The reason is that the benefit to society is greater if it ignores the creator's desires to maintain control. The world is better off for aspiring artists having access to Photoshop, for aspiring software developers to have access to Visual Studio, for aspiring writers to have access to literature. It's the same reason collections like Wikipedia are so important, despite their flaws: they provide immense value to the ENTIRE WORLD (or at least those with a connection).
So, what do we get out of honoring your contract that compares?
Constitutional duty? Excuse me? There is no such "duty of the press", save whatever standard the public holds them too. And considering the amount of attention given to tabloids, chain emails, and Fox News, our standards simply aren't very high.
Perhaps these unions think that illegal workers deserve a fair wage and humane treatment just like everybody else? Not everyone is afraid of illegal migrants; once you start working alongside them you probably see them as another buddy at your side grueling under the same corporate overlord.
Obama voted in favor of all three amendments attempting to strip/delay the immunity. I'm disappointed in his vote too, but it's better than all the Republicans except Arlen Specter.
Welfare, on the other hand, just helps someone subsist in a low state instead of allowing market forces to push them into either getting a better job or spending less.
That's was the point of Welfare Reform in the 1990s. People are required to work, welfare only lasts for a number of years, many states don't actually give recipients cash, etc. etc. So, while I concede there are some valid points in your ideological argument against welfare, is welfare still the target poster child for socialism in America?
Either way, thanks for accepting that there is indeed a middle ground between the "state providing for its citizens" and "personal responsibility". It often seems American is torn between those ideals, with too little effort in finding the practical middle.
Why is giving money a matter of free speech? After all, there are numerous ways we limit the exchange of money. You can't use it to buy illegal things. You can't give gifts of a certain size without being required to pay taxes. You can't give to certain individuals or organizations when it would be considered aiding a crime (or a terrorist). The exchange of money is heavily regulated.
Cause we want a demographic that is more prone to binge drinking, rioting, and all around douchery to have deadly weapons. Which is, of course, not to say that all college students are irresponsible. But perhaps we should consider whether there is such an epidemic of crime on campuses that justifies living in fear of your dorm mates with guns.
I understand why everyone thinks the US would be better if things like the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, and Education were completely replaced by the free market.
It may or may not be surprising. It is disturbing. The ideologies of religious fundamentalism are often very disturbing. Not all viewpoints are created equal, and there are many traditions that we can consider barbaric (indiscriminate killings, stoning) instead of different (religious police).
How are the Democrats suppose to override vetoes when the Republicans side almost unanimously with Bush? Do you understand that the Senate requires a 2/3 majority to override a veto, and the Democrats aren't close to that? And for what's its worth, they've made some in roads with Republicans on SCHIP, so it's not like they're not trying to work with the other side.
And how many resolutions against Bush/Cheney have been passed? Any?! This effort to debate impeachment was buried.
So what are you complaining about?
And on a slow news day, this rambling hatred gets modded as insightful. Really now, is calling them evil the only way for you to confront those different than yourself?
Not to be a douche, but what are you referring to? Your question is rather broad.
If you're referring to this article, the government is arguing before a court that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for most email. Since the Constitution only protects reasonable expectations of privacy, if the government's argument is upheld then there is no violation of the Constitution by going through one's email. Note that if the courts uphold precedent, which they generally do, the government's argument will probably be struck down because most people expect their email to be private.
Now then, if you're referring to other things this administration has been accused of doing, it must be noted that it is the firm belief of Cheney and others in his circle that the US Constitution grants president nigh-unrestrained authority in regards to protecting the state. This is a legal theory that is widely disputed but has not been put to any true legal test, and likely won't be, at least not before this administration is out of office.
What have you done? What have any of us on this website done?
Activists play the important role of making themselves visible. Just by doing that they make their presence and position known, making it apparent to politicians and normal people that people care about an issue. Learning that "only 20% of Americans support the war" means jack compared to "tens of thousands of people marched throughout the country, calling for an end to the war". Of course, it only amounts to something when the news reports on them...
Just because Americans aren't up-in-arms like they use doesn't mean those who are are irrelevant.
The measured effect is very simple and has repeated itself enough by now that people should know better - lower taxes sometimes increase government revenue. Raising taxes sometimes freezes up money going into the government.
