It produces a stable, well-defined system where "the common person" can work hard, save, and have a good life for himself and his family.
In societies based on corruption and theft, the common man can't save, only the strong man. The strong man steals the savings of the common man and adds it to his own.
Why should they buy into and support such a system?
They should look at the results. Free-market, low-corruption, private-property societies work. And they work well. And they work for large populations. And they work for small, meduim, and large income disparities. And they continue to work for long periods of time.
Private property systems need not be defended on moral grounds, though they easily can be. When you take the fruits of someone's labor, you're effectively taking the labor itself. And taking someone's labor is also known as slavery. Slavery is bad.
The bottom line is that private property systems work, and none of the other systems work nearly as well.
Aren't these scams just what "social justice" is supposed to be -- stealing from people because INSERT JUSTIFICATION HERE ?
Justifications:
- It's their fair share. - They did XYZ THING in the past - Their ancestors did XYZ THING in the distant past - They have a different skin color than me - They have a different religion than me - They can afford it - Etc.
The justifications aren't really relevant, BTW. They're just flavor. People steal/tax/defraud/embezzle/con because they want the money and because they can.
So the inclusion or exclusion of a single lesson in 5th grade science classes is a big part of the reason there aren't as may scientists or engineers as certain special interest groups wish there were?
It's interesting you've brought up "intelligent design" when the topic really isn't about that at all and it's not mentioned in any of the linked articles.
It's time for the US to choose between a reliance on religious fanaticism or science.
How would I recognize one of these fanatics? Would they
- Obsessively post the same message over and over again? - Try to make every topic of discussion, no matter how unconnected, a forum for their views? - Consistently demonize other points of view? - Counter well-meaning factual arguments with name-calling? - Use guilt by association to try to discredit their unbelievers? - Use fear as a motivator?
I sure am worried about all the fanaticism. I hope I can recognize it when I see it.
I'm not speaking from experience, but it seems to me that 2 people will stay together if they want to stay together more than they want anything else.
If they want something else more, then they may eventually choose that thing over staying together. And they'll split up.
I think I cracked the code on relationship longevity. Anyone want to buy my book? It'll say basically the same thing, but it'll be 200 pages and it'll cost you $15.
I might choose to drink a beer while walking around in a public venue, but that choice is definitely not acceptable within the context of our legal code. I certainly don't see this as oppresive since I could easily walk into a private establishment to consume the intoxicant in question. Just a silly example illustrating how you may want to clarify your view of "liberty."
Nope. You shouldn't try to interfere with the consumption of beer. I'll choose when and where I drink my beer.
Yes, the founding document says "all men are created equal" in terms of rights, but hardly mentions abilities.
They are "created equal". In other words, they are of equal inherent value at birth.
It also mentions that they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note the inclusion of "liberty", which typically means a guy gets to make his own choices.
...
Everything else you wrote is a cliche -- no response necessary.
What other country's founding document states that "all men are created equal"?
A lot of us actually believe it too. "All men are created equal" conflicts with the idea that the "intellectual elite" are The Good People and we should allow them to make all our choices for us.
A recent characterization of an intellectual (originally, apparently, by Max Weber) points out the problem:
The intellectual seeks in various ways...to endow his life with a pervasive meaning, and thus to find unity with himself, with his fellow man, and with the cosmos....As a consequence there is growing demand that the world and its total pattern of life be subject to an order that is significant and meaningful.
Some of us want to make our own choices, subject to no one and without regard to the self-important demands of the "intellectual elite", no matter how enlightened those elite think they are. To the extent that these elite are disenclined to allow us our choices, they are a threat. Disparagement of these would-be rulers is self-defense, and it is well earned.
Why work hard to discover or create or design things? It's easier to wait for other people to do it.
Then you sue them or tax them or fine them or racially extort them or divorce them or defraud them or trick them or persuade them or get their money some other way. It's easier that earning it.
- a better deal to Google and Yahoo - a better deal to the artists - a better deal to Apple - a better deal to CD buyers - a better deal to concert-goers - a better deal to satelite radio - and better music with better terms for the consumers
and they'll still be able to make a nice profit.
The slow decline of the old record companies will accelerat, Madonna will turn 75-years-old, and Warner and Sony BMG will have to shut their doors.
So each person who bought DOS 6.0 should have been forced to sue individually to recover their $9.95?
Class action lawsuits do have a purpose.
In theory, yes. In practice, the suit is settled for $1 billion -- the lawyers get $100 million and the person who bought DOS gets a coupon for $2 off MS flight simulator.
Once you're identified, the store writes an electronic check from your bank account. The credit card companies aren't involved and don't take their cut.
The system is much cheaper for stores than credit cards. 60 cents Visa gets is more than ~15 cents Pay by Touch + check costs
I see these every time I go to the grocery store. I always wonder: what's the benefit to me? What do I care if the store saves 45 cents?
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously you've never been there, or you wouldn't make such a dumb ass statement.
I'm bitter about how long winter is. I want summer back.
I love my town. Zombies and Wi-Fi. What more could you want?
Maybe if winter wasn't 8 months each year?
How does this system benefit the common person?
It produces a stable, well-defined system where "the common person" can work hard, save, and have a good life for himself and his family.
In societies based on corruption and theft, the common man can't save, only the strong man. The strong man steals the savings of the common man and adds it to his own.
Why should they buy into and support such a system?
