I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the FBI has been doing this in computer crime cases since the last few years of the Clinton administration under that bastion of civil liberties (nevermind Waco, Ruby Ridge, or Elian Gonzalez) Janet Reno...
What about Elian Gonzalez?!? If it had been the mother that was still alive, the kid would have been given back to her without question. My only problem with the Elian Gonzales case is that he wasn't given back to the father more quickly.
Your comparison to athletes has no bearning on this, because for it to be true, every citizen would have to be competing. On top of that the sport itself is an utterly pointless excercise in futility, but I digress.
Why does everyone need to compete? Many people have chosen not to compete in the economic marketplace. Those people end up being homeless. They end up hermits up on a mountain somewhere. Or some simply they become addicts lost in the daze of drugs or video games.
I dont understand. Does this mean you advocate total abolishment of government?
No, that too is outside of my control. I can not abolish the government. A government is a natural outcome as well. The only thing I can try is to hold it back from growing (not that this helps either) or I can try to disobey some of its laws if the risk is minimal or I can try to run away if I can find a better government somewhere else.
I disagree with your premise that every measure has to backfire. Or at least I dont consider some of the effects as "backfire".
I am not sure if every measure has to backfire. All that I know is that some measures that many people would consider good have backfired on me personally.
I came to the US from France.
In France, there is a high minimum wage, a 35 hour week, and lots of fringe benefits should you ever be hired or fired from a company. In theory, all those things are good for the employees. In practice, all those things prevented me from starting a career there. This is the kind of system that prevents employers from wanting to hire new employees. The cost to hire someone is high. The cost of firing someone is even higher (the company gets penalized for doing so). So sometimes the risk to hire someone is not always worth it.
The system is great if you're already gainfully employed/have valuable experience/are in the top 5% of your class/ have family connections, but should you happen to be an inexperienced young person/ a racial minority/ a woman over the age of 40 -- you're shit out of luck.
In my case, I am a young white Male. I'm luckier than most, I went to a good school, but I was not at the top of my class. Looking for a job in my native country turned out to be an humiliating process. There was so much competition. I had so little experience. It didn't make any sense to stay there.
"Child" is a subjective term used at many stages along the human lifespan. It cannot be debated, however, when the new human being comes into being.
Child is subjective term, yes, but it is being used in this debate precisely because most people associate a grown-up child to the term.
But why bring up "fertilized eggs"? If all abortion is banned except for these, almost all abortions will be banned: abortion of "fertilized eggs" is rare and unusual.
I guess you never heard of the morning-after pill. The morning-after pill, by the way, is vehemently opposed by pro-lifers.
If your goal is to create an Utopia, or if your goal is to create an equality of outcome, or if your goal is to create an "improved" social system, of course the Libertarian ideal is not going to "work" for you. That's a given.
As a Libertarian, I don't really care that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing. It's too bad, yes, but it's not my problem and it's an outcome that is completely natural.
Obviously, I could try to tax the rich, I could try to prop up the poor, I could try to make sure that parents don't give any unfair advantages to their children, but that's a losing battle. Not only it is a losing battle, but whatever I do to control and repress others will end up backfiring.
Let's take the olympics for instance, there is a growing health gap between the top Olympic athletes and the lowliest couch potatoes who watch them on TV. Obviously, that's unfortunate, but what are you going to do? Try to prop up the couch potatoes and try to prop down the athletes? Do you think that's a solution? Do you think there is a solution? Personally, I don't think there is one. That gap will grow wider and uglier everyday. I've come to accept that. I don't pretend to offer any solution, but at least I don't want to have anyone else interfere with the process. That's all.
"Libertarian or not, one can tell some stuff (or produce a certain thoughts) not knowing what is its foundation (Guilt, Judgement et al).
And the point is not in you liking or disliking Chavez; point is in you accusing Bush. "
I understand your point and I agree that this kind of guilt does motivate a large segment of the population to be against the War.
However, I will reiterate that guilt is not what motivated me personally to reach this conclusion. You don't believe me. Fine. Your mind is your own to make. My very existence doesn't fit your limited view of the World. Therefore, there can only be two solutions. Either I do not exist as I am describing myself to you (therefore I am lying to myself or I am lying to you), OR it's your own view of the World and your own righteousness which is limiting your view of the World (and therefore I can not even begin to convince you). In the end, this is your own decision to make, I can only say so much.
You mean pro-abortion. Voting for a pro-abortion candidate makes sense if you are for human rights. The "choice" of being able to dismember children is quite barbaric.
It can be debated at which point the fertilized egg becomes a "child".
Either way and with either side of this debate, the truth is being manipulated and twisted, and frankly your post is not helping either.
Chavez is nothing but a fascist dictator. He has often declared his intent of modeling Venezeula after Castro's Cuba, a totally democracy-free place. Toward this goal, he has been systematically dismantling democratic institutions (such as they are) in Venezeula.
Chavez has been going after private property. Personally, I'm opposed to this, but I'm not going to start lying about him and saying that he's dismantling democratic institutions.
