The way I understand FoS is that it protects your rights to say something against your government, etc. It doesn't mean you can say whatever the hell you want.
How in the world do people confuse "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" into "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of political speech, or of the press if the subject is the government?"
Amendment I does indeed protect your right to say whatever the hell you want. The only legitimate restrictions are on time, place, and manner, such that your communciation does not convey or cause a threat to others. You can say "I'm going to kill Mr Slippery!" if the circumstances do not induce a reasonable person to believe you're going to try; you can indeed yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre if the circumstances do not pose a threat to the safety of others.
Bottom line, free speech doesn't give people the freedom to say "kill XXX".
You have the right to say "kill XXX". You do not have the right to say "kill XXX" under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to beleive that you actual intend to take steps toward killing XXX.
It's circumstances, not the mere content of the message, that make a communication a threat or not. There is a large difference between someone saying, "Someone ought to knock Mr. Slippery upside the head with a baseball bat" in a/. post, and someone walking toward me in a dark alley with a baseball bat saying the same thing.
Was this a stupid, rude, and tasteless communication deserving of some degree of censure? Sure.
Was it a threat? It was certainly close enough that it's reasonable to trigger an investigation into the circumstances; but from TFA, I cannot agree with the court's finding that "the words 'Kill Mr. VanderMolen' and the accompanying graphic cannot be viewed as anything but an unequivocal, unconditional, immediate threat of injury specific as to the person threatened". The communication was quite equivocal, conditional, and remote; it takes a stretch to declare this a "true threat".
Catholicism is responsible for all those things you mentioned, and THEY themselves persecute(d) real Christians.
Back when I was Catholic (I'm feeling much better now), we certainly considered ourselves "real Christians". And no, I wasn't brought up to hate my Protestant neighbors ; I went to a Lutheran pre-school. (Though in my Baltimore suburban neighborhood, Protestant neighbors were few; my CCD class and my elementary school class were just about identical, and I was a teenger before I understood the Catholics were a minority in the US.)
Has the Catholic Church, historically, engaged in persecution of dissenters? Sure. Have various Protestant denomenations, historically, engaged in persecution of Catholics? Yep.
So let's turn down the Catholic bashing, understand Catholic as a subset of Christian, and stick with poking holes in Xianity in general without bias, ok?
Actually locking up a gun makes it's useless for self defense since it's not readily available.
"Readily available" raises the questions of "how readily" and "available to whom"?
The lockbox in which I keep my revolver takes only seconds to open. It restricts availability of the gun to me only. To me, that is a worthwhile trade.
It was called Gun Safety Education. Teach little kids not to touch them, teenagers to respect them and adults not to be stupid with them.
Yes, safety education is a fine idea. It is however still the case that not everyone has receieved it. A responsible adult takes steps to keep dangerous items (firearms, power tools, hazardous chemicals) away from immature or ignorant persons. If you don't ever have immature or ignorant persons in your house, hey, keep the gun on the coffee table if you like. (Of course, that may make it a temping target for theft.)
Trigger locks are the worst idea ever, first rule of gun safety, don't touch that trigger unless your ready to fire. Gun Safes are a much better idea.
Trigger locks are much cheaper than gun safes. I secure my rifle with a trigger lock and by keeping the ammunition locked away separately. Yes, this renders it unusable for quick-response self-defense; that's fine. My defensive plan is that the revolver is a tool for quick response, the rifle is in case of natual disaster or civil unrest casuing a social breakdown.
The best way to prevent accidental firing of a gun is to outlaw them completely, like here in the UK...If it's hard for just anyone to get a gun though, then you're less likely to be defending yourself against a gun.
Right, just like outlawing heroin and cocaine has kept drugs away from junkies.
Gun laws have little effect on violent crime. In the U.S., violent crime is highest in those states with the strongest gun control, and lowest in those with "concealed carry" laws. The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates; on the other hand, Taiwan has few gun homicides but its total homicide rate is higher than that of the U.S. Internationally, crime is low in some nations with strong RKBA, such as Switzerland and Israel.
Socioeconimic inequity seems to be much more predictive and more influential of violent crime than gun control laws.
Libertarianism, regardless of the clueless palitical parties who espouse it, was on the left wing of the spectrum teh last I checked.