Fixed that for you. Really now, if economic policy was even remotely that simple, would we need so many economical theories? Let's not sour a discussion with imaginary absolutes.
I sincerely hope you realize that your post proves why there can't be any civics test. Your assumptions on what government can and can't do well and what's good for the common man are just that: assumptions. Many, many people in the world would disagree with you. But hey, you may be right, you may be wrong. It's all political theory, after all. Which is why we shouldn't be requiring people to agree.
I have friends who are minorities and women who earned coveted positions through hard work but everyone assumes that they got them just because of their skin color or gender. That, in fact, breeds resentment and hatred between white males and others as well as instills an inferiority complex in everyone that we're supposedly helping with those policies.
Is this not strong evidence of a strong lack of diversity in their fields of work (they must not have many minorities working there) and a strong undercurrent of racism (they couldn't possibly have gotten these positions without help!).
Honestly, people that are going to be become resentful about affirmative action have racism already in them. They can certainly disagree with the policy, have valid complaints, and know better ways of doing it. But if that's going to make them hate minorities, they weren't far off to begin with. I see no recourse for this but to hope people will overcome their worse inclinations with time.
But to your other points, I largely agree. I think anything that will improve the conditions the lower class lives in is very good, and will go a long way to improving everyone's life. I'm not sure if you're implying the federal government should come up with a complicated formula by which to judge if the circumstances of a person's life merit particular help? That seems infeasible, though it might be nice.
That would certainly be more fair than blanket judgments about race or sex...but then, the question must be asked, are Oprah's children really gaining advantages from affirmative action that their upbringing hasn't given them? Does the existence of one uber-rich black women negate the reality of the uber-poor?
How does the need for diversity in our culture affect our desire for fairness?
Thank you for your hostility and insults. You have put me in my place, and furthered enlightened discourse.
Perhaps it would have been more accurate of me to say "white males are statistically much more likely to be born into an advantageous position". However, that would be ignoring many of the benefits white males inherit from society, and oversimplifying the matter. For instance, studies have shown women are encouraged to not show aggression, competitiveness, or other "strong" emotions. There are still perceptions that they aren't as good with math. Hillary Clinton continues to be dogged by "Can a women be president?"
And of course, racism still exists. I'm not black, so not really equipped to testify to its extent, but much of my family is and has...interesting stories to tell.
Regardless, as I said, there can be much discussion about whether the policy I've described is just or whether it will provide good results (too very different questions!). But I don't mean to insulting, but by your emotional appeal, you do not seem to have any interest in really thinking about the issue.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of equity that has driven America's policies of affirmative action for so long? We have long considered diversity and fairness to be worthy goals alongside productivity. One hopes that diversity allows for different perspectives, new ideas, and draws on talent that would otherwise be untapped. If that's not the case, then we hope that a little lost productivity buys us less built-in racism and sexism.
To summarize an argument that was only adequately argued to me a few years after college, the goal is not "color blindness", where everyone is treated the same way and everything is merit based. The goal is "equal opportunity", where a person's race, gender, and economic background is not a burden for them to bear. Even if racism and sexism was removed from the world, things would still not be "fair", because the legacy of less education, less money, and less connections means that certain groups are not as capable of receiving the education and experience needed to compete equally. A genius born in poverty has much less chance being recognized because they are much less likely to receive the same level of education and are more likely to be burdened by other social ills. In theory, this genius should have the opportunity to be as successful as their characteristics allow, but in reality their social circumstances are as important, if not more so, than their personal merits.
One can look at efforts to give advantages to minorities as unfair and reverse-racism/sexism. I certainly did for a long time. The truth is, though, that even when ignoring the existence of prejudice in people, white males are born into an advantageous position, and that advantageous position will likely grow without intervention, just as those with the most money are in a better position to make more money. That's not "fair" either, and will only lead to more prejudice. Just as progressive taxes are meant to redistribute wealth to the lower and middle classes in hopes that they'll be able to rise, we attempt to make it a little easier for minorities to get into fields dominated by white males in hopes that someday the advantage gap will disappear between groups.
