"The original post was a whining rant that Tresco shouldn't do time because he "did nothing wrong". My response was simply that he should do time because he did break the law. All this "high and mighty" is deflecting the real issue. warez is IN NO WAY, NOR WILL BE AT ANY TIME the moral equvalent of slavery or civil rights..." ~You
"The original documente was a whining rant that Harriet Tubman shouldn't do time because she 'did nothing wrong'. My response was simply that she should do time because she did break the law. All this 'high and mighty' is defelecting the real issue. Helping niggers escape from their rightful masters is IN NO WAY, NOR WILL BE AT ANY TIME the moral equivalent of the civil rights of decent, white-skinned people..." ~Your great-great-great-great grandfather.
"On a morality basis, Mr. Tresco isn't even a gnat on an elephant's ass. He is a common crook, plain and simple." ~You
"On a morality basis, Harriet Tubman isn't even a gnat on an elephant's ass. She's a common crook, plain and simple." ~Your great-great-great-great-grandfater.
History puts things in perspective. The future will put the present in perspective, and your great-great-great-great-grandchildren will gasp in disbelief when they study history, and they will wonder, "Did people back then REALLY support locking people in cages for sharing stories and songs with friends and family?" Their teacher will say, "Yes, it was against the law back then. But those were different times, before people valued freedom." They'll look at the 20th century the same way we look at the 19th.
You have taken away the author's right to say who can have a copy of his work, and under what terms.
No such right exists.
Your logic:
I hereby demand that you give me $50. If you DON'T give me $50, then you are stealing from me, because you have taken away my right to decide who must give me $50, and under what terms.
That's your logic. But no such right exists.
Your logic:
I hereby demand that you punch yourself in the nose. If you DON'T punch yourself in the nose, then you are stealing from me, because you have taken away my right to dictate the interaction between your fist and your nose.
That's your logic. But no such right exists.
Your logic:
I am the author of a book you bought last week. I decide I don't want you to have the book after all, and I demand that you return it to me and pay me $500 for the inconvenience. You don't get back the money that you spent on the book, because I get to dictate the terms here, buddy! If you don't give back the book that you paid for (and pay me $500), then you are stealing from me by taking away my right to decide who can have a copy of my work, what they can do with it, and how long they can keep it.
That's your logic. But no such right exists. And you are an idiot.
In Article I, Section 8, the authors explicitly gave Congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". The Consitution does not invalidate copyright, it explicitly grants it.
I can play this game:
[T]he manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited. ~United States Constitution
So, is it illegal to buy alcohol in the United States? NO! Why? Because the text above (Ammendment 18) was later superceded by a later ammendment (Ammendment 21). In Constitutional law, when new ammendments conflict with old ammendments (or with the original Constitution document), the new ammendments supercede the old text!!! Look through an archive of the Constitution on the web, and you'll see that a good portion of the original document is crossed out in many copies, indicating that it has been superceded by later ammendments.
Congress would have been granted the ability to authorize Copyright had the First Ammendment never been added, but in my mind, the First Ammendment calls into doubt the Constitutionality of the "progress of science" clause. Remember, NEW Constitutional text supercedes OLD Constitutional text whenever there's a conflict.
Also, you say "The Consitution does not invalidate copyright, it explicitly grants it." Even if I'm wrong about the First Ammendment making copyright Unconstitutional, the Constitution nevergranted Copyright; rather, it granted Congress the ability to grant Copyright. Congress could revoke Copyright tomorrow and it would be 100% legal for them to do so. Congress has no obligation to grant Copyright, it just has the ability to grant Copyright, which I personally feel was overturned when the First Ammendment was added to the Constitution.
According to the original Constitution, Al Gore would be Vice President right now, because he got the second-highest number of electoral votes for President. Why isn't he? Because that part of the Constitution was superceded by an ammendment.
ALSO: how exactly does the government's current behavior with regard to copyright meet the "limited time" restriction, given that every 4 years or so, copyright is extended for another 5 years, meaning that copyrighted material just gets further and further away from the public domain as time goes on rather than closer and closer?
ALSO:
Which of the following is the latest Britney Spears album?
What if you don't believe that Copyright exists? I believe that the First Ammendment to the Constitution invalidated the ability of Congress to grant Copyright. How can the kid be "using a copyrighted piece of software" if Copyright does not exist? The Corporations that have gained control of the government (using money they earned by violating the basic principles of economics by exploiting government-created artificial scarcity) will NEVER let this be decided by the public, because the corporations own the Congress, the White House, all the judges, and they even own the minds of a number of the citizens.
The closest this man has ever come to a bar exam was when he cut class back in college to hang out at the local saloon. No, this is just his hobby, as he's stated in interviews.
It's bad enough when lawyers do this, but when supposedly "normal" people start filing stupid lawsuits, it really makes Baby Jesus cry.
Here's what the judge had to say to him:
The parties are ordered to appear for a conference before the undersigned on June 12, 2002, at 10:00 a.m. to try and sort out the procedural morass that has developed in this action. The plaintiff should be prepared to explain why he has initiated a second action (CV-02-2978) involving many of the same defendants that he seeks to add in his motion to amend the complaint. Mr. Novak is reminded that, although the court will grant him some deference as a pro se litigant, he is expected to know and follow the rules of the court and to try to avoid the waste of judicial resources to the greatest extent possible.
I think that the conference mentioned keeps getting pushed back... I'm not sure what the current status is. Visit the Compuserve forum if you want recent news.
In the first lawsuit, everyone who was sued was an individual except for Actwin.com (host of the mailing list), which I think is a corporation.
In the second lawsuit, a mix of individuals, organizations, and companies are sued, including "John Doe and Mary Roe", Mr. Novak's rather flaccid attempt to sue every person who has criticized his company anonymously. According to Mr. John Benn, lawyer for the defense, who is listed as a defendant THREE times in TWO lawsuits, says that the "John Doe & Mary Roe" thing has now legal standing whatsoever and there's no court provision for seeking damages from fictional persons. He could just as well have listed "Anonymous Coward" as a defendant (and he probably WILL) for all the good it'll do him.
When I submitted the story this morning, the complaint itself wasn't available yet. It hadn't been posted to the Petsforum site, and, in fact, I don't think anybody had even seen it yet, just the docket items saying who Novak had filed suit against.
I checked the Compuserve forum, the newsgroups, the Aquatic Plant mailing list, and both defense fund websites, and they all seemed to indicate that this was an extension of the first two lawsuits. The full complaint was posted on the Petsforum lawsuit news site shorly after Slashdot posted the story (which was about five hours after they actually accepted it). At the time I wrote it, I don't think anybody involved knew what was in the complaint, and it was widely assumed that it was a continuation of the previous lawsuits.
Now that I've seen it, it does seem to be only a partially related issue, but it demonstrates pretty clearly that Novak is continuing on with his old tricks. This is just more of the same. Having read Mr. Novak's other claims and actually checking the facts in them, I know that they tend to be filled with untruths, exagerations, and wordplay, so this one probably is too. This lawsuit on its own is topical for Slashdot even if it doesn't directly relate to the original two lawsuits, and the original two lawsuits need more media attention anyway. Look at the flak that Novak and his company are getting because of this. It's beautiful.
His message board. Last I checked, the board was moderated and all messages had to be pre-approved by a moderator, but it looks like one fellow has found his way around that. Congrats, Mr. Lignatron.
Don't forget to check out his message board's terms of use. Oddly enough, you're not allowed to mention the fact that the owner of the company sues his customers (and everyone else, for that matter). Any mention of the lawsuit that makes it onto his board is deleted very quickly. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, though. Even if the message gets stuck in an approval queue and never get posted by a moderator, as seems to be the general case, one of his moderators will still have to take the time to delete it. And I get the feeling that his moderators might not even know about the lawsuit, or else they won't associate with him.
One piece of advice to those attacking his message board: if the goal is to warn his customers about what his company is up to, linking to Petsforum, TheDefenseFund, or this Slashdot story would be MUCH more effective than linking to goatse.cx. Our goal is to bring his behavior into public light, not to gross people out. That's what we have Slashdot for. I know old habits die hard, but this is a chance for us to put our trolling/crapflooding skills to good use, and work for a higher goal.
It's funny how after the lawsuit business started, BobNovak changed the name of his message board to "The Civilized Pet Forum." Yeah, right.
GNU Wget - a website downloading tool. Useful for accessing sites that are Slashdotted, by hitting the site over, and over, and over, and over, and over...
Between all those pages, you should be able to find plenty of links to archives of the messages in question, full court documents, links to news coverage of the story, etc. etc. etc. If you have any interest in aquatic plants or planted aquariums, check the link to the Aquatic Plants mailing list, where all this began. You'll find all the original posts, plus some early discussion of the lawsuit. Also, you can find plenty of stuff in the archive of rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants, including the rantings and ravings of Mr. Novak himself, as well as posts from a few people who support him and happen to have EXACTLY the same spelling and grammer that he does...
There's all kinds of fun things to discover about this case. For example, the NY Better Business Bureau gave PetsWarehouse its worst possible rating for its business practices. Mr. Novak claims that the BBB is *actually* talking about the retail store, not the website, and as a result, he's threatened to actually SUE the Better Business Bureau.
