So you say, your words sound like those of a petulant child.
If they were arresting him for his behavior they have charges for it (drunk and disorderly, etc). That could even cover the entire group if necessary. They wouldn't even need to ask their names.
But not showing ID still isn't a crime and that's what they charged him with. That's just the tip of the iceberg though, which extends to evidence tampering, perjury, conspiracy (and thus other participants), etc.
You're incapable of separating things you don't like (his behavior) from unjust behavior (a police officer intentionally destroying evidence).
While I've found myself on the wrong end of the law, my mother's first husband was a police officer who was shot [...]
Irrelevant details are still irrelevant even when they're personal.
So I hope everyone will take the time to put the whole situation into perspective.
I feel the correct perspective is that of powerless citizen confronting an armed and dangerous thug who was willing to lie and misdirect the power of the state to cause ruin for him. It's an attempt to punish his lack of slavish "respect" (thug worship). Considering it's from someone given extra powers because of their sworn mission to serve and protect the innocent it's almost treason.
So yeah, I certainly hope everyone ignores anecdotes and red herrings and remembers that this is a situation where our protector tried to turn their power against their charges, like child molestation.
Which perspective did you think was right?
On the other hand we have a savvy dillwad wanting to prove his superior knowledge of civil rights rather than helping the police to properly investigate a minor incident.
I see. Die painfully.
When one side has police powers and the other has the desire to do the research, we predictably end up exactly where we are.
Yes, an innocent person crushed and rejects like you trying to justify it.
But if instead, he had said, "My name is....and I didn't hit the ball" things might have turned out quite differently.
If the police officer had asked useful question instead of interrogating a guy about pointless details before making sure he's involved, it might have turned out differently.
But when the police come and this jackwad wants to assert his civil rights
They're "rights" because you're IN THE RIGHT if you do that. If you only have civil rights when it's convenient for your oppressors, you don't have rights.
I would be pretty pissed if [...]
Once again with your fucking opinion, as if you know what went on, let alone could consider it rationally or it would be relevant even if. Just shut-up already.
I can understand why the police want to put the screws to him.
And that justifies breaking laws we put into place? Not just laws to protect, oh what did you call him, ah.. a savvy dill/jackwad, but laws designed to make sure our expensive prisons house only guilty people!
Do you understand, shithead? Even if they wanted to punish him, and were right in doing so, they're doing so on my dime and by totally repudiating everything we pay them for.
Of course they were in the wrong and acting maliciously...
If we expect ethical behavior from the police, we shouldn't be trying to make their jobs harder in fucking foam golf ball cases.
If we can't expect ethical behavior from the police in "foam golf ball" cases, when can we expect it?
It's the duty of the state to ensure that people are adequately trained in the law. If they fail in this duty then the individual they failed should not be the one punished. Their parents/teachers/etc on the other hand.../sarcasm
If ignorance of the law is no excuse for me, it's no excuse for them - that is final.
Tiller broke the law [...] Abolishionists broke the law [...] That was the equivalence I was trying to make.
Are you the person I replied to? It's a bit unclear which makes your comments unclear, are you agreeing or disagreeing initially?
You helped me make my point because you can understand the emotions somebody like Tiller could have.
I'm guessing you're the AC from earlier.
Of course I can understand what someone "like Tiller" (from what I understand) would be feeling - like a great injustice was going on and he had to stop it because nobody else would. I imagine it's the same feeling, right or wrong, if you're trying to stop Hitler or that damn Teletubby who's making you gay.
You call slavery an invalid law
Not quite. I call any state that practices slavery (or reserves the right to for a draft or such) invalid. All its laws are invalid if it is.
the facts are you could go to jail for interfering with slaveowners' "rights" back then.
When invalid governments run "jails" we call them gulags and death camps.
And yes, you could. You could also be sent to them for NOT offing a Hitler soon enough...
I find abortion to be just as egregious as slavery. No different than a law that allows babies to be killed
Abortion is a wide range of operations, from the murder of a -1 day-old baby (icky) to the removal of a 1-day old barely fertilized egg as with the morning-after pill.
I don't hold that every sperm is sacred, which I pretty much would have to to think that it became sacred the nanosecond it touched an egg... But obviously we treat babies (people) as sacred and something that's very nearly a baby is very nearly sacred.
Whenever someone lumps it all, medically necessary or early-term rape abortions with late-term glamor-preserving abortions, etc, it's a pretty good indicator they've got a politically expedient view, not a useful one.
Nobody said Mohammad was a God. I didn't even say he was a prophet, I said Muslims regard him as their most sacred prophet
No, you said For Muslims Mohammad isn't "a guy", he is [...]. As if because I like my dad he's suddenly not "a guy" anymore. He is - he's just one who is special to me.
