This OTT political correctness/quota balancing act in lots of workplaces is just dumb.
On the other hand, there's no evidence whatsoever that men are more capable than women when it comes to programming or support. And it's fairly ludicrous to assume that women don't get into the field because they just don't feel like it. So we have to ask: what exactly is keeping a field where men have no inherent advantage whatsoever a primarily male-dominated industry?
My guess - based on more than 20 years of purely anecdotal evidence - is that it has something to do with the rampant immaturity and mysogynism of a significant minority of the males who choose some sort of computer work for a profession. And while in those more-than-20-years I've seen a marked improvement in a number of other professions, the same can't be said when it comes to the computer industry. It's still the refuge of an alarming number of childish little brats who hate and fear women, and have no problem whatsoever making any woman who 'invades' their turf feel unwelcome.
But again, that's all anecdotal. It could just be that all the IS departments I've been exposed to during various contracts were just unusual exceptions. And it could also be that I'm going to win the lottery tomorrow, after being struck by lightning - twice.
but there are signs clearly alerting any wanderer that they may want to pass on without stopping for long.
I have signs as well. They say: "Trespassers will be shot without warning." They've proven to be *much* more effective than the standard "No Trespassing" sign.
If that happens to be on your lawn, you do not have the right to remove them forcibly, otherwise you are assaulting them.
That might be true in the People's Republic of California, but it isn't true where I live. Stepping onto somebody's property ininvited is called 'trespass', as is refusing to leave when told to. It is perfectly acceptable to use force to remove them from the property if they refuse to do so on their own. Shooting them might be a bit extreme, but taking a hose and washing them down won't get you into trouble. If they're too stupid to leave when told to get the fuck off your property, they deserve what they get.
Property rights are given to you by the government
No, they aren't. Property rights are inherent; governments exist to help you enforce your natural rights against assholes who believe they can violate them at will, not to 'grant' to you what's already yours. In any free society the government is a servant bound to protect the individual; it isn't the lord and master dispensing favors to the chosen.
As another example, if you walk onto my lawn with metal spikes in the ground, you can and probably would sue me.
In my state if you walk onto my property and put your foot into a bear trap I've left out (for the purpose of taking out an annoying bear, of course), it's your own damned fault. If you didn't want to get injured you shouldn't have trespassed. Here we have this idea of 'taking responsibility for one's actions, especially the stupid ones', although it seems to be rapidly going out of vogue.
But that's the world you get when you let a bunch of sniveling, socialist pussies seize power. Everything belongs to them, and whatever scraps they deem to dispense to you are 'favors' that you're supposed to be eternally grateful for....
Regardless of what you or I think about a country's laws on say Nazi memorabilia (for they have their own very personal reasons for it I'm sure), they have the right to have those laws, and an international organization might help them enforce it on their citizens without stomping on the rights of other countries citizens.
And it's incumbent on them to filter the internet on their own, and at their own cost. The Chinese have proven that it can be done, so the nations of the world (and this includes the pansies who throw a hissy fit over something like Nazi memorabilia, or 'hate speech') have no reason to complain that THEIR laws aren't being implemented by OTHER countries, whether individually or through the U.N. If it really bothers them that much they can always ban internet access within their borders.
The only ways they could 'stomp' on the rights of the citizens of other countries is if these countries cede enough power to them to do the job. So long as things remain as they are the French, for example, will never be able to tell anyone outside of the borders of France what they can or cannot sell.
It's not like we're asking each country in the world to vote on standards of censorship for the entire world, we're asking the body that assigns IP addresses to be of shared governorship with all internet users, rather than a subset.
As it stands the system works fine and no one other than the U.S. government is CAPABLE of abusing it. And in this instance (perhaps surprisingly) the U.S. government has given no indication whatsoever that it plans to abuse the system, nor has it done so in the past. A change such as the one you're describing will invite someone, somewhere, to find a way to abuse it simply because they can.
We're talking about government, after all. And not just one government, but all the governments of the world - the vast majority of which don't value free speech as much as the United States does. You can naively assume that the U.N. will do a bangup job if you like, but I'll stick with the tried-and-true because I see absolutely no reason to change something that works when the alternative isn't going to be any better, and has the potential to be far worse.
RMS has never understand that the right to free speech is NOT the right to force others to listen to your bullshit. But he isn't alone in that; we're surrounded by people who believe the very same thing and refuse to accept a world where anyone not interested in what you have to say can simply walk away.
Or, if you're on their property, tell you to either shut the fuck up or leave.
Why should they have an organization they did not elect setting the rules for them?
You're right - why should they? I see no benefit in allowing an outside authority to dictate terms to the citizens of your nation. Especially when you're currently the most powerful nation in all of human history.
but I respect the fact that in a democracy, they have a right to speak just as I.
The problem with your analogy is that people do, indeed, have a right to vote in the United States. They DO NOT have a right to vote in these dictatorships. So how exactly do these governments represent the interests of their citizens? And even if they did, really - do I want a bunch of fucking religious fanatics dictating what can and cannot be allowed on the internet? Do I want some bunch of uptight pricks in Europe to have the authority to ban certain kinds of free speech, or tell people that they can't sell or trade Nazi memorabilia? Do I want the CHINESE to be able to decide what's allowable and what's not? My answer would be a clear "fuck that, and fuck the horse it rode in on".
