keeping 'Mickey Mouse's - How I Fucked Hollywood, and Lived to Squeek About It' from being published is Disney's only reason to keep having copyright protection extended.
next time you pass a piece of litter (1000$ fine in california), bend over, try picking it up... wow, look how easily that's done. I guess litter is fine then! Woohoo, no more garbage worry, throw your trash in the street, it's easily picked up... um... by him.
personally I prefer graphiti to thousands of bits of commercial litter.
one other thing: the "you could leave" argument is futile and pointless.
One could defend the party dictatorship of the old soviet union just as well with it... oh you could leave...what, someone would try to stop you? well, you could still try to leave. Or, someone is trying to steal your land... so, you could leave?
And besides, it's statistically unrealistic. Maybe one person could leave... but in that town are there enough resources for everyone to leave? it's not automatic that the resources are available, or that that is a viable option on a social scale.
I mean, you think the current government is too powerful... but you can leave! It's entirely beside the point when discussion social policies and theories.
I've already become familiar with libertarian idealogy and in fact am libertarian in what should be the real meaning of the word. Ayn Rand ideas about liberty are not self consistent.
Why could I leave the town? If the road are private, and wisely held by the same company that owns the town, why do you insist I could leave? Where is the guarentee... you assert people would be happy to let me use the road--- what? all people would be happy? in all cicumstances... that's naive.
What's contrived is your unsupported reliance on good will, or if not good will, some strange concept that "it will all work out".
The company town is a historical phenomenon. The manipulation of the cost of living vs. wage in such a town, also historical. Contrived? Yes! Like all business strategy.
But you're jumping to conclusions. A socialized police force is the epitome of what would not be found in the "free state." Enormous power is placed in the hands of a single person, and it is far too frequently abused. Moreover, police are usually just tools for those wielding political power to coerce innocent people. (The war on drugs, assaults on peaceful protesters at WTO meetings, and the list goes on and on.)
So how are the police hired then? Who pays their check, how does the money get there.
As was done in the past, group of citizens can police themselves.
what are you refering to?
More permanent places for housing criminals can be privately run as many states are doing now successfully.
how do the people get in there..?
Judges can be paid professionals (as can lawyers) who don't require gov't licensing. If they don't act honestly and impartially, they will develop a reputation for such and people will not pay for their services.
I don't think people will pay to hire their own judges based on their honesty, they will do so based on the judges known biases and their own interest in winning.
I also think it's naive to think that reputation-making will be effective. That's the system that is failing us, and is the real source of the corruption in government that is so loathsome. There is no lack of examples of people with great reputations that perpetrated countless misdeeds behind those.
Except that the corporation cannot force anyone to use its infrastructure. Pissed off customers don't come back.
if you buy up all the infrastructure... people are "forced to use it". If the water system is privatized, I'm forced to use it. Right? Or do I have the freedom to "just not drink water". Angry customers will come back if there is just one source they have access to and/or can afford.
Oh, you mean socialism.
yes, and so do you. What do you think a court system is in your picture... a socialized justice system, and the police? you seem to support a socialized police force. You can try to use socialism as a bad word, a negative connotation, but that doesn't change that you are arguing what should be socialized, not IF anything should be socialized. Everyone seems to agree that some infrastructure should be socialized, inlcluding you. No?
Whether you realize it or not, only the government can use force and violence on innocent people.
you mean "legally", and you are wrong. Private security forces can use force, and have in the past, for example, the use of Pinkertons against striking workers... oh, do you mean, "any more"? If so, perhaps you would admit this is because of the rights ensured by the governments, because it's certainly not the self restraint of corporations or their private ownership.
I also find myself perplexed as to how private ownership of most everything can be equated to feudalism. Feudalism is a system of government whereby the government owns all the land, means of production, and the citizens are somehow indebted to the governor (or "King", lord, count, noble, or whatever).
