Yet another reason why liberal arts programs are inherently superior (aside from the fact that they're the only subjects that can reliably arrive at Truth, and are more human).
That assumes that the government has any legitimate business requiring a license for use of radio frequency spectrum space, which it simply doesn't.
The notion of "public airwaves" is patently absurd on its face. Radio waves are created on a privately-owned transmitter and sent out over a privately-owned antenna. The government has no place interfering.
The proper way is to treat RF frequency allocation like private property--so for instance, a radio station could own the frequency space from 94.8 to 95.0 MHz over the area within, say, a 30-mile radius of a defined point in space. It's yours to do what you like with--broadcast whatever you want, sell it, will it to your kids, etc.--without government interference, and if you broadcast on someone else's frequency-territory space, you're trespassing.
If Flickr doesn't like what you send to it, they're entitled to refuse it.
If Flickr's bandwidth providers, domain registrars, etc. don't like what Flickr does, they're entitled to refuse service in the future (and perhaps even cancel current service, depending on the terms of their agreements).
But the lines (tubes) that the content is travelling across is privately owned. If ISPs don't want certain kinds of content travelling over their private networks, are they, by the same logic, allowed to block it?
Owning nuclear weapons is not a right and never has been. Sure it is.
Under the NPT, it is a privilege granted only to very specific nations under very specific conditions. You weren't granted that privilege, but more importantly, it IS a privilege. Then the non-proliferation treaty is wrong, isn't it? It is a violation of individual rights, and therefore illegitimate, null, and void.
The Government can add/remove amendments (the 2nd included) any time enough States concur with large enough majorities. If it can be taken away, then it is not inalienable and is not a right.
Common misunderstanding of the issue.
No one doubts that the government has the practical capability to ignore and violate individual rights. Hell, it does so all the time.
But just because that right is ignored or violated does not mean you no longer possess it. Rather, the fact that you DO still possess it as a right, even though it is being ignored or violated, is what entitles you to fight back to defend it.
One, it's an online petition, which makes it intrinsically worthless.
Two, 75,000 isn't even the tiniest fraction of Microsoft's user base.
Three, would you expect a petition to save Windows XP to even be an accurate cross-sample of Microsoft's user base, or is it more likely that it contains a disproportionate share of people who, you know, want to save Windows XP.
That we're not hearing from people who support the move to Vista doesn't mean they don't exist in large numbers. After all, there's no reason to get vocal when you're happy with the way things are going.
Erm.. we live in a democracy. Meaning the government is DEFINED by popular will, its even in the definition of the term. Demos = people, or in practice the majority of the people.
Fundamentally incorrect. The form of government does not alter the objectively proper role of government; rather, if the form of government allows government to get away with acting outside its proper domain, then the form of government is WRONG and must be altered and in the meantime must not be heeded.
Also it is NOT theft, your use of that term is fallacious.
Not at all.
Ignoring the various social contract theories in which our government is based,
All of which are intellectually bankrupt and thus invalid.
you receive benefit from taxes.
That's for me to decide. If I decide I benefit, I will pay voluntarily. If I decide I don't, then I will withold payment--if that means that I don't get what I would have received for that payment, that's fine.
but that's what happens in this form of government, the majority decides.
See above.
You are also free to be bitter that not more than a handful of people agree with you.
Yup, and the will of the majority does NOT trump the rights of the individual.
Also "metaphysics" might mean something other than you think it does.
This is why philosophy is a vastly superior tool for discovering how things actually are than science.
Philosophy is capable of dealing with a much wider set of problems than science is. Science is only limited to the observable, and it can only tell you how things appear to be--which is not necessarily how things actually are.
Furthermore, all science can say is that there's nothing yet to indicate that a given idea is false. Philosophy, however, because it rests on logic rather than empirical observation, can affirmatively tell you that something is true.
Content producers are not individually responsible for the acts of the U.S. government.
Furthermore, intellectual property, like all other natural rights, is independent upon the will of the collective. Even if it turns out that everyone else is quite content with this new status quo, does not mean I am obligated to accept this despicable infringement of my sacred individual rights.
it's in society's interest to regulate the market to prevent consolidation. It is not government's job to act in "society's interest." Government's job is to protect individual rights. This proposed action would do the exact opposite.