Mr. Novak is on very shaky legal ground. He's been reprimanded by judges (since he's filed three seperate lawsuits and several ammendments, there are a lot of judges involved) for not having a clue what he's doing. He told a magazine that he considers suing people to be "his hobby", and a profitable one, because he lives right down the street from the courthouse and most people can't afford to travel to his venue to fight the lawsuits. When Slashdot first covered the lawsuit in April, someone posted a comment sayign that they new Mr. Novak, and he told the poster that he has a lawyer in the family who gives him advice on filing baseless lawsuits for extra income.
Also, one of Mr. Novak's big claims in this lawsuit is "trademark infringement" (since we ALL know that saying "I don't like XYZ" is a violation of XYZ's trademark, right??), however, there's some question of whether he owns the trademark at all. He used Pets Warehouse as a "common law" trademark (IANAL, but I think that means he never actually filed the trademark, he just started using it and that entitles him to some legal protection), however, when he filed bankruptcy in the 90's, he didn't list any intellectual property that he wanted to keep on his bankruptcy application, thus it's entirely likely that he lost any trademark he might have had on the name during the bankruptcy.
He also refuses to actually serve papers against any of the defendents who live in California, because California has a strong SLAPP law that would bite him in the ass he if tried to actually bring any California residents into the lawsuit.
I'm not the only one who thinks all this is very, very crazy.
Between all those pages, you should be able to find plenty of links to archives of the messages in question, full court documents, links to news coverage of the story, etc. etc. etc. If you have any interest in aquatic plants or planted aquariums, check the link to the Aquatic Plants mailing list, where all this began. You'll find all the original posts, plus some early discussion of the lawsuit. Also, you can find plenty of stuff in the archive of rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants, including the rantings and ravings of Mr. Novak himself, as well as posts from a few people who support him and happen to have EXACTLY the same spelling and grammer that he does...
You are still missing a fundamental concept here, and although I'm honor-bound not to tell you directly, you'll find it in this message in encoded form if you search carefully.
Harken, because I think you would find it very enlightening.
Begin. You seem to be confused abut what you actually believe. First, you claim that you don't acknowledge universal human rights, then you claim you do. You (or one of your cohorts, maybe it wasn't you, but it was one of you people) in another branch of this thread said that it was okay for the majority to violate, abuse, and murder minorities, because that's what it means to live in a Democracy. Doesn't that make you a bit ill? It makes me a bit ill.
Tell me, do you really believe that Democracy is in the best interests of all people when it's not constrained by a Constitution that acknowledges inalienable human rights and offers protection for the minority? The classic example of the flaws of non-limited Democracy is the old proverb, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner." Can you honestly say in such a case, that the lamb lives in a free society. It illustrates the fundamental flaw of total Democracy: the minority can be oppressed, murdered, or raped by a simple 1/2 majority (or 2/3 majority, depending on the law) just because of the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation.
--
You may find it interesting to see how that phrase would be different in a society where the rights of the minority would be protected by a Constitution, a.k.a. a Libertarian society. I've heard this phrase applied: "A Libertarian Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner, but the lamb isn't on the menu."
Hear what I'm saying? But I digress. Let's abandon the example of Nazi Germany because we can't seem to agree on the historical facts involved, and instead examine some absurd hypotheticals (I just know how you love those). Let's consider this: two KKK skinheads and myself wind up on an abandoned island in the middle of the ocean. The chance of rescue seems unlikely, but the island has abundant food, water, and shelter to live a comfortable life. However, there's one problem: the KKK goons wish to murder me because of my skin colour, or my not-quite-orthodox sexual lifestyle. Let's examine what would happen in my ideal society, and in yours.
Libertarian Democracy: I decide I don't want to live anywhere near the racist monsters, so I go live on the far side of the island, where I live a life of peaceful solitude. When an ocean liner finally finds me on the island, I go home happily to my family. (The KKK guys, if you care, managed to die from sticking twigs up their noses). Unrestricted Democracy: The KKK hold a "vote" amongst all the citizens of the island to decide whether or not to bash my skull in with a rock. The vote is two 'aye', one 'nay.' The motion carries. "The majority" bashes my skull in with a rock and sodomises my corpse.
--
Haven't you seen the problem yet? You seem to believe that "the majority will always decide upon the best result", but do you really believe it's okay for racial and sexual minorities to be raped and murdered? Is that really the "best result"?
Answer me this: in a society where 51% of the population hate the 5% of the population with a certain skin colour, do you believe it's okay to murder people with that skin colour, because "that's how Democracy works"? In a society where 51% of the population thinks being homosexual should be a felony, would you call the police on a neighbor you suspected of being homosexual, because "that's how Democracy works"? In a society where 51% of the population where society finds some fault in you, and believes you should be brutally raped because of it, would you drop your pants and bend over, because "that's how Democracy works," or would you protest? You may think I'm being illogical here, but I implore you to take a long hard look at your own position for a moment.
Now, I'm not accusing you of being an elite upper-class hetrosexual white-boy, but because you haven't said otherwise when probed, I have to assume that's what you are. As such, you've never faced real hatred or discrimination in your life. I have. You exhibit what's called "white-boy angst," where you want to maintain a repressive strangehold on everyone not white, male, and straight while at the same time wanting to be "one of the people." You lie "I believe in fairness and equality" (and maybe you think you actually DO, but you don't) but when asked "If you really believe in equality, relinquish the imbalanced power you have over the rest of us that was gained through centuries of murder and persecution," you look the other way and your pale white face turns bright red from embarassment.
Damn. I got off-topic again. Don't feel too bad that I went off on you there, you're not really any better or worse than most whites, so I'm not going to single you out. Anyway, I think I've shown quite clearly that Democracy can not be relied upon without some restrictions placed upon it to protect the basic human rights (life, liberty, property) of those not in the majority. You claim to believe that Democracy should be restricted from violating basic human rights, too, although this clashes with previous statements you've made. We seem to be in disagreement, though, about what those universal human rights are.
--
You seem to hold to the logically contradictory position that universal human rights can be decided through the process of Democracy. This is absurd for several reasons: first, anything that's decided on by a vote is not "universal." Second, and most importantly, do you not see the logical flaw in this connection: "Democracy doesn't work unless it is limited by a Constitution that protects basic human rights. We need to decide what those basic human rights are. Let's use Democracy to do it."
Again, I think you see the problem: I think we've both agreed by now that Democracy to be effective must be CONSTRAINED by the limits of human rights, but if you let the Democracy DECIDE what those rights are, it's not exactly CONSTRAINED by them, is it? Human rights must be OUTSIDE the Democracy, and UNTOUCHABLE by it: they must be absolute, immovable, and unbreakable, or else you have a fascist state masquerading as a Democracy.
Another example of how your system of Democracy could fail would be an example of a new country populated by 51% Nazis and 49% Jews. The foundation of the Democracy would go like this: "Democracy doesn't work unless it is limited by a Constitution that protects basic human rights. We need to decide what those basic human rights are. Let's use Democracy to do it. Hmm, a majority of the voters said that Jews don't have human rights, therefore our Democracy will not respect any human rights for Jews."
Do you see how that works? Without universal human rights, Democracy is free to murder any groups of people disfavored by the majority, based on any arbitrary factors such as colour, age, gender, orientation, etc. It's all caused by disagreement about what, exactly, the fundamental human rights are. Libertarians take a radical and deceptively simple approach to this: "Everybody can live his own life his own way, as long as he doesn't deny anyone else the right to do the same." Don't you think that's better than the alternative?
Once again, I've already refuted every point you've tried to offer (if there any I haven't refuted yet, please let me know, until then you're not giving me much new material), and rather than admitting you've lost you insist on acting like a child saying "Nah nah nah, I'm going to have the last word."
And you, of course, still refuse to answer the question with a yes or a no.
So I follow through on my promise. One more time.
QUESTION 1: Nazi Germany was a Democratic government whose actions were determined by a mandate of the people (majority rule). The majority of the German people at the time decided Democratically to launch a program of terror and murder against everyone not in the majority -- a program that left over ten million people dead. Given that you have stated you do not acknoweldge a concept of universal human rights, but acknowledge "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of governmental authority, do you accept the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, or do you condemn the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, and thus renounce your belief in "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of government authority?
I think you're afraid of what your answer would be. You know at this point (at least on a subconscious level) that either you're a Nazi-supporter or all your political beliefs are wrong. You don't want to admit either of those, so you try to find a way out for yourself where there is none.
I don't know why you hate me so much or why I hate you so much. It seems a bit silly to me. The problem seems to be that you're around ~70% Libertarian and I'm somewhere between 80% and 95% Libertarian depending on what kind of mood I'm in on a given day. A difference of as little as ~10% doesn't really seem like grounds for an eternal flamefest to me, that's why I think the whole affair is pretty stupid.
QUESTION 1: Nazi Germany was a Democratic government whose actions were determined by a mandate of the people (majority rule). The majority of the German people at the time decided Democratically to launch a program of terror and murder against everyone not in the majority -- a program that left over ten million people dead. Given that you have stated you do not acknoweldge a concept of universal human rights, but acknowledge "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of governmental authority, do you accept the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, or do you condemn the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, and thus renounce your belief in "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of government authority?
Please respond with one of the following:
1. "I, an anonymous Slashdot poster using the pseduonym 'Courageous', maintain my belief in 'the will of the people' as the only legitimate source of governmental authority, and I accept and support the ten million murders performed by the Democratic government of Nazi Germany. I refuse to acknowledge that universal human rights exist, and thus I maintain that any actions performed by a government, including torture and murder, are moral and acceptable as long as those actions are approved by a plurality of the governed."
