But they don't get to use any services that they do not pay for.
A child cannot afford to pay for anything. Should children whose parents die starve to death?
A child would have a guardian. Adults are responsible for children, not feeding them would be tantamount to abusing them. If a child has no parents then someone would adopt that child. There are a lot of people out there that would be willing to do this.
Would you let a child starve? I wouldn't. Freedom is about caring for other people around us, and acting to help them. Not because we are forced to but because it's the right thing to do.
Other funding mechanisms include charity and user charges.
But everybody is a "user" of being protected from other people, and now we're right back to taxes.
I would help to fund a police force that protects my neighbour even though my neighbour would not. It's in my best interests to do so.
I don't think the state should protect people from themselves or from nature. That's what the community is for, via voluntary means.
So what should a community do with people who refuse to participate? Consider carefully how you choose your answer to this question; otherwise, you're right back to government services.
So long as those people are not harming other people then they get left alone. But they don't get to use any services that they do not pay for.
There are other ways of raising funds without resorting to extortion. Donations and lotteries come to mind.
A lottery is a tax on being bad at math. Where does law enforcement get its funding once people become no longer bad at math?
A lottery is not a tax when partaking is voluntary. Other funding mechanisms include charity and user charges.
You're missing the fact that in order to prevent one citizen from using force or fraud against another citizen, the state must use force and fraud against all citizens.
As for force, in this imperfect system of things, it is impossible to reduce total force and fraud to zero. The job of a tax-funded police force is to minimize the use of force. The job of a lot of other tax-funded services is to minimize situations that lead to poverty because desperation to survive is itself known to lead to the use of force. As for fraud, the laws are on the books for all to see. Please explain what you meant by government use of fraud against citizens.
I don't think the state should protect people from themselves or from nature. That's what the community is for, via voluntary means. The state should only protect people from other people.
I consider forcing someone to hand over their money using a threat of force to be a form of fraud. It may not be the best use of the word, but either way it's unethical and should be illegal.
It's hardly a country that loves freedom if it regulates people's personal lives like this.
Balderdash. Anyone can live with whomever he wants and can make whatever kind of promises or agreements he wants with whomever he wants. The government not giving a slip of paper endorsing or verifying their private decisions is not a form of regulating their personal lives--it's the opposite! It's refusing to be involved in it! How much more freedom do you require than lack of involvement?
Then why all this fuss about gay marriage? Why is bigamy illegal? Laws that criminalise those things restrict personal liberties.
And yet those taxes are still there. How can the US be pro freedom if it actively harms people by confiscating property off them using a threat of force?
You're being silly. Every nation in the world has taxes, and no nation could exist with zero taxes. Taxes have been around as long as death. Your argument is preposterous and irrational.
Just because all nations have taxation does not mean that it is impossible for a nation to exist without it. Just because taxation has been around for a long time doesn't mean it's not an infringement on our liberties.
I can't - but that doesn't mean (in any way at all) that the US is the bastian[sic] of freedom. It's not. Your government removes and dilutes your freedoms far too much.
All governments do--that's their basic function. Only by the vigilance of its citizens does a nation preserve its liberty.
The basic function of government should be to protect people from harm. They shouldn't be the ones doing the harming.
Thankfully, our basic rights which allow us to be vigilant are enshrined in our founding documents, a claim which few nations can make.
Is the US perfect? Hardly. Is it getting worse? Perhaps. Is there any freer nation? No.
But, hey, bashing America is easy and popular, so why not join the mob?
I'm not bashing the USA. I'm bashing all countries that dilute the freedoms of its citizens. (Which is all countries). Some are much better than others.
It's hardly a country that loves freedom if it regulates people's personal lives like this.
It's a federal country. You have the freedom to leave a state that doesn't respect your freedom for one that does.
So you're saying that the US is pro-freedom, except for when it's not and in those cases you can go and live somewhere else?
How can the US be pro freedom if it actively harms people by confiscating property off them using a threat of force?
Without taxation, there is no way to fund a court or police force.
There are other ways of raising funds without resorting to extortion. Donations and lotteries come to mind.
Without those, there is no way to enforce the laws against a private citizen using force or fraud to coerce another private citizen. Or what am I missing?
You're missing the fact that in order to prevent one citizen from using force or fraud against another citizen, the state must use force and fraud against all citizens.
If their goal is to protect people from the initiation of force then they lost immediately when they fund it via compulsory means.
There are many places in America where gays can marry, and more states are considering it. We are moving in the right direction.
It's hardly a country that loves freedom if it regulates people's personal lives like this.