When people say things like that it's usually misdirection - as if "just a guy" should be treated worse because nobody thinks he's attached to a god.
Why are you using the word "respect" like a "gang member" rather than a rational person?
I'm not, you are. That was why I brought it up thusly. I'll explain...
Of course you want respect - respect of your property, rights, dignity.
Nope. Don't give a shit. I don't care if you think of me as a stupid LARPer, or a fat geek, or whining 'net loser, or whatever. I'd have to respect your worthiness to judge me before your opinion (your choice to respect me or not) mattered.
I require your noninterference but that's not respect. I don't care if you like it, or me, or think I have good reasons for what I do or ask, I merely demand that you stand back and let me do my thing (to the point where it would reasonably also become your thing).
I know you can play word games with respect, such as saying you respect the danger of a knife or a tiger, but I'm using it in the standard meaning where you'd say "I respect Athlete X's perseverance", or "researcher Y's ethics". "These" (random) people know nothing about me so they couldn't possibly have anything to respect yet.
To demand "respect" is either code for demanding fearful compliance, or to demand that others treat an idea as above reproach - obviously ridiculous as we can see that all useful knowledge comes from testing what we know, not trusting blindly. When respect is demanded it's never real respect that's wanted.
As I am not a gang member or prison guard as I pointed out, or a censor, I do not demand "respect".
Just because something isn't important to you, doesn't mean it isn't important to someone else.
Looking for the obviousness award?
Of course it doesn't. But the sanctity of fictional characters is ridiculous and that's what this supposed ban on publication of images of Mo is based on. No matter how important Santa/Tooth Fairy/religion is to you, it's also a ridiculous children's story.
I don't have to respect something to agree that people should be free to do it...
Second, don't be stupid. This isn't even a real rule, it's just an excuse to thug. (It applies to them, not non-believers, and merely means you're doing it wrong.)
Third, who the fuck cares if they "respect" me? Do I look like a gang member or prison guard? I haven't threatened to kill them... they could extend that courtesy.
Just like the chinese buffet, at the end of the month, the ISP can say, "Sorry, we will not do business with you any more"
Yeah, at the end of what you've contracted for they can decide if they wish to keep dealing with you. That's the above-board way to do it, and the legal way.
But if you've noticed ISPs who decide that unlimited doesn't mean unlimited, cut access in the middle of what you've paid for and don't even refund the prorated payment.
As for some stupid stat about power users consuming more bandwidth, who fucking cares? You know what unlimited means, right? Not that it'd be reasonable to provide, but maybe people shouldn't promise what they have no intent to deliver.
Which is why the law needs to have enough teeth to make it effective.
If we used RIAA math and held Microsoft accountable for the full purchase price of every copy of OS/2 (etc) that wasn't sold because of their illegal or abusive actions, they'd notice.
Perhaps Apple should be forced to return half the purchase price for every iPhone, iPad, etc (anything that is sold when in fact control is retained by Apple). Abusing EULAs should cost.
Penalties that are lower than the payout of the crime are called bribes.
The issue of what makes a monopoly isn't relevant, what is is if the company is abusing the control it has. No company has 100% control of a market, if defined broadly enough, but that level of control isn't required to reduce competition to the point where it's in society's best interests to stop it.
Until Apple rents iPhones, almost everything they do is abusive. It's the user's device, not Apple's. Holding bug fixes hostage in a patch that undoes jailbreaking, etc, is abusive. They refuse to fix their product, only giving patches to those who use "the company store". How fucking convenient.
Of course, I'd hold console makers to the same standard.
If we were to enact something like that, we'd be throwing out the existing system entirely and it'd cost a lot of jobs too, at a time when we can't afford to hemorrhage those jobs. [...] And yes, I'm fully aware of the broken window fallacy. I realize that these jobs may ultimately not be necessary, but now is not a good time to get rid of them.
Umm, wrong. We're paying those wages, in our health-care, with a huge margin for waste and corporate profit on top. If we merely axed the jobs and gave the employees 100% of their wages for life we'd still be ahead - immediately, not just in the long term.
This is precisely what welfare, unemployment benefits, and such are for - to provide a safety net so that we can do what is needed - kill useless or criminal companies for instance - and not leave their innocent employees as victims.
Should the local ISP's actually be paying Google for their content?
Yes, far sooner than Google should be paying to be accessible.
I'm paying for that bandwidth, to send encrypted backups to my ISP, game, or search on Google - it's not theirs anymore, it's MINE, and want open unrestricted access.