-OR-
2. "I, an anonymous Slashdot poster using the pseudonym 'Courageous', condemn the ten million murders performed by the Democratic government of Nazi Germany, and renounce my previous beliefs that 'the will of the people' is the only legitimate source of governmental authority. I now choose to acknowledge that universal human rights do exist, and that 'majority rule' is only good when it is not allowed to violate those universal human rights. Further, I apologize for my previous rude behavior and most of all for keeping my new friend Gendou up until 4AM telling me how wrong I was."
If you respond in any manner other than by answering the question, I'll just ask you the question again, and again, and again, until you either choose to answer it or get bored with the entire bloody mess and stop replying.
(And about the moderations, that was one single person who hates the Liberty concept spending a full set of 5 moderator points mod-bombing me. I e-mail CmdrTaco about the abuse and he replied saying he's removed the user's ability to ever moderate again.)
Sigh. It's too early in the morning for this. Ah well. First, I admit some of my previous posts were a bit harsh. I get a bit fired up about my Liberty, and I don't always debate in the most helpful and diplomatic manner possible. I apologize. Please judge this message by its own merits.
I'm glad you're familiar with the term "straw man," because I've detected a swift undercurrent of it in nearly every message you've posted. I never said I endorsed speeding, especially through a residential area. I never said I supported walling someone in. Those are absurd hypothetical scenarios you invented which show a great deal of imagination, but although you might have some future as a Science Fiction writer (or a Fox News anchor), they have very little bearing on reality.
You refuse to deal with the issues of reality, instead concocting goofy hypotheticals. It's like rejecting the "distance = velocity * time" formula because it doesn't work correctly when velocity is equal to the square root of negative Pi divided by zero. After all, if it produces nonworkable results in THAT case, it must produce nonworkable results in ALL cases, right? That's what you sound like from an external, logical viewpoint.
I still suspect that you're just stringing me along and you're just perhaps a very virulent troller, but I'll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt, because I've found this tremendously enjoyable so far, like reading the whole Bernard Shifman saga saga (or maybe you ARE Bernard Shifman. Hell, I dunno).
and you think you'll be in the majority some day
Surveys have shown that 41% of adults in the United States are generally Libertarian. The World's Smallest Political Quiz has shown that 38% of people fall into the Libertarian quadrant. So whichever way you look at it, we have 9% to go or 12% to go -- either way, we're close, and we're getting closer. A few more percentage points, and we're in charge. Don't worry, though -- you'll still be able to continue living your life in the manner you are now, as long as you're not denying anyone else the right to do the same. That's the whole point, actually. It'll be the most nonviolent coup in political history.
And, yet again, you've refused to answer my question. I'll go ahead and simplify the question for you, to make it simpler on you. Here's your new question, since you couldn't gr0k the old one:
Answer YES or NO only.
QUESTION 1: Nazi Germany was a Democratic government whose actions were determined by a mandate of the people (majority rule). The majority of the German people at the time decided Democratically to launch a program of terror and murder against everyone
not in the majority -- a program that left over ten million people dead. Given that you have stated you do not acknoweldge a concept of universal human rights, but acknowledge "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of governmental authority, do you accept the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, or do you condemn the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, and thus renounce your belief in "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of government authority?
I know it's a complex question, but I wrote it in a lawyerly manner to make sure it contained no logical ambiguities whatsoever so that you'd have no room to wriggle out of it.
Let me make it even easier on you.
Please select one of the following statements:
1. "I, an anonymous Slashdot poster using the pseduonym 'Courageous', maintain my belief in 'the will of the people' as the only legitimate source of governmental authority, and I accept and support the ten million murders performed by the Democratic government of Nazi Germany. I refuse to acknowledge that universal human rights exist, and thus I maintain that any actions performed by a government, including torture and murder, are moral and acceptable as long as those actions are approved by a plurality of the governed."
-OR-
2. "I, an anonymous Slashdot poster using the pseudonym 'Courageous', condemn the ten million murders performed by the Democratic government of Nazi Germany, and renounce my previous beliefs that 'the will of the people' is the only legitimate source of governmental authority. I now choose to acknowledge that universal human rights do exist, and that 'majority rule' is only good when it is not allowed to violate those universal human rights. Further, I apologize for my previous rude behavior and most of all for keeping my new friend Gendou up until 4AM telling me how wrong I was."
You may call this a false dichotomy, but this is actually a much rarer (but much cooler) animal known as a true dichotomy.
You have to pick either #1 or #2. I can't force you to, of course, but if you don't pick either #1 or #2, I'll be convinced that you're too stubborn to hold a rational conversation in human society.
If you pick #1, well, I guess that's your choice -- and at least you'll have admitted it, which is something. You'd be morally wrong, but at least you wouldn't be pussy-footing around about it anymore.
If you respond in any manner other than by answering the question, I'll just ask you the question again, and again, and again, until you either choose to answer it or get bored with the entire bloody mess and stop replying.
I'm only going to reply to this one post of yours, because you're basically saying the same thing like a broken record in every one of your posts recently.
Why do you refuse to answer my questions?
You know that you've been proven wrong, because you refuse to answer this question:
If 50.001% of society believed it should be legal to murder racial minorities and homosexuals, would you support the murder of racial minorities and homosexuals? Would you openly condemn those who speak out against the murder of racial minorities and homosexuals, because those who speak out against the murder of racial minorities and homosexuals are defying "the will of the people"?
You seem unable to provide a "yes" or "no" answer to this question, because you know that either answer will prove you wrong. So you act like a coward and hide behind your veil of "neener neener I can't hear you."
Either you WOULD support the murder of racial minorities and homosexuals because it's "the will of the people," in which case you're a monster, or you would oppose the murder of racial minorities and homosexuals, in which case you've proven you don't believe your own absurd "majority opinion over-rules human rights" philosophy.
Nazi Germany was a Democracy. More than 50% of the population of this Democracy supported the murder of racial minorities and homosexuals.
Are you supporting the actions of the Nazi Party, because they had "the mandate of the people," or will you condemn them and retract your statement that "the mandate of the people" always supersedes human rights?
As long as you refuse to answer the question, everyone will know that you're just a coward who doesn't know himself and doesn't know what he believes. You may disagree with what I say, but at least I know who I am. You don't even have the courage you provide an e-mail to Slashdot -- you're just an Anonymous Coward who somehow managed to find the "Register Account" button.
Finally, Mr. Wiseguy, exactly what logic have YOU presented? Exactly which arguments have YOU made? All I've seen is childish ranting about how much better you think you are than other people. Am I ranting? Maybe. Am I being illogical? I considered the possibility. I called up some guys at my state Libertarian party and asked them if I was being illogical, and they said no.
Maybe you should try reading some Libertarian documents. Anything written by Thomas Jefferson, for example.
Or pick up a copy of the LP newsletter. You might learn something.
No political philosophy with a fucking newsletter could be all bad.
Furthermore, we have a voice, and can convey our beliefs to our fellow men.
That's what I've been doing. Most people get it. You don't. There will always be people in the world who just don't understand the most basic concepts you try to convey to them. I don't know why I'm wasting my time with one of them.
Why are you allowed to convey your beliefs to your fellow man, but I'm not allowed to convey my beliefs to my fellow man?
Surveys show that roughly 41% of Americans have Libertarian ideals. It's been rising by about 1% per year. 9% more, about ten years, and we will be in charge.
And when we ARE in charge, when we ARE the majority, are you still going to say "I support the majority", or will our roles be fully reversed?
If you choose to reply to this (and I don't know why either of us are wasting our time), please answer my bloody question that you've refused to answer ten times now, and address specific points from this post, rather than saying "You're wrong, and that's it, neeeener neeeener," because that just makes you look like an idiot.
And yet, you still avoid try to support your position with facts just the sad old state-ist rhetoric which was disproved hundreds of years ago when people started to become enlightened and understand the concept of Freedom.
This is basically how this conversation has gone so far:
Me: I believe people should be Free.
You: I believe that if 50.001% of the population believes it's okay to murder black people, it's okay to murder black people, and if you think it's wrong to murder black people, you're evil for trying to usurp the will of the majority.
Me: You're wrong. *refutes every one of your points*
You: LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
Me: *proves you wrong, again*
You: U SUK U SUK U SUK U SUK U SUK
Me: *uses evidence and logic to disprove everything you said (which was very little beyond "U SUK HA HA HA") and prove that I'm right and that you're a danger to society*
You: NAH NAH U R STUPID D00D HA HA HA HA HA
Me: *asks you a series of questions which prove you're an idiot*
You: *refuses to answer my questions because you know they'll make you look like an idiot*
Me: Do you have ANY grasp on the concept of logic?
You: Me no what u say? Hoo u? Huh?
Me: That's what I thought.
If you ever decide to stop ranting like a moron and try to answer my logic and facts with some logic and facts of your own, give me a call. Until then, in case you're wondering why the world treats you like a child, it's because you act like a child. Maybe if you ever learn to behave like an adult, someday someone somewhere may have half an ounce of respect for you.
If I were tasked with the job of making a list of all the various chemical and narcotic substances your mother must have consumed while you were in the womb to result in you being born with a mind that can't even grasp the most basic fundamentals of logic, I feel the outcome would be woefully inadequate to fully explain all your faults as a human being. I could list cocaine, PCP, and rat poison, but that combination would merely result in a drooling lackwit (right on both those counts) who would still have some comprehension of how the world of thoughts and ideas works.
I will explain this very, very slowly in such a way that a child in preschool could understand it. Then, maybe that child can try to explain it to you.