Want to earn a living without the state confiscating some of it from you.
American taxes are among the developed world's lowest.
And yet those taxes are still there. How can the US be pro freedom if it actively harms people by confiscating property off them using a threat of force?
None of that indicates the US is pro-freedom.
Would you care to name someplace better?
I can't - but that doesn't mean (in any way at all) that the US is the bastian of freedom. It's not. Your government removes and dilutes your freedoms far too much.
The whole point of certificates and SSL is to protect communications between the browser and the web server. It's not "to protect communications from everyone except the government". It's to protect it from EVERYONE - including (and sometimes especially) the government.
What you call "wealth confiscation" is known to the rest of the world as "taxes". We can argue about the merits of particular taxes or the appropriate level of taxation. However most people understand that taxes are the price of civilization in the modern world.
There is nothing civilised about compelling people to hand over the fruits of their labour using a threat of force.
You would presumably have us return to world of Babylon and Sumer. Well that ship has sailed and no one is listening to your propaganda.
I would have us live in a society that has systems in place to protect each other from harm. You may not define theft as harm - I do.
The US government shouldn't be using wealth it confiscates from its citizens for things like this.
If you want space exploration to be funded, then get your checkbook out. Convince others to do the same. But don't expect people who do not want to (or cannot afford to) to fund your hobby horse.
It doesn't apply to everyone. Slashdot know our time zone (it's in our preferences). It would not be too difficult for them to only apply the April Fool's silliness for those that are still at April the 1st.
Porn isn't "freedom of speech". "Speech" implies that words are communicated. Speech is important for political communication, for discussing ideas, for rational thinking, for debating. Porn isn't.
RMS wants software to be free, but is happy for people to be enslaved by the state. That's a massive contradiction. I would have thought his philosophy on software is very much aligned with libertarianism, yet his political discussions suggest otherwise.
How can you want software to be free and not people?
Considering that software and people are two very different things, I fail to see the contradiction. Are you suggesting that one who supports freedom must always support any form of freedom?
I find it odd that someone wants a tool that people use to be free (as in speech), but not for those people themselves to be free.
Should termites be free? How about viruses? How about serial killers?
btw, RMS's stance on software is anything but libertarian. If you want to relate it to politics, I'd compare it to communism. Not Chinese or Russian communism, but more of the Marxist ideal. A lack of ownership, communal collaboration that anyone can take advantage of.
I consider RMS's stance on software to be libertarian in the sense that people respect the rights of others. A facet of communism is one where there is a controller (the state). This is more akin to proprietary software. "Free" software has no controller and hence isn't particularly communist.
'Free' is a complicated word and doesn't necessitate libertarianism. A libertarian would claim that ownership is a right, a freedom we enjoy. I don't know if RMS would agree with that. I'm pretty sure he thinks that information should be free...
This comes down to the concept of intellectual property. As a libertarian I don't agree with the concept of intellectual property. I don't think the state should be able to grant an inventor a monopoly over the use of his/her inventions. Many disagree with me on this, and many libertarians think intellectual property is needed. I see intellectual property as a limitation of our freedoms. To me, wanting information to be free is libertarian, not Marxist.
...but people should be restricted by laws that say you can't murder or steal and stuff like that. When people advocate freedom, they tend to be advocating the freedom to do the things they specifically want to do. Not even the libertarian advocates anarchy, which is freedom taken most literally.
'Free' is a fun term for philosophers because it can be turned on its head in all sorts of different ways.
Yes, indeed it is. And for every 10 people you'll have 10 different opinions. I think that freeing people is *far* more important than freeing software.
RMS wants software to be free, but is happy for people to be enslaved by the state. That's a massive contradiction. I would have thought his philosophy on software is very much aligned with libertarianism, yet his political discussions suggest otherwise.
How can you want software to be free and not people?
Slashdot Mirror
But they don't get to use any services that they do not pay for.
A child cannot afford to pay for anything. Should children whose parents die starve to death?
A child would have a guardian. Adults are responsible for children, not feeding them would be tantamount to abusing them. If a child has no parents then someone would adopt that child. There are a lot of people out there that would be willing to do this.
Would you let a child starve? I wouldn't. Freedom is about caring for other people around us, and acting to help them. Not because we are forced to but because it's the right thing to do.
Other funding mechanisms include charity and user charges.
But everybody is a "user" of being protected from other people, and now we're right back to taxes.
I would help to fund a police force that protects my neighbour even though my neighbour would not. It's in my best interests to do so.
I don't think the state should protect people from themselves or from nature. That's what the community is for, via voluntary means.
