That is, unfortunatly, a rather subjective question. I basically agree with everything you said. Copyright creates an artificial market for information that would otherwise be a "free" market. But the right to wear mis-matched socks isn't quite as important as the right to not be murdered over skin color. Maybe I'm crazy but I see varying levels of importance of "rights", so I get a little annoyed when someone gets all righteous about their debatable "right" to throw anyone's bytes around on the internet and matches it with the same level of "importance" as the 60's civil rights movement.
If I've misunderstood and therefore misstated your position, and your comments were directed at the ACTIVITIES of these two individuals... then, my apologies.
My comment was basically directed towards the notion that invoking Rosa Parks was somehow directly analogous to the two guys being charged from the article. The southern Civil Rights movement wasn't about "gee, we don't agree with certain lawd so we're just going to do our own thing despite them", it ran much, much deeper than that. Yet we have some slashbots here trying to almost martyrize these two guys because of the way IP laws are viewed on this site.
If that's the case, I still think your comments are off-base, but on the more general grounds that the parent wasn't making a point about THESE TWO GUYS, but, rather, about the general moral case for violating unjust laws (which most people would believe copyright laws are, if they knew the extent of their draconian provisions).
Most people? Outside of the general software or entertainment realm most people don't have a freakin' clue about copyright laws, and I'd bet most wouldn't give a damn to learn about them or their provisions. Since when are most Americans critical of laws and policy? These days people just want to "feel" safe from terrorism and have low gas prices.
As far as "unjust laws", go right ahead and break 'em if you don't like them, and if you get busted then you get busted. But good luck getting some sort of movement started just because the blatently corrupt government listens to corps over voters. Simply put, the average Joe isn't really bothered by IP laws. Until Joe Sixpack gets inconvienenced, little will change.
An unjust law has no moral force. Whether you're breaking it for social justice or just for fun is immaterial.
To put basic human civil rights on the same level as some guys distributing movies and software on the internet is completely retarded. Blacks in the American South had to fight murder, rape, arson, and an entrenched racist political system in order to get basic things like the right to vote. Compare that with 2 guys on the net distributing the latest craptacular Hollywood movie or assorted software packages. It's not even on the same scale, yet the collective idiocy of Slashdot can't differentiate them. I'm no fan of restrictive copyright protection laws, but to throw a "Rosa Parks" comment in this thread defies thought.
Translation: "I got mine, the rest of you can fuck off and die."
As opposed to "You got more than the poor person, so since I'm government and I'm morally righteous I'm going to steal from you and give your money to the poor person (all while I take a cut off the top for myself of course)."
Yeah... back in the 1930s. SEVEN DECADES LATER are victims of the Great Depression still threatening to pollute our streets with their Hooverville-smelling corpses? On the flipside, there are still lots of homeless of all ages on the streets right now. Why hasn't SS saved them? Also, why do lower-wage-currently-working people today have SS payments forced out of their paychecks even though they could use the additional money now to enhance their financial standing? Why does the modern government hate the working poor? It's a case of stealing from the current poor to give money to those that have had a lifetime of opportunity to save. And given all the mismanagement and tricky accounting tricks that our beloved government has done in the past to raid the SS fund, whose to say that it will even be viable in 30 years? All of the estimates for SS assume a stable, sane government that is fairly fiscal responsible. Given the current status of things, we all know that's a huge crock.
The British Empire was too oppressive for the founding fathers (though there were many loyalists as well that were opposed to secession), and it was determined by those activists that there were no parameters that would allow for a moderate government while still under British rule.
They didn't want a "moderate" government but an independant and minimal one. Hence the problem.
It is not my position that this is the case with Social Security or taxes in general in contemporary America.
"Oppression" is relative to the oppressive-ee. SS is a collosalfailure and an assult on individual liberty. If your "Rational Americans" want to fund a corrupt system then why not let them do so voluntarily, and leave the rest of us to help out society as we see fit on our own accord? Any truly "rational" (and "informed") American will know that having government try to fix the ills of society is asking for more ill than what the fix is fixing. But since many choose to ignore the past failures of governments around the world trying to force fix societal issues, we'll likely always have a corrupt, beaurocracy-heavy system that forces it's citizens into fiscal management.
you are promoting your ignorance to the real world! i don't TRUST YOU to handle SHIT for yourself, so in 40 years when all your shitty investments go to hell in a handbasket, I DONT WANT TO PAY TO SUPPORT YOU! so, get over it you stupid little bitchbaby!