In a Libertarian society, a person who is unhappy with the rules prevailing in an area is free to move amongst more like-minded people, or to buy his own plot of land (in my ideal world, everyone would have his own plot of land -- perhaps ~40 acres or so, and some sort of equine-asinine hybrid animal -- perhaps a member of your family), and live his own life on it the way he sees fit.
In a fascist society, the government owns everything. The government owns every plot of land, the government owns the air, the government owns the water, the government owns the dirt, and the government owns the trees. The government owns everything, including the people. The government enforces one single consistent set of rules everywhere, on everyone. Even people who think they own land actually don't -- the land really belongs to the government. It is currently illegal for a human being to own land; by order of the United Nations it is only legal for a Government to own land.
People who don't like it can't leave, because the government owns everything. Yes, there are other countries, but it is illegal to leave a country without both the permission of the country you are leaving and the permission of the country you are traveling to. Even if you "own" the land you are traveling from, and you "own" the land you are traveling to, you still need permission from the two governments that really own the two pieces of land -- and you.
Your inability to grasp even the most simple logical connections between two concepts amazes me. I suspect you're trolling, because I can't honestly imagine anyone being as stupid as you except on purpose, but I know there are people in the world who really are as stupid as you're acting. I don't know if you're actually one of those sub-idiots (in which case I have bleak hopes for the future of humanity), or whether you're a better-than-average troller (in which case I tip my hat to you, and grumble that you need to get a life).
The very point that makes Libertarianism the living embodiment of freedom and individuality is that if you don't like what someone is doing, you can leave, and go do your own thing, on your own property, with no interference from anyone, as long as you're not hurting anyone else.
In your fascist world, if you don't like what the government is doing, you have zero recourse, because the government is everywhere, and the government owns everything, and you can do nothing about it, because it is illegal for you to own sovereign property. Look at what happened with Sealand -- a human being tried to own land that didn't belong to any country, and just for trying to live his own life on his own property free of anyone else's influence so long as he is not hurting anyone else, he's constantly on the verge of being wiped out by a military strike. If you don't like society, you can't even go live alone on an island, because either that island belongs to a government, in which case you're not really "alone", or that island doesn't belong to any government, in which case you'll be nuked by the governments for trying to live your own life.
You value conformity, and you value intolerance of opposing views. I believe that's the dictionary definition of "bigot."
You still haven't answered the one question I've asked you to answer many many times now, because you are a coward and you are afraid to answer it. You know that if you do answer it, you'll be exposed for either a liar or a hatemonger or a troller, and probably all three.
If 50.001% of the people in society believed it should be legal to kill racial minorities and homosexuals, would you support them? Would you support the killings of racial minorities and homosexuals, and would you oppose the people who oppose the murders because they're "defying the will of the majority"?
If you answer "yes," you're either a hateful bigot of the worst type, or a particularly spiteful troller.
If you answer "no," you've just disproven your own position, making you either a liar and an idiot, or a particularly spiteful troller.
So, which is it? Multiple choice. Just like those tests in High School. Oh, wait, you didn't get as far as High School.
You say I'm wrong and call me nasty names, but you make no attempt to refute my points because you know you can't.
I've shot down every one of your points, and I've deconstructed every bit of your "logic." And yet you refuse to try to further support your position or challenge mind, you just rail on and on mindlessly about how 31337 you are.
Do you have a point, or do you just enjoy yelling like a child? If you do have a point, try to back it up without resorting to your typical "Nyeh nyeh nyeh, I'm so coooool, u r laaaame d0000ddddd ha ha me rule rux0r u dooood."
I'll use a Napster-like system as an example, but when I refer to "songs", you can easily substitute "movies," or "naked pictures of Natalie Portman," or just "files."
1. It costs one Point to download a song from another user.
2. Users have unlimited Points for a certain trial period (some people will try to re-register every day to get around this, but that problem may or may not significant enough to affect the service).
3. Users get a certain (small) number of Points each day.
4. Each time a song is downloaded from a user, that user gets two Points. This will be the primary means of gaining Points.
5. Note that the person the song was downloaded from received two Points for the transfer, but the person who downloaded it only paid one Point. This means that the total number of Points in the universe will increase by one for each song that's transferred. This if fine -- it keeps the system from being too strict. You can take up to twice what you give, which should be generous enough for most people's tastes.
6. People who have a lot of songs to share will have many more Points than they could possibly spend. This is fine. If you're even moderately generous, you shouldn't have to worry too much about what you take.
7. Most people who generously offer the songs they have will wind up with more than enough Points. Those who DON'T offer what they have will find themselves frequently running short, and will be encouraged to start offering what they have.
8. To further motivate people to accumulate a lot of unused Points, have a "Hall of Fame" listing top Point-holders, top new Point-holders, fastest-rising Point-holders, etc. People love stats; witness the people who'll install the D.net or SETI client on 5000 computers primarily to increase their rank in the stats.
9. For further motivation, offer additional prizes for accumulating Points. Maybe a person who reaches 100,000 Points gets a T-shirt, or a person can exchange 10,000 Points for a coffee mug.
10. Who pays for the T-shirts, and the service? Users with low bandwidth who otherwise would have a hard time earning Points can earn them by an alternative method of contributing to the service: financially. Whether you make songs available to users of the service, or help the service meet its financial needs, you have to contribute to the servicein SOME way to get a significant share of songs from the service.
11. Another way to encourage people to earn large numbers of Points would be to give preferential download treatment to higher-ranked users. For example, if the person hosting a song has configured his client to only allow other users to only download 200kbit/sec from his machine, and five users try to download from him at once, the 100,000-Point user might get to download 100kbit/sec from him, the three 10,000-Point users might get 33kbit/sec each, and the 2-Point user might be forced to download from a slower host.
12. This'll not only encourage users to offer more of their songs more generously so that they can download from faster hosts than those who don't, it'll also ensure that people with slow connections will get some people downloading from them (and thus the people with the slow connections will get to earn some points too), rather than every single user swamping the fastest hosts, bogging them down until they're slower than the slowest hosts.
This reminds me of a Libertarian bumper sticker. It says: "I'm Pro-Choice on EVERYTHING."
Are YOU Pro-Choice?
If you don't want people driving past your house at 100mph, live on a street owned by a person who has values similar to your own, and who'll set a speed limit on his street.
If you do want people driving past your house at 100mph, or you want to drive at 100mph down the street amongst people who share your passion for driving quickly through residential areas, live on a street owned by someone who has values similar to your own, and who won't enforce a speed limit on the street.
Under my system, you have choice, and you can live in whichever environment suits your personal tastes
Under your system, you only have one option, the one option that "they" decide is the right option for you. How do they decide what's best for you?
If you don't want explosives in your apartment building, rent an apartment where the rules don't allow explosives, and where the landlord has similar values to your own.
If you do want explosives in your apartment, or wish to create explosives yourself and share your hobby with other like-minded people, rent an apartment where the rules do allow explosives, and where the landlord has similar values to your own.
Under my system, you have choice, and you can live in whichever environment suits your personal tastes.
Under your system, you only have one option, the one option that "they" decide is the right option for you. How do they decide what's best for you?
Now, since there are very few people who want to drive 100mph through a residential area, there will probably wind up being very few street owners who are members of that group, and hence very few streets that allow driving 100mph. But those who do want to drive 100mph through a residential area can buy their own streets and build houses on those streets, and sell those houses to other people who want to drive 100mph through a residential area, and then they can do so and not jeapordize anyone except each other. All the people in the area will have moved there knowing the risks -- in fact they'll have moved there because of the risks, since the street was founded on the idea of driving 100mph through a residential area.
They're doing their own thing on their own property, and anybody who has a problem with it doesn't live there.
Similarly, those with a passion for explosives can build their own apartments a safe distance away from anyone else, and rent those apartments to like-minded people, and build all the explosives they want (I admit, they should probably be restricted to explosives with a blast radius smaller than the distance to the nearest person who isn't an explosives freak), putting nobody at risk except themselves, because they knew the risks -- in fact, they moved into the apartment because of the risks, because it was the only place where they could build explosives.
Most likely, the people in the above two groups, in a Libertarian society, would exterminate themselves out of the gene pool within a few generations. In a fascist state, people are forbidden from doing dangerously stupid things, but some of them do them anyway, and people die. The people who don't do them pass their stupidity down to future generations (surely your mother and father must be familiar with this concept). In a Libertarian society, stupid people can do dangerously stupid things only when they're in an environment where their dangerously stupid stunts can only kill themselves or other dangerously stupid people. Thus, the dangerously stupid people will kill themselves and each other, but no innocent people, and dangerous stupidity will be bred out of the gene pool.
Slashdot Mirror
"The original post was a whining rant that Tresco shouldn't do time because he "did nothing wrong". My response was simply that he should do time because he did break the law. All this "high and mighty" is deflecting the real issue. warez is IN NO WAY, NOR WILL BE AT ANY TIME the moral equvalent of slavery or civil rights..."
~You
"The original documente was a whining rant that Harriet Tubman shouldn't do time because she 'did nothing wrong'. My response was simply that she should do time because she did break the law. All this 'high and mighty' is defelecting the real issue. Helping niggers escape from their rightful masters is IN NO WAY, NOR WILL BE AT ANY TIME the moral equivalent of the civil rights of decent, white-skinned people..."
~Your great-great-great-great grandfather.
History repeats itself...
"On a morality basis, Mr. Tresco isn't even a gnat on an elephant's ass. He is a common crook, plain and simple."
