It's possible to be a libertarian who believes in liberal fiscal policies.
What you describe is a version what "libertarian" originally meant. Your friend's suggestion of a highly democratic and unionized workforce who dictate needs and implement the wishes of a workforce is a step towards anarchs-syndicalism. In fact "libertarianism" originally meant something like "democratic socialism."
Only recently has the meaning been highjacked by the right.
The reality is that "libertarians" originally, and in the European context, means something like "democratic socialist", or at any rate a left-leaning socialist philosophy. In the U.S. in the 1960's, this meaning was highjacked by thinkers like Milton Friedman who held a religious advocacy of the rights of capital over men. I mean, it takes a giant leap of logic to conclude that capital does NOT seek to do exactly what you say "isn't libertarian". Despite what so-called U.S. "libertarians" think, there is absolutely no a priori reason that capital owners will do what's best in the free and moral interest of men, and likewise there is no reason to think a "free market" involves an invisible referee that ensures fair play -- that's simply religious dogma.
When asked if they "would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could"
Of course they don't. And neither do most people when given historical context and an explanation of exactly what that means.
And what it means is a complete private tyranny by the biggest capital players with no regard for labor. We've tried that before in various states and times (including in the U.S.) , and it got so bad for people that they were constantly on the threshold of revolt and business had a real fear of losing all of it. Furthermore, except for a few powerful players, it is bad for most business since a competitive market is a myth that has never and will never exist in a capitalist system.
C and C++ are used more in the U.S. because at one point in time, the U.S. was the only country using those languages. It took other nations to catch up with our IT industry, and when they did they chose more modern languages (I suspect Java and C# are the most popular), while in the U.S. many places were stuck with C and C++.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
BMI does NOT differentiate between muscle mass and fat. That means bodybuilders, even if they are under 10% bodyfat, will often rank as "obese" on a BMI scale. This is a well known limitation of a BMI score (among others).
The irony is that the film industry relies on massive amounts of funding to essentially brainwash people into seeing their movie through advertisements, commercials, and other mediums of swaying the public mind. So he's tacitly saying it's ok for THEM to sway you, but honest, objective sources of independent review are horrible, terrible concepts that interrupt their ability to mind control you.
1.) The popular vote may or may not be relevant to the current American political system, but it certainly seems like an appropriate and relevant response to determine what the U.S. population's preference is, which is exactly the subject of the comment he was replying to.
2.) Your presumption about someone's intent is just that. I presume you've never studied political systems and base your opinion on your own inherent biases.
The electrical system is well-established, but that means nothing, except that it's difficult to get rid of. It is well-understood, and people who understand it the most (constitutional scholars and such) say it's no longer a good idea.
3.) You suggest that Putin didn't have an impact, and that's clearly a debatable point. We simply don't know. What are almost certain of is that Putin attempted to have an impact on the election, and if a nation-state dedicated resources towards that goal then I'd certainly say it's plausible.
Yes, why "waste time" by backing up our believes with evidence when we could be enjoying the grand delusion we have in our comfortable worldview without contradictions and consequences?
Here's an example: http://talkasia.net/2016/09/28...
There are people doing things about things, and not just whining on twitter or slashdot. These people are why we have 8 hour workdays and why we no longer have slavery.
Your comment is the height of laziness and ignorance. If you really want social justice, you go out and you work for it. There are people sitting in prison as we speak because they sacrificed something through civil disobedience in the hope of making society better. And here you are behind a computer screen telling those people what they should be fighting against. If you don't like what's happening in Saudi Arabia, then YOU go do something about it. There are plenty of people who are.
Meanwhile, there are those who attempt to wave away any concept of social justice or activism with a broad generalizations without a single example, let alone any evidence?
Yeah, how could anyone "want" to live where their family is and their entire genetic line has existed for several millennia? Why don't they just pack up and move someplace better? Because it's easy.
"SJW"s has become sort of a nebulous term, with many self-proclaimed "SJW"s attacking individuals for non-sensical things (such as the "Hugh Mungus" incident). But social justice also includes the civil rights movement, which is an organization against real problems. And in general, social justice activists should be concentrating on actions that they can change. Americans who are concerned about social justice should be primarily concerned about what they can do in America, for instance. Many people ARE concerned with the rights of Saudi's and others, but when it comes to action, there is only so much effort people can expend, and it ought to be concentrated on where it can be most effected. This is assuming, of course, that we're talking about those really concerned about social justice, of course, and not the individuals ranting on the internet for the sake of ranting, which costs nothing and does very little to no good.
