Libertarians don't have a corner on the civil liberty market.
Greens share those values. Without throwing us all to the wolves for the sake of "indvidual freedom".
You may not like the idea, but you don't get to just do whatever you feel like because, believe or not, your actions do sometimes affect other people. EVEN MORE SO, if you're rich and powerful. Then we REALLY need to watch you. Because then, as a private individual, you have the ability to do a whole lot of damage to people in all kinds of ways that are not "direct victim crimes". Say, buying all the companies in an area and dropping wages. Sure, some might move. But many won't. And you win.
People have only two possibilities for fighting power if they themselves don't have the resources. Democratic rule, or revolution.
If you cripple democratic rule to dissallow the right of a community to establish its own codes of conduct, including some encroachments into your personal freedoms, then eventually, people have to take option number two.
I'm all about civil liberties. Do what you wilt and all that. But, sometimes there do have to be limits. I'm personally pretty glad that you have to learn a few things to drive a car, for example. It may not be ultimate freedom, but it's pretty freaking prudent.
Yet you doubt that free market capitalism leads to the same thing? It's just a slightly different route. Wise up; Money *really is* power. If you have money, and organization, you get things done.
Companies fit this bill by their very nature. People, in groups.. not so well. That's why we have government. It's the organization of the people without regard for money, where your power comes from your existence as a human being.
Or, more accurately, it should be.
Unless, of course, you advocate for plutocracy, which is where libertarianism leads
Most of the time when I break a rule of driving, it's because I'm talking to someone next to me in the car. I see no reason why this is any different than talking on a cell phone. I imagine that it's exactly the same level of distraction as a hands free set.
So, should we outlaw passengers? Make it illegal to talk in a car? Or, it's suddenly ok to be distracted if the person you are talking to is physically in the car with you for some reason?
Or maybe, it's none of your business who I need to talk to and when I need to talk to them, and it's my responsibility to watch my driving, which neither I nor anyone else is perfect at and is part of the risk of driving, eh?
That's interesting. Why would parental supervision be suddenly inadequate for drug usage, but not for other things like policing television viewing, books, music, etc? As I'm pretty sure the libertarian view would frown on the nanny state's filtering of public media, yes?
I agree with you, but isn't regulating and taxing them anti-libertarian?
I believe a libertarian would say if a parent doesn't want their kids doing drugs, it's up to them to stop it, not to the government to regulate it. Who is the government to say who should use what and how much?
Again, I personally agree with you 100%, just wondering how you reconcile your viewpoint with libertarian philosophy. Since that is one reason I am no longer a libertarian, though I still consider myself a civil libertarian.
The grand canyon is most definitely NOT lifeless rock. It has many ecosystems within it. Biodiversity is very important and therefor we need to tread carefully here on earth, where there is no such thing as lifeless areas. Very poor analogy there.
I am putting forth the radical proposition that if an area does not support LIFE, we can't ruin it from any vantage point that really matters. There may be things to consider with mass, or our own aesthetic desires, but ultimately there is no real need to protect something when there is *nothing there*. Literally nothing. Not "almost nothing".
We could pile garbage ten miles thick on the dark side of the moon or dig craters ten miles deep; beyond the physics and the effects that mass change might have ON THE EARTH, where there is life, it would be of no consequence whatsoever TO THE MOON. because there is nothing on the moon to suffer any consequences.
You're hitting a lot of issues there. You might be sad you didn't get to see the sea of tranquility... well, I'm sorry. That's just sentimentalism which may have some place and some value, but ultimately, you don't get much more low-impact than gluttonously ravaging an already uninhabited, lifeless rock. You just miss out on some tourism opportunities. I don't think you have a "right" to go to the moon or anything, do you? Especially since we'd only get there using technology that requires lots of resources... a desert, slightly different... deserts aren't lifeless. Also they effect climates around them. pollution left there can drift.. all kinds of things. All non-issues on the moon. Well, unless we terra-form it;)
I'm sure we'll have parks and such in space someday, but I don't think we need to start worrying about that just yet.