Democracy in and of itself is nothing more than mob rule. Democracy has to be bounded by inalienable rights to be of any real value.
In any event, it isn't the business of the U.N. to dictate how other nations should conduct their affairs regardless of how the organization is currently being used. Any step towards one-world government is the most hideously bad idea since the Germans thought it'd be a good idea to hand over power to the National Socialists.
You want the internet under the DEMOCRATIC control of the U.N., where more than one-half of the world's population lives under the thumb of brutal dictators? Fucking great idea, that.
...an international body which has NO membership requirements setting the rules for the rest of us - including the citizens of my own country, which no organization should have authority over except for the one which I elected.
How am I supposed to respect a body which not only allows more than 80 brutal dictatorships world-wide to join it's ranks, but to VOTE on what that body should and should not do? Perhaps if the U.N. had a stringent set of rules defining who could and could not join I'd take it more seriously, but as is I won't even give it the time of day.
The US government should be overthrown through violence
It's perfectly legal to discuss the violent overthrow of the United States, at least within the United States. What you can't do is conspire to actually bring this state of affairs about.
For a popular example, Penn and Teller did just that on a recent episode of Bullshit! and so far as I'm aware, they aren't being charged with any crime, or even being investigated.
Europeans are trying to work out a solution WITH YOU, for YOUR convenience.
Smoke a lot of crack, do you? The system works JUST FINE RIGHT NOW, and if it ain't broke don't fix it. So far no one has bothered to explain WHY things should be changed when they're working just fine as they are.
It clearly shows that you have no idea what it means to live in a democracy
You mean dictatorship by mob rule? Yeah, democracy is a really great idea...if you're one of the mob. No, I'll pass on democracy, thanks. A republic sharply bounded by an overriding constitution works just fine for me.
Amen to that, and my reservations extend to a number of European nations as well. Can you imagine the changes that'd be made if the 'hate speech' laws of many European nations were instituted as an internet standard? Sell Nazi memorabilia in the U.S. (legal there) and the U.N. committee controlling the internet revokes your domain name, fines you, and bans you from getting a new domain for the next ten years.
And this is mild compared to the 'standards' that would be championed by the lunatics in the Middle East, or China.
No thanks. I'll take the current system over whatever evil the U.N. might to do it any day of the week. As much as I distrust, and often despise, my own government, it's proven itself more than capable of doing the job without trampling all over the rights of individual users.
Clearly there's no point in arguing with an arrogant, elitist pseudo-intellectual such as yourself. But I'm comforted by the fact that you're completely and utterly powerless to force your bizarre world-view on the rest of us. It heartens me to know that no matter how much blather you egomaniacly vomit up, in the end you're just another impotent troll.
Here come the Microsofties, ready to tell us why Windows rules and Linux sucks. Some are obvious, others try to snow us with 'reasoned' arguments (read: vague bullshit), yet others still gift us with their own anecdotal disaster stories and how their inability to handle a simple install means that Linux *has* to suck. Because they couldn't possibly be as stupid as they appear to be, of course.
I've been using Linux for years, as has my wife. We settled with SuSE because it's even easier to install than Win2000/XP, regardless of what a few brain-dead MS-lovers have to say about it. Since I'm no longer programming and haven't been for some time (and my wife never has) I don't want to dick around with a system - I just want it to work, period. The computer is just a tool to me now and I have no interest whatsoever in doing anything beyond the minimum required to get it to function. SuSE is perfect for this and has never failed me, which is something I can't even come close to saying about Windows (any version).
But here's the real nail in the coffin of the Microsofties: when I taught computers for middle school students 11-year-olds had *absolutely no problem whatsoever* mastering Linux on the desktop. They easily adapted to it, and ended up prefering it to Windows. If my passle of ordinary 11-year-olds can install (yes, they had to install it themselves) and learn to use Linux without a hitch, I have to wonder just how much brain damage these Windows 'power users' must have suffered to make them incapable of accomplishing something any curious pre-pubescent could do.
We all like to eat but that does not entitle us to demand that we get paid for things we arbitrarily deem we are entitled for.
It isn't arbitrary. I'm the absolute owner of the product of my mind. You have *no* right to that product whatsoever. Via contract (in this case administered by the government) I'm granting you the benefits of that product assuming you want it and are willing to pay the price I demand. If you don't like the price you're always free to refuse to pay it.
It's really that simple.
Writing is something you can only live on if you convince someone to sponsor you, assuming that what you write is useful for society.
What's the color of the sky on your planet? Tell that to King or Grisham or Rawlings, why don't you?
By suggesting -- no demanding -- that you get paid for the smell of your farts, you are only making yourself appear greedy, egoistical and foolish.
I'm a capitalist, not some stupid little college prick enamored with "The Communist Manifesto". And yes, I do indeed demand that if you want something I have that you pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it then again, you're entirely free not to purchase it.