The "I had to thaw up my old account" wasn't me. But besides that, I don't know what bottom-feeding forums you visit, but maybe we all ought to condemn public shaming as a universal wrong. I certainly do. It doesn't matter whether it was a woman getting shamed for a sex video or a boy getting shamed for a silly light-saber video.
That's a silly definition. Look, a person has the right to make a porn of themselves and to distribute it. Whether or not it was her intention to humiliate her ex is beside the point. Negating the wishes of her partners in the video (which brings up other issues), what wrong did she commit against the ex? He doesn't own the rights to her sexuality. Now what could very be revenge porn is whoever distributed the video outside of the circle. It might very well have been done for revenge by the ex, and it's certainly not his right to do that.
Oh, then you simply don't understand what "revenge porn" really is. And she didn't "make it public", not intentionally anyway. In fact, anyone who did make this public was participating in "revenge porn."
What you don't seem to understand is that this is a private matter between a few hand-selected adults. To sit there and point your finger at a woman who killed herself due to an unbearable amount of public humiliation is unconscionable.
Firstly, the internet has not been around "for a long time" on the totality of the human scale. And no, people do not consider the consequences of sharing electronic information. We see that time, and time, and time again. And what of the consequences? Are they just? Should we give up the ability to share any personal information in this age without expecting it to be condemned and mocked worldwide by anonymous fools? I for one think that's incredibly depressing, and I think it means in many ways that the information era has resulted in a social reversion to barbarism.
I think you are uninformed. She did not make the video with her ex, she made it with someone else. This is not "revenge porn." Secondly, this really isn't about what she did -- it's about what happened to her. We could all agree that what she did was a mistake, and very likely immoral. However, the consequences were both unpredictable and fatal -- and that has little to do with her actions. The cause for the same, in fact, had nothing to do with the fact that she made her boyfriend jealous, but everything to do with the fact that millions saw her having sex and were mocking her for it.
Suppose this was a sex tape that was stolen from her -- the consequences would very likely be the same. She might still be humiliated by millions of anonymous individuals, and in fact that is what has happened to many men and women. Is that right? Do you think it's "justice"? We have a real problem in this society with public shaming because never before has sharing such information about others on a mass scale been a possibility. This is not about "a free pass", it's about having a civil society without our private lives becoming a token of scorn by the entire world.
Then what do all the anonymous cowards who also distributed the video deserve? If we're measuring her just desserts by her single action, then what of the collective actions of the millions who also distributed the video? They face no condemnation, and furthermore they understood that they faced none in sharing in the humiliation of this woman.
I wonder now what the ex thinks after someone I assume he once cared about killed herself. Did he think it was justice? And if not him, then who decides if it was just? Because she didn't fire a gun and have it ricochet back to her -- if "firing a gun" is our metaphor for distributing a video in order to make a boyfriend jealous, then what resulted was a machine gun by a million turrets raining down on her from anonymous gunmen.
But this IS new. While public shaming certainly existed before (and, interestingly, is considered inappropriate in our modern judicial system), to not admit that instantaneous electronic dissemination of information by anonymous individuals -- who face no consequences for their actions -- is radically different than what any society has ever dealt with before would be absurd.
Alright, fine. You make a mistake in a primitive society. You are shamed -- because shame exists for a reason, right? But you have the opportunity for redemption. You have the opportunity to speak and reason with those that shame you. You have the opportunity at redemption.
But it's different for other reasons, also. In those societies, if you wanted to share a secret with a select few, you may do that. They may talk about it with others, but there is no method of instantaneous mass distribution. And when distributing that information, there is no concept of anonymity for them, either. You see, it works both ways, and it's a little ironic like that: the person who we condemn has no privacy, but we can condemn that person behind an assumed anonymity, so that we suffer no consequences for the things we say or do about that person.
So yes, this is a brand new phenomenon.
Fine. It was certainly ill-advised on her part. And good for you that you wouldn't do it. But she did do it -- she did make a mistake. A mistake, perhaps, but not even an illegal mistake. But the consequences are what are extreme here -- the consequences were effectively death by social condemnation. She was scarlet lettered. And there was no trial, there was no judge and jury, and there was no moral considerations for what she did or did not deserve. Her life systematically became a nightmare, and what we should be talking about is how that nightmare in incongruous with the fault in her actions.
