If the majority of people thought freedom of thought should be legislated, then it would be legislated, because that's what democracy is about.
Who sets the ground rules? What if those ground rules are not okay with the majority of the people. What if they end up causing harm to the majority of people? Sounds like the makings of a dictatorship...
If you'll remember your history, lynch mobs used to be *okay* with the majority of people. But the government, swayed by the vocal minority which created a new majority, changed that. In the free state project, there is none of this flexibility.
Who determines what is force and fraud in the "free" state? In a democratic one, the people determine that. And then they set laws governing that fraud and harm.
The problem with the free state is that they believe that most issues fall into simple categories that can be dealt with broadly. However, that is not always the case, and that's when you need to call in the voice of the people to determine what is right and what is wrong.
That's why the U.S. system is based upon simple rules as stated in our constitution, but then the government has the ability to modify those rules as appropriate per the will of the people. As we have seen through history, what used to be okay is now regarded as harmful. The free state would require that ability to change as well.
The free state, in it's simplest form, wants to start over with the same ground rules that were set when the U.S. was created. But they will eventually find that those rules will not cover all circumstances and they will eventually get right back to where we are now.
If you and the free state people believe that humans will be able to live their lives in freedom, not encroaching upon the lives of others, then that's good for you. But I've seen enough of human nature to know that most people are self-interested and to allow them unlimited freedoms will not generate a society of opportunity and progress.
Ah, but there are other forms of harm other than those attributed to physical force. And these must also be regulated by government. Physical harm is one things But economic harm, environmental harm, property harm, standard of living harm... these also must be protected. Government must be allowed to step in in these situations as well.
It's not about them personally disliking racism yet not encouraging legislation that restricts the freedom of racists. It's about creating rules in one organization that restricts the freedom of racists, yet not creating the same rules in another organization. That is hypocritical.
You have mistaken what I am advocating. I never advocated that freedom is only for those who agree with *me*. I advocate a government that represents the majority opinion to legislate according to the wishes of that majority, with the freedom for the minority to protest that legislation. But if the majority decides that murder is not allowed in this society, I don't advocate that the minority have the freedom to murder as a form of protest.
Freedom to act and freedom to think are two different things. Freedoms of action should be legislated. Freedoms of thought should not.
Fine, difference of opinion. I believe that government is required in order to create a structured society. You don't.
But, I'll leave these hypothetical situations:
1) What will the free state do when an individual decides that all other "races" are inferior to him or her?
Nothing, right?
2) What will the free state do when that individual forms groups of like minded people and they form a community.
Nothing, right?
3) What will the free state do when that community decides to imprison any "races" other than themselves that venture into their territory?
There'll be a boycott, right?
4) What will the free state do when that community starts forcing the other "races" to work within the confines of their community without pay and without the ability to leave, in the face of ridicule and laughter?
Another boycott, right?
It's easy for you to say a boycott can cause pressure when it's an economic situation, but things are not always set up that way, and in those cases, you need a government that can create another type of boycott. It will still be the voice of the people, just as a boycott was, but it will manifest itself in another way.
Every time you talk about boycotts causing public pressure to change a circumstance, you are talking about a democratic government. In fact, that is the essence of boycotting. It is pure democracy at work, but only applied to situations where there is an economic incentive.
Governments create legislation to act as a "boycott" when a normal boycott isn't appropriate. Sometimes it's economic, because the boycotts didn't have the intended effect and a more powerful force was needed. In other times, it is because boycotting doesn't make sense, because they're no economic force involved. Either way, it's still the voice of the people.
Government, as an arm of the public voice, is the only good way to create an ordered society.
Yes, an employer or a coffee shop can do whatever the hell they want. But then the voice of the people will rise up and, through the power vested in the government they have chosen to lead them, will set the guidelines for how those businesses should act in accordance with the morals of the majority of the people. In a democratic state, freedom is freedom of those in the majority. In an anarchy, freedom is freedom of the individual.
Without a government with power to enforce the laws as dictated by the people, nothing would change. Boycotts may work sometimes, but not everyone has the time or energy to boycott 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's where government steps in, with lawmakers, a judicial system, and a police force.
Like I said, absolute freedom does not exist in an ordered society. Everyone has the ability to voice their opinion and attempt to sway popular sentiment, but you still must have laws as dictated by the majority of the popular vote in order to have a functional society.
Racial prejudice is something that isn't tolerated by the majority of people in this country. Therefore, we have created laws that reflect that majority opinion. However, that doesn't stop others from protesting those laws or attempting to change them. If at some point, the majority opinion changes to the opposite, the laws will change as well.