These forms of "government" did not always exist. These are forms of government where people accrued enough wealth and power to demand the rest, and declare themselves a government. This is also how a corporation can limit the freedom of libertarians in the libertarean system which seeks to limit control... simply by acquiring a critical mass of control of the infrastructure. If I privately own the marketplace I can prohibit you from taking part. If this is a viable strategy (not prohibited) it is a strategy that will be undertaken, which history shows.
As for easily bought off politicians... how is a system where it's not even NECESSARY to buy them off automatically better?
I'm against "being governed" but I am for "social infrastructure under democratic control".
A small example. If I am born into a company town, in which the company owns not only the local profit center but also the store and other local infrastructure, it is the owners rights to that property which is protected.
In principle, I am considered as free as the next man because I could be the one owning that property, but in reality, there is no chance of that happening because my outgoing and incoming cashflow is externally controlled.
Similarly, if all the road are privatized, I in principle have the freedom to travel, but in actually do not have that freedom unless I own my own complete set of roads.
This is in fact based on a logical reality that real world conditions, and not abstract promises, determin real world freedom.
And btw, I'm not a marxist and it's up to you to show the logical falsehood and demonstrate that the falsehood you claim is what I base my position on.
The market price is not the indicator of reality. The cost of production is. What the market will bear does not reflect reality. If I need to travel to get food, and there are two (privately owned) routes, and the bridge along one goes out... the market will bear a substantial increase in the cost of the road toll. People need to eat, and will pay what they have to get to the food and back. The reality is, the cost of providing the service has not risen as much as "what the market will bear". The way the government lowers market prices in a reasonable way is of course not by arbitrary price fixing, but by providing things at cost, including operating overhead.
Which is easier: to stop doing business with a company or to overthrow a government?
it's easier to overthrow a government. If the water company is privatized, it's harder to protest unfair price increases. They can increase JUST YOUR PRICE because they want to buy your land for some other business of theirs! And the government does not have to be violently overthrown, there are mechanisms where it can be "overthrown" (aka "reformed") through processes which don't require violent confrontation (or at least, not AS violent, civil disobedience vs. armed revolt).
As I have libertarian tendencies myself I've thought about this a long time. I think the main error is thinking that property right is the fundamental right. I mean, why should the government protect your property more than say, my right to free travel (public roads and other infrastructure)?
Property right is not normalized. It subsidizes those with a lot of property. The government has to defend someone's east coast house while that person lives on the west coast. I think that's a good idea, mind you, but not particularly more important than public healthcare, public education, fire prevention, and certainly less important than a right to freedom of mobility.
Such rights as those are normalized... one's man's right to free travel is absolute, my right to that is the same as anyone else as long as I can use my feet to move me to my destination. If I travel more, I'm not requiring the same kind of extra subsidy.
Do you think the police should be privatized? if not why not?
btw: thanks for your reasoned/able reply. This country does need a libertarian influence...and libertarians that are clear about the practical goals involved. Indeed, I like the Libertarean Party platform, which has come to have a certain amount of admission that a regulated economy is a part of a libertarian world view. The argument is what kind and how much.
oh, liberty to get my own health care. Well, to me the freedom in principle is pointless... similar to reward in the afterlife, could be true, could be false, has no relation on reality here.
IOW, I want to know... will I be able to afford health care for my family. Your freedom in principle to have it says nothing... that freedom in principle occurs if there is $20000/mo insurance, and yet I won't be able to afford it, principle schminciple, I want reality.
Libertarians often fall for the mistake of trying to maximize some idea of freedom in principle, and ignore freedom in fact. At least when the government has an unreasonable power, there is a chance to overthrow it because there are rules of accountability and of democracy.
Why should property right be the only protected right? IOW, if a libertarian doesn't want the government projecting, e.g. a right to health care, or a right to a minimal standards of living... why have right to property... all bets are off perhaps?
you mean because the government built the first computers? Automobiles... you mean because the government provides the infrastructure, the road, protects the shipping lanes upon which the oil is shipped, etc.
what you fail to understand is that Kings and Feudalism are the result of an unfettered capitalistic everything-private approach.
