And in the end? Nothing has changed. Until we get a third party in, we can at least hope to keep the Dems and Repubs bickering enough to prevent them from fucking everything up.
Maybe this time we'll get some real dirt, not just more 'War is destructive and violent and they try to pretty it up for us.' We all already knew that.
A court order should not be enough to shut down someone's free speech rights. If they want to shut down a website they should have to actually bring charges against the website owner, and have the site shut down only following an actual conviction.
I agree, but I don't see game and music torrent hosting as a free speech issue. I don't anticipate it being applied only there, though.
That's because it is nanny-state politics. You like to talk about the 'isolated' incidents where talking and driving is absolutely necessary and people will blow it out of proportion, but how blown out of proportion is his claim of 'distracted driving' being a huge problem?
I talk on the phone and drive all the time and have yet to get in an accident. Ever. Most people I know can magically manage to do the same thing. On top of that, talking on the phone and driving is not even illegal as it is no less distracting than talking to a passenger. Are they going to enforce mandatory noise shields between the front and back seat to ensure 'distracted drivers' don't 'ruin lives and kill people' talking to their passengers?
Manufactured crisis as an excuse for nanny-state regulation. Occasionally those lovably paranoid tea party bastards are right.
I am aware that some people end up on the receiving end of debt collectors without reason or under unfair circumstances. Those people are the exception, not the rule. It has to be, or there would be a lot more outcry.
His comment was obviously directed at those who just weren't paying their bills. It's not hard to see the distinction, and as educated readers we should be able to tell the difference in intended target. It certainly wasn't trolling when applied to those to whom it was meant to apply to.
This should not be Troll. Whoever marks advocating personal financial responsibility as Troll has serious problems. Allow me to provide examples for future reference.
If you incur debt voluntarily, you should pay those bills. Yes debt collection agencies suck and often partake in shady collection practices, but they wouldn't be after you if you didn't short somebody. [Not Trolling]
But then again, if you look to our benevolent liberal overlords for financial responsibility examples, it would seem perfectly reasonable. [Trolling]
A. Pay your debts
B. Go to your account settings in Facebook so that people can't mine all this information about you. Pass this tip along to your family and friends.
I call myself a libertarian. I hate republican war hawking and moral litigation (this coming from a Catholic US Navy veteran), and I hate democratic over-taxation and nanny-state tendencies (I hope to, one day, be rich, and I'd like to keep my money after all that hard work and not be labeled a 'fat cat', thanks). Don't lump me in with either of these idiotic parties, please.
We had. I had taken painstaking care to extricating myself from this stupid 'discussion' with an apparently psychologically unbalanced hard-line communist troll. And you just fed it... why?
Sure use that word bullshit a lot. You do know it well.
I haven't read Ayn fucking Rand and I don't have to. I know exactly what the fuck medieval feudalism is, but I find your comparison stupid, so I don't knowledge it and move the conversation in different directions. The only Lord I answer to is the IRS. Your arguments reek of fanaticism.
So you hate Ayn Rand. I get it. Never read her stuff. Don't care. Also don't need to read medieval history to make logical conclusions based off observations about a system that works, most of the time.
Speaking of which, the funny thing is, the capitalist system may be 'ancient', but it works. If a guy in location X needs Y and he is willing to pay for it, some guy will find a way of getting it there and charging him for it. And it presents far more opportunity to increase your place in the world than any number of ideological systems which are just as prone to corruption, specifically government-centric models.
By that logic, the only way to prevent it is to have government control all resources and corporations. Mexico is a nice example of this in action.
I disagree with your conclusion. Force is power. The willingness to inflict violence is power. If the government has the military and law enforcement and is willing to use them to shred any company that tries those things that are illegal and fry those who profited from it, people will be far less likely to try and profit from it.
I think it is large, bloated governments that allow corruption to thrive. If the left hand doesn't know (and can't know) what the right hand is doing, it's much easier to get what you want done. A small, open government would be more effective and less corrupt.
What you're describing is a byproduct of a corrupt government, not a limited government. A limited (non-corrupt) government with a concise set of rules to follow that wasn't afraid to enforce them would not have the same problems as we currently do.
Most people have no problem with the 'sharing' of ideas. It's the 'sharing' (copying at no cost) of completed works with a supposed value that bothers them. From there it gets messy.
Slashdot Mirror
To lull us into a false sense of safety.
Wish I had mod points for you.
And in the end? Nothing has changed. Until we get a third party in, we can at least hope to keep the Dems and Repubs bickering enough to prevent them from fucking everything up.
Maybe this time we'll get some real dirt, not just more 'War is destructive and violent and they try to pretty it up for us.' We all already knew that.
A court order should not be enough to shut down someone's free speech rights. If they want to shut down a website they should have to actually bring charges against the website owner, and have the site shut down only following an actual conviction.