If you like his 70% victory, you'll love the 100% wins he'll get in the future once he has outlawed opposition parties.
Chavez doesn't need to outlaw his opposition parties. He won with a huge margin of votes against an incumbent. Now that he is himself the incumbent and now that George Bush is after him, Chavez will probably get a little more popular support, but he won't be getting that much more -- all the rich people/upper middle class people hate him.
No, the dictature of the democracy is what put Chavez in power this last turn. He was running against an incumbent and yet he still managed to get 70% of the votes (I don't remember the exact percentage, but it was overwhelming).
Your pro-Saddam side is the real warmongers. Saddam had engaged in a decades-long war against several countries including his own. killing many thousands a year. Bush and the large coalition have pretty much ended this war. The protesters strongly supported Saddam's rule and his ongoing wars.
Who supported whom? Ten years ago, six months after Saddam gassed his own people, and six months after everyone in the World knew about the massacre, our own US government lent him another billion dollars. And I won't even go into the details of whom supplied him with the gas and the other chemical/biological weapons he had at the time.
Not supporting the troops? That is 100% true. Just ask the soldiers
May be, that's what the soldiers would have said at the beginning, but now I think they just want to come home. And speaking of which, now it seems it's the US government which is not supporting our troups. Our US government is not supporting them adequately in Iraq and our US government is not supporting adequately their families here at home. One would think that we could have sacrificed a little bit for their families here at home, but I guess Bush doesn't want to go there.
I know all about this. It was not GWB's coup. It was a popular uprising against the fascist dictator in Venezuela. Hopefully, the next will succeed. We don't need a Castro II or an "Allende Jr" taking Venezuela backwards to its banana republic dictatorship past.
Educate yourself a little more then. Read the Forbes magazine between April 8th and April 12th to see why the US may have had something to do with it.
Speaking of "GUILT", the warmongers are pretty good at using it too. Oh you're against the War, you're unpatriotic, you're not supporting our troops, you should leave this country since you don't like it, you're a self-hating jew, etc.
I wonder what we can learn from that about maintaining our computers?
Computers are not like cars. You can and you should still assemble your own. Do the research. Get yourself an expensive quality power supply. You won't save that much money and you'll spend may be 30 hours doing the initial research, but at least your computer won't ever crash again and it will be easy to upgrade.
*Correction
Actually, I'm looking at my Consumers Report Year 2000 Buying Guide Book and only the Ford Escort from 1994 and the Ford Festiva from 1993 were *the only Ford cars that were recommended as reliable used cars for under $6,000. The Ford Escort from 1991, I take it, didn't make the list.
On the other hand, the Honda Civic from 1991 did make the list. But it's all a question of averages. May be the Honda Civic owner was unlucky, or may be he didn't take care of his car as much as other people. In either case, we'll never know.
Slashdot Mirror
What about Elian Gonzalez?!? If it had been the mother that was still alive, the kid would have been given back to her without question. My only problem with the Elian Gonzales case is that he wasn't given back to the father more quickly.
Fine, I am not going to insist on this metaphor. I was just trying to make a point about trying to control outcomes.
Why does everyone need to compete? Many people have chosen not to compete in the economic marketplace. Those people end up being homeless. They end up hermits up on a mountain somewhere. Or some simply they become addicts lost in the daze of drugs or video games.
When does a human being come into being? If the debate is over about this question, then certainly noone told me about it.
No, that too is outside of my control. I can not abolish the government. A government is a natural outcome as well. The only thing I can try is to hold it back from growing (not that this helps either) or I can try to disobey some of its laws if the risk is minimal or I can try to run away if I can find a better government somewhere else.
I disagree with your premise that every measure has to backfire. Or at least I dont consider some of the effects as "backfire".
I am not sure if every measure has to backfire. All that I know is that some measures that many people would consider good have backfired on me personally.
I came to the US from France. In France, there is a high minimum wage, a 35 hour week, and lots of fringe benefits should you ever be hired or fired from a company. In theory, all those things are good for the employees. In practice, all those things prevented me from starting a career there. This is the kind of system that prevents employers from wanting to hire new employees. The cost to hire someone is high. The cost of firing someone is even higher (the company gets penalized for doing so). So sometimes the risk to hire someone is not always worth it.
The system is great if you're already gainfully employed/have valuable experience/are in the top 5% of your class/ have family connections, but should you happen to be an inexperienced young person/ a racial minority/ a woman over the age of 40 -- you're shit out of luck.
In my case, I am a young white Male. I'm luckier than most, I went to a good school, but I was not at the top of my class. Looking for a job in my native country turned out to be an humiliating process. There was so much competition. I had so little experience. It didn't make any sense to stay there.
Child is subjective term, yes, but it is being used in this debate precisely because most people associate a grown-up child to the term.
But why bring up "fertilized eggs"? If all abortion is banned except for these, almost all abortions will be banned: abortion of "fertilized eggs" is rare and unusual.
I guess you never heard of the morning-after pill. The morning-after pill, by the way, is vehemently opposed by pro-lifers.