Again the error in your thinking is that artists are making art for money.
Jesus Christ, junior, get over yourself already. Except for a few deluded souls we do what we do both because we enjoy it AND because we like money. Just like everyone else in the bloody world. Only egotistical little pricks go bitch and moan about the 'purity of art' think otherwise, and the rest of us agree they're nothing more than sanctimonious shits.
The moment I meet an "artist" who made his "art" for profit, I dont want any, thank you very much.
That would be 99.9% of us. And I certainly won't lose any sleep if you choose not to purchase the product of my mind. That's your choice, just as it's mine to demand compensation for it.
I skipped all of the strawmen. Save that for your pals in "Why Everything I Want Should Be Free 101".
If you do not want me to have it, don't publish it.
Apparently you're either a blithering idiot or a sociopath. Try looking up the term 'social contract' and wrapping your tiny little mind around the concept, if you can.
you do so knowingly and purely out of greed
I'm a capitalist, you stupid fuck - exactly what did you expect? Did you think I'd roll over and say "oooh, you're so right! Money is eeeeevvil!". Good god, kid, with that attitude you'll starve as soon as you leave the bosom of college - or your parents basement, whichever it happens to be.
Libertarian thinking mirrors old-world conservative in a number of ways. However, libertarians apply the "mind your own business" ethic on social issues as well, unless it can be clearly proven that the social issues in question absolutely *require* government interference. Unjustified homocide, for example, is an excellent example of required government interference since the alternatives available are far less likely to result in a more perfect form of justice - and nearly all of us agree that unjustified homocide can't be tolerated by any civilized society. In fact, those who think unjustified homocide *shouldn't* be punished are usually classified as insane, and for good reason.
Abortion, on the other hand, is an extremely contentious issue on all fronts. Even if one could get all parties to agree that human life starts at conception, the banning of abortion requires a very unlibertarian approach to enforcing that edict. It absolutely requires that people be forced at gunpoint to give up certain rights - inalienable rights, in the traditional libertarian view - to uphold the ban. Not to mention granting the power to government to abrogate those rights in the first place, or the fact that the burden is placed entirely upon a single, select class of citizens: women. The solution to the problem, assuming you could get such broad agreement (something that just isn't going to happen, if history is any indication) is in many respects worse than the problem itself. It rather demands that you give up a strict libertarian approach altogether since you'll be violating the very tenets of libertarianism to enforce the ban.
The foundation of libertarianism requires that you *don't* make exceptions to satisfy your personal expectations of 'how the world should be'. If everyone did that we'd be right back where we started and libertarianism would be nothing more than an amusing historical footnote. A libertarian against abortion wouldn't propose using government-sanctioned violence, or the threat thereof, to enforce a ban; instead, he would try to convince people of the immorality of the act, or provide viable alternatives to that act (e.g., adoption agencies). A libertarian might think that abortion is wrong, but would never sanction the use of government power to impose this view on others.
A traditional conservative, on the other hand, would grant exceptions based on personal moral preferences. This *can* work, but only if just about everyone agrees what those exceptions are, and strictly limits government power to those few areas in which exceptions are thought to be necessary. Unfortunately this isn't even remotely possible in a nation as large or diverse as the U.S., where any exception just encourages every disparate power group in the land to demand that *their* exceptions also be granted, and everyone ends up falling all over themselves to give up rights and grant government nearly unlimited power so long as they get some special thing that they want.
Which pretty much seems to be the case these days, where citizens aren't even granted the power to decide whether or not they're going to wear a seatbelt when they drive their car to the store.
Both libertarians - small 'l', not big 'L' - and traditional conversatives are very much in the minority in the modern U.S. We're quite a bit alike, except on a certain few, key issues - and there I doubt we could ever come to a reasonable agreement. However, I suspect that a U.S. based upon the principles common to both groups, where our greatest political debate raged over these particular differences, would enjoy greater freedom and liberty than at any time in our history since the ink dried on the Constitution.
Note that this doesn't mean that I agree with you on abortion. So far as I'm concerned what a woman does about her pregnancy isn't my business or concern (basic libertarian view), and she's the one that has to live with the consequences of her decision, not me. I do have qualms about abortions past the second trimester, but I won't try to legislate my personal distate and misgivings into law.
But you -- unwillingly through being misguided -- are aiding them.
I don't agree with current copyright laws and would be more than willing to return to the 14+14 system originally established by the founders. In no way am I 'aiding' anyone, regardless of what delusion you suffer from in this matter. This isn't an "if you're not with me you're against me" matter.
You got a problem right there.
Yeah. I like to eat, and I don't work for free. Neither do you, unless you're a trust fund baby. In which case it isn't your place to comment.
Literary texts are simply not widgets you can manufacture at a profit.
Copyright and patent exist for good reasons. Just because current law is twisted beyond belief doesn't make the laws, or the ideas behind them, invalid.
Writers, artists and musicians aren't your serfs, intellectual or otherwise; if you want what we've got you have to pay for it. Copyright is the only reasonable way to ensure payment. Don't like it? Then don't buy our stuff - it's that simple. But you don't have any 'right' to what we produce, simply because it isn't a unique or hard-to-produce "widget".