As far as making it an ad, or removing it entirely, those are pretty far outside the scope of what we're talking about here and would involved much longer conversations I think.
No, it wouldn't have tipped in the direction it has. It also wouldn't be sunshine and roses for all the little bunnies out there all the time either. We're not the only force of nature out there that doesn't give a shit about them. We're one of many. We are just the only one that could possibly CHOOSE to give a shit. But how far do you want to take it? If you want a place to live, something else might have to move for you. Is that ok? If you want food, something has to die. That's ok, right? So that stuff is ok, but wanting to get out onto other planets, which ultimately IS necessary for our survival.. why is that NOT ok?
We need to look at this stuff rationally to arrive at a solution to a practical problem. Condemning us all to death because we have not yet reached enlightenment, especially when you yourself are seduced by the things society offers you when you KNOW the price it extolls, is a bit elitist, rude, hypocritical, short sighted and boorish, frankly. And not particularly helpful either.
I stuggle with this every day myself. But the technology and methods we use today are the only tools we have to take it to the next level, and that includes our cognititive and social developement. You're in a hurry.. that's great, push, that's necessary.. but you might want to consider your methods, cause these aren't particular effective. A reasoned response might hold some more weight than rambling about bunny rabbits and claiming we all deserve to die.
Just a thought.. probably sounds worse than I intend it. Hopefully you don't take it that way.
That's *here*. Yes, I'm with you "here*. You're going out on a limb as to how horrible it would be for us to plunder the moon or other lifeless rocks out there though.
Conservation is not a virtue for conservation's sake. It's a virtue when you are *saving something*. I don't put much of a value on rock. Frankly I think we can put the materials in asteroids and the moon to better use than they do currently.
And actually, animals do ravage their own ecosystems regularly.. they don't understand convservation or carrying capacities any better than we do. The deer populations up here in maine breed themselves into starvation on a regular basis, even in massively undeveloped woodlands. It takes a growth in predator populations to take them back down, or simple overpopulation.
We have lessons to learn. Doesn't mean we should just sit around either. Obviously you agree, sitting there on your mass fabricated computer filled with toxic substances, using your fossil fuel power and buying at least a few products that support the rape of our planet. So how about dropping the high horse routine?
I suggest looking into practical sustainability instead of radical ideology.
and? it's a *lifeless rock*. Who cares if it's a lifeless rock covered in garbage, a lifeless rock that no longer has iron in it, or a lifeless rock that's just a lifeless rock?
What, it should be protected because it's there?
Earth at least has some stuff worth preserving. Which we would probably find a bit easier if it weren't the only source of resources and living space we have available to us.
Yeah, what could possibly go wrong when massive wealth is consolidated in the hands of the few?
They would never, ever abuse that incredible disparity in power, right?
Only governments do that. Right On! Mod up!
Bill gates and other super rich often give lots to charity; that's great. If I had $50 billion I'd give a lot of it away too, why not, it's more than I could ever want to spend. But why should we be happy the the fate of the world's poor depends on the whims of a few super rich people and what THEY think is important? Why should we be happy that such massive consolidation of wealth and power was allowed to occur in the first place? That is a big threat to freedom right there.
So now instead of running his corporate empire, he can run his humanitarian empire. Hopefully he doesn't suddenly decide that, oh I don' t know, that the Christian Coalition needs help fighting us godless heathens or something. Cause I'll have to move.
You really think the Nano would double in price? Its price is not set by the cost of its workers. Apple charges what the market will bear. Apple is charged what it will bear by the subcontractor.
Then, if the subcontractor can cut expenses to the bone, that's just additional profit for doing nothing except shameless exploitation.
I would wager the profits and money are there to pay the workers better wages. They just aren't going to the workers. Because they don't have to.
And that is the justification used to prop up modern day wage slavery.