I really hope ISPs do this though, because it's be funny to see Viacom vs Google - find out who customers want to deal with and who's just the local monopoly...
I might not believe "Do no evil", but Bell Canada's motto is "Fuck 'em hard." I know who I'll choose.
Unless they pitched you out for a food fight, wastage, etc, they couldn't pitch you out for eating too much.
They reserve the right to not serve you - something they don't need to do as you have no right to be served - but that doesn't mean they can decide to not provide the service they have contracted to provide. Once you order and pay they lose most of their "right to refuse service".
ISP's don't have a "way" to cheat customer by offering unlimited accounts that aren't, they simply do and count on it being almost impossible for an individual to sue a company successfully. It's exactly the same business model as offering things for sale and simply not delivering a third of them - absolute outright theft.
If your gaming sessions can be navigated by simply applying various powers over and over again to stacks of faceless monsters, you probably should just play video games...
For replacing actual pen and paper games I think I'd like a virtual whiteboard. Anything more than that and the players want to assume the art is reality, and not ask what their characters can see. As if they expect I'll start drawing in secret doors, just in a different style, or something. Their natural inquisitiveness is hurt by having too many canned props.
You've got that exactly backwards. The sign a justice system isn't, is that it listens to anyone other than the victim. If someone decides they control another person - can dictate what happens to them, why shouldn't exactly the same go the other way?
Perhaps the victim will choose to forgive, perhaps they'll choose to punish the aggressor as they see fit. They're both even in the end in that both got to choose once. Don't like absolute power resting in the hands of your victims - don't victimize...
Sigh. I said something you thought was black and white. You claimed it was a fallacy simply because I didn't allow for a middle option. I pointed out that your reasoning is flawed, and did it with a Wikipedia link because that's apparently how you prefer to do things.
The fallacy you linked to would only apply if my argument was something like "because some sort of compromise between the two extremes exists it must be superior than either extreme." I argued that there were more than two possibilities, even though you argued only two exist.
It would also apply if you tried to invent an in-between state that didn't exist, such as "semi-pregnant"... decrying something for not having a middle is merely the first step to arguing to that invented middle.
[...] that it reserves the right to do so is [the entire issue].
Again you are trapped in a version binary thinking.
Not at all. If someone raped someone once, they're still called a rapist. Similarly if they held one slave they'd be a slaver...
Binary thinking would be to assume that a non-binary thing should be treated as binary (ie, variable guilt for a rape -> one-size fits all punishment). But simply to factually label someone as a rapist... no.
In the same way that a rapist is still a rapist even if not actually being in the process of raping right now, a society that condones slavery does so, even if it doesn't currently have any slaves, as long as it reserves the right.
That part wasn't an argument about what was best - perhaps a slave state is, but that's still what they are.
Wow you really like the "Proof by Example" fallacy!
Wow, you really like that word.
A society could hold the individual paramount in some things and not others, in fact [...]
And in doing so it would be enslaving the individual (perhaps in only narrow areas) for the good of the masses.
Why does it hurt you to admit the facts?
I can't even begin to understand how you link this to slavery
Can't, or don't try? It should be very simple to see.
If I come to you and threaten to kill you if you marry a brunette, are you not less free despite loving a redhead?
Even if the restrictions are minor or compatible with your regular actions, they are placed upon you from above. That's slavery. Benign tyranny or not...
Groups (nebulous or not) are made of individuals.
How do you expect non-sarcastic replies to things like this?
Society doesn't exist. There's just people.
This is like arguing computer networks don't really exist
No, I can point to cabling and switches as being distinct. I cannot point to loyalty, fealty, or rights.
Truly, a group of people is just a group of people. You don't get more worthy at certain sizes.
You see that is a major problem with your understanding, in a participatory government the state represents its citizens.
No, a government owns its citizens. It represents its own interests.
I am offered some say in some things, but I have never been asked if I accept that choice.
Furthermore, if these individuals come together and agree that they have issue with a specific type of action, codify it law, it is about the same as many of them coming up to a person performing said action and saying "We take issue with that action..."
In other words, in your example the state prosecuting the drunk driver is effectively the same as all potential drivers/pedestrians banding together to prosecuting the dru
That assumes there are two of us and you get the drop on me.
If there are three or more of us and I see you punch the other guy in the face to take his pizza I'll join him. Then I'll claim some of the pizza and we'll split everything in your pockets. I've got big feet so he'd get your shoes, we'd take turns for the rest.
You seem to be considering this in some quasi-historic context where nobody has any tools. We've seen the benefits of cooperation, have technology to even battles and disseminate information, etc.