Yes, it's also good for society when people can do business as they see fit, within reason. The interests of society are irrelevant; only individual liberty matters.
Talking about the "freedom of business-owners to sell their businesses to whomever they want to" as if it's as important as freedom of speech is silly; No, it's not. All liberty is equally sacred and equally important AS AN END IN ITSELF.
there have been quite a number of precedents establishing that business "freedoms" can be restricted far more thoroughly and easily than personal freedoms Those precedents are wrong.
Markets work best when unfettered, but they serve society best when they're regulated by the will of the people. That is not a relevant concern when deciding on government policy.
The thing is, you incorrectly view liberty as only a means to an end. It's not. The individual, and therefore his liberty, is an end in itself, and trumps all other concerns.
this is about five or fewer corporations controlling the vast majority of media in the entire United States who want to make it four or fewer (preferably one). So? The owners of big companies are people too, and have the same rights as everyone else.
History has shown that the rules need to change for oligpolies and monopolies or very bad things happen. This justifies government violating individual rights how?
These "very bad things" take on the general form of low quality goods and/or high prices. It's not government's job to do anything about that.
In the case of multimedia, are you going to seriously pretend that that you don't see how having an oligopoly controlling the media is a bad thing? I don't see how it's worse than the violation of individual rights that is being proposed to prevent it.
When formulating policy, individual liberty is the ONLY relevant concern. Nothing else matters.
When people organize themselves in such a manner that they act as a collective whole (as is the case with business concerns), then that organization becomes a singular entity.
Furthermore, there is in fact no distinction between life and property. If I make ten dollars an hour, and I have a couch that cost me one hundred dollars, that couch is literally equivalent to ten hours of my life.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet another reason why liberal arts programs are inherently superior (aside from the fact that they're the only subjects that can reliably arrive at Truth, and are more human).
Actually, fair pricing is by definition whatever people are willing to pay.
People are obviously willing to pay this price (otherwise it wouldn't be offered there); therefore, it is indeed a fair (and the correct) price.
That assumes that the government has any legitimate business requiring a license for use of radio frequency spectrum space, which it simply doesn't.
The notion of "public airwaves" is patently absurd on its face. Radio waves are created on a privately-owned transmitter and sent out over a privately-owned antenna. The government has no place interfering.
The proper way is to treat RF frequency allocation like private property--so for instance, a radio station could own the frequency space from 94.8 to 95.0 MHz over the area within, say, a 30-mile radius of a defined point in space. It's yours to do what you like with--broadcast whatever you want, sell it, will it to your kids, etc.--without government interference, and if you broadcast on someone else's frequency-territory space, you're trespassing.
Not at all. You're always free to refuse to deal with them for whatever reason you choose, after all.
It's not that complex at all.
If Flickr doesn't like what you send to it, they're entitled to refuse it.
If Flickr's bandwidth providers, domain registrars, etc. don't like what Flickr does, they're entitled to refuse service in the future (and perhaps even cancel current service, depending on the terms of their agreements).
Etc., etc.
Really, it's pretty simple.
Yes, of course.
When in order to do so you have to price them below cost.
Which would only serve to reduce sales even further.
Owning nuclear weapons is not a right and never has been.
Sure it is.
Under the NPT, it is a privilege granted only to very specific nations under very specific conditions. You weren't granted that privilege, but more importantly, it IS a privilege.
Then the non-proliferation treaty is wrong, isn't it? It is a violation of individual rights, and therefore illegitimate, null, and void.
The Government can add/remove amendments (the 2nd included) any time enough States concur with large enough majorities. If it can be taken away, then it is not inalienable and is not a right.
Common misunderstanding of the issue.
No one doubts that the government has the practical capability to ignore and violate individual rights. Hell, it does so all the time.
But just because that right is ignored or violated does not mean you no longer possess it. Rather, the fact that you DO still possess it as a right, even though it is being ignored or violated, is what entitles you to fight back to defend it.
One, it's an online petition, which makes it intrinsically worthless.
Two, 75,000 isn't even the tiniest fraction of Microsoft's user base.