If you'd like to lump "facilitate the near-free distribution of valuable works by long-dead people that can benefit the public at large" into "the general Welfare"
No need. Copyright and patent are directly addressed within the Constitution itself. Specifically:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Note that the clause clearly addresses "limited times" and applies only directly to "authors and inventors". Not their children, grandchildren, corporate holders, or musicians who, several hundred years after the fact, might like to make a buck off some dead guy's composition.
While I agree with you for the most part, as a published author I don't consider myself a "corporatist" attempting to "profit from the body of knowledge accumulated by past generations." I'd say I'm closer to a guy trying to make a buck off the stuff he writes.
On the other hand, what kind of "old-world conservative" is for across the board decriminalization of substances, the decriminalization of prostitution, and reducing the size of the standing army with an eye to dissolving it altogether?
That's exactly the sort of thing that old-world conservatives argued for. Minimal government and non-interference in the personal lives of the citizenry. The modern-day conservative isn't really a conservative, and hasn't been since World War 2; the label for the right-wing is as much a misnomer as 'liberal' is one for the left-wing.
In fact, both groups have very little to do with either of their ostensible labels and seem far more interested in imposing their own peculiar views on everyone else through the use of government force. They're pretty much the same animal, just sporting different stripes. So far as I can see they both want to impose a totalitarianism on the rest of the populace, so long as *they* get to define how that totalitarianism will operate.
The views you expressed are spot-on for old-world conservatives - REAL conservatives, a very rare breed in the United States. Very much in line with libertarians on most issues, not so much on a few key points. You probably would've gotten along famously with our founding fathers.
So it would be evil and anti-libertarian to criminalize me shooting you because I don't like your ideas?
Strawman. The argument was about abortion, not murder. The two are not one and the same, no matter what absurd arguments the loony-toon fundies make.
It must be nice for you to have such a cut-and-dried world view.
It's cut-and-dried in this instance because it's so plainly obvious. Libertarianism isn't something you can 'pick and choose from'; either you are or you aren't. Doesn't mean that you can't AGREE with libertarians on certain issues, but that agreement doesn't in and of itself make you one of that group.
What you are appears to be pretty much a stock, old-world conservative. Not neocon, but conservative in the truest sense of the word. You are NOT, however, a libertarian any more than I'm a modern-day liberal.
Max
Re:Reading, writing, & arithmetic through six
on
Improving Education?
·
· Score: 1
I really do not think that the answer is to reward the slackers by giving up on them.
You don't get to decide who the "slackers" are, or what constitutes - in your mind - this obviously deficient human being. Time to rid yourself of the delusion that you know better what these folks should learn than they themselves do.
I see a number of responses arguing against homeschooling from the angle of socalization.
And there is not a single credible piece of empirical evidence, published in an accredited peer-reviewed journal, which links homeschooling with 'poor social skills', however you happen to define something so nebulous. Not one. No person has ever managed back that claim up with actual facts.
The 'socialization' argument is a piece of propaganda used to knock home schooling in a way so vague that it's difficult to definitely prove that the speaker is full of shit. A speaker who usually has either a stake in public schooling or who has children but is too lazy and self-centered to put the welfare of their kids ahead of their own transitory desires.
Second, stop treating them like helpless, esteem-craving babies.
The fact that they aren't considered to be adults,and are barred from many real-world adult activities until they turn 18, turns them into 'teenagers' in the first place. They *are* helpless because the law says that they are in so many ways; trying to alter this perception in one very small slice of life (e.g., school) won't do dick. It's completely and utterly irrational to demand adult behavior from them and then turn around and bar them from adult activities - because they aren't adults.
Kids know this. They aren't stupid. Why should they give when the relationship is entirely one-sided?
Demand high performance and if they don't meet it, than they need to work harder.
I'll agree with this when you demand equally high performance and qualifications from teachers. As a former teacher myself I can say with good authority that many - perhaps a majority - of those who teach are kids aren't up to even the minimal standards for the job. Why should we expect high performance from our kids when so many of their teachers are blithering idiots?
A fan of double-standards I am not.
School is where you get an education, not job training.
And that's part of the problem, in my opinion. Schooling is *mandatory*; as such, and because it relies upon the forced taxation of citizens, it should provide direct value. Failure to do so is a waste of taxes and time.
The dereanged idea that it has to have meaning, relevance, etc., or it is worthless is ruining schools.
No, what's deranged is that some asshole with a degree in 'education' gets to decide what useless schlock my tax dollars are going to be spent on in the schools. And if I object, said asshole will simply imply that I'm too low-brow to see the 'value' in the tripe he wants to push on *everyone's* kids, not just his own.
as for technology, you're right. get computers out of schools completely.
This isn't a problem with computers. Computers are tools, and probably the most important tool that the kids will ever use. The computers are used incorrectly because most teachers are simply too lazy or too stuck in their ways to adapt to changing technology.
Slashdot Mirror
This OTT political correctness/quota balancing act in lots of workplaces is just dumb.
