Your handwaving won't allow you to evade either logic or the law. Stealing is permanent deprivation, and "the rules necessary" are that you don't permanently deprive someone of something that's theirs except on their terms.
Copyright was supposedly a convenient restriction of freedom to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. It's all gone a bit Pete Tong.
It is an observation for an occasionally observed phenomenon by economists with a particular political bent interested in confirmation bias.
It's as useful as observing that sometimes stuff involving more than one person goes wrong. Yes, it does. What is the theory, though? IOW, what is the falsifiable statement being made?
Yeah the trouble is that I have lived in a remote farming area with common ground and there was no tragedy because 1) there are regulations to stop abuse; 2) before the law even thinks about stepping in, all your neighbours will put a stop to your abusive behaviour.
"Tragedy of the commons" assumes people are stupidy short-sighted and selfish - all people except those who raise this poor argument, that is.
Looking at roman_mir's posting history, I'm fairly sure that a dictatorship is his preferred choice. Except he will call it "The Corporation" instead of "The Government".
- it's not a government issue, it's a private matter. Just because 'you come from a rich family' doesn't change that fact that government shouldn't be involved in private disputes of this type.
It changes a lot: it means I can pay security guards to stop you getting back into the house you thought was yours. Government's not involved, so good luck raising your own army.
Should you pay a fine for somebody else's transgressions? Should you be thrown to jail for somebody else's crime?
Communities and whole countries are made worse off all the time because of the actions of a few. This will always happen for as long as the actions of one person has an indirect effect on more than one other. Welcome to reality, and I'm sorry you're having such trouble coping with it.
Prison is a way of stopping those dangerous to society from causing harm to society. Fines are usually a dumb idea as implemented, although I guess they could be used to rein in the abusively powerful. Using either for mere punishment is fairly ineffective, as America should have learnt by now.
Are not everybody paying for the other people's mistakes because of this ridiculous idea of 'group responsibility' at the very moment when the government steals from everybody to bail out the failed companies, like banks?
I have no problem with the socialisation of losses. My issue is with the capitalisation of profit.
You are a troll, though the moderators don't understand it.
You are probably mentally ill, and the moderators do understand it. But this is irrelevant - what matters is that you make a crap argument.
If you hit somebody with a car, it's a private matter. People don't need government to have working competing criminal and judicial systems.
So, like I said, when I get drunk and hit you with a car, good luck stopping me before I do it again to your family.
If you leave it as you found it and make good on any damage, I couldn't give a fuck what you do with my stuff.
There are small communities (from traditional English villages to new age communes) which have open door policies like this. But capitalism with its modern cities and covetousness has pretty much fucked up this philosophy.
- I agree, it's a private issue, not a governmental one.
That's good, because I come from a fairly rich family and - since it's not a governmental issue - I can just take over the land I want.
- of-course it's because of individual freedom and there is no such thing as 'group responsibility'.
That's good, because without group responsibility there is no government, and see above.
- correct. And if people cause accidents while drunk, this is also not a governmental issue.
As above. After getting drunk and driving into you, I shall pay you £25k. If you want more, you're welcome to fight me. Perhaps you can attach a spike or something to your wheelchair and try crashing into me for revenge - we're keeping the government out of this.
Private roads have private rules.
Now here I agree. If it wasn't for government wasting money on roads, we'd all be using decent, cheap public transport - private companies are completely useless at creating any sort of national infrastructure, especially one that isn't profitable.
I don't even know what this means...is that an attempt to be "deep" by going all metaphysical, or what? It kind of sounds like you are suggesting that all of us are just figments of someone/something's imagination. If so, well, that was an intriguing concept back when I was elementary school, but now...not so much.
Why is it that people think this is an idea to "grow out" of?
People spend their lives trusting their memory for every experience and every sequence of thoughts they think they've ever had. And yet they're so quick to want to forget that faith. They don't want to accept that it's impossible to reason about it without assuming it, so they choose not to think about it at all.
I think all things should be free to use as long as you're not significantly interfering with someone else's enjoyment. For example, the government should stop telling us e.g. that we can't use that empty house + land over there because it "belongs" to someone else.
People are free to kill their IQ, but should be discouraged. Putting potheads in jail is wrong because no-one is at risk of harm from potheads, not because being a pothead is somehow a grand expression of freedom. If they fail and harm themselves as a result, the state should treat them - with group freedom comes group responsibility.
Of course, your libretardian argument leads to the conclusion that drink driving is OK as long as you don't cause an accident - because, after all, money solves all problems, including the problem of dying or becoming a paraplegic.
We're starting to see rules against trolling and griefing appear, which is the next logical step.