Here's a simple thought. If we simply required imported goods to be made to standards comparable to ours RELATIVE to the country they come from.. for instance, paying a real living wage for the area, making sure the people have safe work environments, etc... they could be paid $250/month and that would still be a quarter what a comparable US worker would work for. The jobs would not flock back here. But a limit WOULD be placed on merciless exploitation.
Business quite simply benefits from plunder and exploitation when it has no proper regulation. That is, indeed, the nature of the "free" market. Companies have organization and money, which is all you need to start "making the rules" to a large degree.
You are the state. When it runs wild, it is only a reflection of the apathy of the people. You're right, get out there and do something; exercise your control over the state that serves you.
"The State" does not exist in a vacuum. It is not a person. It is the tool that allows people, instead of dollars, to exert power.
Ideally anyway. If we are not at that ideal, then the answer is to fix the state machinery. So go ahead, get busy!
It may not be legal. Whether it's "democratic" or not is irrelevant, we don't live in a democracy, and a representative republic is not the same thing, not even really that close in our current system. Breaking a law may, however, be *quite* ethical, depending on the law. If the law said, for example, you are required to report all black people trying to learn to read to the local authorities... as it has in the past, by implication if not explicitly... because they were breaking a law and by not doing so you were an accomplice to a crime, would it not be ethical to resist such a law?
Laws are important. They are not, however, the be all and end all of civilized society. If they were, we'd all live in Monarchies to this day. Omelets and eggs, remember.
Using the law as your sole judge of right and wrong is lazy, simplistic, and frightenly narrow minded.
Sure it is possible. You can have a small company without advertising. Of course, then you have to go out and drum up business yourself... say, for instance, by putting your company link in your slashdot profile. Need any PEX pipe? *cough cough*
I'm not sure that Google adwords is really a *small* buisiness tool. Perhaps. Perhaps I'm thinking TOO small, as the co-owner of a 4 person company (starting tomorrow.. only 3 today:D)
I don't really care. All I know is, if anyone ever stands up on a plane, ever again, saying "this is a hijacking"... it would have a plane filled with the biggest idiots ever in history to for the passengers to remain in their seats more than half a second afterwards. For years you could assume you'd get out alright if you shut up and sit tight. Those days are now gone.
Well, I'll tell you one thing that is an utter waste of time: airport security. Why? Glad you asked. Because after the entire world saw what can happen when you are on a plane that is hijacked and they say "sit quietly and no one will get hurt", hijacking will *never work again*.
Did you read the article? They talk about those things in depth. Basically, it pays to keep things in perspective. WE live in a country with few restrictions on speech. Any restrictions greater than we are used to already are seen as horrible, backward slides.
The chinese, on the other hand, are coming from the other direction. Things were much worse not too long ago, and they are getting better. Still having some restrictions but having much greater freedom than before is still a step forward.
Sure, it'd be great if they had all the freedoms we have.. heck, it'd be great if our own free speech were a bit freer too... but it's going to take some time to get there. That doesn't mean that what's going on in China isn't cause for hope! It just means they still have some work to do.
Or, if you live in a place like maine, you can buy your electricity from a renewable-energy producer. And flip all those "dirty electricity" guys the bird with both hands;)
Who gives a shit if a band is "underground"? People obsessed with image. Wear your uniform when you go to the show... wouldn't want the rest thinking you're not cool, coward.
Actually, they go beyond running with *a* time signature on several songs, where they will often split the band members into two seperate time signatures running at the same time, which gives a really nice reoccurring point where the whole band comes together on a beat when the signatures match up, then seperate and match back up again...
Like them or not, they are playing with music in a way very few other bands that have achieved any measure of popular success have. Definitely worthy of a little respect. Of course, I'm a drooling fanboy.
Slashdot Mirror
Libertarians don't have a corner on the civil liberty market.
Greens share those values. Without throwing us all to the wolves for the sake of "indvidual freedom".