~You
"On a morality basis, Harriet Tubman isn't even a gnat on an elephant's ass. She's a common crook, plain and simple."
~Your great-great-great-great-grandfater.
History puts things in perspective. The future will put the present in perspective, and your great-great-great-great-grandchildren will gasp in disbelief when they study history, and they will wonder, "Did people back then REALLY support locking people in cages for sharing stories and songs with friends and family?" Their teacher will say, "Yes, it was against the law back then. But those were different times, before people valued freedom." They'll look at the 20th century the same way we look at the 19th.
Sigh. I know I shouldn't respond to trolls.
Rosa Parks refusing to move to the back of the bus was against the law.
The American Colonies rebelling against the United Kingdom was against the law.
Helping slaves escape from their masters was against the law.
Owning alcohol in the United States was against the law.
Women voting was aginst the law.
ANYONE voting is against the law in non-democratic countries.
Owning a Bible is against the law in most of the world.
Criticizing the government is against the law in most of the world.
Smoking pot is against the law.
Self-defense is against the law in many places.
A woman appearing in public with her face uncovered is against the law in many places.
Unmarried sex is against the law in many places.
Homosexuality is against the law in many places, and used to be illegal almost everywhere.
WHO FUCKING CARES if it's against the law? A whole damn lot of things are against the law. Be more original when you troll.
You have taken away the author's right to say who can have a copy of his work, and under what terms.
No such right exists.
Your logic:
I hereby demand that you give me $50. If you DON'T give me $50, then you are stealing from me, because you have taken away my right to decide who must give me $50, and under what terms.
That's your logic. But no such right exists.
Your logic:
I hereby demand that you punch yourself in the nose. If you DON'T punch yourself in the nose, then you are stealing from me, because you have taken away my right to dictate the interaction between your fist and your nose.
That's your logic. But no such right exists.
Your logic:
I am the author of a book you bought last week. I decide I don't want you to have the book after all, and I demand that you return it to me and pay me $500 for the inconvenience. You don't get back the money that you spent on the book, because I get to dictate the terms here, buddy! If you don't give back the book that you paid for (and pay me $500), then you are stealing from me by taking away my right to decide who can have a copy of my work, what they can do with it, and how long they can keep it.
That's your logic. But no such right exists. And you are an idiot.
In Article I, Section 8, the authors explicitly gave Congress the power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". The Consitution does not invalidate copyright, it explicitly grants it.
I can play this game:
[T]he manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
~United States Constitution
So, is it illegal to buy alcohol in the United States? NO! Why? Because the text above (Ammendment 18) was later superceded by a later ammendment (Ammendment 21). In Constitutional law, when new ammendments conflict with old ammendments (or with the original Constitution document), the new ammendments supercede the old text!!! Look through an archive of the Constitution on the web, and you'll see that a good portion of the original document is crossed out in many copies, indicating that it has been superceded by later ammendments.
Congress would have been granted the ability to authorize Copyright had the First Ammendment never been added, but in my mind, the First Ammendment calls into doubt the Constitutionality of the "progress of science" clause. Remember, NEW Constitutional text supercedes OLD Constitutional text whenever there's a conflict.
Also, you say "The Consitution does not invalidate copyright, it explicitly grants it." Even if I'm wrong about the First Ammendment making copyright Unconstitutional, the Constitution never granted Copyright; rather, it granted Congress the ability to grant Copyright. Congress could revoke Copyright tomorrow and it would be 100% legal for them to do so. Congress has no obligation to grant Copyright, it just has the ability to grant Copyright, which I personally feel was overturned when the First Ammendment was added to the Constitution.
According to the original Constitution, Al Gore would be Vice President right now, because he got the second-highest number of electoral votes for President. Why isn't he? Because that part of the Constitution was superceded by an ammendment.
ALSO: how exactly does the government's current behavior with regard to copyright meet the "limited time" restriction, given that every 4 years or so, copyright is extended for another 5 years, meaning that copyrighted material just gets further and further away from the public domain as time goes on rather than closer and closer?
ALSO:
Which of the following is the latest Britney Spears album?
1. Science
2. Useful
From where I stand, I don't see it as either.
What if you don't believe that Copyright exists? I believe that the First Ammendment to the Constitution invalidated the ability of Congress to grant Copyright. How can the kid be "using a copyrighted piece of software" if Copyright does not exist? The Corporations that have gained control of the government (using money they earned by violating the basic principles of economics by exploiting government-created artificial scarcity) will NEVER let this be decided by the public, because the corporations own the Congress, the White House, all the judges, and they even own the minds of a number of the citizens.
The closest this man has ever come to a bar exam was when he cut class back in college to hang out at the local saloon. No, this is just his hobby, as he's stated in interviews.
It's bad enough when lawyers do this, but when supposedly "normal" people start filing stupid lawsuits, it really makes Baby Jesus cry.
Here's what the judge had to say to him:
The parties are ordered to appear for a conference before the undersigned on June 12, 2002, at 10:00 a.m. to try and sort out the procedural morass that has developed in this action. The plaintiff should be prepared to explain why he has initiated a second action (CV-02-2978) involving many of the same defendants that he seeks to add in his motion to amend the complaint. Mr. Novak is reminded that, although the court will grant him some deference as a pro se litigant, he is expected to know and follow the rules of the court and to try to avoid the waste of judicial resources to the greatest extent possible.
I think that the conference mentioned keeps getting pushed back... I'm not sure what the current status is. Visit the Compuserve forum if you want recent news.
I hope that judge nails his ass to the wall...
Look at Lawsuit #1 and Docket #2.
In the first lawsuit, everyone who was sued was an individual except for Actwin.com (host of the mailing list), which I think is a corporation.
In the second lawsuit, a mix of individuals, organizations, and companies are sued, including "John Doe and Mary Roe", Mr. Novak's rather flaccid attempt to sue every person who has criticized his company anonymously. According to Mr. John Benn, lawyer for the defense, who is listed as a defendant THREE times in TWO lawsuits, says that the "John Doe & Mary Roe" thing has now legal standing whatsoever and there's no court provision for seeking damages from fictional persons. He could just as well have listed "Anonymous Coward" as a defendant (and he probably WILL) for all the good it'll do him.
When I submitted the story this morning, the complaint itself wasn't available yet. It hadn't been posted to the Petsforum site, and, in fact, I don't think anybody had even seen it yet, just the docket items saying who Novak had filed suit against.
I checked the Compuserve forum, the newsgroups, the Aquatic Plant mailing list, and both defense fund websites, and they all seemed to indicate that this was an extension of the first two lawsuits. The full complaint was posted on the Petsforum lawsuit news site shorly after Slashdot posted the story (which was about five hours after they actually accepted it). At the time I wrote it, I don't think anybody involved knew what was in the complaint, and it was widely assumed that it was a continuation of the previous lawsuits.
Now that I've seen it, it does seem to be only a partially related issue, but it demonstrates pretty clearly that Novak is continuing on with his old tricks. This is just more of the same. Having read Mr. Novak's other claims and actually checking the facts in them, I know that they tend to be filled with untruths, exagerations, and wordplay, so this one probably is too. This lawsuit on its own is topical for Slashdot even if it doesn't directly relate to the original two lawsuits, and the original two lawsuits need more media attention anyway. Look at the flak that Novak and his company are getting because of this. It's beautiful.
I wrote it, so I think I'd remember...
His message board. Last I checked, the board was moderated and all messages had to be pre-approved by a moderator, but it looks like one fellow has found his way around that. Congrats, Mr. Lignatron.
Don't forget to check out his message board's terms of use. Oddly enough, you're not allowed to mention the fact that the owner of the company sues his customers (and everyone else, for that matter). Any mention of the lawsuit that makes it onto his board is deleted very quickly. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try, though. Even if the message gets stuck in an approval queue and never get posted by a moderator, as seems to be the general case, one of his moderators will still have to take the time to delete it. And I get the feeling that his moderators might not even know about the lawsuit, or else they won't associate with him.
One piece of advice to those attacking his message board: if the goal is to warn his customers about what his company is up to, linking to Petsforum, TheDefenseFund, or this Slashdot story would be MUCH more effective than linking to goatse.cx. Our goal is to bring his behavior into public light, not to gross people out. That's what we have Slashdot for. I know old habits die hard, but this is a chance for us to put our trolling/crapflooding skills to good use, and work for a higher goal.
It's funny how after the lawsuit business started, Bob Novak changed the name of his message board to "The Civilized Pet Forum." Yeah, right.
Then there are the requistite requisite mailto links. What good would this post be without the requisite mailto links? Keep these requisite mailto links in mind for future use. These requisite mailto links make the world go round!
Archived mirror of PetsWarehouse page.
Archived company info.
Archived map to store
Domain registration info
GNU Wget - a website downloading tool. Useful for accessing sites that are Slashdotted, by hitting the site over, and over, and over, and over, and over...
Netcraft Info for Petswarehouse
Main news/defense fund, full dockets
.net and .org versions of this domain, by the way)
Other defense fund page
Defense Fund merchandise
Discussion forum for the lawsuit
PetsWarehouseSucks.com (Novak bought up the
Aquatic Plants digest
Google search with many relevant results
Rec.Aquaria.Freshwater.Plants
Between all those pages, you should be able to find plenty of links to archives of the messages in question, full court documents, links to news coverage of the story, etc. etc. etc. If you have any interest in aquatic plants or planted aquariums, check the link to the Aquatic Plants mailing list, where all this began. You'll find all the original posts, plus some early discussion of the lawsuit. Also, you can find plenty of stuff in the archive of rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants, including the rantings and ravings of Mr. Novak himself, as well as posts from a few people who support him and happen to have EXACTLY the same spelling and grammer that he does...