The terms "left" and "right" as applied to politics originally meant the commoners and the nobility. As used today, they're best applied to the workers and the owners or "capitalists" - like the nobility of old, the owning class is defined and backed by the state (which issues corporate charters, land and resource deeds, patents, copyrights, etcetera).
"Left" and "right", "worker" versus "owner", should not be confused with social liberalism or conservatism, or with command economies versue free markets, or with interventionism versus isolationism in foreign policy. Politics is multidimensional, and one could very well be a leftist with conservative social views who favors a free market and an interventionalist foregin policy, or a right-wing backer of command economies with a tolerant social attidude and a yen for isolationism. Of course, some combinations of these views are statistically more common than others.
The term "libertarian" originally refered to the sort of libertarian socialism generally known today as anarchy. Libertarian socialism is decidedly leftist, i.e., aligned with the concerns of workers over owners.
"Libertarian capitalists", of the sort you'll often find in the American "Libertarian Party", attempted to appropriate the term in the mid 20th-century. Libertarian capitalists are decidedly to the right, i.e., aligned with the concerns of owners, putting property rights as primary. (Indeed, many hold the view that a persons body is their "property" and thus arguing that all other rights flow from property rights).
Heinlein was clearly socially liberal, a free-marketer, and a supporter of war as legitimate foreign policy. Beyond that, I'm not familiar enough with his work to attempt to characterize him.
Let's open-source it this time. Bullshit should be shared, free, and open; not just for and by oil tycoons anymore.
Discordians have had a book of copylefted (" All Rights Reversed - reprint what you like") divinely-inspired bovine scatology for decades. Much more fun than Scientologists. Kallisti!
If creating a tiered internet: 1. does not worsen my connection *at all* 2. does not cost me *any* more money (assuming I am not benefiting from it), either directly or indirectly 3. is *entirely* paid for by people or companies that can benefit from it why should I care?
Rather like asking, "If I am immune to nuclear explosions, why should I care if Iran gets the bomb?" The conditions posed in your query do not apply.
The sort of "tiered internet" desired by "big telecom" would worsen your connection if you weren't visiting their or their partner's sites. The whole idea is that your ISP - call them "VerEvilCast" - makes a deal with some content provider - call them "CMM" - to prioritize access to CMM.com over FauxNews.com. If you're a VerEvilCast customer who perfers FauxNews.com, this has a definite negative impact on your connection.
And if you're running a small website CMMSucks.com, wherein you detail the evil doings of CMM, it sucks to be you when VerEvilCast customers suddenly get slowed - or perhaps nonexistant - access to your site.
The reason this hasn't happened (much) to date is because of old regluation requiring telephone lines (including DSL) to be "common carriers", that take a neutral stance on content. The question now is whether this should be continued and expanded to cable, fiber, etc. ISPs, or whether big telecom and big media should be set free to capture the dollars, eyeballs, hearts, and minds of Americans by any means necessary (necessary to the bottom line, that is).
If VerEvilCast was one of a half-dozen providers available, and if consumers understood the basics of how the net works, then perhaps the vaunted "free market" could sort this out. Again, neither of these conditions apply.
Any television show or book capable of convincing you to feel something is an achievement.
Certainly! "Jurrasic Bark" and "Luck of the Fryrish" are great pieces that move the heart.
However, on any given day, I may not be in the right frame of mind for a great work that moves the heart. Just like I don't re-read Animal Farm or The Grapes of Wrath unless I'm in the right mental place; to experience a moving work of art requires commitment.
Re:Restrike while the iron is still warm?
on
Futurama Returns
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Actually it would have been great if that was the case. Unfortunately Nibler is not present in episode 1 and is only added later.
Watch the scene where Fry falls into the cryochamber frame-by-frame. A mysterious shadow will be seen.
If you won't pick up the phone, why did you give out the number in the first place?
The same reason I gave you my postal or e-mail address: so that you can send me a message.
I have little interest in real-time chatting over electronic media, except with friends or family with whom I haven't spoken in a while. I prefer to use the telephone for messaging or for brief conversations, mostly to set up actual face-to-face interactions.
Talking to a piece of plastic is not high on my list of fun good-time activities. If you want to talk to me, leave a message like "Hey, it's me, wanna meet for a beer? Call me back."
But if my packets need priority, that's not "neutral".
Sure it is. The "neutrality" in question is with respect to the content and source of the data; it's about "common carrier" rules that have applied to telephone lines.