Many focus on this idea that the government has "official" power over you in some respects, and corporations don't. Well, wake up to reality, "official" power doesn't mean squat... all that matters is Actual Power, which the corporations have a lions share of. Liberty isn't a matter of principle, it's a matter of actual freedom, regardless of the means, tricks, and systems used to justify your lack thereof.
Libertarians often want to maximize their "freedom in principle" without regard to the fact that they would minimise their actual freedom.
yes, I think it was some other elemental particls... since I remember noot--- I'm thinking nuetrONs not nutrino (oops), or maybe an alpha particle...(protons). Maybe poodles... yes, a poodle detector. Actually it was a swimming pool, with poodle trails and people were really just dropping these poodles and it was quite a mess actually.
at the exploratorium in San Fran they have a bubble chamber where you can watch nutrino trails... it looks "easy" to build (not that I could pull it off) in that it's just a matter of suspending a vapor of droplets the right size such that there is a condensation around the nutrino... it blew me away and I always had the idea this was something you could build.
if this is impossible and I must have seen something else, tell me, I could be wrong.
There is a mild form of autism called Asperger's syndrome... beside slight autism symptoms another symptom is obsession with a single subject, like with train spotters, a spiderman fan, etc. etc..
It occurs to me that this is not entirely a disfunction but a certain kind of function, namely the kind that generates what we call genius. Very unique interests that don't rely on social reinforcement but which are personal and which take themselves to extremes society can barely fathom, let alone reinforce... like theories of general relativity, etc. etc.
the british putting a flag in the ground, "we claim this new country and virgin land in the name of England!?"
indians (either kind): "but you can't do that, it's our bloody country, we're already here."
british: "yes... but do you have a Flag?... no Flag, no country, under the rules... I just made up!"
stolen poorly from Eddie Izzard.
"The british empire was built by a clever use of flags."
"come on now, england, what's that you're holding behind your back...?" "Just India and a few other countries.... we can't give the Falklands back, need the Falklands... for strategic sheep purposes."
if you have THAT many of these things obviously you should bundle them in stacks of 100 and let your kids use them as fort making bricks!
people that want to get back at AOL for snail spam (besides possibly wanting to go back to the hobby buffet for something a little more productive) should just put "return to sender", although IANAP (I am not a postman), I think that AOL would have to pay for that and it's a much more costly thing than the 100$ it will cost AOL to have a million CDs hauled from their lawn to the dump.
I agree... while I will always smile at a beowulf cluster of those, and laugh (if I could laugh you insensitive clod), and I will ignore without difficulty Natalie Portman comments, and even tolerate an ancient hot grits joke... this one is getting to me... yes... I see the irony but I'm not impressed. Wait. Is it irony?
I've always been bothered with the media give glorious dark names to these types, "Night Stalker", etc. etc. (I note this guy is just The Sniper, so far). I thought they should make up names so we know what they talking about but it should be things like, "Stinky Sneaky Man" and for the sniper maybe "The Small Penis Sniper".
agreed, it's not an automatic thing, and the "training" could have been self training at a shooting range or against a hill. Still... people often think a scope is sufficient, but scopes are only accurate at a specific distance, requiring setting it and/or compensating...yes? I would check gun clubs in the area etc. and I'm sure I'm not ahead of the investigators in this sort of thinking. Of course there are probably (tens of) thousands of people in that area that could shoot as well or better.
When you say people give him too much credit... that part makes me nervous, I don't like the idea of building the guy up as a great marksman when he's really a lowly asshole! Shooting a person doesn't make you a great marksman. I bet he's spent more than a couple hours with a gun, but I wouldn't say there is any sign that the guy is a great marksman. But unfortunately he does know how to aim his gun.
Slashdot Mirror
keeping 'Mickey Mouse's - How I Fucked Hollywood, and Lived to Squeek About It' from being published is Disney's only reason to keep having copyright protection extended.
next time you pass a piece of litter (1000$ fine in california), bend over, try picking it up... wow, look how easily that's done. I guess litter is fine then! Woohoo, no more garbage worry, throw your trash in the street, it's easily picked up... um... by him.
personally I prefer graphiti to thousands of bits of commercial litter.
mine was 6502.