Look at it this way: for a 1/3rd of the average American's income, the King would let the American's choose whoever the f*ck they wanted for parliment (sp?).
Whuh? Sorry, I'll take a Constitutionally limited Republic over the whims of a monarcy with a puppet parliment any day.
Interesting you mention the Reagan/California. Why not decouple SS from the Feds and have each state run their own program? Why the Feds? State level will be slightly more efficient, and voters would have somewhat better control (in a voting booth sense) over state-level politicians than the Feddies. Plus states would be in competition with each other, making efficiency a somewhat more obvious goal.
Oh, and the "War on Drugs" was another bit of hysteria launched by the Republicans which spent many millions of Taxpayer dollars with little or nothing to show for it.
Well clearly it keeps homeless retirees from doing drugs!
Didn't Ashcroft say that the "war on crime" was won in his farewell speech?
Dunno, don't care what that fucking moron said in any speech.
Your last statement was ludicrous, but I couldn't let it go lest you think you had made anything close to a valid point.
Got a comprehension problem? Gee, anyone with a brain can figure out that SS is a losing system. Gee, if given the choice, no one with a brain would voluntarily invest in a losing system? How much more simply do I need to break it down for you?
Sure, just do what I do: Do your job and have a cool boss, and as long as you get your work done he/she won't care if you spend some time on Slashtard.
Well gee, since we have SS and gobs of other government social programs it's a good thing there aren't any hungry homeless anymore!!! Oh, but wait, there are plenty of people homeless or living in poverty despite decades of government interference. Remember the "War On Poverty"? Did we win yet? Good thing no one does drugs anymore since the "War On Drugs" was started a while ago.
If opt-in will not receive enough to ensure the solvency of the system, doesn't that indicate that maybe people really don't want anything to do with it in the first place?
If you want to argue, argue over where the balance is healthiest, not which extreme is most moronic.
So instead of declaring separation from England, the American colonists should have bargained with the King about some sort of mutual agreement regarding how much control the British empire got over the newfound lands. Right?
I'm not promoting "anarchy", I just happen to think it's stupid for the government to be forcefully managing everyone's lifetime finances when it comes to things like "retirement". How dare I want to handle such things for myself! It's forced and is a violation of my civil liberties. And given some of my comment ratings, there's even more leftists with mod points on this site than I originally thought.
I, enjoying my wealth, have no problem making sure that others around me are also well cared-for.
Goodie for you. So why not make SS opt-in? People like you can lovingly contribute to the socialist program for those who can't pay their own way, while people like me will, if needed, financially help out family members but not be forced to dump cash into government coffers to be handled by politicians.
You sound like that type that kicks crutches out from underneath orphans standing on a snowy streetcorner selling apples.
Nope, I just have this (aparently rare) viewpoint that people should be responsible for themselves. Go figure.
How about this: Take every single penny that you earn and just give it to the government. They'll feed you, clothe you, give you some basic shelter, etc. How about that? You might as well, since you trust the idiots in DC with your retirement you might as well hand your entire life over to them.
Now be a good boy and give Mommy back her AOL account
Funny. I'm actually at work, earning a living, which in part is going to my private retirement funds since I'm capable of taking care of myself. Can't speak for you. You sound like the type that will stand in the government hand-out line screaming "gimme gimme gimme!"
And all of your points are easily refuted by the one simple fact: The government is taking money out of my paycheck against my will. It's not their money. It's stealing. It is a broken system because it is forced upon US citizens. I don't want it, yet I can't opt out of this socialist program. Move to Cuba if you want the State to coddle you.
No wonder this country is going down the shithole, people keep increasing their levels about the amount of government garbage they are willing to put up with. "Land of the free" my ass...
Slashdot Mirror
I'm a little lost as to what your point is in linking to that.
Posting links to anything remotely related on GNU.org is an easy way to get modded up.
Who decides what a civil right is?
That is, unfortunatly, a rather subjective question. I basically agree with everything you said. Copyright creates an artificial market for information that would otherwise be a "free" market. But the right to wear mis-matched socks isn't quite as important as the right to not be murdered over skin color. Maybe I'm crazy but I see varying levels of importance of "rights", so I get a little annoyed when someone gets all righteous about their debatable "right" to throw anyone's bytes around on the internet and matches it with the same level of "importance" as the 60's civil rights movement.
Voting is not a right. It is a priviledge granted by the state.
It's a "right" in a democratically established constitutional republic. The government operates under priviledge of the Constitution.
Sharing your property is a right.