So, basically, the freedom state people can talk all they want about freedoms for everyone, but when it comes down to creating an actual government, I think they'll find it a bit hard to find freedoms that everyone agrees with. And what they'll end up with is a government exactly like the one they despise so much right now. Or, they'll end up with no government...
But it is still my opinion that for them to not tolerate racial prejudice in their private company, yet tolerate it in their government, is hypocritical.
Reading my statements, you would notice that twice I said "government's cannot tell people how to think or act, but that they can create laws to protect people from harmful actions."
That quote you wrote is exactly what I'm saying. People can think whatever they like. No one can change that. But a government CAN and SHOULD create laws that protect people's ability to live free from harm. One of those harmful things is an ACTION of racial prejudice. People can march and chant and protest all they want about their racial attitudes, but the minute someone is denied a job, an education, a bus seat or attacked in any way because of someone's personal racial prejudice, then government has an obligation to step in.
It is hypocritical for a person or organization to take one stand on an issue in one case but not take the same stand in another. That shows a lack of integrity. And since I find integrity to be the cornerstone of a well-functioning government, I'm afraid I have to take the opinion that these freedom fighters here are doomed to fail.
In a democratic government freedom means freedom to live your life withing the norms of society as dictated by the majority of the population. Absolute freedom is not possible in any form of government. Only in anarchy are able to have absolute freedom. But at what cost?
Don't get caught up in the idea of absolute freedom. It is not possible in a well-ordered society.
Like I already said, you can't tell people how to think or act, but a government can make laws in order to protect people from those actions that cause harm.
But saying you will reject people from your private company that have racist attitudes, but you won't do the same in your government, is hypocritical. Therefore, the people in this "free state" project don't know what the hell they're doing and I wouldn't trust them one iota to construct any sort of positive society.
The fact is that they are at odds with themselves if they believe that their private organization (which is involved in the formation of their "free" state) should expel members who perform racial "agitation" but don't believe any government should do the same.
Completely hypocritical.
How can you value the freedom of people to live without prejudice based on race, yet not include that as a part of your government??? They even espouse the mentality that one of government's only functions should be to protect it's population. But they don't want to include protection from racial prejudice, which again is completely hypocritical.
Government cannot tell individual people how to think or behave. That is not it's job. However, it is the job of a democratic government to create laws based on societal norms (as mandated by the population through their voices and their votes - majority rules). But when you value the opinion of one over the opinions of many, your government becomes an dictatorship. And any dictatorship, however benign, will eventually lead to collapse. So, to value the freedom of an individual to have racial prejudice over the freedom of the masses to be protected from racial prejudice is totally off the rocker. This so called "free state" project is basically a load of crap.
A. The Free State Project unequivocally condemns racism and all other forms of bigotry. Although we do not support a government ban on racial discrimination by private individuals, and we do not attempt to divine our members' private thoughts, we will exercise our right as a private organization to expel anyone who undertakes racial agitation.
Hmmm... They won't make a government ban on racial discrimination (or discriminitation, if they elect a Bush as supreme leader) but they will expel you if you undertake racial "agitation." That's funny. A self-negating sentence. This government rocks!
... if your lifestyle requires you to make $20,000 a month, live in a $3.4 million house, own a Jag (I will own a Jaguar!), have a boat, cottage, 4 dogs, 5 kids in college, two wives...
Simplify, people! Simplify! And don't fucking read Fortune...
Who the hell does that web designer think he/she is??? BLINKING TEXT? My God, didn't that go out of style 3 years ago!?!? Christ, my eyes are burning already!
This is exactly why Internet2 is so badly needed. Prioritize packets based on importance. mp3 sharing shit will go to the bottom of the list, while the more legitimate educational things like ssh sessions and video conferencing will take greater priority.
In a faux living room, Gruver shows how documents on a computer at work can be accessed easily at home. . . . or in the air or in a car...
or how 'bout sitting in a bar? Why not access them in a box, or sitting right next to a fox? I love to find my Microsoft docs, resting next to my dirty socks. I love them, people, yes I do. Go buy Microsoft so you can too!
1) Send out demos to every radio station you know. There actually ARE local stations in existence.
2) If you appeal to a college crowd, send demos to the National Association of Campus Activities (NACA). They have regional conventions that showcase talent. Colleges send delegates to these conventions to check out the talent for hiring purposes. If you can get into this, you can start building up more of a following with lots of college gigs.