I like the guy that says how the grey hairs pop out... ping. poing.
Hmmm. do people port linux to emulators?
don't go there! just kidding. do.
one other thing: the "you could leave" argument is futile and pointless.
One could defend the party dictatorship of the old soviet union just as well with it... oh you could leave...what, someone would try to stop you? well, you could still try to leave. Or, someone is trying to steal your land... so, you could leave?
And besides, it's statistically unrealistic. Maybe one person could leave... but in that town are there enough resources for everyone to leave? it's not automatic that the resources are available, or that that is a viable option on a social scale.
I mean, you think the current government is too powerful... but you can leave! It's entirely beside the point when discussion social policies and theories.
I've already become familiar with libertarian idealogy and in fact am libertarian in what should be the real meaning of the word. Ayn Rand ideas about liberty are not self consistent.
Why could I leave the town? If the road are private, and wisely held by the same company that owns the town, why do you insist I could leave? Where is the guarentee... you assert people would be happy to let me use the road--- what? all people would be happy? in all cicumstances... that's naive.
What's contrived is your unsupported reliance on good will, or if not good will, some strange concept that "it will all work out".
The company town is a historical phenomenon. The manipulation of the cost of living vs. wage in such a town, also historical. Contrived? Yes! Like all business strategy.
btw, Ayn hated the libertarians.
But you're jumping to conclusions. A socialized police force is the epitome of what would not be found in the "free state." Enormous power is placed in the hands of a single person, and it is far too frequently abused. Moreover, police are usually just tools for those wielding political power to coerce innocent people. (The war on drugs, assaults on peaceful protesters at WTO meetings, and the list goes on and on.)
So how are the police hired then? Who pays their check, how does the money get there.
As was done in the past, group of citizens can police themselves.
what are you refering to?
More permanent places for housing criminals can be privately run as many states are doing now successfully.
how do the people get in there..?
Judges can be paid professionals (as can lawyers) who don't require gov't licensing. If they don't act honestly and impartially, they will develop a reputation for such and people will not pay for their services.
I don't think people will pay to hire their own judges based on their honesty, they will do so based on the judges known biases and their own interest in winning.
I also think it's naive to think that reputation-making will be effective. That's the system that is failing us, and is the real source of the corruption in government that is so loathsome. There is no lack of examples of people with great reputations that perpetrated countless misdeeds behind those.
Except that the corporation cannot force anyone to use its infrastructure. Pissed off customers don't come back.
if you buy up all the infrastructure... people are "forced to use it". If the water system is privatized, I'm forced to use it. Right? Or do I have the freedom to "just not drink water". Angry customers will come back if there is just one source they have access to and/or can afford.
Oh, you mean socialism.
yes, and so do you. What do you think a court system is in your picture... a socialized justice system, and the police? you seem to support a socialized police force. You can try to use socialism as a bad word, a negative connotation, but that doesn't change that you are arguing what should be socialized, not IF anything should be socialized. Everyone seems to agree that some infrastructure should be socialized, inlcluding you. No?
Whether you realize it or not, only the government can use force and violence on innocent people.
you mean "legally", and you are wrong. Private security forces can use force, and have in the past, for example, the use of Pinkertons against striking workers... oh, do you mean, "any more"? If so, perhaps you would admit this is because of the rights ensured by the governments, because it's certainly not the self restraint of corporations or their private ownership.
I also find myself perplexed as to how private ownership of most everything can be equated to feudalism. Feudalism is a system of government whereby the government owns all the land, means of production, and the citizens are somehow indebted to the governor (or "King", lord, count, noble, or whatever).
These forms of "government" did not always exist. These are forms of government where people accrued enough wealth and power to demand the rest, and declare themselves a government. This is also how a corporation can limit the freedom of libertarians in the libertarean system which seeks to limit control... simply by acquiring a critical mass of control of the infrastructure. If I privately own the marketplace I can prohibit you from taking part. If this is a viable strategy (not prohibited) it is a strategy that will be undertaken, which history shows.