They should look at the results. Free-market, low-corruption, private-property societies work. And they work well. And they work for large populations. And they work for small, meduim, and large income disparities. And they continue to work for long periods of time.
Private property systems need not be defended on moral grounds, though they easily can be. When you take the fruits of someone's labor, you're effectively taking the labor itself. And taking someone's labor is also known as slavery. Slavery is bad.
The bottom line is that private property systems work, and none of the other systems work nearly as well.
Aren't these scams just what "social justice" is supposed to be -- stealing from people because INSERT JUSTIFICATION HERE ?
Justifications:
- It's their fair share.
- They did XYZ THING in the past
- Their ancestors did XYZ THING in the distant past
- They have a different skin color than me
- They have a different religion than me
- They can afford it
- Etc.
The justifications aren't really relevant, BTW. They're just flavor. People steal/tax/defraud/embezzle/con because they want the money and because they can.
You think they're dangerous now? Wait until they're augmented with microchips. Fangs and computing power. Shudder.
So the inclusion or exclusion of a single lesson in 5th grade science classes is a big part of the reason there aren't as may scientists or engineers as certain special interest groups wish there were?
It's interesting you've brought up "intelligent design" when the topic really isn't about that at all and it's not mentioned in any of the linked articles.
It's time for the US to choose between a reliance on religious fanaticism or science.
How would I recognize one of these fanatics? Would they
- Obsessively post the same message over and over again?
- Try to make every topic of discussion, no matter how unconnected, a forum for their views?
- Consistently demonize other points of view?
- Counter well-meaning factual arguments with name-calling?
- Use guilt by association to try to discredit their unbelievers?
- Use fear as a motivator?
I sure am worried about all the fanaticism. I hope I can recognize it when I see it.
Just post the same journal entry every couple of days. Everybody does it.
But why is George Bush causing all these Slashdot dupes?
Strictly speaking, that example is rendundant
/.ers wouldn't have thought about just that particular example.
That's why the book is 200 pages.
Nonstrictly speaking, though, I'm sure a lot of
That's why you need to pay me $15.
I'm not speaking from experience, but it seems to me that 2 people will stay together if they want to stay together more than they want anything else.
If they want something else more, then they may eventually choose that thing over staying together. And they'll split up.
I think I cracked the code on relationship longevity. Anyone want to buy my book? It'll say basically the same thing, but it'll be 200 pages and it'll cost you $15.
I might choose to drink a beer while walking around in a public venue, but that choice is definitely not acceptable within the context of our legal code. I certainly don't see this as oppresive since I could easily walk into a private establishment to consume the intoxicant in question. Just a silly example illustrating how you may want to clarify your view of "liberty."
Nope. You shouldn't try to interfere with the consumption of beer. I'll choose when and where I drink my beer.
They are "created equal". In other words, they are of equal inherent value at birth.
It also mentions that they have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note the inclusion of "liberty", which typically means a guy gets to make his own choices.
Everything else you wrote is a cliche -- no response necessary.
To me, it seems that they all declined pretty quickly and either vanished or are still on the bottom of the heap
This is a very silly point.
How many contries have had a stable society with the same government continuously for, say, 500 years? How about 300 years? 150?
History tells us that declines and government reorganizations are the norm.
A lot of us actually believe it too. "All men are created equal" conflicts with the idea that the "intellectual elite" are The Good People and we should allow them to make all our choices for us.
A recent characterization of an intellectual (originally, apparently, by Max Weber) points out the problem:
Some of us want to make our own choices, subject to no one and without regard to the self-important demands of the "intellectual elite", no matter how enlightened those elite think they are. To the extent that these elite are disenclined to allow us our choices, they are a threat. Disparagement of these would-be rulers is self-defense, and it is well earned.
Why work hard to discover or create or design things? It's easier to wait for other people to do it.
Then you sue them or tax them or fine them or racially extort them or divorce them or defraud them or trick them or persuade them or get their money some other way. It's easier that earning it.
What if I get panic attacks at the site of needles or blood?
fly over Canada
Pretty soon, someone will come along and offer:
- a better deal to Google and Yahoo
- a better deal to the artists
- a better deal to Apple
- a better deal to CD buyers
- a better deal to concert-goers
- a better deal to satelite radio
- and better music with better terms for the consumers
and they'll still be able to make a nice profit.
The slow decline of the old record companies will accelerat, Madonna will turn 75-years-old, and Warner and Sony BMG will have to shut their doors.
Yeah, the "right" not to be annoyed. Your silly emotional whims aren't a "right".
You sound like a 12-year-old girl. Stop whining and grow up why don't you?
You picked the worst possible place. Read the article you linked to. The robots already know how to navigate the Mojave Desert!.
So each person who bought DOS 6.0 should have been forced to sue individually to recover their $9.95?
Class action lawsuits do have a purpose.
In theory, yes. In practice, the suit is settled for $1 billion -- the lawyers get $100 million and the person who bought DOS gets a coupon for $2 off MS flight simulator.
Once you're identified, the store writes an electronic check from your bank account. The credit card companies aren't involved and don't take their cut.
The system is much cheaper for stores than credit cards. 60 cents Visa gets is more than ~15 cents Pay by Touch + check costs
I see these every time I go to the grocery store. I always wonder: what's the benefit to me? What do I care if the store saves 45 cents?
The only thing worse than big corporate lawyers protecting clients who sold shoddy products are bottom-feeding class action lawyers.