So what should a community do with people who refuse to participate? Consider carefully how you choose your answer to this question; otherwise, you're right back to government services.
So long as those people are not harming other people then they get left alone. But they don't get to use any services that they do not pay for.
There are other ways of raising funds without resorting to extortion. Donations and lotteries come to mind.
A lottery is a tax on being bad at math. Where does law enforcement get its funding once people become no longer bad at math?
A lottery is not a tax when partaking is voluntary. Other funding mechanisms include charity and user charges.
You're missing the fact that in order to prevent one citizen from using force or fraud against another citizen, the state must use force and fraud against all citizens.
As for force, in this imperfect system of things, it is impossible to reduce total force and fraud to zero. The job of a tax-funded police force is to minimize the use of force. The job of a lot of other tax-funded services is to minimize situations that lead to poverty because desperation to survive is itself known to lead to the use of force. As for fraud, the laws are on the books for all to see. Please explain what you meant by government use of fraud against citizens.
I don't think the state should protect people from themselves or from nature. That's what the community is for, via voluntary means. The state should only protect people from other people.
I consider forcing someone to hand over their money using a threat of force to be a form of fraud. It may not be the best use of the word, but either way it's unethical and should be illegal.
It's hardly a country that loves freedom if it regulates people's personal lives like this.
Balderdash. Anyone can live with whomever he wants and can make whatever kind of promises or agreements he wants with whomever he wants. The government not giving a slip of paper endorsing or verifying their private decisions is not a form of regulating their personal lives--it's the opposite! It's refusing to be involved in it! How much more freedom do you require than lack of involvement?
Then why all this fuss about gay marriage? Why is bigamy illegal? Laws that criminalise those things restrict personal liberties.
And yet those taxes are still there. How can the US be pro freedom if it actively harms people by confiscating property off them using a threat of force?
You're being silly. Every nation in the world has taxes, and no nation could exist with zero taxes. Taxes have been around as long as death. Your argument is preposterous and irrational.
Just because all nations have taxation does not mean that it is impossible for a nation to exist without it. Just because taxation has been around for a long time doesn't mean it's not an infringement on our liberties.
I can't - but that doesn't mean (in any way at all) that the US is the bastian[sic] of freedom. It's not. Your government removes and dilutes your freedoms far too much.
All governments do--that's their basic function. Only by the vigilance of its citizens does a nation preserve its liberty.
The basic function of government should be to protect people from harm. They shouldn't be the ones doing the harming.
Thankfully, our basic rights which allow us to be vigilant are enshrined in our founding documents, a claim which few nations can make.
Is the US perfect? Hardly. Is it getting worse? Perhaps. Is there any freer nation? No.
But, hey, bashing America is easy and popular, so why not join the mob?
I'm not bashing the USA. I'm bashing all countries that dilute the freedoms of its citizens. (Which is all countries). Some are much better than others.
It's hardly a country that loves freedom if it regulates people's personal lives like this.
It's a federal country. You have the freedom to leave a state that doesn't respect your freedom for one that does.
So you're saying that the US is pro-freedom, except for when it's not and in those cases you can go and live somewhere else?
How can the US be pro freedom if it actively harms people by confiscating property off them using a threat of force?
Without taxation, there is no way to fund a court or police force.
There are other ways of raising funds without resorting to extortion. Donations and lotteries come to mind.
Without those, there is no way to enforce the laws against a private citizen using force or fraud to coerce another private citizen. Or what am I missing?
You're missing the fact that in order to prevent one citizen from using force or fraud against another citizen, the state must use force and fraud against all citizens.
If their goal is to protect people from the initiation of force then they lost immediately when they fund it via compulsory means.
Unless you are gay and want to marry.
There are many places in America where gays can marry, and more states are considering it. We are moving in the right direction.
It's hardly a country that loves freedom if it regulates people's personal lives like this.
Want to earn a living without the state confiscating some of it from you.
American taxes are among the developed world's lowest.
And yet those taxes are still there. How can the US be pro freedom if it actively harms people by confiscating property off them using a threat of force?
None of that indicates the US is pro-freedom.
Would you care to name someplace better?
I can't - but that doesn't mean (in any way at all) that the US is the bastian of freedom. It's not. Your government removes and dilutes your freedoms far too much.
I like the US forcing its American Way on others, insofar as it means freedom.
Unless you are gay and want to marry.
Want your children to learn real science in school and not pseudo-babble based on superstition.
Want to earn a living without the state confiscating some of it from you.
None of that indicates the US is pro-freedom.