3) If you have a good following already, book a venue and invite the followers. Then send out invitations to every local record company related person you can find so they can see you perform life and see the type of response you create. People who sign bands want to see that the group can create revenue. If you can show them in person that people love you ("Uh, sure, we've got a following."), then they're more likely to get past their own inhibitions.
You gotta just hit the streets like mad, man. You don't have to be a pretty boy to make it in this world. You just have to show results. And to a record company, results means money. They don't care how they get it, just that they do.
If none of this works, then make your own damn independent label, get some venture capital and market yourselves that way.
I can understand if Slashdot needs to flaunt its redundant, fail-proof system of posting, but jeez, we only need to see the redundant systems when the primary ones fail... Stop the double posting, already!
The whole problem here is that Taco doesn't read his own site anymore. He just assumes that whatever he posts coudln't possibly have been put up already by anyone else. If you disagree with me, just look back at all the redundant posts in the past and you'll notice that the second poster is always the supreme leader himself...
You have "so little experience" that you don't think you can get another job, yet you want to sell yourself as a software consultant?!?!
Am I completely missing something here???
Bud, go work for another company or two for a few more years before you start selling yourself as a consultant. Make sure it's in a big company too, so that you find out what's it's like to work for someone other than a "small software startup." You're eyes will be opened to a number of new experiences.
It's much more likely you'll get a good paying new job that can get you more experience in this industry than it is for you to find business as an individual contractor with your amount of experience. There are good contractors and contractors who just think they're good. Make sure you're the first and not the second before you try striking out on your own.
So as spammers start using "c0ck" instead of "cock" to evade simple-minded spam filters based on individual words, Bayesian filters automatically notice. Indeed, "c0ck" is far more damning evidence than "cock", and Bayesian filters know precisely how much more.
The Bayesian filter. You can run, but you can't hide!
Slashdot Mirror
If the majority of people thought freedom of thought should be legislated, then it would be legislated, because that's what democracy is about.
Who sets the ground rules? What if those ground rules are not okay with the majority of the people. What if they end up causing harm to the majority of people? Sounds like the makings of a dictatorship...
If you'll remember your history, lynch mobs used to be *okay* with the majority of people. But the government, swayed by the vocal minority which created a new majority, changed that. In the free state project, there is none of this flexibility.
Who determines what is force and fraud in the "free" state? In a democratic one, the people determine that. And then they set laws governing that fraud and harm.
The problem with the free state is that they believe that most issues fall into simple categories that can be dealt with broadly. However, that is not always the case, and that's when you need to call in the voice of the people to determine what is right and what is wrong.
That's why the U.S. system is based upon simple rules as stated in our constitution, but then the government has the ability to modify those rules as appropriate per the will of the people. As we have seen through history, what used to be okay is now regarded as harmful. The free state would require that ability to change as well.
The free state, in it's simplest form, wants to start over with the same ground rules that were set when the U.S. was created. But they will eventually find that those rules will not cover all circumstances and they will eventually get right back to where we are now.
If you and the free state people believe that humans will be able to live their lives in freedom, not encroaching upon the lives of others, then that's good for you. But I've seen enough of human nature to know that most people are self-interested and to allow them unlimited freedoms will not generate a society of opportunity and progress.
Ah, but there are other forms of harm other than those attributed to physical force. And these must also be regulated by government. Physical harm is one things But economic harm, environmental harm, property harm, standard of living harm... these also must be protected. Government must be allowed to step in in these situations as well.
It's not about them personally disliking racism yet not encouraging legislation that restricts the freedom of racists. It's about creating rules in one organization that restricts the freedom of racists, yet not creating the same rules in another organization. That is hypocritical.
You have mistaken what I am advocating. I never advocated that freedom is only for those who agree with *me*. I advocate a government that represents the majority opinion to legislate according to the wishes of that majority, with the freedom for the minority to protest that legislation. But if the majority decides that murder is not allowed in this society, I don't advocate that the minority have the freedom to murder as a form of protest.
Freedom to act and freedom to think are two different things. Freedoms of action should be legislated. Freedoms of thought should not.
Fine, difference of opinion. I believe that government is required in order to create a structured society. You don't.
But, I'll leave these hypothetical situations:
1) What will the free state do when an individual decides that all other "races" are inferior to him or her?
Nothing, right?
2) What will the free state do when that individual forms groups of like minded people and they form a community.
Nothing, right?
3) What will the free state do when that community decides to imprison any "races" other than themselves that venture into their territory?
There'll be a boycott, right?