As for easily bought off politicians... how is a system where it's not even NECESSARY to buy them off automatically better?
I'm against "being governed" but I am for "social infrastructure under democratic control".
A small example. If I am born into a company town, in which the company owns not only the local profit center but also the store and other local infrastructure, it is the owners rights to that property which is protected.
In principle, I am considered as free as the next man because I could be the one owning that property, but in reality, there is no chance of that happening because my outgoing and incoming cashflow is externally controlled.
Similarly, if all the road are privatized, I in principle have the freedom to travel, but in actually do not have that freedom unless I own my own complete set of roads.
This is in fact based on a logical reality that real world conditions, and not abstract promises, determin real world freedom.
And btw, I'm not a marxist and it's up to you to show the logical falsehood and demonstrate that the falsehood you claim is what I base my position on.
The market price is not the indicator of reality. The cost of production is. What the market will bear does not reflect reality. If I need to travel to get food, and there are two (privately owned) routes, and the bridge along one goes out... the market will bear a substantial increase in the cost of the road toll. People need to eat, and will pay what they have to get to the food and back. The reality is, the cost of providing the service has not risen as much as "what the market will bear". The way the government lowers market prices in a reasonable way is of course not by arbitrary price fixing, but by providing things at cost, including operating overhead.
Which is easier: to stop doing business with a company or to overthrow a government?
it's easier to overthrow a government. If the water company is privatized, it's harder to protest unfair price increases. They can increase JUST YOUR PRICE because they want to buy your land for some other business of theirs! And the government does not have to be violently overthrown, there are mechanisms where it can be "overthrown" (aka "reformed") through processes which don't require violent confrontation (or at least, not AS violent, civil disobedience vs. armed revolt).
As I have libertarian tendencies myself I've thought about this a long time. I think the main error is thinking that property right is the fundamental right. I mean, why should the government protect your property more than say, my right to free travel (public roads and other infrastructure)?
Property right is not normalized. It subsidizes those with a lot of property. The government has to defend someone's east coast house while that person lives on the west coast. I think that's a good idea, mind you, but not particularly more important than public healthcare, public education, fire prevention, and certainly less important than a right to freedom of mobility.
Such rights as those are normalized... one's man's right to free travel is absolute, my right to that is the same as anyone else as long as I can use my feet to move me to my destination. If I travel more, I'm not requiring the same kind of extra subsidy.
Do you think the police should be privatized? if not why not?
btw: thanks for your reasoned/able reply. This country does need a libertarian influence...and libertarians that are clear about the practical goals involved. Indeed, I like the Libertarean Party platform, which has come to have a certain amount of admission that a regulated economy is a part of a libertarian world view. The argument is what kind and how much.
liberty is not well defined. define it.
oh, liberty to get my own health care. Well, to me the freedom in principle is pointless... similar to reward in the afterlife, could be true, could be false, has no relation on reality here.
IOW, I want to know... will I be able to afford health care for my family. Your freedom in principle to have it says nothing... that freedom in principle occurs if there is $20000/mo insurance, and yet I won't be able to afford it, principle schminciple, I want reality.
Libertarians often fall for the mistake of trying to maximize some idea of freedom in principle, and ignore freedom in fact. At least when the government has an unreasonable power, there is a chance to overthrow it because there are rules of accountability and of democracy.
Why should property right be the only protected right? IOW, if a libertarian doesn't want the government projecting, e.g. a right to health care, or a right to a minimal standards of living... why have right to property... all bets are off perhaps?
you mean because the government built the first computers? Automobiles... you mean because the government provides the infrastructure, the road, protects the shipping lanes upon which the oil is shipped, etc.
what you fail to understand is that Kings and Feudalism are the result of an unfettered capitalistic everything-private approach.