With a neutral system, you get whatever bandwidth or QoS you pay for whether you're
VoIPing a customer of TollingBellOfDoom, Inc, or a customer of one of their competitors.
Anyway, QoS pretty much works only over a private network.
No forced neutrality, no forced billing - just get the FSCK out of the way and let things progress via market forces like they have been for the last 15 years now.
The reason we have had network neutrality is not because of "market forces" but because of regulation that made telephone lines "common carriers".
The question before us is whether cable, fiber-optic, etcetera networks should be regulated in the same way, or whether the common carrier requirements should be droppped from telephone (DSL) lines.
Market forces can't do dick when there's no competition; few consumer have meaningful choice between several broadband providers.
Having a little drone peek in at your backyard does not bash down your door and rummage through your things forcibly. It does not harass you (well, unless it was like the annoying things on HL2).
Yes, surveillance does in fact harass me, the same as a "peeping Tom" at my bedroom window does. I value my privacy, and having it disturbed robs me.
If you don't agree with the laws you are supposed to abide by you can either try to get them changes or find somewhere else to live.
The "laws I'm supposed to abide by" are nothing but documents produced by a bunch of people corrupt enough to have obtained public office. They have no moral power of persuasion, only the power of armed agents of the state.
When they are abhorant, can I try to change them, or try to find somewhere else to live? Yes. I can also say "screw you" and go ahead and do as I please, and try to keep the people with most of the guns from finding out; or choose to do as I please publicly and hope to shame the guys with most of the guns into eventually accepting it; or, if the "law" they're enforcing is bad enough, shoot back and take as many of them with me as I can before they take me down.
The idea that change within the system or fleeing are the only options again oppressive laws, is directly toxic to freedom.
Or rather, all axioms are opinions, we understand nothing, which is really the only defensible position.
There is a perspective from which that is true, yes. At this point, however, the Zen master slaps you in the face and says "Did you understand that, fool?"
All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. -- A public service clarification by the Sri Syadasti School of Spiritual Wisdom, Wilmette.
The teachings of the Sri Syadasti School of Spiritual School of Spiritual Wisdom are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense. -- Patamunzo Lingananda School of Higher Spiritual Wisdom, Skokie.
That said: when we engange in a disussion of ethical and politcal rights, we've already by convention accepted a great number of axioms about humans and their behavior - just as when we walk into a calculus class we've already accepted a great number of axioms of number theory.
He has stated quite clearly that humans have rights irrespective of whether or not society chooses to recognize those rights. There have been several societies that have not protected what are considered by many to be universal rights.
Of course. And those have been societies in which individual human beings did not thrive. The requirements for thriving, the "natural rights", the "Tao of human beings", does not change. The degree to which institutionalized social norms - "laws" - recognize and fulfil those requirements, clearly vary.
It's true that when people speak of "natural rights", they often get tangled up in notions of supernatualism or somesuch and don't clearly see the nature of these rights. That doesn't mean the concept isn't valid.
To return again to a mathematical analogy, Newton used to idea of limits to develop calculus, even though that idea was not yet on soundly proven and defined mathematical footing. Calculus wasn't put on a truly rigorous basis until the 19th century. Yet is was a useful concept for all those years in between.
Similarly, while the idea of "natural rights" was a first not on a rigorous footing, the idea is still valuable and useful, and work continues to put it on a firmer foundation.
The only acceptable axioms when it comes to what we believe is that our senses provide for us a somewhat reasonable representation of the outside world. Anything more is just guessing or self-delusion.
Your assertation about what constitutes "acceptable" axioms is just an assumption, a value judgement - "just guessing or self-delusion."
I take it as axiomatic that I do not wish to suffer, and that I wish to experience joy. I further take it as axiomatic that the suffering or joy of other beings is similar to my own suffering or joy, and therefore to be avoided or promoted respectively. Self-interest plus compassion.
You could take it as axiomatic that you wish to suffer, or that the suffering or joy of other beings is dissimilar to your own, and I could not prove you wrong - any more than I could prove the Pythagorean theorem to you if you took it as axiomatic that the "parallel postulate" was false.
There is a significant difference. In the former situation you have a society which is created for the benefit of individuals. In the latter you have the assumption of some sort of universal rule that humans have rights, and that it is universally wrong to deprive them of them.