Why is it OK to legislate against a punch in the 'nads, but not against psychological harm? In what way is a brain any less a damageable organ of the body than a testicle?
But morality cannot be enforced by laws, banning something doesn't prevent people from doing it, it just makes them criminals when they do it.
The NHS offers the opportunity for doctors, nurses, and bureaucrats to featherbed themselves in comfortable positions.
What makes you think that? In what way has the NHS created a specific potential for employees to "featherbed themselves"? Any organisation has the potential for its workers to act against the interests of the organisation, but there is nothing in the activity of the NHS per se which creates this potential.
Patients get to be legally high all the time ("oh, I don't drink any more, I just take a Xanax"),
Perhaps you have never experienced the NHS. You certainly don't get drugs just because you ask for them, and prescriptions are always issued for limited periods. Recall that there is no drug advertising in surgeries and hospitals here, and no commission paid to medical professionals for choosing particular drugs.
and some of them even get the holy grail: disability. (Not sure if there's a different term in UK. In USA, "disability" is paid by Social Security to anyone that is certified as too disabled to hold a job. For life.
We don't get that. The longest term payments you will get are via a disability living allowance - that is only for people with significant care or mobility needs and will usually involve a full assessment every ~3 years plus random checkups. Up-to-date GP, occupational therapist, consultant, etc. reports would be needed to have a reasonable chance of success. That is not intended as a replacement for work, but as a way of helping you live your life, e.g. adapting your car to accommodate having no legs.
There are out-of-work sickness allowances ("ESA") but they require re-assessment typically every 12 months. Actually, the assessments are awful, as they are based on some stupid points system and the assessment is farmed out to a private company which does a bad job and often has its decisions overturned by the judiciary - this has received a lot of UK press coverage recently. Only a small proportion of those collecting this allowance are entirely exempt from work-related activity, though. We have one of the most administratively expensive and broken systems of welfare allowances, thanks to lobbying by Unum and various other private insurance and assessment providers.
So, like I said, the most important safeguard when doing work on behalf of the people is against the corrupting influence of the private sector - the NHS was fine in this respect until the privatisations of Thatcher, and the system of allowances worked well until the privatisations of Major and Blair. Cameras everywhere are dangerous even in the absence of private corruption.
There's Munchausen syndrome, too.
That is itself a condition which can be identified and treated appropriately.
The worst problem is that those lacking in logic will assume that, since safety is used as an excuse, safety must be a bad thing to strive for.
Whatever excuse is used, it must be understood that the underlying cause in this case is the accumulation of power. It is accumulation of excessive power - whether in government or corporation - which we must resist.
When any new idea is proposed anywhere, the first thing to ask must be: "Which groups benefit?" If anyone actually or potentially disproportionately benefits, then the idea is wrong. A massive system of nationwide tracking has the obvious potential to disproportionately benefit those who would control movement and behaviour, therefore it is wrong.
(Contrast this with, say, the NHS, where - as long as the corrupting influence of private sector leeches is removed - the only way anyone can benefit is by becoming as healthy as anyone else with access to the NHS. Therefore the NHS is a "big government" idea which is also excellent.)
If you know a way of replicating cartons of milk, I'm all udders.
Meanwhile, in the real legal and moral world which recognises the difference between theft and copyright infringement, it is still unreasonable for the middle man to take a huge cut when selling a physical product. This doesn't mean you just steal the milk, but you most certainly raise awareness and campaign for a greater share of the profits to go to those involved in doing the real work - this must involve work by the content producers too.
Let us never forget that the marketplace and the law are merely tools to help society work efficiently - the former merely a framework. The price of humanity is eternal vigilance.
When 28 people eat chocolate, and 28 people have a beer, tell me, is the BBC biased?
Counting complaints made by some channel isn't an objective way of identifying bias at all.
(Sorry, I'm not interested in pursuing this discussion any further. There are essays all over the web discussing the post-Hutton BBC and you're starting from an untenable position.)
These aren't honourable revolutionaries who would sooner fall on their own sword. These are antisocial children who play straight into the authorities' hands by allowing the latter to depict all dissent as the work of mere mindless vandals.
Slashdot Mirror
Your handwaving won't allow you to evade either logic or the law. Stealing is permanent deprivation, and "the rules necessary" are that you don't permanently deprive someone of something that's theirs except on their terms.
Copyright was supposedly a convenient restriction of freedom to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. It's all gone a bit Pete Tong.
It is an observation for an occasionally observed phenomenon by economists with a particular political bent interested in confirmation bias.
It's as useful as observing that sometimes stuff involving more than one person goes wrong. Yes, it does. What is the theory, though? IOW, what is the falsifiable statement being made?