Many focus on this idea that the government has "official" power over you in some respects, and corporations don't. Well, wake up to reality, "official" power doesn't mean squat... all that matters is Actual Power, which the corporations have a lions share of. Liberty isn't a matter of principle, it's a matter of actual freedom, regardless of the means, tricks, and systems used to justify your lack thereof.
Libertarians often want to maximize their "freedom in principle" without regard to the fact that they would minimise their actual freedom.
yes, I think it was some other elemental particls... since I remember noot--- I'm thinking nuetrONs not nutrino (oops), or maybe an alpha particle...(protons). Maybe poodles... yes, a poodle detector. Actually it was a swimming pool, with poodle trails and people were really just dropping these poodles and it was quite a mess actually.
at the exploratorium in San Fran they have a bubble chamber where you can watch nutrino trails... it looks "easy" to build (not that I could pull it off) in that it's just a matter of suspending a vapor of droplets the right size such that there is a condensation around the nutrino... it blew me away and I always had the idea this was something you could build.
if this is impossible and I must have seen something else, tell me, I could be wrong.
me too. The only sense in which I don't have those traits are by working over my life to balance them.
There is a mild form of autism called Asperger's syndrome... beside slight autism symptoms another symptom is obsession with a single subject, like with train spotters, a spiderman fan, etc. etc..
It occurs to me that this is not entirely a disfunction but a certain kind of function, namely the kind that generates what we call genius. Very unique interests that don't rely on social reinforcement but which are personal and which take themselves to extremes society can barely fathom, let alone reinforce... like theories of general relativity, etc. etc.
When George Bush talks of "evil dewars", I think this might be what he means.
Izzard is fantastic. I agree 100% with his portrayal of history and religion. Strategic sheep purposes!
I never saw the Windows shutdown screen superimposed on the desktop before either.
The Joys Of Parenthood.
the british putting a flag in the ground, "we claim this new country and virgin land in the name of England!?"
... no Flag, no country, under the rules... I just made up!"
indians (either kind): "but you can't do that, it's our bloody country, we're already here."
british: "yes... but do you have a Flag?
stolen poorly from Eddie Izzard.
"The british empire was built by a clever use of flags."
"come on now, england, what's that you're holding behind your back...?" "Just India and a few other countries.... we can't give the Falklands back, need the Falklands... for strategic sheep purposes."
if you have THAT many of these things obviously you should bundle them in stacks of 100 and let your kids use them as fort making bricks!
people that want to get back at AOL for snail spam (besides possibly wanting to go back to the hobby buffet for something a little more productive) should just put "return to sender", although IANAP (I am not a postman), I think that AOL would have to pay for that and it's a much more costly thing than the 100$ it will cost AOL to have a million CDs hauled from their lawn to the dump.
I agree... while I will always smile at a beowulf cluster of those, and laugh (if I could laugh you insensitive clod), and I will ignore without difficulty Natalie Portman comments, and even tolerate an ancient hot grits joke... this one is getting to me... yes... I see the irony but I'm not impressed. Wait. Is it irony?
I've always been bothered with the media give glorious dark names to these types, "Night Stalker", etc. etc. (I note this guy is just The Sniper, so far). I thought they should make up names so we know what they talking about but it should be things like, "Stinky Sneaky Man" and for the sniper maybe "The Small Penis Sniper".
agreed, it's not an automatic thing, and the "training" could have been self training at a shooting range or against a hill. Still... people often think a scope is sufficient, but scopes are only accurate at a specific distance, requiring setting it and/or compensating...yes? I would check gun clubs in the area etc. and I'm sure I'm not ahead of the investigators in this sort of thinking. Of course there are probably (tens of) thousands of people in that area that could shoot as well or better.
When you say people give him too much credit... that part makes me nervous, I don't like the idea of building the guy up as a great marksman when he's really a lowly asshole! Shooting a person doesn't make you a great marksman. I bet he's spent more than a couple hours with a gun, but I wouldn't say there is any sign that the guy is a great marksman. But unfortunately he does know how to aim his gun.