When we speak of rights or some other ethical phenomenon being "universal", we mean that they do not vary from society to society, nation to nation. Whether or not we have a soceity that has been created for the benefit of individuals (as opposed to a society created by a few for oppression of others, or to a bunch of unsocialized people), those individuals still need life, libery, food, shelther, etcetera in order to thrive. The way in which these needs are specifically interpreted and provided, or not provided, may vary; the need remains regardless.
That assumes some universal definition of good. It also assumes that misery is bad. Neither can be argued for logically - they are opinions and nothing more.
Any logical argument rests on assumed axioms and defintions. Do you argue that geometry is opinion and nothing more?
(And yes, just as other sets of geometric axioms are possible in theory, it is possible to consider ethical theories in which mass misery and suffering are considered good, desirable outcomes. While that may be an interesting exercise of the imagination, I believe the term for one who actually attempts to practice such a theory is "psychopath".)
This makes rights nothing more than a set of conditions - not some universal set of freedoms each individual is entitled to.
If we accept that X are the conditions needed for human beings to thrive, and we accept that we wish to organize a society in which human beings tend to thrive, then we must organize our society such that individual's fulfilment of X is maximized. I.e., each individual is entitled to fulfilment of X. There's no functional difference.
Following the Tao, an expert butcher cuts between the joints and thus never has to sharpen his blade. Although a good surgeon is anything but a butcher, incisions must just the same be made one way and not another. This fact can be generalized to all reasonable human activity, including construction of social arrangements. So we see there are rights, or naturally right ways to behave, ways of the Tao, that take conditions into consideration, as well as ecology and sociology. Therefore it is possible with common sense to distinguish between natural ethics that work and unnatural moralities that eventually only produce widespread misery.
...
The Seven Noble Natural Rights
There are at least seven natural rights, or the Tao of human activity in society possesses seven attributes, or people are like machines only in the respect that they don't work good if you neglect their maintenance requirements.
What are the maintenance requirements of the human being? Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and food, clothing, shelter and medical care.
Keeping us confused and divided against one another about these rights, the multinational power elite teaches us in America that only life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights. In socialist nations they promote the view that only food,clothing, shelter and medical care are rights.
We are further encouraged to argue about whether rights must be earned or whether it is the duty of the government to guarantee them. Everyone necessarily struggles for their rights, and no government can ever guarantee anything except death and taxes.
All that bickering begs the relevant question: What can we do in voluntary cooperation to see that our natural rights, our intimate functional needs, are respected? Without that much, human beings are incapable of behaving as constructively rational and loving members of any population.
"Rights" are the basic conditions needed for humans to thrive.
They are an social constructs.
Everything in consensual reality is a "social construct".
Re:"even more catastrophic" ???
on
Back to the Bunker
·
· Score: 4, Informative
9/11 was a local disaster affecting one municipality.
Two municipalities. Let's not forget that a lot of people died at the Pentagon; a former co-worker of mine was on that plane.
I think youre implying that Al Gore is trying to get to the truth and that he's completely altruistic, trying to save the earth, while all the republicants are self-serving ignoramuses.
One does not have to beleive that Gore is completely altruistic and all Republican self-serving ignoramuses, to believe that Gore is somewhat (relatively to the population of politicians) altruistic, and the current Reublican leadership are self-serving ignoramuses and/or sociopaths .
Just because they're both shades of grey doesn't mean they aren't distinctly lighter and darker.
It has been done to death over the years that if its their cup you've got no expectation to privacy after you move your hands off of it or otherwise discard it,
It was "done to death" before DNA testing; such testing, regardless of the source of the sample, raises serious privacy issues. But given the appropriate protections (warrants etc), I have no problem with such passive collection.
Heck, we'll just go ahead and ask for you to compel that blood test now
This is where I say, "The government has no legitimate authority to forcibly violate my body. The sovereignty of the state ends at my skin. If you try to penetrate my flesh with that needle I will consider it assault and I will defend myself." Will they assault me anway? Quite likely. Does this remove my right, indeed my duty, to resist the assult? Should I just "lie back and enjoy it"? Fuck no.
You can't keep track of all your loose hair follicles and skin cells (often found in saliva--think empty soda can.)
Assuming a warrant, etcetera, I have no objection to my empty soda cans (actually beer bottles more likely) being collected for evidence. The issue is the collection of blood or tissue samples, as discussed in TFA.