There's all kinds of fun things to discover about this case. For example, the NY Better Business Bureau gave PetsWarehouse its worst possible rating for its business practices. Mr. Novak claims that the BBB is *actually* talking about the retail store, not the website, and as a result, he's threatened to actually SUE the Better Business Bureau.
Mr. Novak is on very shaky legal ground. He's been reprimanded by judges (since he's filed three seperate lawsuits and several ammendments, there are a lot of judges involved) for not having a clue what he's doing. He told a magazine that he considers suing people to be "his hobby", and a profitable one, because he lives right down the street from the courthouse and most people can't afford to travel to his venue to fight the lawsuits. When Slashdot first covered the lawsuit in April, someone posted a comment sayign that they new Mr. Novak, and he told the poster that he has a lawyer in the family who gives him advice on filing baseless lawsuits for extra income.
Also, one of Mr. Novak's big claims in this lawsuit is "trademark infringement" (since we ALL know that saying "I don't like XYZ" is a violation of XYZ's trademark, right??), however, there's some question of whether he owns the trademark at all. He used Pets Warehouse as a "common law" trademark (IANAL, but I think that means he never actually filed the trademark, he just started using it and that entitles him to some legal protection), however, when he filed bankruptcy in the 90's, he didn't list any intellectual property that he wanted to keep on his bankruptcy application, thus it's entirely likely that he lost any trademark he might have had on the name during the bankruptcy.
He also refuses to actually serve papers against any of the defendents who live in California, because California has a strong SLAPP law that would bite him in the ass he if tried to actually bring any California residents into the lawsuit.
I'm not the only one who thinks all this is very, very crazy.
Main news/defense fund, full dockets
Other defense fund page
Defense Fund merchandise
Discussion forum for the lawsuit
Aquatic Plants digest
Rec.Aquaria.Freshwater.Plants
Between all those pages, you should be able to find plenty of links to archives of the messages in question, full court documents, links to news coverage of the story, etc. etc. etc. If you have any interest in aquatic plants or planted aquariums, check the link to the Aquatic Plants mailing list, where all this began. You'll find all the original posts, plus some early discussion of the lawsuit. Also, you can find plenty of stuff in the archive of rec.aquaria.freshwater.plants, including the rantings and ravings of Mr. Novak himself, as well as posts from a few people who support him and happen to have EXACTLY the same spelling and grammer that he does...
He's not really in prison. YHBT. He's currently in Ohio being a fuckslave to a certain closet-dominatrix knows as Esther Sassaman.
Are you Trollaxor??
You are still missing a fundamental concept here, and although I'm honor-bound not to tell you directly, you'll find it in this message in encoded form if you search carefully.
Harken, because I think you would find it very enlightening.
Begin. You seem to be confused abut what you actually believe. First, you claim that you don't acknowledge universal human rights, then you claim you do. You (or one of your cohorts, maybe it wasn't you, but it was one of you people) in another branch of this thread said that it was okay for the majority to violate, abuse, and murder minorities, because that's what it means to live in a Democracy. Doesn't that make you a bit ill? It makes me a bit ill.
Tell me, do you really believe that Democracy is in the best interests of all people when it's not constrained by a Constitution that acknowledges inalienable human rights and offers protection for the minority? The classic example of the flaws of non-limited Democracy is the old proverb, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner." Can you honestly say in such a case, that the lamb lives in a free society. It illustrates the fundamental flaw of total Democracy: the minority can be oppressed, murdered, or raped by a simple 1/2 majority (or 2/3 majority, depending on the law) just because of the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation.
--
You may find it interesting to see how that phrase would be different in a society where the rights of the minority would be protected by a Constitution, a.k.a. a Libertarian society. I've heard this phrase applied: "A Libertarian Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner, but the lamb isn't on the menu."
Hear what I'm saying? But I digress. Let's abandon the example of Nazi Germany because we can't seem to agree on the historical facts involved, and instead examine some absurd hypotheticals (I just know how you love those). Let's consider this: two KKK skinheads and myself wind up on an abandoned island in the middle of the ocean. The chance of rescue seems unlikely, but the island has abundant food, water, and shelter to live a comfortable life. However, there's one problem: the KKK goons wish to murder me because of my skin colour, or my not-quite-orthodox sexual lifestyle. Let's examine what would happen in my ideal society, and in yours.
Libertarian Democracy: I decide I don't want to live anywhere near the racist monsters, so I go live on the far side of the island, where I live a life of peaceful solitude. When an ocean liner finally finds me on the island, I go home happily to my family. (The KKK guys, if you care, managed to die from sticking twigs up their noses). Unrestricted Democracy: The KKK hold a "vote" amongst all the citizens of the island to decide whether or not to bash my skull in with a rock. The vote is two 'aye', one 'nay.' The motion carries. "The majority" bashes my skull in with a rock and sodomises my corpse.
--
Haven't you seen the problem yet? You seem to believe that "the majority will always decide upon the best result", but do you really believe it's okay for racial and sexual minorities to be raped and murdered? Is that really the "best result"?
Answer me this: in a society where 51% of the population hate the 5% of the population with a certain skin colour, do you believe it's okay to murder people with that skin colour, because "that's how Democracy works"? In a society where 51% of the population thinks being homosexual should be a felony, would you call the police on a neighbor you suspected of being homosexual, because "that's how Democracy works"? In a society where 51% of the population where society finds some fault in you, and believes you should be brutally raped because of it, would you drop your pants and bend over, because "that's how Democracy works," or would you protest? You may think I'm being illogical here, but I implore you to take a long hard look at your own position for a moment.
Now, I'm not accusing you of being an elite upper-class hetrosexual white-boy, but because you haven't said otherwise when probed, I have to assume that's what you are. As such, you've never faced real hatred or discrimination in your life. I have. You exhibit what's called "white-boy angst," where you want to maintain a repressive strangehold on everyone not white, male, and straight while at the same time wanting to be "one of the people." You lie "I believe in fairness and equality" (and maybe you think you actually DO, but you don't) but when asked "If you really believe in equality, relinquish the imbalanced power you have over the rest of us that was gained through centuries of murder and persecution," you look the other way and your pale white face turns bright red from embarassment.
Damn. I got off-topic again. Don't feel too bad that I went off on you there, you're not really any better or worse than most whites, so I'm not going to single you out. Anyway, I think I've shown quite clearly that Democracy can not be relied upon without some restrictions placed upon it to protect the basic human rights (life, liberty, property) of those not in the majority. You claim to believe that Democracy should be restricted from violating basic human rights, too, although this clashes with previous statements you've made. We seem to be in disagreement, though, about what those universal human rights are.
--
You seem to hold to the logically contradictory position that universal human rights can be decided through the process of Democracy. This is absurd for several reasons: first, anything that's decided on by a vote is not "universal." Second, and most importantly, do you not see the logical flaw in this connection: "Democracy doesn't work unless it is limited by a Constitution that protects basic human rights. We need to decide what those basic human rights are. Let's use Democracy to do it."
Again, I think you see the problem: I think we've both agreed by now that Democracy to be effective must be CONSTRAINED by the limits of human rights, but if you let the Democracy DECIDE what those rights are, it's not exactly CONSTRAINED by them, is it? Human rights must be OUTSIDE the Democracy, and UNTOUCHABLE by it: they must be absolute, immovable, and unbreakable, or else you have a fascist state masquerading as a Democracy.
Another example of how your system of Democracy could fail would be an example of a new country populated by 51% Nazis and 49% Jews. The foundation of the Democracy would go like this: "Democracy doesn't work unless it is limited by a Constitution that protects basic human rights. We need to decide what those basic human rights are. Let's use Democracy to do it. Hmm, a majority of the voters said that Jews don't have human rights, therefore our Democracy will not respect any human rights for Jews."
Do you see how that works? Without universal human rights, Democracy is free to murder any groups of people disfavored by the majority, based on any arbitrary factors such as colour, age, gender, orientation, etc. It's all caused by disagreement about what, exactly, the fundamental human rights are. Libertarians take a radical and deceptively simple approach to this: "Everybody can live his own life his own way, as long as he doesn't deny anyone else the right to do the same." Don't you think that's better than the alternative?
Once again, I've already refuted every point you've tried to offer (if there any I haven't refuted yet, please let me know, until then you're not giving me much new material), and rather than admitting you've lost you insist on acting like a child saying "Nah nah nah, I'm going to have the last word."
And you, of course, still refuse to answer the question with a yes or a no.
So I follow through on my promise. One more time.
QUESTION 1: Nazi Germany was a Democratic government whose actions were determined by a mandate of the people (majority rule). The majority of the German people at the time decided Democratically to launch a program of terror and murder against everyone not in the majority -- a program that left over ten million people dead. Given that you have stated you do not acknoweldge a concept of universal human rights, but acknowledge "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of governmental authority, do you accept the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, or do you condemn the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, and thus renounce your belief in "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of government authority?
I think you're afraid of what your answer would be. You know at this point (at least on a subconscious level) that either you're a Nazi-supporter or all your political beliefs are wrong. You don't want to admit either of those, so you try to find a way out for yourself where there is none.