I know there are people like you describe. What do you think we'd use social networking for in an anarchy? Just chatting, or taking pictures of strangers and linking them to clips from our security cameras, wiki pages, etc. There's no reason a cooperative security system couldn't work, it just couldn't rely on keeping secrets if it was large.
This face-punching, pizza-stealing only works when you're trusted enough to get close, and is only profitable if it saves you enough work when added to the costs (fleeing the scene, changing identity, etc).
On the contrary, both are exactly the problems you have with government. Groups of people who aren't directly contradictory but can't agree on the details on their actions.
So much of out society's time and effort is wasted, and mistakes made, in trying to figure out what everyone wants so that it can implement some unwanted compromise solution that pleases nobody.
Why don't you post an example of a problem you have trouble imagining a useful anarchic solution for and we'll discuss it?
Two farmers banding together to shoot a threatening cougar are a practical and functional anarchy. Their shared goal binds neither - when one is convinced the group is going the own way he merely has to strike his own path.
For instance, when ordering food with friends you dicker all night or you can simply say "I am ordering pizza, any who wish to do likewise may join me." It's not a dictate, nor is it up for discussion.
It's true. Tautologically. A state that employs slavery is a slave state. You just don't like the sound of it. Fuck just one sheep...
Society either holds the individual paramount, or not. That it chooses rarely isn't the point - that it reserves the right to do so is. It's not an issue of right or wrong, simply observable fact.
Perhaps the best alternative [...]
That part wasn't an argument about what was best - perhaps a slave state is, but that's still what they are.
Perhaps you were assuming this would be restricted to only things that didn't have a high probability of harming others, but your exact statement didn't indicate this.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about who has a legitimate issue with someone's actions, individuals not a nebulous group.
Society doesn't exist. There's just people. When we lose sight of this we create victimless crimes.
I'm not saying we couldn't punish a drunk driver on an empty street, just that charges should be brought in the name of all potential drivers/pedestrians, not "the state". When you can't find a victim, you don't have a crime.
When you lose sight of who this is for you don't have a government, it has you.
1. the angry tea partiers, with their brick throwing and insane murderous anger, IS kristallnacht, on a smaller scale
Seems like that's the intent and they'll just keep throwing parties till it works. The demonizing of their opponents fits.
2. intolerant deluded propagandized fools hording guns in the woods [...]
Now who's an intolerant deluded propagandized fool? Not every believer in the purpose of the 2nd amendment lives in the woods, or hordes guns (one is enough).
[...] are the seeds of fascism, NOT our protectors from fascism
If you see them as your protectors you're undoubtedly wrong, yes...
But I wonder why you see neighbors with the power to defend themselves as a threat? I know many hunters and treat them just like non-hunters. Most people I know have access to a car. Most people have a house full of knives.
Personally I see a homogeneous mixture of diverse people and opinions, all individually and collectively armed, against any threat foreign, domestic, or personal, as the best way to lasting peace and safety. Fear and dependence breeds war - strength builds trust and trade.
3. we need strong government regulation in the financial sector, and the assholes (greenspan and co) who dismantled the 1930s era (irony) protections need to be grilled a la congressional hearings and roundly castigated for their dangerous irresponsibility
More, or less. It's partly because we're forced to use government currency via licensed banks that we have these problems in the first place. Rational investors avoided all the problems the economy has seen, from the 90s tech stocks to real-estate and repackaged debt. Warren Buffet sails through this "crisis" hardly noticing anything and the common people are the victims because they deal in government currency which is based on banking games.
The real damage comes, still government inflicted, during the rebuilding, where the most damaging institutions are given all the newly printed money and the sectors of the economy that were functioning are kicked in the teeth, left with a diluted currency as the only payback for their honesty.
Ideally the government would offer bailouts at one level only - welfare to individuals. Then let the financial market do what it will, if you choose to believe there's value in being fifth in line on a bundle of defaulting mortgages, more power to you.
Instead of having to trust government inspectors, no-doubt lazy unionized layabouts with unclear credentials, I want to hire third-party auditors of my choice and merely have the government provide small and solid base of law to enforce this relationship.
Slashdot Mirror
So you say, your words sound like those of a petulant child.
If they were arresting him for his behavior they have charges for it (drunk and disorderly, etc). That could even cover the entire group if necessary. They wouldn't even need to ask their names.
But not showing ID still isn't a crime and that's what they charged him with. That's just the tip of the iceberg though, which extends to evidence tampering, perjury, conspiracy (and thus other participants), etc.
You're incapable of separating things you don't like (his behavior) from unjust behavior (a police officer intentionally destroying evidence).
While I've found myself on the wrong end of the law, my mother's first husband was a police officer who was shot [...]