You may not like the idea, but you don't get to just do whatever you feel like because, believe or not, your actions do sometimes affect other people. EVEN MORE SO, if you're rich and powerful. Then we REALLY need to watch you. Because then, as a private individual, you have the ability to do a whole lot of damage to people in all kinds of ways that are not "direct victim crimes". Say, buying all the companies in an area and dropping wages. Sure, some might move. But many won't. And you win.
People have only two possibilities for fighting power if they themselves don't have the resources. Democratic rule, or revolution.
If you cripple democratic rule to dissallow the right of a community to establish its own codes of conduct, including some encroachments into your personal freedoms, then eventually, people have to take option number two.
I'm all about civil liberties. Do what you wilt and all that. But, sometimes there do have to be limits. I'm personally pretty glad that you have to learn a few things to drive a car, for example. It may not be ultimate freedom, but it's pretty freaking prudent.
Yet you doubt that free market capitalism leads to the same thing? It's just a slightly different route. Wise up; Money *really is* power. If you have money, and organization, you get things done.
Companies fit this bill by their very nature. People, in groups.. not so well. That's why we have government. It's the organization of the people without regard for money, where your power comes from your existence as a human being.
Or, more accurately, it should be.
Unless, of course, you advocate for plutocracy, which is where libertarianism leads
Sorry. Most. Redundant. Post. Evar!
You know what?
Most of the time when I break a rule of driving, it's because I'm talking to someone next to me in the car. I see no reason why this is any different than talking on a cell phone. I imagine that it's exactly the same level of distraction as a hands free set.
So, should we outlaw passengers? Make it illegal to talk in a car? Or, it's suddenly ok to be distracted if the person you are talking to is physically in the car with you for some reason?
Or maybe, it's none of your business who I need to talk to and when I need to talk to them, and it's my responsibility to watch my driving, which neither I nor anyone else is perfect at and is part of the risk of driving, eh?
That's interesting. Why would parental supervision be suddenly inadequate for drug usage, but not for other things like policing television viewing, books, music, etc? As I'm pretty sure the libertarian view would frown on the nanny state's filtering of public media, yes?
I agree with you, but isn't regulating and taxing them anti-libertarian?
I believe a libertarian would say if a parent doesn't want their kids doing drugs, it's up to them to stop it, not to the government to regulate it. Who is the government to say who should use what and how much?
Again, I personally agree with you 100%, just wondering how you reconcile your viewpoint with libertarian philosophy. Since that is one reason I am no longer a libertarian, though I still consider myself a civil libertarian.
I guess that depends on "market forces", eh? Of more value to whom?
Should we carry that through and never do anything anywhere because someone might want to look at it someday?
The grand canyon is most definitely NOT lifeless rock. It has many ecosystems within it. Biodiversity is very important and therefor we need to tread carefully here on earth, where there is no such thing as lifeless areas. Very poor analogy there.
I am putting forth the radical proposition that if an area does not support LIFE, we can't ruin it from any vantage point that really matters. There may be things to consider with mass, or our own aesthetic desires, but ultimately there is no real need to protect something when there is *nothing there*. Literally nothing. Not "almost nothing".
We could pile garbage ten miles thick on the dark side of the moon or dig craters ten miles deep; beyond the physics and the effects that mass change might have ON THE EARTH, where there is life, it would be of no consequence whatsoever TO THE MOON. because there is nothing on the moon to suffer any consequences.
Maybe I'm a "life elitist". So be it. A "lifist"?
You're hitting a lot of issues there. You might be sad you didn't get to see the sea of tranquility... well, I'm sorry. That's just sentimentalism which may have some place and some value, but ultimately, you don't get much more low-impact than gluttonously ravaging an already uninhabited, lifeless rock. You just miss out on some tourism opportunities. I don't think you have a "right" to go to the moon or anything, do you? Especially since we'd only get there using technology that requires lots of resources... a desert, slightly different... deserts aren't lifeless. Also they effect climates around them. pollution left there can drift.. all kinds of things. All non-issues on the moon. Well, unless we terra-form it ;)
I'm sure we'll have parks and such in space someday, but I don't think we need to start worrying about that just yet.