Life isn't fair. We accept some inequalities in hopes of making the world a better place. Whether there's hope of that working, or whether it's an acceptable cost, of course, is something to yell and argue about.
It takes less than two years to vote out a Representative who votes for an unconstitutional law. The founding fathers were relying on the people, not SCOTUS, to defend their constitution.
Can whomever applied the "slashdotliberalwhining" tag to this article, presumably a self-described conservative or libertarian, please explain how a government that engages in surveillance of provably nonviolent political activism is exactly "small"? It's not. Being liberal has apparently come to mean resisting Big Brother's efforts to protect us from the uberterrorists. Who knew?
Agreed - so do something about that crime. Two wrongs don't make a right/etc.
Two wrongs can often make a right. Stealing to feed one's family, killing to save another's life. But then, you might say that maybe those aren't wrong. Similarly, there are many people who would argue that pirating isn't wrong.
Depends what you're harassing them for. If you mean by suing them... well, are they copying music they don't own? If so, it isn't harassing.
IIRC, collection agencies are not allowed to call you at work. It's harassment, and wrong. Whether they a legitimate reason to be after you or not, there is a right and wrong way to pursue one's goals, and these are lines the RIAA has crossed.
This is absolutely NOT a crime. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. People can't afford cars, software, etc, should they then be allowed to just take those? RIAA music is not a life necessity.
I would argue that using one's monopoly to abuse and limit a natural and nearly unlimited resource (music) to make money at the cost of denying it to those unable or unwilling to pay that cost, is wrong. Just because the RIAA is the gatekeeper to our music doesn't mean it should be so, or that we should respect it.
Absolutely not. But what's the choice? For the RIAA to simply LET people download music for free? Like I said, I don't support the RIAA - but they are between a rock and a hard place. What's your method for stopping pirating?
There is no way to stop piracy. They shouldn't be trying. Instead, they should have cultivated a relationship with the public to make us want to support them. They should have changed their business model completely. They could've made themselves the first services to offer music for free online, using advertisements, concert tickets, and other promotional tools to make money. They could've attempted to connect us to artists, local and otherwise, so that we want to support them by contributing money.
In the end, what is legal isn't necessarily moral. Now, the RIAA has done nothing but generate an endless supply of (perhaps irrational) hatred, and I for one refuse to pay any money to a system they are a part of.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason is that the benefit to society is greater if it ignores the creator's desires to maintain control. The world is better off for aspiring artists having access to Photoshop, for aspiring software developers to have access to Visual Studio, for aspiring writers to have access to literature. It's the same reason collections like Wikipedia are so important, despite their flaws: they provide immense value to the ENTIRE WORLD (or at least those with a connection).
So, what do we get out of honoring your contract that compares?
Constitutional duty? Excuse me? There is no such "duty of the press", save whatever standard the public holds them too. And considering the amount of attention given to tabloids, chain emails, and Fox News, our standards simply aren't very high.
Perhaps these unions think that illegal workers deserve a fair wage and humane treatment just like everybody else? Not everyone is afraid of illegal migrants; once you start working alongside them you probably see them as another buddy at your side grueling under the same corporate overlord.
Obama voted in favor of all three amendments attempting to strip/delay the immunity. I'm disappointed in his vote too, but it's better than all the Republicans except Arlen Specter.
Welfare, on the other hand, just helps someone subsist in a low state instead of allowing market forces to push them into either getting a better job or spending less. That's was the point of Welfare Reform in the 1990s. People are required to work, welfare only lasts for a number of years, many states don't actually give recipients cash, etc. etc. So, while I concede there are some valid points in your ideological argument against welfare, is welfare still the target poster child for socialism in America? Either way, thanks for accepting that there is indeed a middle ground between the "state providing for its citizens" and "personal responsibility". It often seems American is torn between those ideals, with too little effort in finding the practical middle.
Why is giving money a matter of free speech? After all, there are numerous ways we limit the exchange of money. You can't use it to buy illegal things. You can't give gifts of a certain size without being required to pay taxes. You can't give to certain individuals or organizations when it would be considered aiding a crime (or a terrorist). The exchange of money is heavily regulated.