(On the other hand, there's no reliable chain of evidence for collection of shed hair, skin flakes, or saliva - for example, I do have other people over to my house to drink beer now and again.)
Slashdot Mirror
How in the world do people confuse "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" into "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of political speech, or of the press if the subject is the government?"
Amendment I does indeed protect your right to say whatever the hell you want. The only legitimate restrictions are on time, place, and manner, such that your communciation does not convey or cause a threat to others. You can say "I'm going to kill Mr Slippery!" if the circumstances do not induce a reasonable person to believe you're going to try; you can indeed yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre if the circumstances do not pose a threat to the safety of others.
You have the right to say "kill XXX". You do not have the right to say "kill XXX" under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to beleive that you actual intend to take steps toward killing XXX.
It's circumstances, not the mere content of the message, that make a communication a threat or not. There is a large difference between someone saying, "Someone ought to knock Mr. Slippery upside the head with a baseball bat" in a /. post, and someone walking toward me in a dark alley with a baseball bat saying the same thing.
Was this a stupid, rude, and tasteless communication deserving of some degree of censure? Sure.
Was it a threat? It was certainly close enough that it's reasonable to trigger an investigation into the circumstances; but from TFA, I cannot agree with the court's finding that "the words 'Kill Mr. VanderMolen' and the accompanying graphic cannot be viewed as anything but an unequivocal, unconditional, immediate threat of injury specific as to the person threatened". The communication was quite equivocal, conditional, and remote; it takes a stretch to declare this a "true threat".
Back when I was Catholic (I'm feeling much better now), we certainly considered ourselves "real Christians". And no, I wasn't brought up to hate my Protestant neighbors ; I went to a Lutheran pre-school. (Though in my Baltimore suburban neighborhood, Protestant neighbors were few; my CCD class and my elementary school class were just about identical, and I was a teenger before I understood the Catholics were a minority in the US.)
Has the Catholic Church, historically, engaged in persecution of dissenters? Sure. Have various Protestant denomenations, historically, engaged in persecution of Catholics? Yep.
So let's turn down the Catholic bashing, understand Catholic as a subset of Christian, and stick with poking holes in Xianity in general without bias, ok?
"Readily available" raises the questions of "how readily" and "available to whom"?
The lockbox in which I keep my revolver takes only seconds to open. It restricts availability of the gun to me only. To me, that is a worthwhile trade.
Yes, safety education is a fine idea. It is however still the case that not everyone has receieved it. A responsible adult takes steps to keep dangerous items (firearms, power tools, hazardous chemicals) away from immature or ignorant persons. If you don't ever have immature or ignorant persons in your house, hey, keep the gun on the coffee table if you like. (Of course, that may make it a temping target for theft.)
Trigger locks are much cheaper than gun safes. I secure my rifle with a trigger lock and by keeping the ammunition locked away separately. Yes, this renders it unusable for quick-response self-defense; that's fine. My defensive plan is that the revolver is a tool for quick response, the rifle is in case of natual disaster or civil unrest casuing a social breakdown.
Right, just like outlawing heroin and cocaine has kept drugs away from junkies.
Gun laws have little effect on violent crime. In the U.S., violent crime is highest in those states with the strongest gun control, and lowest in those with "concealed carry" laws. The U.S. has a higher non-gun murder rate than many European country's total murder rates; on the other hand, Taiwan has few gun homicides but its total homicide rate is higher than that of the U.S. Internationally, crime is low in some nations with strong RKBA, such as Switzerland and Israel.
Socioeconimic inequity seems to be much more predictive and more influential of violent crime than gun control laws.
The terms "left" and "right" as applied to politics originally meant the commoners and the nobility. As used today, they're best applied to the workers and the owners or "capitalists" - like the nobility of old, the owning class is defined and backed by the state (which issues corporate charters, land and resource deeds, patents, copyrights, etcetera).
"Left" and "right", "worker" versus "owner", should not be confused with social liberalism or conservatism, or with command economies versue free markets, or with interventionism versus isolationism in foreign policy. Politics is multidimensional, and one could very well be a leftist with conservative social views who favors a free market and an interventionalist foregin policy, or a right-wing backer of command economies with a tolerant social attidude and a yen for isolationism. Of course, some combinations of these views are statistically more common than others.
The term "libertarian" originally refered to the sort of libertarian socialism generally known today as anarchy. Libertarian socialism is decidedly leftist, i.e., aligned with the concerns of workers over owners.