Irrelevant details are still irrelevant even when they're personal.
So I hope everyone will take the time to put the whole situation into perspective.
I feel the correct perspective is that of powerless citizen confronting an armed and dangerous thug who was willing to lie and misdirect the power of the state to cause ruin for him. It's an attempt to punish his lack of slavish "respect" (thug worship). Considering it's from someone given extra powers because of their sworn mission to serve and protect the innocent it's almost treason.
So yeah, I certainly hope everyone ignores anecdotes and red herrings and remembers that this is a situation where our protector tried to turn their power against their charges, like child molestation.
Which perspective did you think was right?
On the other hand we have a savvy dillwad wanting to prove his superior knowledge of civil rights rather than helping the police to properly investigate a minor incident.
I see. Die painfully.
When one side has police powers and the other has the desire to do the research, we predictably end up exactly where we are.
Yes, an innocent person crushed and rejects like you trying to justify it.
But if instead, he had said, "My name is....and I didn't hit the ball" things might have turned out quite differently.
If the police officer had asked useful question instead of interrogating a guy about pointless details before making sure he's involved, it might have turned out differently.
But when the police come and this jackwad wants to assert his civil rights
They're "rights" because you're IN THE RIGHT if you do that. If you only have civil rights when it's convenient for your oppressors, you don't have rights.
I would be pretty pissed if [...]
Once again with your fucking opinion, as if you know what went on, let alone could consider it rationally or it would be relevant even if. Just shut-up already.
I can understand why the police want to put the screws to him.
And that justifies breaking laws we put into place? Not just laws to protect, oh what did you call him, ah.. a savvy dill/jackwad, but laws designed to make sure our expensive prisons house only guilty people!
Do you understand, shithead? Even if they wanted to punish him, and were right in doing so, they're doing so on my dime and by totally repudiating everything we pay them for.
Of course they were in the wrong and acting maliciously...
If we expect ethical behavior from the police, we shouldn't be trying to make their jobs harder in fucking foam golf ball cases.
If we can't expect ethical behavior from the police in "foam golf ball" cases, when can we expect it?
It's the duty of the state to ensure that people are adequately trained in the law. If they fail in this duty then the individual they failed should not be the one punished. Their parents/teachers/etc on the other hand... /sarcasm
If ignorance of the law is no excuse for me, it's no excuse for them - that is final.
Tiller broke the law [...] Abolishionists broke the law [...] That was the equivalence I was trying to make.
Are you the person I replied to? It's a bit unclear which makes your comments unclear, are you agreeing or disagreeing initially?
You helped me make my point because you can understand the emotions somebody like Tiller could have.
I'm guessing you're the AC from earlier.
Of course I can understand what someone "like Tiller" (from what I understand) would be feeling - like a great injustice was going on and he had to stop it because nobody else would. I imagine it's the same feeling, right or wrong, if you're trying to stop Hitler or that damn Teletubby who's making you gay.
You call slavery an invalid law
Not quite. I call any state that practices slavery (or reserves the right to for a draft or such) invalid. All its laws are invalid if it is.
the facts are you could go to jail for interfering with slaveowners' "rights" back then.
When invalid governments run "jails" we call them gulags and death camps.
And yes, you could. You could also be sent to them for NOT offing a Hitler soon enough...
I find abortion to be just as egregious as slavery. No different than a law that allows babies to be killed
Abortion is a wide range of operations, from the murder of a -1 day-old baby (icky) to the removal of a 1-day old barely fertilized egg as with the morning-after pill.
I don't hold that every sperm is sacred, which I pretty much would have to to think that it became sacred the nanosecond it touched an egg... But obviously we treat babies (people) as sacred and something that's very nearly a baby is very nearly sacred.
Whenever someone lumps it all, medically necessary or early-term rape abortions with late-term glamor-preserving abortions, etc, it's a pretty good indicator they've got a politically expedient view, not a useful one.
Nobody said Mohammad was a God. I didn't even say he was a prophet, I said Muslims regard him as their most sacred prophet
No, you said For Muslims Mohammad isn't "a guy", he is [...]. As if because I like my dad he's suddenly not "a guy" anymore. He is - he's just one who is special to me.
When people say things like that it's usually misdirection - as if "just a guy" should be treated worse because nobody thinks he's attached to a god.
Why are you using the word "respect" like a "gang member" rather than a rational person?
I'm not, you are. That was why I brought it up thusly. I'll explain...
Of course you want respect - respect of your property, rights, dignity.
Nope. Don't give a shit. I don't care if you think of me as a stupid LARPer, or a fat geek, or whining 'net loser, or whatever. I'd have to respect your worthiness to judge me before your opinion (your choice to respect me or not) mattered.
