power corrupts. The hard part is doing anything about it. You can't change the corrupting nature of power, so the best you can do is limit how much power is available.
I am pretty sure, the answer is a resounding "Yes". Some things should be kept secret for some time... No one seriously argues against that, even if there are disagreements over whether a particular bit of information needs to be classified or not (and for how long).
There are some things that in an ideal world would be better off kept secret. However the consequences of allowing our government to keep secrets are worse than allowing those secrets to be heard.
Now, if anything needs to be hidden, then somebody has to be making the everyday decisions on what gets classified, and enforcing them. Governments are the most natural pick for that, if only because they are -- by design -- charged with national security.
Governments are the worst choice, as they have the most to gain by abuses of secrecy.
Any "leakers" inside the government usurp that decision-making to themselves and to the Wikileaks. Instead of relying on the judgment of people charged with making it, we will depend on the judgment of the "leaker" and of the Wikileaks editors. Personally, I'd prefer the government officials...
"I was only following orders" has never been a valid defense. You have a conscience for a reason, use it. If you really trust the government more than your own conscience, then by all means obey the law. The rest of us will do what we feel is right.
Thus any leakers (and the Wikileaks personnel) are to be prosecuted
That's how it is in oppressive regimes. This is why it's important that we respect justice more than legality.
1. You don't get to make that determination yourself
Everyone has to make that determination themselves. In the end, you are only accountable to your own conscience.
People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences
I'd like to think that people leak to WikiLeaks because they believe there will be consequences. I don't think they do it for the hell of it, they want information to get out there and effect change.
There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.
And when those processes amount to nothing more than a rubber-stamp, what then?
How do you convince people to change the government when the atrocities it commits are kept secret from its citizens?
Governments DO keep secrets for the hell of it. Time and time again information is withheld, for years or decades. Then when every asshat involved with the project retires, it's declassified. What do we find? Absolutely nothing that would have jeopardized national security.
You'd have to be naive to trust the government to decide what to withhold. Remember, any power that can be abused will be abused. Chances are it will be abused more often than not. Who's a bigger threat? Our own government, with the largest military budget in the world, that operates in unaccountable secrecy, which has repeatedly and reliably abused every power afforded it? Or a third world country half way across the globe?
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Corruption at home is a bigger danger than "evildoers" abroad. And you know what? Taking care of the former can help take care of the latter.
Can you guarantee that?
Why not? The state already owns your body when you're alive. Just try putting certain substances into it without permission, and you'll see how much control you have over "your" body.
I guarantee there's at least one thing that can be guaranteed.
I'd flick off the iPad too, but it probably wouldn't be necessary with linux.