"Libertarian capitalists", of the sort you'll often find in the American "Libertarian Party", attempted to appropriate the term in the mid 20th-century. Libertarian capitalists are decidedly to the right, i.e., aligned with the concerns of owners, putting property rights as primary. (Indeed, many hold the view that a persons body is their "property" and thus arguing that all other rights flow from property rights).
Heinlein was clearly socially liberal, a free-marketer, and a supporter of war as legitimate foreign policy. Beyond that, I'm not familiar enough with his work to attempt to characterize him.
Discordians have had a book of copylefted (" All Rights Reversed - reprint what you like") divinely-inspired bovine scatology for decades. Much more fun than Scientologists. Kallisti!
Rather like asking, "If I am immune to nuclear explosions, why should I care if Iran gets the bomb?" The conditions posed in your query do not apply.
The sort of "tiered internet" desired by "big telecom" would worsen your connection if you weren't visiting their or their partner's sites. The whole idea is that your ISP - call them "VerEvilCast" - makes a deal with some content provider - call them "CMM" - to prioritize access to CMM.com over FauxNews.com. If you're a VerEvilCast customer who perfers FauxNews.com, this has a definite negative impact on your connection.
And if you're running a small website CMMSucks.com, wherein you detail the evil doings of CMM, it sucks to be you when VerEvilCast customers suddenly get slowed - or perhaps nonexistant - access to your site.
The reason this hasn't happened (much) to date is because of old regluation requiring telephone lines (including DSL) to be "common carriers", that take a neutral stance on content. The question now is whether this should be continued and expanded to cable, fiber, etc. ISPs, or whether big telecom and big media should be set free to capture the dollars, eyeballs, hearts, and minds of Americans by any means necessary (necessary to the bottom line, that is).
If VerEvilCast was one of a half-dozen providers available, and if consumers understood the basics of how the net works, then perhaps the vaunted "free market" could sort this out. Again, neither of these conditions apply.
Certainly! "Jurrasic Bark" and "Luck of the Fryrish" are great pieces that move the heart.
However, on any given day, I may not be in the right frame of mind for a great work that moves the heart. Just like I don't re-read Animal Farm or The Grapes of Wrath unless I'm in the right mental place; to experience a moving work of art requires commitment.
Watch the scene where Fry falls into the cryochamber frame-by-frame. A mysterious shadow will be seen.
"Jigawatts" is actually the preferred pronunciation of "gigawatts".
The same reason I gave you my postal or e-mail address: so that you can send me a message.
I have little interest in real-time chatting over electronic media, except with friends or family with whom I haven't spoken in a while. I prefer to use the telephone for messaging or for brief conversations, mostly to set up actual face-to-face interactions.
Talking to a piece of plastic is not high on my list of fun good-time activities. If you want to talk to me, leave a message like "Hey, it's me, wanna meet for a beer? Call me back."
Sure it is. The "neutrality" in question is with respect to the content and source of the data; it's about "common carrier" rules that have applied to telephone lines. With a neutral system, you get whatever bandwidth or QoS you pay for whether you're VoIPing a customer of TollingBellOfDoom, Inc, or a customer of one of their competitors.
Anyway, QoS pretty much works only over a private network.
The reason we have had network neutrality is not because of "market forces" but because of regulation that made telephone lines "common carriers".
The question before us is whether cable, fiber-optic, etcetera networks should be regulated in the same way, or whether the common carrier requirements should be droppped from telephone (DSL) lines.
Market forces can't do dick when there's no competition; few consumer have meaningful choice between several broadband providers.
Yes, surveillance does in fact harass me, the same as a "peeping Tom" at my bedroom window does. I value my privacy, and having it disturbed robs me.
The "laws I'm supposed to abide by" are nothing but documents produced by a bunch of people corrupt enough to have obtained public office. They have no moral power of persuasion, only the power of armed agents of the state.
When they are abhorant, can I try to change them, or try to find somewhere else to live? Yes. I can also say "screw you" and go ahead and do as I please, and try to keep the people with most of the guns from finding out; or choose to do as I please publicly and hope to shame the guys with most of the guns into eventually accepting it; or, if the "law" they're enforcing is bad enough, shoot back and take as many of them with me as I can before they take me down.