Yeah the trouble is that I have lived in a remote farming area with common ground and there was no tragedy because 1) there are regulations to stop abuse; 2) before the law even thinks about stepping in, all your neighbours will put a stop to your abusive behaviour.
"Tragedy of the commons" assumes people are stupidy short-sighted and selfish - all people except those who raise this poor argument, that is.
Executive: "restructuring cost before tax"
English: "way to create a paper loss to avoid tax".
Looking at roman_mir's posting history, I'm fairly sure that a dictatorship is his preferred choice. Except he will call it "The Corporation" instead of "The Government".
You meant to type "I see that there are exceptions now" but it seemed to come out as "Don't be pedantic".
- it's not a government issue, it's a private matter. Just because 'you come from a rich family' doesn't change that fact that government shouldn't be involved in private disputes of this type.
It changes a lot: it means I can pay security guards to stop you getting back into the house you thought was yours. Government's not involved, so good luck raising your own army.
Should you pay a fine for somebody else's transgressions? Should you be thrown to jail for somebody else's crime?
Communities and whole countries are made worse off all the time because of the actions of a few. This will always happen for as long as the actions of one person has an indirect effect on more than one other. Welcome to reality, and I'm sorry you're having such trouble coping with it.
Prison is a way of stopping those dangerous to society from causing harm to society. Fines are usually a dumb idea as implemented, although I guess they could be used to rein in the abusively powerful. Using either for mere punishment is fairly ineffective, as America should have learnt by now.
Are not everybody paying for the other people's mistakes because of this ridiculous idea of 'group responsibility' at the very moment when the government steals from everybody to bail out the failed companies, like banks?
I have no problem with the socialisation of losses. My issue is with the capitalisation of profit.
You are a troll, though the moderators don't understand it.
You are probably mentally ill, and the moderators do understand it. But this is irrelevant - what matters is that you make a crap argument.
If you hit somebody with a car, it's a private matter. People don't need government to have working competing criminal and judicial systems.
So, like I said, when I get drunk and hit you with a car, good luck stopping me before I do it again to your family.
If you leave it as you found it and make good on any damage, I couldn't give a fuck what you do with my stuff.
There are small communities (from traditional English villages to new age communes) which have open door policies like this. But capitalism with its modern cities and covetousness has pretty much fucked up this philosophy.
How many agents of chemical and biological warfare would you like me to list?
- I agree, it's a private issue, not a governmental one.
That's good, because I come from a fairly rich family and - since it's not a governmental issue - I can just take over the land I want.
- of-course it's because of individual freedom and there is no such thing as 'group responsibility'.
That's good, because without group responsibility there is no government, and see above.
- correct. And if people cause accidents while drunk, this is also not a governmental issue.
As above. After getting drunk and driving into you, I shall pay you £25k. If you want more, you're welcome to fight me. Perhaps you can attach a spike or something to your wheelchair and try crashing into me for revenge - we're keeping the government out of this.
Private roads have private rules.
Now here I agree. If it wasn't for government wasting money on roads, we'd all be using decent, cheap public transport - private companies are completely useless at creating any sort of national infrastructure, especially one that isn't profitable.
I don't even know what this means...is that an attempt to be "deep" by going all metaphysical, or what? It kind of sounds like you are suggesting that all of us are just figments of someone/something's imagination. If so, well, that was an intriguing concept back when I was elementary school, but now...not so much.
Why is it that people think this is an idea to "grow out" of?
People spend their lives trusting their memory for every experience and every sequence of thoughts they think they've ever had. And yet they're so quick to want to forget that faith. They don't want to accept that it's impossible to reason about it without assuming it, so they choose not to think about it at all.
I think all things should be free to use as long as you're not significantly interfering with someone else's enjoyment. For example, the government should stop telling us e.g. that we can't use that empty house + land over there because it "belongs" to someone else.
People are free to kill their IQ, but should be discouraged. Putting potheads in jail is wrong because no-one is at risk of harm from potheads, not because being a pothead is somehow a grand expression of freedom. If they fail and harm themselves as a result, the state should treat them - with group freedom comes group responsibility.
Of course, your libretardian argument leads to the conclusion that drink driving is OK as long as you don't cause an accident - because, after all, money solves all problems, including the problem of dying or becoming a paraplegic.
We're starting to see rules against trolling and griefing appear, which is the next logical step.
Why is it OK to legislate against a punch in the 'nads, but not against psychological harm? In what way is a brain any less a damageable organ of the body than a testicle?
But morality cannot be enforced by laws, banning something doesn't prevent people from doing it, it just makes them criminals when they do it.
Like rape.