As far as making it an ad, or removing it entirely, those are pretty far outside the scope of what we're talking about here and would involved much longer conversations I think.
No, it wouldn't have tipped in the direction it has. It also wouldn't be sunshine and roses for all the little bunnies out there all the time either. We're not the only force of nature out there that doesn't give a shit about them. We're one of many. We are just the only one that could possibly CHOOSE to give a shit. But how far do you want to take it? If you want a place to live, something else might have to move for you. Is that ok? If you want food, something has to die. That's ok, right? So that stuff is ok, but wanting to get out onto other planets, which ultimately IS necessary for our survival.. why is that NOT ok?
We need to look at this stuff rationally to arrive at a solution to a practical problem. Condemning us all to death because we have not yet reached enlightenment, especially when you yourself are seduced by the things society offers you when you KNOW the price it extolls, is a bit elitist, rude, hypocritical, short sighted and boorish, frankly. And not particularly helpful either.
I stuggle with this every day myself. But the technology and methods we use today are the only tools we have to take it to the next level, and that includes our cognititive and social developement. You're in a hurry.. that's great, push, that's necessary.. but you might want to consider your methods, cause these aren't particular effective. A reasoned response might hold some more weight than rambling about bunny rabbits and claiming we all deserve to die.
Just a thought.. probably sounds worse than I intend it. Hopefully you don't take it that way.
That's *here*. Yes, I'm with you "here*. You're going out on a limb as to how horrible it would be for us to plunder the moon or other lifeless rocks out there though.
Conservation is not a virtue for conservation's sake. It's a virtue when you are *saving something*. I don't put much of a value on rock. Frankly I think we can put the materials in asteroids and the moon to better use than they do currently.
And actually, animals do ravage their own ecosystems regularly.. they don't understand convservation or carrying capacities any better than we do. The deer populations up here in maine breed themselves into starvation on a regular basis, even in massively undeveloped woodlands. It takes a growth in predator populations to take them back down, or simple overpopulation.
We have lessons to learn. Doesn't mean we should just sit around either. Obviously you agree, sitting there on your mass fabricated computer filled with toxic substances, using your fossil fuel power and buying at least a few products that support the rape of our planet. So how about dropping the high horse routine?
I suggest looking into practical sustainability instead of radical ideology.
and? it's a *lifeless rock*. Who cares if it's a lifeless rock covered in garbage, a lifeless rock that no longer has iron in it, or a lifeless rock that's just a lifeless rock?
What, it should be protected because it's there?
Earth at least has some stuff worth preserving. Which we would probably find a bit easier if it weren't the only source of resources and living space we have available to us.
I'm a green kid, and you even lost me.
Yeah, what could possibly go wrong when massive wealth is consolidated in the hands of the few?
They would never, ever abuse that incredible disparity in power, right?
Only governments do that. Right On! Mod up!
Bill gates and other super rich often give lots to charity; that's great. If I had $50 billion I'd give a lot of it away too, why not, it's more than I could ever want to spend. But why should we be happy the the fate of the world's poor depends on the whims of a few super rich people and what THEY think is important? Why should we be happy that such massive consolidation of wealth and power was allowed to occur in the first place? That is a big threat to freedom right there.
So now instead of running his corporate empire, he can run his humanitarian empire. Hopefully he doesn't suddenly decide that, oh I don' t know, that the Christian Coalition needs help fighting us godless heathens or something. Cause I'll have to move.
You really think the Nano would double in price? Its price is not set by the cost of its workers. Apple charges what the market will bear. Apple is charged what it will bear by the subcontractor.
Then, if the subcontractor can cut expenses to the bone, that's just additional profit for doing nothing except shameless exploitation.