Cause we want a demographic that is more prone to binge drinking, rioting, and all around douchery to have deadly weapons. Which is, of course, not to say that all college students are irresponsible. But perhaps we should consider whether there is such an epidemic of crime on campuses that justifies living in fear of your dorm mates with guns.
It may or may not be surprising. It is disturbing. The ideologies of religious fundamentalism are often very disturbing. Not all viewpoints are created equal, and there are many traditions that we can consider barbaric (indiscriminate killings, stoning) instead of different (religious police).
How are the Democrats suppose to override vetoes when the Republicans side almost unanimously with Bush? Do you understand that the Senate requires a 2/3 majority to override a veto, and the Democrats aren't close to that? And for what's its worth, they've made some in roads with Republicans on SCHIP, so it's not like they're not trying to work with the other side. And how many resolutions against Bush/Cheney have been passed? Any?! This effort to debate impeachment was buried. So what are you complaining about?
And on a slow news day, this rambling hatred gets modded as insightful. Really now, is calling them evil the only way for you to confront those different than yourself?
Not to be a douche, but what are you referring to? Your question is rather broad. If you're referring to this article, the government is arguing before a court that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for most email. Since the Constitution only protects reasonable expectations of privacy, if the government's argument is upheld then there is no violation of the Constitution by going through one's email. Note that if the courts uphold precedent, which they generally do, the government's argument will probably be struck down because most people expect their email to be private. Now then, if you're referring to other things this administration has been accused of doing, it must be noted that it is the firm belief of Cheney and others in his circle that the US Constitution grants president nigh-unrestrained authority in regards to protecting the state. This is a legal theory that is widely disputed but has not been put to any true legal test, and likely won't be, at least not before this administration is out of office.
What have you done? What have any of us on this website done?
Activists play the important role of making themselves visible. Just by doing that they make their presence and position known, making it apparent to politicians and normal people that people care about an issue. Learning that "only 20% of Americans support the war" means jack compared to "tens of thousands of people marched throughout the country, calling for an end to the war". Of course, it only amounts to something when the news reports on them...
Just because Americans aren't up-in-arms like they use doesn't mean those who are are irrelevant.
The measured effect is very simple and has repeated itself enough by now that people should know better - lower taxes sometimes increase government revenue. Raising taxes sometimes freezes up money going into the government.
Fixed that for you. Really now, if economic policy was even remotely that simple, would we need so many economical theories? Let's not sour a discussion with imaginary absolutes.
As have most citizens. It's considered a "right" to make money, and so we've lost sight of the common domain.
I sincerely hope you realize that your post proves why there can't be any civics test. Your assumptions on what government can and can't do well and what's good for the common man are just that: assumptions. Many, many people in the world would disagree with you. But hey, you may be right, you may be wrong. It's all political theory, after all. Which is why we shouldn't be requiring people to agree.
There is no "they" that rules all wiki's, or determines how best they can be used. Congresspedia is not associated with wikipedia.
If the EFF is onboard, that's a good sign, is it not?
Professional athletes get paid way too much too.
Is this not strong evidence of a strong lack of diversity in their fields of work (they must not have many minorities working there) and a strong undercurrent of racism (they couldn't possibly have gotten these positions without help!).
Honestly, people that are going to be become resentful about affirmative action have racism already in them. They can certainly disagree with the policy, have valid complaints, and know better ways of doing it. But if that's going to make them hate minorities, they weren't far off to begin with. I see no recourse for this but to hope people will overcome their worse inclinations with time.
But to your other points, I largely agree. I think anything that will improve the conditions the lower class lives in is very good, and will go a long way to improving everyone's life. I'm not sure if you're implying the federal government should come up with a complicated formula by which to judge if the circumstances of a person's life merit particular help? That seems infeasible, though it might be nice.
That would certainly be more fair than blanket judgments about race or sex...but then, the question must be asked, are Oprah's children really gaining advantages from affirmative action that their upbringing hasn't given them? Does the existence of one uber-rich black women negate the reality of the uber-poor?
How does the need for diversity in our culture affect our desire for fairness?
Questions I consider interesting, anyways.