4) What will the free state do when that community starts forcing the other "races" to work within the confines of their community without pay and without the ability to leave, in the face of ridicule and laughter?
Another boycott, right?
It's easy for you to say a boycott can cause pressure when it's an economic situation, but things are not always set up that way, and in those cases, you need a government that can create another type of boycott. It will still be the voice of the people, just as a boycott was, but it will manifest itself in another way.
Every time you talk about boycotts causing public pressure to change a circumstance, you are talking about a democratic government. In fact, that is the essence of boycotting. It is pure democracy at work, but only applied to situations where there is an economic incentive.
Governments create legislation to act as a "boycott" when a normal boycott isn't appropriate. Sometimes it's economic, because the boycotts didn't have the intended effect and a more powerful force was needed. In other times, it is because boycotting doesn't make sense, because they're no economic force involved. Either way, it's still the voice of the people.
Government, as an arm of the public voice, is the only good way to create an ordered society.
Yes, an employer or a coffee shop can do whatever the hell they want. But then the voice of the people will rise up and, through the power vested in the government they have chosen to lead them, will set the guidelines for how those businesses should act in accordance with the morals of the majority of the people. In a democratic state, freedom is freedom of those in the majority. In an anarchy, freedom is freedom of the individual.
Without a government with power to enforce the laws as dictated by the people, nothing would change. Boycotts may work sometimes, but not everyone has the time or energy to boycott 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's where government steps in, with lawmakers, a judicial system, and a police force.
Like I said, absolute freedom does not exist in an ordered society. Everyone has the ability to voice their opinion and attempt to sway popular sentiment, but you still must have laws as dictated by the majority of the popular vote in order to have a functional society.
Racial prejudice is something that isn't tolerated by the majority of people in this country. Therefore, we have created laws that reflect that majority opinion. However, that doesn't stop others from protesting those laws or attempting to change them. If at some point, the majority opinion changes to the opposite, the laws will change as well.
So, basically, the freedom state people can talk all they want about freedoms for everyone, but when it comes down to creating an actual government, I think they'll find it a bit hard to find freedoms that everyone agrees with. And what they'll end up with is a government exactly like the one they despise so much right now. Or, they'll end up with no government...
But it is still my opinion that for them to not tolerate racial prejudice in their private company, yet tolerate it in their government, is hypocritical.
Reading my statements, you would notice that twice I said "government's cannot tell people how to think or act, but that they can create laws to protect people from harmful actions."
That quote you wrote is exactly what I'm saying. People can think whatever they like. No one can change that. But a government CAN and SHOULD create laws that protect people's ability to live free from harm. One of those harmful things is an ACTION of racial prejudice. People can march and chant and protest all they want about their racial attitudes, but the minute someone is denied a job, an education, a bus seat or attacked in any way because of someone's personal racial prejudice, then government has an obligation to step in.
It is hypocritical for a person or organization to take one stand on an issue in one case but not take the same stand in another. That shows a lack of integrity. And since I find integrity to be the cornerstone of a well-functioning government, I'm afraid I have to take the opinion that these freedom fighters here are doomed to fail.
In a democratic government freedom means freedom to live your life withing the norms of society as dictated by the majority of the population. Absolute freedom is not possible in any form of government. Only in anarchy are able to have absolute freedom. But at what cost?
Don't get caught up in the idea of absolute freedom. It is not possible in a well-ordered society.
Like I already said, you can't tell people how to think or act, but a government can make laws in order to protect people from those actions that cause harm.
But saying you will reject people from your private company that have racist attitudes, but you won't do the same in your government, is hypocritical. Therefore, the people in this "free state" project don't know what the hell they're doing and I wouldn't trust them one iota to construct any sort of positive society.
The fact is that they are at odds with themselves if they believe that their private organization (which is involved in the formation of their "free" state) should expel members who perform racial "agitation" but don't believe any government should do the same.
Completely hypocritical.
How can you value the freedom of people to live without prejudice based on race, yet not include that as a part of your government??? They even espouse the mentality that one of government's only functions should be to protect it's population. But they don't want to include protection from racial prejudice, which again is completely hypocritical.
Government cannot tell individual people how to think or behave. That is not it's job. However, it is the job of a democratic government to create laws based on societal norms (as mandated by the population through their voices and their votes - majority rules). But when you value the opinion of one over the opinions of many, your government becomes an dictatorship. And any dictatorship, however benign, will eventually lead to collapse. So, to value the freedom of an individual to have racial prejudice over the freedom of the masses to be protected from racial prejudice is totally off the rocker. This so called "free state" project is basically a load of crap.