In a legal sense, for varying definitions of "property", yes.
If I've misunderstood and therefore misstated your position, and your comments were directed at the ACTIVITIES of these two individuals ... then, my apologies.
My comment was basically directed towards the notion that invoking Rosa Parks was somehow directly analogous to the two guys being charged from the article. The southern Civil Rights movement wasn't about "gee, we don't agree with certain lawd so we're just going to do our own thing despite them", it ran much, much deeper than that. Yet we have some slashbots here trying to almost martyrize these two guys because of the way IP laws are viewed on this site.
If that's the case, I still think your comments are off-base, but on the more general grounds that the parent wasn't making a point about THESE TWO GUYS, but, rather, about the general moral case for violating unjust laws (which most people would believe copyright laws are, if they knew the extent of their draconian provisions).
Most people? Outside of the general software or entertainment realm most people don't have a freakin' clue about copyright laws, and I'd bet most wouldn't give a damn to learn about them or their provisions. Since when are most Americans critical of laws and policy? These days people just want to "feel" safe from terrorism and have low gas prices.
As far as "unjust laws", go right ahead and break 'em if you don't like them, and if you get busted then you get busted. But good luck getting some sort of movement started just because the blatently corrupt government listens to corps over voters. Simply put, the average Joe isn't really bothered by IP laws. Until Joe Sixpack gets inconvienenced, little will change.
An unjust law has no moral force. Whether you're breaking it for social justice or just for fun is immaterial.
To put basic human civil rights on the same level as some guys distributing movies and software on the internet is completely retarded. Blacks in the American South had to fight murder, rape, arson, and an entrenched racist political system in order to get basic things like the right to vote. Compare that with 2 guys on the net distributing the latest craptacular Hollywood movie or assorted software packages. It's not even on the same scale, yet the collective idiocy of Slashdot can't differentiate them. I'm no fan of restrictive copyright protection laws, but to throw a "Rosa Parks" comment in this thread defies thought.
Only on /. can comparing the civil rights movement and copyright infringement get modded up as insightful.
Sheep with mod points are easily startled.
Tell that to Rosa Parks.
She's too busy downloading a copy of Spike Lee's "Do The Right Thing" off p2p...
Translation: "I got mine, the rest of you can fuck off and die."
As opposed to "You got more than the poor person, so since I'm government and I'm morally righteous I'm going to steal from you and give your money to the poor person (all while I take a cut off the top for myself of course)."
I don't specificially, that was a pretty obvious troll. But you didn't answer my question.
From what I can tell, you're an anti-American terrorist. Or a libertarian. Both are the same really....
Please, OH PLEASE, explain how those are the same. I'll be over here while some of the rest of you give burnt offerings at your altars of Marxism.
Since your rant has a point yet seems like a 5 yo wrote, I'll assume your a libertarian.
Maybe I just hate socialism.
The only political view that corporations will do no harm and will help us since they are trust worthy.
I don't trust corporations any more than I trust the government.
Also a nation can run itself without taxes.
"nation" or "government"? Lots of people confuse those two terms.
Grow up and enter relaity.
Uh huh, thanks Dad.
Progressive taxation reduces absolute poverty.
It also reduces absolute liberty. How about you move to Denmark then?
Yeah... back in the 1930s. SEVEN DECADES LATER are victims of the Great Depression still threatening to pollute our streets with their Hooverville-smelling corpses? On the flipside, there are still lots of homeless of all ages on the streets right now. Why hasn't SS saved them? Also, why do lower-wage-currently-working people today have SS payments forced out of their paychecks even though they could use the additional money now to enhance their financial standing? Why does the modern government hate the working poor? It's a case of stealing from the current poor to give money to those that have had a lifetime of opportunity to save. And given all the mismanagement and tricky accounting tricks that our beloved government has done in the past to raid the SS fund, whose to say that it will even be viable in 30 years? All of the estimates for SS assume a stable, sane government that is fairly fiscal responsible. Given the current status of things, we all know that's a huge crock.
The British Empire was too oppressive for the founding fathers (though there were many loyalists as well that were opposed to secession), and it was determined by those activists that there were no parameters that would allow for a moderate government while still under British rule.
They didn't want a "moderate" government but an independant and minimal one. Hence the problem.
It is not my position that this is the case with Social Security or taxes in general in contemporary America.