On the other hand, there's no evidence whatsoever that men are more capable than women when it comes to programming or support. And it's fairly ludicrous to assume that women don't get into the field because they just don't feel like it. So we have to ask: what exactly is keeping a field where men have no inherent advantage whatsoever a primarily male-dominated industry?
My guess - based on more than 20 years of purely anecdotal evidence - is that it has something to do with the rampant immaturity and mysogynism of a significant minority of the males who choose some sort of computer work for a profession. And while in those more-than-20-years I've seen a marked improvement in a number of other professions, the same can't be said when it comes to the computer industry. It's still the refuge of an alarming number of childish little brats who hate and fear women, and have no problem whatsoever making any woman who 'invades' their turf feel unwelcome.
But again, that's all anecdotal. It could just be that all the IS departments I've been exposed to during various contracts were just unusual exceptions. And it could also be that I'm going to win the lottery tomorrow, after being struck by lightning - twice.
Max
but there are signs clearly alerting any wanderer that they may want to pass on without stopping for long.
I have signs as well. They say: "Trespassers will be shot without warning." They've proven to be *much* more effective than the standard "No Trespassing" sign.
Max
If that happens to be on your lawn, you do not have the right to remove them forcibly, otherwise you are assaulting them.
That might be true in the People's Republic of California, but it isn't true where I live. Stepping onto somebody's property ininvited is called 'trespass', as is refusing to leave when told to. It is perfectly acceptable to use force to remove them from the property if they refuse to do so on their own. Shooting them might be a bit extreme, but taking a hose and washing them down won't get you into trouble. If they're too stupid to leave when told to get the fuck off your property, they deserve what they get.
Property rights are given to you by the government
No, they aren't. Property rights are inherent; governments exist to help you enforce your natural rights against assholes who believe they can violate them at will, not to 'grant' to you what's already yours. In any free society the government is a servant bound to protect the individual; it isn't the lord and master dispensing favors to the chosen.
As another example, if you walk onto my lawn with metal spikes in the ground, you can and probably would sue me.
In my state if you walk onto my property and put your foot into a bear trap I've left out (for the purpose of taking out an annoying bear, of course), it's your own damned fault. If you didn't want to get injured you shouldn't have trespassed. Here we have this idea of 'taking responsibility for one's actions, especially the stupid ones', although it seems to be rapidly going out of vogue.
But that's the world you get when you let a bunch of sniveling, socialist pussies seize power. Everything belongs to them, and whatever scraps they deem to dispense to you are 'favors' that you're supposed to be eternally grateful for....
Max
Regardless of what you or I think about a country's laws on say Nazi memorabilia (for they have their own very personal reasons for it I'm sure), they have the right to have those laws, and an international organization might help them enforce it on their citizens without stomping on the rights of other countries citizens.
And it's incumbent on them to filter the internet on their own, and at their own cost. The Chinese have proven that it can be done, so the nations of the world (and this includes the pansies who throw a hissy fit over something like Nazi memorabilia, or 'hate speech') have no reason to complain that THEIR laws aren't being implemented by OTHER countries, whether individually or through the U.N. If it really bothers them that much they can always ban internet access within their borders.
The only ways they could 'stomp' on the rights of the citizens of other countries is if these countries cede enough power to them to do the job. So long as things remain as they are the French, for example, will never be able to tell anyone outside of the borders of France what they can or cannot sell.
It's not like we're asking each country in the world to vote on standards of censorship for the entire world, we're asking the body that assigns IP addresses to be of shared governorship with all internet users, rather than a subset.
As it stands the system works fine and no one other than the U.S. government is CAPABLE of abusing it. And in this instance (perhaps surprisingly) the U.S. government has given no indication whatsoever that it plans to abuse the system, nor has it done so in the past. A change such as the one you're describing will invite someone, somewhere, to find a way to abuse it simply because they can.
We're talking about government, after all. And not just one government, but all the governments of the world - the vast majority of which don't value free speech as much as the United States does. You can naively assume that the U.N. will do a bangup job if you like, but I'll stick with the tried-and-true because I see absolutely no reason to change something that works when the alternative isn't going to be any better, and has the potential to be far worse.
Max
RMS has never understand that the right to free speech is NOT the right to force others to listen to your bullshit. But he isn't alone in that; we're surrounded by people who believe the very same thing and refuse to accept a world where anyone not interested in what you have to say can simply walk away.
Or, if you're on their property, tell you to either shut the fuck up or leave.
Max
Why should they have an organization they did not elect setting the rules for them?
You're right - why should they? I see no benefit in allowing an outside authority to dictate terms to the citizens of your nation. Especially when you're currently the most powerful nation in all of human history.
but I respect the fact that in a democracy, they have a right to speak just as I.
The problem with your analogy is that people do, indeed, have a right to vote in the United States. They DO NOT have a right to vote in these dictatorships. So how exactly do these governments represent the interests of their citizens? And even if they did, really - do I want a bunch of fucking religious fanatics dictating what can and cannot be allowed on the internet? Do I want some bunch of uptight pricks in Europe to have the authority to ban certain kinds of free speech, or tell people that they can't sell or trade Nazi memorabilia? Do I want the CHINESE to be able to decide what's allowable and what's not? My answer would be a clear "fuck that, and fuck the horse it rode in on".