A. The Free State Project unequivocally condemns racism and all other forms of bigotry. Although we do not support a government ban on racial discrimination by private individuals, and we do not attempt to divine our members' private thoughts, we will exercise our right as a private organization to expel anyone who undertakes racial agitation.
Hmmm... They won't make a government ban on racial discrimination (or discriminitation, if they elect a Bush as supreme leader) but they will expel you if you undertake racial "agitation." That's funny. A self-negating sentence. This government rocks!
... if your lifestyle requires you to make $20,000 a month, live in a $3.4 million house, own a Jag (I will own a Jaguar!), have a boat, cottage, 4 dogs, 5 kids in college, two wives...
Simplify, people! Simplify! And don't fucking read Fortune...
Just get up really early before the sun rises on a foggy, misty morning, head out on the highway and turn your brights on...
Who the hell does that web designer think he/she is??? BLINKING TEXT? My God, didn't that go out of style 3 years ago!?!? Christ, my eyes are burning already!
It's not a repeat if it provides more information. It's called a "follow-up."
If your job is to protect national security and there are government agencies with networks that are wide open, then yes, you should be doing this...
People will only wake up when they become aware of the issue. Most people don't realize the severity of lax security on computers.
This is exactly why Internet2 is so badly needed. Prioritize packets based on importance. mp3 sharing shit will go to the bottom of the list, while the more legitimate educational things like ssh sessions and video conferencing will take greater priority.
In a faux living room, Gruver shows how documents on a computer at work can be accessed easily at home. . . . or in the air or in a car...
or how 'bout sitting in a bar?
Why not access them in a box,
or sitting right next to a fox?
I love to find my Microsoft docs,
resting next to my dirty socks.
I love them, people, yes I do.
Go buy Microsoft so you can too!
1) Send out demos to every radio station you know. There actually ARE local stations in existence.
2) If you appeal to a college crowd, send demos to the National Association of Campus Activities (NACA). They have regional conventions that showcase talent. Colleges send delegates to these conventions to check out the talent for hiring purposes. If you can get into this, you can start building up more of a following with lots of college gigs.
3) If you have a good following already, book a venue and invite the followers. Then send out invitations to every local record company related person you can find so they can see you perform life and see the type of response you create. People who sign bands want to see that the group can create revenue. If you can show them in person that people love you ("Uh, sure, we've got a following."), then they're more likely to get past their own inhibitions.
You gotta just hit the streets like mad, man. You don't have to be a pretty boy to make it in this world. You just have to show results. And to a record company, results means money. They don't care how they get it, just that they do.
If none of this works, then make your own damn independent label, get some venture capital and market yourselves that way.
...if the human race becomes a little bit smarter. That might solve some of the problems here.
AHOOOOOOGUH! AHOOOOOOGUH!
"You seem to be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole! Please return to Kindergarten at once."
I'm sorry you have so much anger about this.
Personally, as a "tree hugging, minority lover," I would hate to see any type of profiling like this, even of "white CEO Execs."
Take you misled assumptions elsewhere. This is a place for reflection and thought.
I can understand if Slashdot needs to flaunt its redundant, fail-proof system of posting, but jeez, we only need to see the redundant systems when the primary ones fail... Stop the double posting, already!
The whole problem here is that Taco doesn't read his own site anymore. He just assumes that whatever he posts coudln't possibly have been put up already by anyone else. If you disagree with me, just look back at all the redundant posts in the past and you'll notice that the second poster is always the supreme leader himself...
You didn't vote for Bush, I hope.
You have "so little experience" that you don't think you can get another job, yet you want to sell yourself as a software consultant?!?!
Am I completely missing something here???
Bud, go work for another company or two for a few more years before you start selling yourself as a consultant. Make sure it's in a big company too, so that you find out what's it's like to work for someone other than a "small software startup." You're eyes will be opened to a number of new experiences.
It's much more likely you'll get a good paying new job that can get you more experience in this industry than it is for you to find business as an individual contractor with your amount of experience. There are good contractors and contractors who just think they're good. Make sure you're the first and not the second before you try striking out on your own.
Good Luck.
Lyell
i.e. affirmative action.
This is the best paragraph of the whole article:
So as spammers start using "c0ck" instead of "cock" to evade simple-minded spam filters based on individual words, Bayesian filters automatically notice. Indeed, "c0ck" is far more damning evidence than "cock", and Bayesian filters know precisely how much more.
The Bayesian filter. You can run, but you can't hide!
...allowing normal folk to talk to politicians and be understood...