I would wager the profits and money are there to pay the workers better wages. They just aren't going to the workers. Because they don't have to.
And that is the justification used to prop up modern day wage slavery.
Here's a simple thought. If we simply required imported goods to be made to standards comparable to ours RELATIVE to the country they come from.. for instance, paying a real living wage for the area, making sure the people have safe work environments, etc... they could be paid $250/month and that would still be a quarter what a comparable US worker would work for. The jobs would not flock back here. But a limit WOULD be placed on merciless exploitation.
Business quite simply benefits from plunder and exploitation when it has no proper regulation. That is, indeed, the nature of the "free" market. Companies have organization and money, which is all you need to start "making the rules" to a large degree.
You are the state. When it runs wild, it is only a reflection of the apathy of the people. You're right, get out there and do something; exercise your control over the state that serves you.
"The State" does not exist in a vacuum. It is not a person. It is the tool that allows people, instead of dollars, to exert power.
Ideally anyway. If we are not at that ideal, then the answer is to fix the state machinery. So go ahead, get busy!
It may not be legal. Whether it's "democratic" or not is irrelevant, we don't live in a democracy, and a representative republic is not the same thing, not even really that close in our current system. Breaking a law may, however, be *quite* ethical, depending on the law. If the law said, for example, you are required to report all black people trying to learn to read to the local authorities... as it has in the past, by implication if not explicitly... because they were breaking a law and by not doing so you were an accomplice to a crime, would it not be ethical to resist such a law?
Laws are important. They are not, however, the be all and end all of civilized society. If they were, we'd all live in Monarchies to this day. Omelets and eggs, remember.
Using the law as your sole judge of right and wrong is lazy, simplistic, and frightenly narrow minded.
Sure it is possible. You can have a small company without advertising. Of course, then you have to go out and drum up business yourself... say, for instance, by putting your company link in your slashdot profile. Need any PEX pipe? *cough cough*
:D)
I'm not sure that Google adwords is really a *small* buisiness tool. Perhaps. Perhaps I'm thinking TOO small, as the co-owner of a 4 person company (starting tomorrow.. only 3 today
I don't really care. All I know is, if anyone ever stands up on a plane, ever again, saying "this is a hijacking"... it would have a plane filled with the biggest idiots ever in history to for the passengers to remain in their seats more than half a second afterwards. For years you could assume you'd get out alright if you shut up and sit tight. Those days are now gone.
Well, I'll tell you one thing that is an utter waste of time: airport security. Why? Glad you asked. Because after the entire world saw what can happen when you are on a plane that is hijacked and they say "sit quietly and no one will get hurt", hijacking will *never work again*.
Did you read the article? They talk about those things in depth. Basically, it pays to keep things in perspective. WE live in a country with few restrictions on speech. Any restrictions greater than we are used to already are seen as horrible, backward slides.
The chinese, on the other hand, are coming from the other direction. Things were much worse not too long ago, and they are getting better. Still having some restrictions but having much greater freedom than before is still a step forward.
Sure, it'd be great if they had all the freedoms we have.. heck, it'd be great if our own free speech were a bit freer too... but it's going to take some time to get there. That doesn't mean that what's going on in China isn't cause for hope! It just means they still have some work to do.
Or, if you live in a place like maine, you can buy your electricity from a renewable-energy producer. And flip all those "dirty electricity" guys the bird with both hands ;)
Who gives a shit if a band is "underground"? People obsessed with image. Wear your uniform when you go to the show... wouldn't want the rest thinking you're not cool, coward.
Actually, they go beyond running with *a* time signature on several songs, where they will often split the band members into two seperate time signatures running at the same time, which gives a really nice reoccurring point where the whole band comes together on a beat when the signatures match up, then seperate and match back up again...
Like them or not, they are playing with music in a way very few other bands that have achieved any measure of popular success have. Definitely worthy of a little respect. Of course, I'm a drooling fanboy.
You mean, "Shows the only mac client", right? :D