Slashdot Mirror
It's possible to be a libertarian who believes in liberal fiscal policies. What you describe is a version what "libertarian" originally meant. Your friend's suggestion of a highly democratic and unionized workforce who dictate needs and implement the wishes of a workforce is a step towards anarchs-syndicalism. In fact "libertarianism" originally meant something like "democratic socialism." Only recently has the meaning been highjacked by the right.
The reality is that "libertarians" originally, and in the European context, means something like "democratic socialist", or at any rate a left-leaning socialist philosophy. In the U.S. in the 1960's, this meaning was highjacked by thinkers like Milton Friedman who held a religious advocacy of the rights of capital over men. I mean, it takes a giant leap of logic to conclude that capital does NOT seek to do exactly what you say "isn't libertarian". Despite what so-called U.S. "libertarians" think, there is absolutely no a priori reason that capital owners will do what's best in the free and moral interest of men, and likewise there is no reason to think a "free market" involves an invisible referee that ensures fair play -- that's simply religious dogma.
When asked if they "would like to live in a society where government does nothing except provide national defense and police protection, so that people could be left alone to earn whatever they could" Of course they don't. And neither do most people when given historical context and an explanation of exactly what that means. And what it means is a complete private tyranny by the biggest capital players with no regard for labor. We've tried that before in various states and times (including in the U.S.) , and it got so bad for people that they were constantly on the threshold of revolt and business had a real fear of losing all of it. Furthermore, except for a few powerful players, it is bad for most business since a competitive market is a myth that has never and will never exist in a capitalist system.
C and C++ are used more in the U.S. because at one point in time, the U.S. was the only country using those languages. It took other nations to catch up with our IT industry, and when they did they chose more modern languages (I suspect Java and C# are the most popular), while in the U.S. many places were stuck with C and C++.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. BMI does NOT differentiate between muscle mass and fat. That means bodybuilders, even if they are under 10% bodyfat, will often rank as "obese" on a BMI scale. This is a well known limitation of a BMI score (among others).
Jesus Christ. Can we not have a discussion without blaming something on "the left" or "the right"?
The irony is that the film industry relies on massive amounts of funding to essentially brainwash people into seeing their movie through advertisements, commercials, and other mediums of swaying the public mind. So he's tacitly saying it's ok for THEM to sway you, but honest, objective sources of independent review are horrible, terrible concepts that interrupt their ability to mind control you.
1.) The popular vote may or may not be relevant to the current American political system, but it certainly seems like an appropriate and relevant response to determine what the U.S. population's preference is, which is exactly the subject of the comment he was replying to. 2.) Your presumption about someone's intent is just that. I presume you've never studied political systems and base your opinion on your own inherent biases. The electrical system is well-established, but that means nothing, except that it's difficult to get rid of. It is well-understood, and people who understand it the most (constitutional scholars and such) say it's no longer a good idea. 3.) You suggest that Putin didn't have an impact, and that's clearly a debatable point. We simply don't know. What are almost certain of is that Putin attempted to have an impact on the election, and if a nation-state dedicated resources towards that goal then I'd certainly say it's plausible.
Yes, why "waste time" by backing up our believes with evidence when we could be enjoying the grand delusion we have in our comfortable worldview without contradictions and consequences?
Here's an example: http://talkasia.net/2016/09/28... There are people doing things about things, and not just whining on twitter or slashdot. These people are why we have 8 hour workdays and why we no longer have slavery.
Your comment is the height of laziness and ignorance. If you really want social justice, you go out and you work for it. There are people sitting in prison as we speak because they sacrificed something through civil disobedience in the hope of making society better. And here you are behind a computer screen telling those people what they should be fighting against. If you don't like what's happening in Saudi Arabia, then YOU go do something about it. There are plenty of people who are.
He's aware of it, and now he's making YOU aware of it, and in a democratic society that's enough to do something about it.
Meanwhile, there are those who attempt to wave away any concept of social justice or activism with a broad generalizations without a single example, let alone any evidence?
Yeah, how could anyone "want" to live where their family is and their entire genetic line has existed for several millennia? Why don't they just pack up and move someplace better? Because it's easy.
"SJW"s has become sort of a nebulous term, with many self-proclaimed "SJW"s attacking individuals for non-sensical things (such as the "Hugh Mungus" incident). But social justice also includes the civil rights movement, which is an organization against real problems. And in general, social justice activists should be concentrating on actions that they can change. Americans who are concerned about social justice should be primarily concerned about what they can do in America, for instance. Many people ARE concerned with the rights of Saudi's and others, but when it comes to action, there is only so much effort people can expend, and it ought to be concentrated on where it can be most effected. This is assuming, of course, that we're talking about those really concerned about social justice, of course, and not the individuals ranting on the internet for the sake of ranting, which costs nothing and does very little to no good.