If your goal is to create an Utopia, or if your goal is to create an equality of outcome, or if your goal is to create an "improved" social system, of course the Libertarian ideal is not going to "work" for you. That's a given.
As a Libertarian, I don't really care that the gap between the rich and the poor is growing. It's too bad, yes, but it's not my problem and it's an outcome that is completely natural.
Obviously, I could try to tax the rich, I could try to prop up the poor, I could try to make sure that parents don't give any unfair advantages to their children, but that's a losing battle. Not only it is a losing battle, but whatever I do to control and repress others will end up backfiring.
Let's take the olympics for instance, there is a growing health gap between the top Olympic athletes and the lowliest couch potatoes who watch them on TV. Obviously, that's unfortunate, but what are you going to do? Try to prop up the couch potatoes and try to prop down the athletes? Do you think that's a solution? Do you think there is a solution? Personally, I don't think there is one. That gap will grow wider and uglier everyday. I've come to accept that. I don't pretend to offer any solution, but at least I don't want to have anyone else interfere with the process. That's all.
I love how a post can be modded to +5 insightful one day and then modded down to -1 flamebait the next.
new technology = cell phone + old technology
Numbing the pain of not having a girlfriend. I've been doing this myself for years.
I understand your point and I agree that this kind of guilt does motivate a large segment of the population to be against the War.
However, I will reiterate that guilt is not what motivated me personally to reach this conclusion. You don't believe me. Fine. Your mind is your own to make. My very existence doesn't fit your limited view of the World. Therefore, there can only be two solutions. Either I do not exist as I am describing myself to you (therefore I am lying to myself or I am lying to you), OR it's your own view of the World and your own righteousness which is limiting your view of the World (and therefore I can not even begin to convince you). In the end, this is your own decision to make, I can only say so much.
It can be debated at which point the fertilized egg becomes a "child".
Either way and with either side of this debate, the truth is being manipulated and twisted, and frankly your post is not helping either.
All this amount of self-promotion and whining, it makes Salon employees look like a mob of desperate beggers.
Chavez has been going after private property. Personally, I'm opposed to this, but I'm not going to start lying about him and saying that he's dismantling democratic institutions.
If you like his 70% victory, you'll love the 100% wins he'll get in the future once he has outlawed opposition parties.
Chavez doesn't need to outlaw his opposition parties. He won with a huge margin of votes against an incumbent. Now that he is himself the incumbent and now that George Bush is after him, Chavez will probably get a little more popular support, but he won't be getting that much more -- all the rich people/upper middle class people hate him.
No, the dictature of the democracy is what put Chavez in power this last turn. He was running against an incumbent and yet he still managed to get 70% of the votes (I don't remember the exact percentage, but it was overwhelming).
I'm glad you used the words "might be". I have no guilt about what we're doing. I'm a Libertarian. I don't share the socialist beliefs of Chavez.
A crank? The Forbes magazine actually hates Chavez more than you do. Read their articles, start with their articles three days *before* the coup.
Why do we need a standard set by the UN anyway?
Who supported whom? Ten years ago, six months after Saddam gassed his own people, and six months after everyone in the World knew about the massacre, our own US government lent him another billion dollars. And I won't even go into the details of whom supplied him with the gas and the other chemical/biological weapons he had at the time.
Not supporting the troops? That is 100% true. Just ask the soldiers
May be, that's what the soldiers would have said at the beginning, but now I think they just want to come home. And speaking of which, now it seems it's the US government which is not supporting our troups. Our US government is not supporting them adequately in Iraq and our US government is not supporting adequately their families here at home. One would think that we could have sacrificed a little bit for their families here at home, but I guess Bush doesn't want to go there.
I know all about this. It was not GWB's coup. It was a popular uprising against the fascist dictator in Venezuela. Hopefully, the next will succeed. We don't need a Castro II or an "Allende Jr" taking Venezuela backwards to its banana republic dictatorship past.
Educate yourself a little more then. Read the Forbes magazine between April 8th and April 12th to see why the US may have had something to do with it.
Speaking of "GUILT", the warmongers are pretty good at using it too. Oh you're against the War, you're unpatriotic, you're not supporting our troops, you should leave this country since you don't like it, you're a self-hating jew, etc.
When something stupid is government-sanctioned, it does amplify the number of stupid actions stupid people undertake.
I don't know, I only reboot mine when I go on vacation once a year.
Computers are not like cars. You can and you should still assemble your own. Do the research. Get yourself an expensive quality power supply. You won't save that much money and you'll spend may be 30 hours doing the initial research, but at least your computer won't ever crash again and it will be easy to upgrade.
Actually, I'm looking at my Consumers Report Year 2000 Buying Guide Book and only the Ford Escort from 1994 and the Ford Festiva from 1993 were *the only Ford cars that were recommended as reliable used cars for under $6,000. The Ford Escort from 1991, I take it, didn't make the list.
On the other hand, the Honda Civic from 1991 did make the list. But it's all a question of averages. May be the Honda Civic owner was unlucky, or may be he didn't take care of his car as much as other people. In either case, we'll never know.