Three, would you expect a petition to save Windows XP to even be an accurate cross-sample of Microsoft's user base, or is it more likely that it contains a disproportionate share of people who, you know, want to save Windows XP.
That we're not hearing from people who support the move to Vista doesn't mean they don't exist in large numbers. After all, there's no reason to get vocal when you're happy with the way things are going.
Fundamentally incorrect. The form of government does not alter the objectively proper role of government; rather, if the form of government allows government to get away with acting outside its proper domain, then the form of government is WRONG and must be altered and in the meantime must not be heeded.
Not at all.
All of which are intellectually bankrupt and thus invalid.
That's for me to decide. If I decide I benefit, I will pay voluntarily. If I decide I don't, then I will withold payment--if that means that I don't get what I would have received for that payment, that's fine.
See above.
Yup, and the will of the majority does NOT trump the rights of the individual.
It doesn't.
Wrong.
The proper role of government is metaphysically independent of popular will.
Certainly, popular will is no justification for state-sanctioned theft.
How are any of those valid reasons?
After all, it's not like scientific research for anything other than bona fide military purposes is the proper role of government anyway.
Maglite ftw.
This is why philosophy is a vastly superior tool for discovering how things actually are than science.
Philosophy is capable of dealing with a much wider set of problems than science is. Science is only limited to the observable, and it can only tell you how things appear to be--which is not necessarily how things actually are.
Furthermore, all science can say is that there's nothing yet to indicate that a given idea is false. Philosophy, however, because it rests on logic rather than empirical observation, can affirmatively tell you that something is true.
Wrong.
Content producers are not individually responsible for the acts of the U.S. government.
Furthermore, intellectual property, like all other natural rights, is independent upon the will of the collective. Even if it turns out that everyone else is quite content with this new status quo, does not mean I am obligated to accept this despicable infringement of my sacred individual rights.
There is no valid reason to violate the right of individuals and their agents to own as much of something as they are able.
Non-military space flight isn't the proper role of government anyway.
it's in society's interest to regulate the market to prevent consolidation.
It is not government's job to act in "society's interest." Government's job is to protect individual rights. This proposed action would do the exact opposite.
Yes, it's also good for society when people can do business as they see fit, within reason.
The interests of society are irrelevant; only individual liberty matters.
Talking about the "freedom of business-owners to sell their businesses to whomever they want to" as if it's as important as freedom of speech is silly;
No, it's not. All liberty is equally sacred and equally important AS AN END IN ITSELF.
there have been quite a number of precedents establishing that business "freedoms" can be restricted far more thoroughly and easily than personal freedoms
Those precedents are wrong.
Markets work best when unfettered, but they serve society best when they're regulated by the will of the people.
That is not a relevant concern when deciding on government policy.
The thing is, you incorrectly view liberty as only a means to an end. It's not. The individual, and therefore his liberty, is an end in itself, and trumps all other concerns.
this is about five or fewer corporations controlling the vast majority of media in the entire United States who want to make it four or fewer (preferably one).
So? The owners of big companies are people too, and have the same rights as everyone else.
History has shown that the rules need to change for oligpolies and monopolies or very bad things happen.
This justifies government violating individual rights how?
These "very bad things" take on the general form of low quality goods and/or high prices.
It's not government's job to do anything about that.
In the case of multimedia, are you going to seriously pretend that that you don't see how having an oligopoly controlling the media is a bad thing?
I don't see how it's worse than the violation of individual rights that is being proposed to prevent it.
When formulating policy, individual liberty is the ONLY relevant concern. Nothing else matters.
I never claimed it didn't.
Just because it does happen doesn't mean it should.
When people organize themselves in such a manner that they act as a collective whole (as is the case with business concerns), then that organization becomes a singular entity.
Furthermore, there is in fact no distinction between life and property. If I make ten dollars an hour, and I have a couch that cost me one hundred dollars, that couch is literally equivalent to ten hours of my life.
Google, to my knowledge, does not have any facilities in backwards socialist-collectivist Canada.
So why are they worried about the laws there?
"Do no evil", my ass.
And that's wrong, because those are all singular entities.