I require your noninterference but that's not respect. I don't care if you like it, or me, or think I have good reasons for what I do or ask, I merely demand that you stand back and let me do my thing (to the point where it would reasonably also become your thing).
I know you can play word games with respect, such as saying you respect the danger of a knife or a tiger, but I'm using it in the standard meaning where you'd say "I respect Athlete X's perseverance", or "researcher Y's ethics". "These" (random) people know nothing about me so they couldn't possibly have anything to respect yet.
To demand "respect" is either code for demanding fearful compliance, or to demand that others treat an idea as above reproach - obviously ridiculous as we can see that all useful knowledge comes from testing what we know, not trusting blindly. When respect is demanded it's never real respect that's wanted.
As I am not a gang member or prison guard as I pointed out, or a censor, I do not demand "respect".
Just because something isn't important to you, doesn't mean it isn't important to someone else.
Looking for the obviousness award?
Of course it doesn't. But the sanctity of fictional characters is ridiculous and that's what this supposed ban on publication of images of Mo is based on. No matter how important Santa/Tooth Fairy/religion is to you, it's also a ridiculous children's story.
I don't have to respect something to agree that people should be free to do it...
First, no. He's a guy. Gods don't exist.
Second, don't be stupid. This isn't even a real rule, it's just an excuse to thug. (It applies to them, not non-believers, and merely means you're doing it wrong.)
Third, who the fuck cares if they "respect" me? Do I look like a gang member or prison guard? I haven't threatened to kill them... they could extend that courtesy.
abolishionists who killed slave owners in the lead-up to the civil war. [...] it's not something I would condone
Why the fuck not? You condone the keeping of slaves?
It's murder
Or self-defense for yourself and your extended family.
it's illegal
By what law? The law of the invalid state that practices slavery?
Just like the chinese buffet, at the end of the month, the ISP can say, "Sorry, we will not do business with you any more"
Yeah, at the end of what you've contracted for they can decide if they wish to keep dealing with you. That's the above-board way to do it, and the legal way.
But if you've noticed ISPs who decide that unlimited doesn't mean unlimited, cut access in the middle of what you've paid for and don't even refund the prorated payment.
As for some stupid stat about power users consuming more bandwidth, who fucking cares? You know what unlimited means, right? Not that it'd be reasonable to provide, but maybe people shouldn't promise what they have no intent to deliver.
Which is why the law needs to have enough teeth to make it effective.
If we used RIAA math and held Microsoft accountable for the full purchase price of every copy of OS/2 (etc) that wasn't sold because of their illegal or abusive actions, they'd notice.
Perhaps Apple should be forced to return half the purchase price for every iPhone, iPad, etc (anything that is sold when in fact control is retained by Apple). Abusing EULAs should cost.
Penalties that are lower than the payout of the crime are called bribes.
The issue of what makes a monopoly isn't relevant, what is is if the company is abusing the control it has. No company has 100% control of a market, if defined broadly enough, but that level of control isn't required to reduce competition to the point where it's in society's best interests to stop it.
Until Apple rents iPhones, almost everything they do is abusive. It's the user's device, not Apple's. Holding bug fixes hostage in a patch that undoes jailbreaking, etc, is abusive. They refuse to fix their product, only giving patches to those who use "the company store". How fucking convenient.
Of course, I'd hold console makers to the same standard.
If we were to enact something like that, we'd be throwing out the existing system entirely and it'd cost a lot of jobs too, at a time when we can't afford to hemorrhage those jobs. [...] And yes, I'm fully aware of the broken window fallacy. I realize that these jobs may ultimately not be necessary, but now is not a good time to get rid of them.
Umm, wrong. We're paying those wages, in our health-care, with a huge margin for waste and corporate profit on top. If we merely axed the jobs and gave the employees 100% of their wages for life we'd still be ahead - immediately, not just in the long term.
This is precisely what welfare, unemployment benefits, and such are for - to provide a safety net so that we can do what is needed - kill useless or criminal companies for instance - and not leave their innocent employees as victims.
You naysayers need to get past this notion that any nuance of our computing experience is so trivial that it doesn't need to be customizable.
Should the local ISP's actually be paying Google for their content?
Yes, far sooner than Google should be paying to be accessible.
I'm paying for that bandwidth, to send encrypted backups to my ISP, game, or search on Google - it's not theirs anymore, it's MINE, and want open unrestricted access.
I really hope ISPs do this though, because it's be funny to see Viacom vs Google - find out who customers want to deal with and who's just the local monopoly...