Democracy in and of itself is nothing more than mob rule. Democracy has to be bounded by inalienable rights to be of any real value.
In any event, it isn't the business of the U.N. to dictate how other nations should conduct their affairs regardless of how the organization is currently being used. Any step towards one-world government is the most hideously bad idea since the Germans thought it'd be a good idea to hand over power to the National Socialists.
Max
You want the internet under the DEMOCRATIC control of the U.N., where more than one-half of the world's population lives under the thumb of brutal dictators? Fucking great idea, that.
Max
...an international body which has NO membership requirements setting the rules for the rest of us - including the citizens of my own country, which no organization should have authority over except for the one which I elected.
How am I supposed to respect a body which not only allows more than 80 brutal dictatorships world-wide to join it's ranks, but to VOTE on what that body should and should not do? Perhaps if the U.N. had a stringent set of rules defining who could and could not join I'd take it more seriously, but as is I won't even give it the time of day.
Max
The US government should be overthrown through violence
It's perfectly legal to discuss the violent overthrow of the United States, at least within the United States. What you can't do is conspire to actually bring this state of affairs about.
For a popular example, Penn and Teller did just that on a recent episode of Bullshit! and so far as I'm aware, they aren't being charged with any crime, or even being investigated.
Max
Europeans are trying to work out a solution WITH YOU, for YOUR convenience.
Smoke a lot of crack, do you? The system works JUST FINE RIGHT NOW, and if it ain't broke don't fix it. So far no one has bothered to explain WHY things should be changed when they're working just fine as they are.
Max
It clearly shows that you have no idea what it means to live in a democracy
You mean dictatorship by mob rule? Yeah, democracy is a really great idea...if you're one of the mob. No, I'll pass on democracy, thanks. A republic sharply bounded by an overriding constitution works just fine for me.
Max
Amen to that, and my reservations extend to a number of European nations as well. Can you imagine the changes that'd be made if the 'hate speech' laws of many European nations were instituted as an internet standard? Sell Nazi memorabilia in the U.S. (legal there) and the U.N. committee controlling the internet revokes your domain name, fines you, and bans you from getting a new domain for the next ten years.
And this is mild compared to the 'standards' that would be championed by the lunatics in the Middle East, or China.
No thanks. I'll take the current system over whatever evil the U.N. might to do it any day of the week. As much as I distrust, and often despise, my own government, it's proven itself more than capable of doing the job without trampling all over the rights of individual users.
Max
Clearly there's no point in arguing with an arrogant, elitist pseudo-intellectual such as yourself. But I'm comforted by the fact that you're completely and utterly powerless to force your bizarre world-view on the rest of us. It heartens me to know that no matter how much blather you egomaniacly vomit up, in the end you're just another impotent troll.
Max
Here come the Microsofties, ready to tell us why Windows rules and Linux sucks. Some are obvious, others try to snow us with 'reasoned' arguments (read: vague bullshit), yet others still gift us with their own anecdotal disaster stories and how their inability to handle a simple install means that Linux *has* to suck. Because they couldn't possibly be as stupid as they appear to be, of course.
I've been using Linux for years, as has my wife. We settled with SuSE because it's even easier to install than Win2000/XP, regardless of what a few brain-dead MS-lovers have to say about it. Since I'm no longer programming and haven't been for some time (and my wife never has) I don't want to dick around with a system - I just want it to work, period. The computer is just a tool to me now and I have no interest whatsoever in doing anything beyond the minimum required to get it to function. SuSE is perfect for this and has never failed me, which is something I can't even come close to saying about Windows (any version).
But here's the real nail in the coffin of the Microsofties: when I taught computers for middle school students 11-year-olds had *absolutely no problem whatsoever* mastering Linux on the desktop. They easily adapted to it, and ended up prefering it to Windows. If my passle of ordinary 11-year-olds can install (yes, they had to install it themselves) and learn to use Linux without a hitch, I have to wonder just how much brain damage these Windows 'power users' must have suffered to make them incapable of accomplishing something any curious pre-pubescent could do.
Max
We all like to eat but that does not entitle us to demand that we get paid for things we arbitrarily deem we are entitled for.
It isn't arbitrary. I'm the absolute owner of the product of my mind. You have *no* right to that product whatsoever. Via contract (in this case administered by the government) I'm granting you the benefits of that product assuming you want it and are willing to pay the price I demand. If you don't like the price you're always free to refuse to pay it.
It's really that simple.
Writing is something you can only live on if you convince someone to sponsor you, assuming that what you write is useful for society.
What's the color of the sky on your planet? Tell that to King or Grisham or Rawlings, why don't you?
By suggesting -- no demanding -- that you get paid for the smell of your farts, you are only making yourself appear greedy, egoistical and foolish.
I'm a capitalist, not some stupid little college prick enamored with "The Communist Manifesto". And yes, I do indeed demand that if you want something I have that you pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it then again, you're entirely free not to purchase it.