The whole point of certificates and SSL is to protect communications between the browser and the web server. It's not "to protect communications from everyone except the government". It's to protect it from EVERYONE - including (and sometimes especially) the government.
And your hobby horse is clear enough too.
What you call "wealth confiscation" is known to the rest of the world as "taxes". We can argue about the merits of particular taxes or the appropriate level of taxation. However most people understand that taxes are the price of civilization in the modern world.
There is nothing civilised about compelling people to hand over the fruits of their labour using a threat of force.
You would presumably have us return to world of Babylon and Sumer. Well that ship has sailed and no one is listening to your propaganda.
I would have us live in a society that has systems in place to protect each other from harm. You may not define theft as harm - I do.
The US government shouldn't be using wealth it confiscates from its citizens for things like this.
If you want space exploration to be funded, then get your checkbook out. Convince others to do the same. But don't expect people who do not want to (or cannot afford to) to fund your hobby horse.
Not a waste, just inappropriately funded.
Why is this moderated as a Troll? Though the poster is anonymous, they are spot on.
If you think this research is worthwhile, then you wouldn't mind paying for it yourself.
If you don't think this research is worthwhile then why should you be forced to pay for it?
However it is funded it should not be via compulsory wealth confiscation.
It doesn't apply to everyone. Slashdot know our time zone (it's in our preferences). It would not be too difficult for them to only apply the April Fool's silliness for those that are still at April the 1st.
It already is over (it's noon on the 2nd here) and yet the ROT13 thing persists. They're a full 24 hours late. Idiots.
April fools days is April the 1st, not April the 2nd. It was yesterday. It's not "proper" to prank someone after noon on April the 1st.
Not that it matters. I won't be reading any slashdot articles until the stop the silly ROT13 silliness.
They should at least take into account the local time of the reader. April 1st was yesterday.
Can't be, it was posted on April the 2nd (where I am, at least).
Whoosh!
Porn isn't "freedom of speech". "Speech" implies that words are communicated. Speech is important for political communication, for discussing ideas, for rational thinking, for debating. Porn isn't.
Porn is good for a certain sort of debating.
You're assuming that the poster is male (or a lesbian).
Why is porn considered to be degrading to women, but not to men? Porn (of the hetero kind) involves a man and a woman.
RMS wants software to be free, but is happy for people to be enslaved by the state. That's a massive contradiction. I would have thought his philosophy on software is very much aligned with libertarianism, yet his political discussions suggest otherwise.
How can you want software to be free and not people?
Considering that software and people are two very different things, I fail to see the contradiction. Are you suggesting that one who supports freedom must always support any form of freedom?
I find it odd that someone wants a tool that people use to be free (as in speech), but not for those people themselves to be free.
Should termites be free? How about viruses? How about serial killers?
btw, RMS's stance on software is anything but libertarian. If you want to relate it to politics, I'd compare it to communism. Not Chinese or Russian communism, but more of the Marxist ideal. A lack of ownership, communal collaboration that anyone can take advantage of.
I consider RMS's stance on software to be libertarian in the sense that people respect the rights of others. A facet of communism is one where there is a controller (the state). This is more akin to proprietary software. "Free" software has no controller and hence isn't particularly communist.
'Free' is a complicated word and doesn't necessitate libertarianism. A libertarian would claim that ownership is a right, a freedom we enjoy. I don't know if RMS would agree with that. I'm pretty sure he thinks that information should be free...
This comes down to the concept of intellectual property. As a libertarian I don't agree with the concept of intellectual property. I don't think the state should be able to grant an inventor a monopoly over the use of his/her inventions. Many disagree with me on this, and many libertarians think intellectual property is needed. I see intellectual property as a limitation of our freedoms. To me, wanting information to be free is libertarian, not Marxist.
...but people should be restricted by laws that say you can't murder or steal and stuff like that. When people advocate freedom, they tend to be advocating the freedom to do the things they specifically want to do. Not even the libertarian advocates anarchy, which is freedom taken most literally.
'Free' is a fun term for philosophers because it can be turned on its head in all sorts of different ways.
Yes, indeed it is. And for every 10 people you'll have 10 different opinions. I think that freeing people is *far* more important than freeing software.
RMS wants software to be free, but is happy for people to be enslaved by the state. That's a massive contradiction. I would have thought his philosophy on software is very much aligned with libertarianism, yet his political discussions suggest otherwise.
How can you want software to be free and not people?
The other version of that joke is one of an Australian thinking it's a place to put their beer because it says "4X".
I would say "yes", though it depends what software you use. Not having to run a virus checker is a big bonus.