I don't know why you hate me so much or why I hate you so much. It seems a bit silly to me. The problem seems to be that you're around ~70% Libertarian and I'm somewhere between 80% and 95% Libertarian depending on what kind of mood I'm in on a given day. A difference of as little as ~10% doesn't really seem like grounds for an eternal flamefest to me, that's why I think the whole affair is pretty stupid.
I'm going to follow through with my promise.
QUESTION 1: Nazi Germany was a Democratic government whose actions were determined by a mandate of the people (majority rule). The majority of the German people at the time decided Democratically to launch a program of terror and murder against everyone not in the majority -- a program that left over ten million people dead. Given that you have stated you do not acknoweldge a concept of universal human rights, but acknowledge "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of governmental authority, do you accept the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, or do you condemn the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, and thus renounce your belief in "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of government authority?
Please respond with one of the following:
1. "I, an anonymous Slashdot poster using the pseduonym 'Courageous', maintain my belief in 'the will of the people' as the only legitimate source of governmental authority, and I accept and support the ten million murders performed by the Democratic government of Nazi Germany. I refuse to acknowledge that universal human rights exist, and thus I maintain that any actions performed by a government, including torture and murder, are moral and acceptable as long as those actions are approved by a plurality of the governed."
-OR-
2. "I, an anonymous Slashdot poster using the pseudonym 'Courageous', condemn the ten million murders performed by the Democratic government of Nazi Germany, and renounce my previous beliefs that 'the will of the people' is the only legitimate source of governmental authority. I now choose to acknowledge that universal human rights do exist, and that 'majority rule' is only good when it is not allowed to violate those universal human rights. Further, I apologize for my previous rude behavior and most of all for keeping my new friend Gendou up until 4AM telling me how wrong I was."
If you respond in any manner other than by answering the question, I'll just ask you the question again, and again, and again, until you either choose to answer it or get bored with the entire bloody mess and stop replying.
(And about the moderations, that was one single person who hates the Liberty concept spending a full set of 5 moderator points mod-bombing me. I e-mail CmdrTaco about the abuse and he replied saying he's removed the user's ability to ever moderate again.)
I'm glad you're familiar with the term "straw man," because I've detected a swift undercurrent of it in nearly every message you've posted. I never said I endorsed speeding, especially through a residential area. I never said I supported walling someone in. Those are absurd hypothetical scenarios you invented which show a great deal of imagination, but although you might have some future as a Science Fiction writer (or a Fox News anchor), they have very little bearing on reality.
You refuse to deal with the issues of reality, instead concocting goofy hypotheticals. It's like rejecting the "distance = velocity * time" formula because it doesn't work correctly when velocity is equal to the square root of negative Pi divided by zero. After all, if it produces nonworkable results in THAT case, it must produce nonworkable results in ALL cases, right? That's what you sound like from an external, logical viewpoint.
I still suspect that you're just stringing me along and you're just perhaps a very virulent troller, but I'll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt, because I've found this tremendously enjoyable so far, like reading the whole Bernard Shifman saga saga (or maybe you ARE Bernard Shifman. Hell, I dunno).
and you think you'll be in the majority some day
Surveys have shown that 41% of adults in the United States are generally Libertarian. The World's Smallest Political Quiz has shown that 38% of people fall into the Libertarian quadrant. So whichever way you look at it, we have 9% to go or 12% to go -- either way, we're close, and we're getting closer. A few more percentage points, and we're in charge. Don't worry, though -- you'll still be able to continue living your life in the manner you are now, as long as you're not denying anyone else the right to do the same. That's the whole point, actually. It'll be the most nonviolent coup in political history.
And, yet again, you've refused to answer my question. I'll go ahead and simplify the question for you, to make it simpler on you. Here's your new question, since you couldn't gr0k the old one:
Answer YES or NO only.
I know it's a complex question, but I wrote it in a lawyerly manner to make sure it contained no logical ambiguities whatsoever so that you'd have no room to wriggle out of it.
Let me make it even easier on you.
Please select one of the following statements:
1. "I, an anonymous Slashdot poster using the pseduonym 'Courageous', maintain my belief in 'the will of the people' as the only legitimate source of governmental authority, and I accept and support the ten million murders performed by the Democratic government of Nazi Germany. I refuse to acknowledge that universal human rights exist, and thus I maintain that any actions performed by a government, including torture and murder, are moral and acceptable as long as those actions are approved by a plurality of the governed."
-OR-
2. "I, an anonymous Slashdot poster using the pseudonym 'Courageous', condemn the ten million murders performed by the Democratic government of Nazi Germany, and renounce my previous beliefs that 'the will of the people' is the only legitimate source of governmental authority. I now choose to acknowledge that universal human rights do exist, and that 'majority rule' is only good when it is not allowed to violate those universal human rights. Further, I apologize for my previous rude behavior and most of all for keeping my new friend Gendou up until 4AM telling me how wrong I was."
You may call this a false dichotomy, but this is actually a much rarer (but much cooler) animal known as a true dichotomy.
You have to pick either #1 or #2. I can't force you to, of course, but if you don't pick either #1 or #2, I'll be convinced that you're too stubborn to hold a rational conversation in human society.
If you pick #1, well, I guess that's your choice -- and at least you'll have admitted it, which is something. You'd be morally wrong, but at least you wouldn't be pussy-footing around about it anymore.
If you pick #2, I'll happily claim my 50 LibertyPoints©® and call it a day.
If you respond in any manner other than by answering the question, I'll just ask you the question again, and again, and again, until you either choose to answer it or get bored with the entire bloody mess and stop replying.
I'm only going to reply to this one post of yours, because you're basically saying the same thing like a broken record in every one of your posts recently.
Why do you refuse to answer my questions?
You know that you've been proven wrong, because you refuse to answer this question:
If 50.001% of society believed it should be legal to murder racial minorities and homosexuals, would you support the murder of racial minorities and homosexuals? Would you openly condemn those who speak out against the murder of racial minorities and homosexuals, because those who speak out against the murder of racial minorities and homosexuals are defying "the will of the people"?
You seem unable to provide a "yes" or "no" answer to this question, because you know that either answer will prove you wrong. So you act like a coward and hide behind your veil of "neener neener I can't hear you."
Either you WOULD support the murder of racial minorities and homosexuals because it's "the will of the people," in which case you're a monster, or you would oppose the murder of racial minorities and homosexuals, in which case you've proven you don't believe your own absurd "majority opinion over-rules human rights" philosophy.
Nazi Germany was a Democracy. More than 50% of the population of this Democracy supported the murder of racial minorities and homosexuals.
Are you supporting the actions of the Nazi Party, because they had "the mandate of the people," or will you condemn them and retract your statement that "the mandate of the people" always supersedes human rights?
As long as you refuse to answer the question, everyone will know that you're just a coward who doesn't know himself and doesn't know what he believes. You may disagree with what I say, but at least I know who I am. You don't even have the courage you provide an e-mail to Slashdot -- you're just an Anonymous Coward who somehow managed to find the "Register Account" button.
Finally, Mr. Wiseguy, exactly what logic have YOU presented? Exactly which arguments have YOU made? All I've seen is childish ranting about how much better you think you are than other people. Am I ranting? Maybe. Am I being illogical? I considered the possibility. I called up some guys at my state Libertarian party and asked them if I was being illogical, and they said no.
Maybe you should try reading some Libertarian documents. Anything written by Thomas Jefferson, for example.
Or pick up a copy of the LP newsletter. You might learn something.
No political philosophy with a fucking newsletter could be all bad.
Furthermore, we have a voice, and can convey our beliefs to our fellow men.
That's what I've been doing. Most people get it. You don't. There will always be people in the world who just don't understand the most basic concepts you try to convey to them. I don't know why I'm wasting my time with one of them.
Why are you allowed to convey your beliefs to your fellow man, but I'm not allowed to convey my beliefs to my fellow man?
Surveys show that roughly 41% of Americans have Libertarian ideals. It's been rising by about 1% per year. 9% more, about ten years, and we will be in charge.
And when we ARE in charge, when we ARE the majority, are you still going to say "I support the majority", or will our roles be fully reversed?
If you choose to reply to this (and I don't know why either of us are wasting our time), please answer my bloody question that you've refused to answer ten times now, and address specific points from this post, rather than saying "You're wrong, and that's it, neeeener neeeener," because that just makes you look like an idiot.
And yet, you still avoid try to support your position with facts just the sad old state-ist rhetoric which was disproved hundreds of years ago when people started to become enlightened and understand the concept of Freedom.
This is basically how this conversation has gone so far:
Me: I believe people should be Free.
You: I believe that if 50.001% of the population believes it's okay to murder black people, it's okay to murder black people, and if you think it's wrong to murder black people, you're evil for trying to usurp the will of the majority.
Me: You're wrong. *refutes every one of your points*
You: LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
Me: *proves you wrong, again*
You: U SUK U SUK U SUK U SUK U SUK
Me: *uses evidence and logic to disprove everything you said (which was very little beyond "U SUK HA HA HA") and prove that I'm right and that you're a danger to society*
You: NAH NAH U R STUPID D00D HA HA HA HA HA
Me: *asks you a series of questions which prove you're an idiot*
You: *refuses to answer my questions because you know they'll make you look like an idiot*
Me: Do you have ANY grasp on the concept of logic?
You: Me no what u say? Hoo u? Huh?
Me: That's what I thought.