Again the error in your thinking is that artists are making art for money.
Jesus Christ, junior, get over yourself already. Except for a few deluded souls we do what we do both because we enjoy it AND because we like money. Just like everyone else in the bloody world. Only egotistical little pricks go bitch and moan about the 'purity of art' think otherwise, and the rest of us agree they're nothing more than sanctimonious shits.
The moment I meet an "artist" who made his "art" for profit, I dont want any, thank you very much.
That would be 99.9% of us. And I certainly won't lose any sleep if you choose not to purchase the product of my mind. That's your choice, just as it's mine to demand compensation for it.
I skipped all of the strawmen. Save that for your pals in "Why Everything I Want Should Be Free 101".
If you do not want me to have it, don't publish it.
Apparently you're either a blithering idiot or a sociopath. Try looking up the term 'social contract' and wrapping your tiny little mind around the concept, if you can.
you do so knowingly and purely out of greed
I'm a capitalist, you stupid fuck - exactly what did you expect? Did you think I'd roll over and say "oooh, you're so right! Money is eeeeevvil!". Good god, kid, with that attitude you'll starve as soon as you leave the bosom of college - or your parents basement, whichever it happens to be.
Max
Libertarian thinking mirrors old-world conservative in a number of ways. However, libertarians apply the "mind your own business" ethic on social issues as well, unless it can be clearly proven that the social issues in question absolutely *require* government interference. Unjustified homocide, for example, is an excellent example of required government interference since the alternatives available are far less likely to result in a more perfect form of justice - and nearly all of us agree that unjustified homocide can't be tolerated by any civilized society. In fact, those who think unjustified homocide *shouldn't* be punished are usually classified as insane, and for good reason.
Abortion, on the other hand, is an extremely contentious issue on all fronts. Even if one could get all parties to agree that human life starts at conception, the banning of abortion requires a very unlibertarian approach to enforcing that edict. It absolutely requires that people be forced at gunpoint to give up certain rights - inalienable rights, in the traditional libertarian view - to uphold the ban. Not to mention granting the power to government to abrogate those rights in the first place, or the fact that the burden is placed entirely upon a single, select class of citizens: women. The solution to the problem, assuming you could get such broad agreement (something that just isn't going to happen, if history is any indication) is in many respects worse than the problem itself. It rather demands that you give up a strict libertarian approach altogether since you'll be violating the very tenets of libertarianism to enforce the ban.
The foundation of libertarianism requires that you *don't* make exceptions to satisfy your personal expectations of 'how the world should be'. If everyone did that we'd be right back where we started and libertarianism would be nothing more than an amusing historical footnote. A libertarian against abortion wouldn't propose using government-sanctioned violence, or the threat thereof, to enforce a ban; instead, he would try to convince people of the immorality of the act, or provide viable alternatives to that act (e.g., adoption agencies). A libertarian might think that abortion is wrong, but would never sanction the use of government power to impose this view on others.
A traditional conservative, on the other hand, would grant exceptions based on personal moral preferences. This *can* work, but only if just about everyone agrees what those exceptions are, and strictly limits government power to those few areas in which exceptions are thought to be necessary. Unfortunately this isn't even remotely possible in a nation as large or diverse as the U.S., where any exception just encourages every disparate power group in the land to demand that *their* exceptions also be granted, and everyone ends up falling all over themselves to give up rights and grant government nearly unlimited power so long as they get some special thing that they want.
Which pretty much seems to be the case these days, where citizens aren't even granted the power to decide whether or not they're going to wear a seatbelt when they drive their car to the store.
Both libertarians - small 'l', not big 'L' - and traditional conversatives are very much in the minority in the modern U.S. We're quite a bit alike, except on a certain few, key issues - and there I doubt we could ever come to a reasonable agreement. However, I suspect that a U.S. based upon the principles common to both groups, where our greatest political debate raged over these particular differences, would enjoy greater freedom and liberty than at any time in our history since the ink dried on the Constitution.
Note that this doesn't mean that I agree with you on abortion. So far as I'm concerned what a woman does about her pregnancy isn't my business or concern (basic libertarian view), and she's the one that has to live with the consequences of her decision, not me. I do have qualms about abortions past the second trimester, but I won't try to legislate my personal distate and misgivings into law.
Max
But you -- unwillingly through being misguided -- are aiding them.
I don't agree with current copyright laws and would be more than willing to return to the 14+14 system originally established by the founders. In no way am I 'aiding' anyone, regardless of what delusion you suffer from in this matter. This isn't an "if you're not with me you're against me" matter.
You got a problem right there.
Yeah. I like to eat, and I don't work for free. Neither do you, unless you're a trust fund baby. In which case it isn't your place to comment.
Literary texts are simply not widgets you can manufacture at a profit.
Copyright and patent exist for good reasons. Just because current law is twisted beyond belief doesn't make the laws, or the ideas behind them, invalid.
Writers, artists and musicians aren't your serfs, intellectual or otherwise; if you want what we've got you have to pay for it. Copyright is the only reasonable way to ensure payment. Don't like it? Then don't buy our stuff - it's that simple. But you don't have any 'right' to what we produce, simply because it isn't a unique or hard-to-produce "widget".