Thank you for your hostility and insults. You have put me in my place, and furthered enlightened discourse. Perhaps it would have been more accurate of me to say "white males are statistically much more likely to be born into an advantageous position". However, that would be ignoring many of the benefits white males inherit from society, and oversimplifying the matter. For instance, studies have shown women are encouraged to not show aggression, competitiveness, or other "strong" emotions. There are still perceptions that they aren't as good with math. Hillary Clinton continues to be dogged by "Can a women be president?" And of course, racism still exists. I'm not black, so not really equipped to testify to its extent, but much of my family is and has...interesting stories to tell. Regardless, as I said, there can be much discussion about whether the policy I've described is just or whether it will provide good results (too very different questions!). But I don't mean to insulting, but by your emotional appeal, you do not seem to have any interest in really thinking about the issue.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of equity that has driven America's policies of affirmative action for so long? We have long considered diversity and fairness to be worthy goals alongside productivity. One hopes that diversity allows for different perspectives, new ideas, and draws on talent that would otherwise be untapped. If that's not the case, then we hope that a little lost productivity buys us less built-in racism and sexism.
To summarize an argument that was only adequately argued to me a few years after college, the goal is not "color blindness", where everyone is treated the same way and everything is merit based. The goal is "equal opportunity", where a person's race, gender, and economic background is not a burden for them to bear. Even if racism and sexism was removed from the world, things would still not be "fair", because the legacy of less education, less money, and less connections means that certain groups are not as capable of receiving the education and experience needed to compete equally. A genius born in poverty has much less chance being recognized because they are much less likely to receive the same level of education and are more likely to be burdened by other social ills. In theory, this genius should have the opportunity to be as successful as their characteristics allow, but in reality their social circumstances are as important, if not more so, than their personal merits.
One can look at efforts to give advantages to minorities as unfair and reverse-racism/sexism. I certainly did for a long time. The truth is, though, that even when ignoring the existence of prejudice in people, white males are born into an advantageous position, and that advantageous position will likely grow without intervention, just as those with the most money are in a better position to make more money. That's not "fair" either, and will only lead to more prejudice. Just as progressive taxes are meant to redistribute wealth to the lower and middle classes in hopes that they'll be able to rise, we attempt to make it a little easier for minorities to get into fields dominated by white males in hopes that someday the advantage gap will disappear between groups.
Life isn't fair. We accept some inequalities in hopes of making the world a better place. Whether there's hope of that working, or whether it's an acceptable cost, of course, is something to yell and argue about.
Big mistake.
Agreed - so do something about that crime. Two wrongs don't make a right/etc.
Two wrongs can often make a right. Stealing to feed one's family, killing to save another's life. But then, you might say that maybe those aren't wrong. Similarly, there are many people who would argue that pirating isn't wrong.
Depends what you're harassing them for. If you mean by suing them... well, are they copying music they don't own? If so, it isn't harassing.
IIRC, collection agencies are not allowed to call you at work. It's harassment, and wrong. Whether they a legitimate reason to be after you or not, there is a right and wrong way to pursue one's goals, and these are lines the RIAA has crossed.
This is absolutely NOT a crime. If they can't afford it, they can't afford it. People can't afford cars, software, etc, should they then be allowed to just take those? RIAA music is not a life necessity.
I would argue that using one's monopoly to abuse and limit a natural and nearly unlimited resource (music) to make money at the cost of denying it to those unable or unwilling to pay that cost, is wrong. Just because the RIAA is the gatekeeper to our music doesn't mean it should be so, or that we should respect it.
Absolutely not. But what's the choice? For the RIAA to simply LET people download music for free? Like I said, I don't support the RIAA - but they are between a rock and a hard place. What's your method for stopping pirating?
There is no way to stop piracy. They shouldn't be trying. Instead, they should have cultivated a relationship with the public to make us want to support them. They should have changed their business model completely. They could've made themselves the first services to offer music for free online, using advertisements, concert tickets, and other promotional tools to make money. They could've attempted to connect us to artists, local and otherwise, so that we want to support them by contributing money.
In the end, what is legal isn't necessarily moral. Now, the RIAA has done nothing but generate an endless supply of (perhaps irrational) hatred, and I for one refuse to pay any money to a system they are a part of.