I agree, but I don't see game and music torrent hosting as a free speech issue. I don't anticipate it being applied only there, though.
*bureaucrat
At least this sets the precedent of requiring a court order to shut down a website, and not just the word of some bureaucratic or politician.
That's because it is nanny-state politics. You like to talk about the 'isolated' incidents where talking and driving is absolutely necessary and people will blow it out of proportion, but how blown out of proportion is his claim of 'distracted driving' being a huge problem?
I talk on the phone and drive all the time and have yet to get in an accident. Ever. Most people I know can magically manage to do the same thing. On top of that, talking on the phone and driving is not even illegal as it is no less distracting than talking to a passenger. Are they going to enforce mandatory noise shields between the front and back seat to ensure 'distracted drivers' don't 'ruin lives and kill people' talking to their passengers?
Manufactured crisis as an excuse for nanny-state regulation. Occasionally those lovably paranoid tea party bastards are right.
I wonder how long until this gets marked Troll...
In answer to the final question, less than one hour. You did not disappoint, /. mod system.
Well, rather, you did not diverge from expectation.
I am aware that some people end up on the receiving end of debt collectors without reason or under unfair circumstances. Those people are the exception, not the rule. It has to be, or there would be a lot more outcry.
His comment was obviously directed at those who just weren't paying their bills. It's not hard to see the distinction, and as educated readers we should be able to tell the difference in intended target. It certainly wasn't trolling when applied to those to whom it was meant to apply to.
This should not be Troll. Whoever marks advocating personal financial responsibility as Troll has serious problems. Allow me to provide examples for future reference.
If you incur debt voluntarily, you should pay those bills. Yes debt collection agencies suck and often partake in shady collection practices, but they wouldn't be after you if you didn't short somebody. [Not Trolling]
But then again, if you look to our benevolent liberal overlords for financial responsibility examples, it would seem perfectly reasonable. [Trolling]
I wonder how long until this gets marked Troll...
A. Pay your debts
B. Go to your account settings in Facebook so that people can't mine all this information about you. Pass this tip along to your family and friends.
C. Delete Facebook Account.
Is great. I don't know where it was found, but it could apply to so many headlines.
I call myself a libertarian. I hate republican war hawking and moral litigation (this coming from a Catholic US Navy veteran), and I hate democratic over-taxation and nanny-state tendencies (I hope to, one day, be rich, and I'd like to keep my money after all that hard work and not be labeled a 'fat cat', thanks). Don't lump me in with either of these idiotic parties, please.
We had. I had taken painstaking care to extricating myself from this stupid 'discussion' with an apparently psychologically unbalanced hard-line communist troll. And you just fed it... why?
Maybe I'll start with Ayn Rand. I'm sure I'll find her logical, even tempered, and full of insight.
#endflamewar
'Discussing' is too kind a word for what just happened here.
Sure use that word bullshit a lot. You do know it well.
I haven't read Ayn fucking Rand and I don't have to. I know exactly what the fuck medieval feudalism is, but I find your comparison stupid, so I don't knowledge it and move the conversation in different directions. The only Lord I answer to is the IRS. Your arguments reek of fanaticism.
B excuse me, but, arent you talking on shit you dont know ?
Yeah sure. Only guys who have read Ayn Rand and have 'researched' medieval economics can talk. Nobody else is allowed to comment.
I'm done arguing with you. You're pretty obviously as much as a blind ideologue as those you hate, including Rand.
So you hate Ayn Rand. I get it. Never read her stuff. Don't care. Also don't need to read medieval history to make logical conclusions based off observations about a system that works, most of the time.
Speaking of which, the funny thing is, the capitalist system may be 'ancient', but it works. If a guy in location X needs Y and he is willing to pay for it, some guy will find a way of getting it there and charging him for it. And it presents far more opportunity to increase your place in the world than any number of ideological systems which are just as prone to corruption, specifically government-centric models.
By that logic, the only way to prevent it is to have government control all resources and corporations. Mexico is a nice example of this in action.
I disagree with your conclusion. Force is power. The willingness to inflict violence is power. If the government has the military and law enforcement and is willing to use them to shred any company that tries those things that are illegal and fry those who profited from it, people will be far less likely to try and profit from it.
I think it is large, bloated governments that allow corruption to thrive. If the left hand doesn't know (and can't know) what the right hand is doing, it's much easier to get what you want done. A small, open government would be more effective and less corrupt.
What you're describing is a byproduct of a corrupt government, not a limited government. A limited (non-corrupt) government with a concise set of rules to follow that wasn't afraid to enforce them would not have the same problems as we currently do.
Most people have no problem with the 'sharing' of ideas. It's the 'sharing' (copying at no cost) of completed works with a supposed value that bothers them. From there it gets messy.
I was just worried about the use of the word 'Some'. It seems to me all personal content should be unaffected.
I would hate to see a bunch of people get fined because their personal website has only plain text and images.