"Oppression" is relative to the oppressive-ee. SS is a collosal failure and an assult on individual liberty. If your "Rational Americans" want to fund a corrupt system then why not let them do so voluntarily, and leave the rest of us to help out society as we see fit on our own accord? Any truly "rational" (and "informed") American will know that having government try to fix the ills of society is asking for more ill than what the fix is fixing. But since many choose to ignore the past failures of governments around the world trying to force fix societal issues, we'll likely always have a corrupt, beaurocracy-heavy system that forces it's citizens into fiscal management.
you are promoting your ignorance to the real world! i don't TRUST YOU to handle SHIT for yourself, so in 40 years when all your shitty investments go to hell in a handbasket, I DONT WANT TO PAY TO SUPPORT YOU! so, get over it you stupid little bitchbaby!
Mom, are you off your meds again?
Look at it this way: for a 1/3rd of the average American's income, the King would let the American's choose whoever the f*ck they wanted for parliment (sp?).
Whuh? Sorry, I'll take a Constitutionally limited Republic over the whims of a monarcy with a puppet parliment any day.
Interesting you mention the Reagan/California. Why not decouple SS from the Feds and have each state run their own program? Why the Feds? State level will be slightly more efficient, and voters would have somewhat better control (in a voting booth sense) over state-level politicians than the Feddies. Plus states would be in competition with each other, making efficiency a somewhat more obvious goal.
Oh, and the "War on Drugs" was another bit of hysteria launched by the Republicans which spent many millions of Taxpayer dollars with little or nothing to show for it.
Well clearly it keeps homeless retirees from doing drugs!
Didn't Ashcroft say that the "war on crime" was won in his farewell speech?
Dunno, don't care what that fucking moron said in any speech.
Your last statement was ludicrous, but I couldn't let it go lest you think you had made anything close to a valid point.
Got a comprehension problem? Gee, anyone with a brain can figure out that SS is a losing system. Gee, if given the choice, no one with a brain would voluntarily invest in a losing system? How much more simply do I need to break it down for you?
Is electronic representation of money the government's too? 98% of my earnings I never see in cash form. You have an odd concept of property.
Can I get a job posting to slashdot?
Sure, just do what I do: Do your job and have a cool boss, and as long as you get your work done he/she won't care if you spend some time on Slashtard.
Well gee, since we have SS and gobs of other government social programs it's a good thing there aren't any hungry homeless anymore!!! Oh, but wait, there are plenty of people homeless or living in poverty despite decades of government interference. Remember the "War On Poverty"? Did we win yet? Good thing no one does drugs anymore since the "War On Drugs" was started a while ago.
If opt-in will not receive enough to ensure the solvency of the system, doesn't that indicate that maybe people really don't want anything to do with it in the first place?
If you want to argue, argue over where the balance is healthiest, not which extreme is most moronic.
So instead of declaring separation from England, the American colonists should have bargained with the King about some sort of mutual agreement regarding how much control the British empire got over the newfound lands. Right?
I'm not promoting "anarchy", I just happen to think it's stupid for the government to be forcefully managing everyone's lifetime finances when it comes to things like "retirement". How dare I want to handle such things for myself! It's forced and is a violation of my civil liberties. And given some of my comment ratings, there's even more leftists with mod points on this site than I originally thought.
I, enjoying my wealth, have no problem making sure that others around me are also well cared-for.
Goodie for you. So why not make SS opt-in? People like you can lovingly contribute to the socialist program for those who can't pay their own way, while people like me will, if needed, financially help out family members but not be forced to dump cash into government coffers to be handled by politicians.
You sound like that type that kicks crutches out from underneath orphans standing on a snowy streetcorner selling apples.
Nope, I just have this (aparently rare) viewpoint that people should be responsible for themselves. Go figure.
How about this: Take every single penny that you earn and just give it to the government. They'll feed you, clothe you, give you some basic shelter, etc. How about that? You might as well, since you trust the idiots in DC with your retirement you might as well hand your entire life over to them.
Now be a good boy and give Mommy back her AOL account
Funny. I'm actually at work, earning a living, which in part is going to my private retirement funds since I'm capable of taking care of myself. Can't speak for you. You sound like the type that will stand in the government hand-out line screaming "gimme gimme gimme!"
And all of your points are easily refuted by the one simple fact: The government is taking money out of my paycheck against my will. It's not their money. It's stealing. It is a broken system because it is forced upon US citizens. I don't want it, yet I can't opt out of this socialist program. Move to Cuba if you want the State to coddle you.
No wonder this country is going down the shithole, people keep increasing their levels about the amount of government garbage they are willing to put up with. "Land of the free" my ass...