The NHS offers the opportunity for doctors, nurses, and bureaucrats to featherbed themselves in comfortable positions.
What makes you think that? In what way has the NHS created a specific potential for employees to "featherbed themselves"? Any organisation has the potential for its workers to act against the interests of the organisation, but there is nothing in the activity of the NHS per se which creates this potential.
Patients get to be legally high all the time ("oh, I don't drink any more, I just take a Xanax"),
Perhaps you have never experienced the NHS. You certainly don't get drugs just because you ask for them, and prescriptions are always issued for limited periods. Recall that there is no drug advertising in surgeries and hospitals here, and no commission paid to medical professionals for choosing particular drugs.
and some of them even get the holy grail: disability. (Not sure if there's a different term in UK. In USA, "disability" is paid by Social Security to anyone that is certified as too disabled to hold a job. For life.
We don't get that. The longest term payments you will get are via a disability living allowance - that is only for people with significant care or mobility needs and will usually involve a full assessment every ~3 years plus random checkups. Up-to-date GP, occupational therapist, consultant, etc. reports would be needed to have a reasonable chance of success. That is not intended as a replacement for work, but as a way of helping you live your life, e.g. adapting your car to accommodate having no legs.
There are out-of-work sickness allowances ("ESA") but they require re-assessment typically every 12 months. Actually, the assessments are awful, as they are based on some stupid points system and the assessment is farmed out to a private company which does a bad job and often has its decisions overturned by the judiciary - this has received a lot of UK press coverage recently. Only a small proportion of those collecting this allowance are entirely exempt from work-related activity, though. We have one of the most administratively expensive and broken systems of welfare allowances, thanks to lobbying by Unum and various other private insurance and assessment providers.
So, like I said, the most important safeguard when doing work on behalf of the people is against the corrupting influence of the private sector - the NHS was fine in this respect until the privatisations of Thatcher, and the system of allowances worked well until the privatisations of Major and Blair. Cameras everywhere are dangerous even in the absence of private corruption.
There's Munchausen syndrome, too.
That is itself a condition which can be identified and treated appropriately.
The worst problem is that those lacking in logic will assume that, since safety is used as an excuse, safety must be a bad thing to strive for.
Whatever excuse is used, it must be understood that the underlying cause in this case is the accumulation of power. It is accumulation of excessive power - whether in government or corporation - which we must resist.
When any new idea is proposed anywhere, the first thing to ask must be: "Which groups benefit?" If anyone actually or potentially disproportionately benefits, then the idea is wrong. A massive system of nationwide tracking has the obvious potential to disproportionately benefit those who would control movement and behaviour, therefore it is wrong.
(Contrast this with, say, the NHS, where - as long as the corrupting influence of private sector leeches is removed - the only way anyone can benefit is by becoming as healthy as anyone else with access to the NHS. Therefore the NHS is a "big government" idea which is also excellent.)
If you know a way of replicating cartons of milk, I'm all udders.
Meanwhile, in the real legal and moral world which recognises the difference between theft and copyright infringement, it is still unreasonable for the middle man to take a huge cut when selling a physical product. This doesn't mean you just steal the milk, but you most certainly raise awareness and campaign for a greater share of the profits to go to those involved in doing the real work - this must involve work by the content producers too.
Let us never forget that the marketplace and the law are merely tools to help society work efficiently - the former merely a framework. The price of humanity is eternal vigilance.
Yeah, how dare those investors reap all of the profit but only have to take some of the risk!
Capitalism was non-existent the moment the first limited liability corporation was set up.
Which is appropriate, because capitalism itself would have been even more of a miserable failure.
And the world is full of fucking idiots for being duped once again.
Which this guy did.
No - this guy was caught.
No case to answer.
channel = channel of communication, not TV channel (i.e. particular complaints procedure)
And re-posting AC is kinda lame.
When 28 people eat chocolate, and 28 people have a beer, tell me, is the BBC biased?
Counting complaints made by some channel isn't an objective way of identifying bias at all.
(Sorry, I'm not interested in pursuing this discussion any further. There are essays all over the web discussing the post-Hutton BBC and you're starting from an untenable position.)
These aren't honourable revolutionaries who would sooner fall on their own sword. These are antisocial children who play straight into the authorities' hands by allowing the latter to depict all dissent as the work of mere mindless vandals.
Counting complaints made by some channel isn't an objective way of identifying bias at all.
The 5% or so of people... not that significant.
15,000,000.
"The death of one is a tragedy..."
Stalin would be proud of you, comrade.
1) That is not what IR35 does - it just stops you from being a disguised ee to avoid class 1 NICs;
2) S/e can collect ESA.