I might not believe "Do no evil", but Bell Canada's motto is "Fuck 'em hard." I know who I'll choose.
Unless they pitched you out for a food fight, wastage, etc, they couldn't pitch you out for eating too much.
They reserve the right to not serve you - something they don't need to do as you have no right to be served - but that doesn't mean they can decide to not provide the service they have contracted to provide. Once you order and pay they lose most of their "right to refuse service".
ISP's don't have a "way" to cheat customer by offering unlimited accounts that aren't, they simply do and count on it being almost impossible for an individual to sue a company successfully. It's exactly the same business model as offering things for sale and simply not delivering a third of them - absolute outright theft.
If your gaming sessions can be navigated by simply applying various powers over and over again to stacks of faceless monsters, you probably should just play video games...
For replacing actual pen and paper games I think I'd like a virtual whiteboard. Anything more than that and the players want to assume the art is reality, and not ask what their characters can see. As if they expect I'll start drawing in secret doors, just in a different style, or something. Their natural inquisitiveness is hurt by having too many canned props.
You've got that exactly backwards. The sign a justice system isn't, is that it listens to anyone other than the victim. If someone decides they control another person - can dictate what happens to them, why shouldn't exactly the same go the other way?
Perhaps the victim will choose to forgive, perhaps they'll choose to punish the aggressor as they see fit. They're both even in the end in that both got to choose once. Don't like absolute power resting in the hands of your victims - don't victimize...
Now only everyone has to agree what "crimes" this cooperative security system will punish and which acts are OK.
Look around, I think you'll find that 99% of us agree about 99% of important things - murder, rape, slavery.
Or you can just decide on a case by case basis. That would make for a great society.
Yes, wouldn't it. Not that it'd be hard to beat one-size-fits-all zero-tolerance policies...
No you are wrong
You're wrong.
Read your own link!
Sigh. I said something you thought was black and white. You claimed it was a fallacy simply because I didn't allow for a middle option. I pointed out that your reasoning is flawed, and did it with a Wikipedia link because that's apparently how you prefer to do things.
The fallacy you linked to would only apply if my argument was something like "because some sort of compromise between the two extremes exists it must be superior than either extreme." I argued that there were more than two possibilities, even though you argued only two exist.
It would also apply if you tried to invent an in-between state that didn't exist, such as "semi-pregnant"... decrying something for not having a middle is merely the first step to arguing to that invented middle.
[...] that it reserves the right to do so is [the entire issue].
Again you are trapped in a version binary thinking.
Not at all. If someone raped someone once, they're still called a rapist. Similarly if they held one slave they'd be a slaver...
Binary thinking would be to assume that a non-binary thing should be treated as binary (ie, variable guilt for a rape -> one-size fits all punishment). But simply to factually label someone as a rapist... no.
In the same way that a rapist is still a rapist even if not actually being in the process of raping right now, a society that condones slavery does so, even if it doesn't currently have any slaves, as long as it reserves the right.
That part wasn't an argument about what was best - perhaps a slave state is, but that's still what they are.
Wow you really like the "Proof by Example" fallacy!
Wow, you really like that word.
A society could hold the individual paramount in some things and not others, in fact [...]
And in doing so it would be enslaving the individual (perhaps in only narrow areas) for the good of the masses.
Why does it hurt you to admit the facts?
I can't even begin to understand how you link this to slavery
Can't, or don't try? It should be very simple to see.
If I come to you and threaten to kill you if you marry a brunette, are you not less free despite loving a redhead?
Even if the restrictions are minor or compatible with your regular actions, they are placed upon you from above. That's slavery. Benign tyranny or not...
Groups (nebulous or not) are made of individuals.
How do you expect non-sarcastic replies to things like this?
Society doesn't exist. There's just people.
This is like arguing computer networks don't really exist
No, I can point to cabling and switches as being distinct. I cannot point to loyalty, fealty, or rights.
Truly, a group of people is just a group of people. You don't get more worthy at certain sizes.
You see that is a major problem with your understanding, in a participatory government the state represents its citizens.
No, a government owns its citizens. It represents its own interests.
I am offered some say in some things, but I have never been asked if I accept that choice.
Furthermore, if these individuals come together and agree that they have issue with a specific type of action, codify it law, it is about the same as many of them coming up to a person performing said action and saying "We take issue with that action..."
In other words, in your example the state prosecuting the drunk driver is effectively the same as all potential drivers/pedestrians banding together to prosecuting the dru
That assumes there are two of us and you get the drop on me.
If there are three or more of us and I see you punch the other guy in the face to take his pizza I'll join him. Then I'll claim some of the pizza and we'll split everything in your pockets. I've got big feet so he'd get your shoes, we'd take turns for the rest.