The idea that change within the system or fleeing are the only options again oppressive laws, is directly toxic to freedom.
Of course, people never had personal music players before the iPod. Riiiggghhhttt.
There is a perspective from which that is true, yes. At this point, however, the Zen master slaps you in the face and says "Did you understand that, fool?"
As the Principia Discordia puts it:
That said: when we engange in a disussion of ethical and politcal rights, we've already by convention accepted a great number of axioms about humans and their behavior - just as when we walk into a calculus class we've already accepted a great number of axioms of number theory.
Of course. And those have been societies in which individual human beings did not thrive. The requirements for thriving, the "natural rights", the "Tao of human beings", does not change. The degree to which institutionalized social norms - "laws" - recognize and fulfil those requirements, clearly vary.
It's true that when people speak of "natural rights", they often get tangled up in notions of supernatualism or somesuch and don't clearly see the nature of these rights. That doesn't mean the concept isn't valid.
To return again to a mathematical analogy, Newton used to idea of limits to develop calculus, even though that idea was not yet on soundly proven and defined mathematical footing. Calculus wasn't put on a truly rigorous basis until the 19th century. Yet is was a useful concept for all those years in between.
Similarly, while the idea of "natural rights" was a first not on a rigorous footing, the idea is still valuable and useful, and work continues to put it on a firmer foundation.
Your assertation about what constitutes "acceptable" axioms is just an assumption, a value judgement - "just guessing or self-delusion."
I take it as axiomatic that I do not wish to suffer, and that I wish to experience joy. I further take it as axiomatic that the suffering or joy of other beings is similar to my own suffering or joy, and therefore to be avoided or promoted respectively. Self-interest plus compassion.
You could take it as axiomatic that you wish to suffer, or that the suffering or joy of other beings is dissimilar to your own, and I could not prove you wrong - any more than I could prove the Pythagorean theorem to you if you took it as axiomatic that the "parallel postulate" was false.
When we speak of rights or some other ethical phenomenon being "universal", we mean that they do not vary from society to society, nation to nation. Whether or not we have a soceity that has been created for the benefit of individuals (as opposed to a society created by a few for oppression of others, or to a bunch of unsocialized people), those individuals still need life, libery, food, shelther, etcetera in order to thrive. The way in which these needs are specifically interpreted and provided, or not provided, may vary; the need remains regardless.
Any logical argument rests on assumed axioms and defintions. Do you argue that geometry is opinion and nothing more?
(And yes, just as other sets of geometric axioms are possible in theory, it is possible to consider ethical theories in which mass misery and suffering are considered good, desirable outcomes. While that may be an interesting exercise of the imagination, I believe the term for one who actually attempts to practice such a theory is "psychopath".)
If we accept that X are the conditions needed for human beings to thrive, and we accept that we wish to organize a society in which human beings tend to thrive, then we must organize our society such that individual's fulfilment of X is maximized. I.e., each individual is entitled to fulfilment of X. There's no functional difference.
I like Kerry Thornley's formulation:
"Rights" are the basic conditions needed for humans to thrive.
Everything in consensual reality is a "social construct".
Two municipalities. Let's not forget that a lot of people died at the Pentagon; a former co-worker of mine was on that plane.
One does not have to beleive that Gore is completely altruistic and all Republican self-serving ignoramuses, to believe that Gore is somewhat (relatively to the population of politicians) altruistic, and the current Reublican leadership are self-serving ignoramuses and/or sociopaths .
Just because they're both shades of grey doesn't mean they aren't distinctly lighter and darker.
It was "done to death" before DNA testing; such testing, regardless of the source of the sample, raises serious privacy issues. But given the appropriate protections (warrants etc), I have no problem with such passive collection.
This is where I say, "The government has no legitimate authority to forcibly violate my body. The sovereignty of the state ends at my skin. If you try to penetrate my flesh with that needle I will consider it assault and I will defend myself." Will they assault me anway? Quite likely. Does this remove my right, indeed my duty, to resist the assult? Should I just "lie back and enjoy it"? Fuck no.
Assuming a warrant, etcetera, I have no objection to my empty soda cans (actually beer bottles more likely) being collected for evidence. The issue is the collection of blood or tissue samples, as discussed in TFA.
(On the other hand, there's no reliable chain of evidence for collection of shed hair, skin flakes, or saliva - for example, I do have other people over to my house to drink beer now and again.)