Max
If you'd like to lump "facilitate the near-free distribution of valuable works by long-dead people that can benefit the public at large" into "the general Welfare"
No need. Copyright and patent are directly addressed within the Constitution itself. Specifically:
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"
Note that the clause clearly addresses "limited times" and applies only directly to "authors and inventors". Not their children, grandchildren, corporate holders, or musicians who, several hundred years after the fact, might like to make a buck off some dead guy's composition.
Max
What suits you in the United States may not suit other people who live in more mature nations.
I believe you meant to say "more ossified and less adaptable nations."
Max
While I agree with you for the most part, as a published author I don't consider myself a "corporatist" attempting to "profit from the body of knowledge accumulated by past generations." I'd say I'm closer to a guy trying to make a buck off the stuff he writes.
Max
On the other hand, what kind of "old-world conservative" is for across the board decriminalization of substances, the decriminalization of prostitution, and reducing the size of the standing army with an eye to dissolving it altogether?
That's exactly the sort of thing that old-world conservatives argued for. Minimal government and non-interference in the personal lives of the citizenry. The modern-day conservative isn't really a conservative, and hasn't been since World War 2; the label for the right-wing is as much a misnomer as 'liberal' is one for the left-wing.
In fact, both groups have very little to do with either of their ostensible labels and seem far more interested in imposing their own peculiar views on everyone else through the use of government force. They're pretty much the same animal, just sporting different stripes. So far as I can see they both want to impose a totalitarianism on the rest of the populace, so long as *they* get to define how that totalitarianism will operate.
The views you expressed are spot-on for old-world conservatives - REAL conservatives, a very rare breed in the United States. Very much in line with libertarians on most issues, not so much on a few key points. You probably would've gotten along famously with our founding fathers.
Max
So it would be evil and anti-libertarian to criminalize me shooting you because I don't like your ideas?
Strawman. The argument was about abortion, not murder. The two are not one and the same, no matter what absurd arguments the loony-toon fundies make.
It must be nice for you to have such a cut-and-dried world view.
It's cut-and-dried in this instance because it's so plainly obvious. Libertarianism isn't something you can 'pick and choose from'; either you are or you aren't. Doesn't mean that you can't AGREE with libertarians on certain issues, but that agreement doesn't in and of itself make you one of that group.
What you are appears to be pretty much a stock, old-world conservative. Not neocon, but conservative in the truest sense of the word. You are NOT, however, a libertarian any more than I'm a modern-day liberal.
Max
I really do not think that the answer is to reward the slackers by giving up on them.
You don't get to decide who the "slackers" are, or what constitutes - in your mind - this obviously deficient human being. Time to rid yourself of the delusion that you know better what these folks should learn than they themselves do.
Max
I see a number of responses arguing against homeschooling from the angle of socalization.
And there is not a single credible piece of empirical evidence, published in an accredited peer-reviewed journal, which links homeschooling with 'poor social skills', however you happen to define something so nebulous. Not one. No person has ever managed back that claim up with actual facts.
The 'socialization' argument is a piece of propaganda used to knock home schooling in a way so vague that it's difficult to definitely prove that the speaker is full of shit. A speaker who usually has either a stake in public schooling or who has children but is too lazy and self-centered to put the welfare of their kids ahead of their own transitory desires.
Max
Second, stop treating them like helpless, esteem-craving babies.
The fact that they aren't considered to be adults,and are barred from many real-world adult activities until they turn 18, turns them into 'teenagers' in the first place. They *are* helpless because the law says that they are in so many ways; trying to alter this perception in one very small slice of life (e.g., school) won't do dick. It's completely and utterly irrational to demand adult behavior from them and then turn around and bar them from adult activities - because they aren't adults.
Kids know this. They aren't stupid. Why should they give when the relationship is entirely one-sided?
Demand high performance and if they don't meet it, than they need to work harder.
I'll agree with this when you demand equally high performance and qualifications from teachers. As a former teacher myself I can say with good authority that many - perhaps a majority - of those who teach are kids aren't up to even the minimal standards for the job. Why should we expect high performance from our kids when so many of their teachers are blithering idiots?
A fan of double-standards I am not.
School is where you get an education, not job training.
And that's part of the problem, in my opinion. Schooling is *mandatory*; as such, and because it relies upon the forced taxation of citizens, it should provide direct value. Failure to do so is a waste of taxes and time.
The dereanged idea that it has to have meaning, relevance, etc., or it is worthless is ruining schools.
No, what's deranged is that some asshole with a degree in 'education' gets to decide what useless schlock my tax dollars are going to be spent on in the schools. And if I object, said asshole will simply imply that I'm too low-brow to see the 'value' in the tripe he wants to push on *everyone's* kids, not just his own.
as for technology, you're right. get computers out of schools completely.
This isn't a problem with computers. Computers are tools, and probably the most important tool that the kids will ever use. The computers are used incorrectly because most teachers are simply too lazy or too stuck in their ways to adapt to changing technology.
Max