You seem to be considering this in some quasi-historic context where nobody has any tools. We've seen the benefits of cooperation, have technology to even battles and disseminate information, etc.
I know there are people like you describe. What do you think we'd use social networking for in an anarchy? Just chatting, or taking pictures of strangers and linking them to clips from our security cameras, wiki pages, etc. There's no reason a cooperative security system couldn't work, it just couldn't rely on keeping secrets if it was large.
This face-punching, pizza-stealing only works when you're trusted enough to get close, and is only profitable if it saves you enough work when added to the costs (fleeing the scene, changing identity, etc).
On the contrary, both are exactly the problems you have with government. Groups of people who aren't directly contradictory but can't agree on the details on their actions.
So much of out society's time and effort is wasted, and mistakes made, in trying to figure out what everyone wants so that it can implement some unwanted compromise solution that pleases nobody.
Why don't you post an example of a problem you have trouble imagining a useful anarchic solution for and we'll discuss it?
Two farmers banding together to shoot a threatening cougar are a practical and functional anarchy. Their shared goal binds neither - when one is convinced the group is going the own way he merely has to strike his own path.
For instance, when ordering food with friends you dicker all night or you can simply say "I am ordering pizza, any who wish to do likewise may join me." It's not a dictate, nor is it up for discussion.
Any valid state is self-assembled by its citizens, anything else is a slave state.
No you are wrong, as there are many possible states in between the extremes.
You're wrong.
It's true. Tautologically. A state that employs slavery is a slave state. You just don't like the sound of it. Fuck just one sheep...
Society either holds the individual paramount, or not. That it chooses rarely isn't the point - that it reserves the right to do so is. It's not an issue of right or wrong, simply observable fact.
Perhaps the best alternative [...]
That part wasn't an argument about what was best - perhaps a slave state is, but that's still what they are.
Perhaps you were assuming this would be restricted to only things that didn't have a high probability of harming others, but your exact statement didn't indicate this.
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about who has a legitimate issue with someone's actions, individuals not a nebulous group.
Society doesn't exist. There's just people. When we lose sight of this we create victimless crimes.
I'm not saying we couldn't punish a drunk driver on an empty street, just that charges should be brought in the name of all potential drivers/pedestrians, not "the state". When you can't find a victim, you don't have a crime.
When you lose sight of who this is for you don't have a government, it has you.
So they've invented an irrationality filter?
Is the USA an innocent-looking peaceful society?
Regardless, perhaps the lesson is simply that you can vote in things you can't vote out.
1. the angry tea partiers, with their brick throwing and insane murderous anger, IS kristallnacht, on a smaller scale
Seems like that's the intent and they'll just keep throwing parties till it works. The demonizing of their opponents fits.
2. intolerant deluded propagandized fools hording guns in the woods [...]
Now who's an intolerant deluded propagandized fool? Not every believer in the purpose of the 2nd amendment lives in the woods, or hordes guns (one is enough).
[...] are the seeds of fascism, NOT our protectors from fascism
If you see them as your protectors you're undoubtedly wrong, yes...
But I wonder why you see neighbors with the power to defend themselves as a threat? I know many hunters and treat them just like non-hunters. Most people I know have access to a car. Most people have a house full of knives.
Personally I see a homogeneous mixture of diverse people and opinions, all individually and collectively armed, against any threat foreign, domestic, or personal, as the best way to lasting peace and safety. Fear and dependence breeds war - strength builds trust and trade.
3. we need strong government regulation in the financial sector, and the assholes (greenspan and co) who dismantled the 1930s era (irony) protections need to be grilled a la congressional hearings and roundly castigated for their dangerous irresponsibility
More, or less. It's partly because we're forced to use government currency via licensed banks that we have these problems in the first place. Rational investors avoided all the problems the economy has seen, from the 90s tech stocks to real-estate and repackaged debt. Warren Buffet sails through this "crisis" hardly noticing anything and the common people are the victims because they deal in government currency which is based on banking games.
The real damage comes, still government inflicted, during the rebuilding, where the most damaging institutions are given all the newly printed money and the sectors of the economy that were functioning are kicked in the teeth, left with a diluted currency as the only payback for their honesty.
Ideally the government would offer bailouts at one level only - welfare to individuals. Then let the financial market do what it will, if you choose to believe there's value in being fifth in line on a bundle of defaulting mortgages, more power to you.
Instead of having to trust government inspectors, no-doubt lazy unionized layabouts with unclear credentials, I want to hire third-party auditors of my choice and merely have the government provide small and solid base of law to enforce this relationship.