The "I had to thaw up my old account" wasn't me. But besides that, I don't know what bottom-feeding forums you visit, but maybe we all ought to condemn public shaming as a universal wrong. I certainly do. It doesn't matter whether it was a woman getting shamed for a sex video or a boy getting shamed for a silly light-saber video.
That's a silly definition. Look, a person has the right to make a porn of themselves and to distribute it. Whether or not it was her intention to humiliate her ex is beside the point. Negating the wishes of her partners in the video (which brings up other issues), what wrong did she commit against the ex? He doesn't own the rights to her sexuality. Now what could very be revenge porn is whoever distributed the video outside of the circle. It might very well have been done for revenge by the ex, and it's certainly not his right to do that.
Oh, then you simply don't understand what "revenge porn" really is. And she didn't "make it public", not intentionally anyway. In fact, anyone who did make this public was participating in "revenge porn." What you don't seem to understand is that this is a private matter between a few hand-selected adults. To sit there and point your finger at a woman who killed herself due to an unbearable amount of public humiliation is unconscionable.
Firstly, the internet has not been around "for a long time" on the totality of the human scale. And no, people do not consider the consequences of sharing electronic information. We see that time, and time, and time again. And what of the consequences? Are they just? Should we give up the ability to share any personal information in this age without expecting it to be condemned and mocked worldwide by anonymous fools? I for one think that's incredibly depressing, and I think it means in many ways that the information era has resulted in a social reversion to barbarism.
I think you are uninformed. She did not make the video with her ex, she made it with someone else. This is not "revenge porn." Secondly, this really isn't about what she did -- it's about what happened to her. We could all agree that what she did was a mistake, and very likely immoral. However, the consequences were both unpredictable and fatal -- and that has little to do with her actions. The cause for the same, in fact, had nothing to do with the fact that she made her boyfriend jealous, but everything to do with the fact that millions saw her having sex and were mocking her for it. Suppose this was a sex tape that was stolen from her -- the consequences would very likely be the same. She might still be humiliated by millions of anonymous individuals, and in fact that is what has happened to many men and women. Is that right? Do you think it's "justice"? We have a real problem in this society with public shaming because never before has sharing such information about others on a mass scale been a possibility. This is not about "a free pass", it's about having a civil society without our private lives becoming a token of scorn by the entire world.
Then what do all the anonymous cowards who also distributed the video deserve? If we're measuring her just desserts by her single action, then what of the collective actions of the millions who also distributed the video? They face no condemnation, and furthermore they understood that they faced none in sharing in the humiliation of this woman. I wonder now what the ex thinks after someone I assume he once cared about killed herself. Did he think it was justice? And if not him, then who decides if it was just? Because she didn't fire a gun and have it ricochet back to her -- if "firing a gun" is our metaphor for distributing a video in order to make a boyfriend jealous, then what resulted was a machine gun by a million turrets raining down on her from anonymous gunmen.
But this IS new. While public shaming certainly existed before (and, interestingly, is considered inappropriate in our modern judicial system), to not admit that instantaneous electronic dissemination of information by anonymous individuals -- who face no consequences for their actions -- is radically different than what any society has ever dealt with before would be absurd.
Why the hell would you assume that? Unbelievable.
Alright, fine. You make a mistake in a primitive society. You are shamed -- because shame exists for a reason, right? But you have the opportunity for redemption. You have the opportunity to speak and reason with those that shame you. You have the opportunity at redemption. But it's different for other reasons, also. In those societies, if you wanted to share a secret with a select few, you may do that. They may talk about it with others, but there is no method of instantaneous mass distribution. And when distributing that information, there is no concept of anonymity for them, either. You see, it works both ways, and it's a little ironic like that: the person who we condemn has no privacy, but we can condemn that person behind an assumed anonymity, so that we suffer no consequences for the things we say or do about that person. So yes, this is a brand new phenomenon.
Fine. It was certainly ill-advised on her part. And good for you that you wouldn't do it. But she did do it -- she did make a mistake. A mistake, perhaps, but not even an illegal mistake. But the consequences are what are extreme here -- the consequences were effectively death by social condemnation. She was scarlet lettered. And there was no trial, there was no judge and jury, and there was no moral considerations for what she did or did not deserve. Her life systematically became a nightmare, and what we should be talking about is how that nightmare in incongruous with the fault in her actions.