If you ever decide to stop ranting like a moron and try to answer my logic and facts with some logic and facts of your own, give me a call. Until then, in case you're wondering why the world treats you like a child, it's because you act like a child. Maybe if you ever learn to behave like an adult, someday someone somewhere may have half an ounce of respect for you.
Doubtful, though.
If I were tasked with the job of making a list of all the various chemical and narcotic substances your mother must have consumed while you were in the womb to result in you being born with a mind that can't even grasp the most basic fundamentals of logic, I feel the outcome would be woefully inadequate to fully explain all your faults as a human being. I could list cocaine, PCP, and rat poison, but that combination would merely result in a drooling lackwit (right on both those counts) who would still have some comprehension of how the world of thoughts and ideas works.
I will explain this very, very slowly in such a way that a child in preschool could understand it. Then, maybe that child can try to explain it to you.
In a Libertarian society, a person who is unhappy with the rules prevailing in an area is free to move amongst more like-minded people, or to buy his own plot of land (in my ideal world, everyone would have his own plot of land -- perhaps ~40 acres or so, and some sort of equine-asinine hybrid animal -- perhaps a member of your family), and live his own life on it the way he sees fit.
In a fascist society, the government owns everything. The government owns every plot of land, the government owns the air, the government owns the water, the government owns the dirt, and the government owns the trees. The government owns everything, including the people. The government enforces one single consistent set of rules everywhere, on everyone. Even people who think they own land actually don't -- the land really belongs to the government. It is currently illegal for a human being to own land; by order of the United Nations it is only legal for a Government to own land.
People who don't like it can't leave, because the government owns everything. Yes, there are other countries, but it is illegal to leave a country without both the permission of the country you are leaving and the permission of the country you are traveling to. Even if you "own" the land you are traveling from, and you "own" the land you are traveling to, you still need permission from the two governments that really own the two pieces of land -- and you.
Your inability to grasp even the most simple logical connections between two concepts amazes me. I suspect you're trolling, because I can't honestly imagine anyone being as stupid as you except on purpose, but I know there are people in the world who really are as stupid as you're acting. I don't know if you're actually one of those sub-idiots (in which case I have bleak hopes for the future of humanity), or whether you're a better-than-average troller (in which case I tip my hat to you, and grumble that you need to get a life).
The very point that makes Libertarianism the living embodiment of freedom and individuality is that if you don't like what someone is doing, you can leave, and go do your own thing, on your own property, with no interference from anyone, as long as you're not hurting anyone else.
In your fascist world, if you don't like what the government is doing, you have zero recourse, because the government is everywhere, and the government owns everything, and you can do nothing about it, because it is illegal for you to own sovereign property. Look at what happened with Sealand -- a human being tried to own land that didn't belong to any country, and just for trying to live his own life on his own property free of anyone else's influence so long as he is not hurting anyone else, he's constantly on the verge of being wiped out by a military strike. If you don't like society, you can't even go live alone on an island, because either that island belongs to a government, in which case you're not really "alone", or that island doesn't belong to any government, in which case you'll be nuked by the governments for trying to live your own life.
You value conformity, and you value intolerance of opposing views. I believe that's the dictionary definition of "bigot."
You still haven't answered the one question I've asked you to answer many many times now, because you are a coward and you are afraid to answer it. You know that if you do answer it, you'll be exposed for either a liar or a hatemonger or a troller, and probably all three.
If 50.001% of the people in society believed it should be legal to kill racial minorities and homosexuals, would you support them? Would you support the killings of racial minorities and homosexuals, and would you oppose the people who oppose the murders because they're "defying the will of the majority"?
If you answer "yes," you're either a hateful bigot of the worst type, or a particularly spiteful troller.
If you answer "no," you've just disproven your own position, making you either a liar and an idiot, or a particularly spiteful troller.
So, which is it? Multiple choice. Just like those tests in High School. Oh, wait, you didn't get as far as High School.
Typical Republicrat/Demoblican reply.
You say I'm wrong and call me nasty names, but you make no attempt to refute my points because you know you can't.
I've shot down every one of your points, and I've deconstructed every bit of your "logic." And yet you refuse to try to further support your position or challenge mind, you just rail on and on mindlessly about how 31337 you are.
Do you have a point, or do you just enjoy yelling like a child? If you do have a point, try to back it up without resorting to your typical "Nyeh nyeh nyeh, I'm so coooool, u r laaaame d0000ddddd ha ha me rule rux0r u dooood."
I'll use a Napster-like system as an example, but when I refer to "songs", you can easily substitute "movies," or "naked pictures of Natalie Portman," or just "files."
1. It costs one Point to download a song from another user.
2. Users have unlimited Points for a certain trial period (some people will try to re-register every day to get around this, but that problem may or may not significant enough to affect the service).
3. Users get a certain (small) number of Points each day.
4. Each time a song is downloaded from a user, that user gets two Points. This will be the primary means of gaining Points.
5. Note that the person the song was downloaded from received two Points for the transfer, but the person who downloaded it only paid one Point. This means that the total number of Points in the universe will increase by one for each song that's transferred. This if fine -- it keeps the system from being too strict. You can take up to twice what you give, which should be generous enough for most people's tastes.
6. People who have a lot of songs to share will have many more Points than they could possibly spend. This is fine. If you're even moderately generous, you shouldn't have to worry too much about what you take.
7. Most people who generously offer the songs they have will wind up with more than enough Points. Those who DON'T offer what they have will find themselves frequently running short, and will be encouraged to start offering what they have.
8. To further motivate people to accumulate a lot of unused Points, have a "Hall of Fame" listing top Point-holders, top new Point-holders, fastest-rising Point-holders, etc. People love stats; witness the people who'll install the D.net or SETI client on 5000 computers primarily to increase their rank in the stats.
9. For further motivation, offer additional prizes for accumulating Points. Maybe a person who reaches 100,000 Points gets a T-shirt, or a person can exchange 10,000 Points for a coffee mug.
10. Who pays for the T-shirts, and the service? Users with low bandwidth who otherwise would have a hard time earning Points can earn them by an alternative method of contributing to the service: financially. Whether you make songs available to users of the service, or help the service meet its financial needs, you have to contribute to the servicein SOME way to get a significant share of songs from the service.
11. Another way to encourage people to earn large numbers of Points would be to give preferential download treatment to higher-ranked users. For example, if the person hosting a song has configured his client to only allow other users to only download 200kbit/sec from his machine, and five users try to download from him at once, the 100,000-Point user might get to download 100kbit/sec from him, the three 10,000-Point users might get 33kbit/sec each, and the 2-Point user might be forced to download from a slower host.
12. This'll not only encourage users to offer more of their songs more generously so that they can download from faster hosts than those who don't, it'll also ensure that people with slow connections will get some people downloading from them (and thus the people with the slow connections will get to earn some points too), rather than every single user swamping the fastest hosts, bogging them down until they're slower than the slowest hosts.
Ideas? Suggestions? Flaws? Discuss.
This reminds me of a Libertarian bumper sticker. It says: "I'm Pro-Choice on EVERYTHING."
Are YOU Pro-Choice?
If you don't want people driving past your house at 100mph, live on a street owned by a person who has values similar to your own, and who'll set a speed limit on his street.
If you do want people driving past your house at 100mph, or you want to drive at 100mph down the street amongst people who share your passion for driving quickly through residential areas, live on a street owned by someone who has values similar to your own, and who won't enforce a speed limit on the street.
Under my system, you have choice, and you can live in whichever environment suits your personal tastes
Under your system, you only have one option, the one option that "they" decide is the right option for you. How do they decide what's best for you?
If you don't want explosives in your apartment building, rent an apartment where the rules don't allow explosives, and where the landlord has similar values to your own.
If you do want explosives in your apartment, or wish to create explosives yourself and share your hobby with other like-minded people, rent an apartment where the rules do allow explosives, and where the landlord has similar values to your own.
Under my system, you have choice, and you can live in whichever environment suits your personal tastes.
Under your system, you only have one option, the one option that "they" decide is the right option for you. How do they decide what's best for you?
Now, since there are very few people who want to drive 100mph through a residential area, there will probably wind up being very few street owners who are members of that group, and hence very few streets that allow driving 100mph. But those who do want to drive 100mph through a residential area can buy their own streets and build houses on those streets, and sell those houses to other people who want to drive 100mph through a residential area, and then they can do so and not jeapordize anyone except each other. All the people in the area will have moved there knowing the risks -- in fact they'll have moved there because of the risks, since the street was founded on the idea of driving 100mph through a residential area.
They're doing their own thing on their own property, and anybody who has a problem with it doesn't live there.
Similarly, those with a passion for explosives can build their own apartments a safe distance away from anyone else, and rent those apartments to like-minded people, and build all the explosives they want (I admit, they should probably be restricted to explosives with a blast radius smaller than the distance to the nearest person who isn't an explosives freak), putting nobody at risk except themselves, because they knew the risks -- in fact, they moved into the apartment because of the risks, because it was the only place where they could build explosives.
Most likely, the people in the above two groups, in a Libertarian society, would exterminate themselves out of the gene pool within a few generations. In a fascist state, people are forbidden from doing dangerously stupid things, but some of them do them anyway, and people die. The people who don't do them pass their stupidity down to future generations (surely your mother and father must be familiar with this concept). In a Libertarian society, stupid people can do dangerously stupid things only when they're in an environment where their dangerously stupid stunts can only kill themselves or other dangerously stupid people. Thus, the dangerously stupid people will kill themselves and each other, but no innocent people, and dangerous stupidity will be bred out of the gene pool.
Why do you hate choice?