As you probably know, libertarians do not advocate the elimination of all government, simply restoring government to its proper size and power as specified in the Constitution. It is necessary to have a government to protect citizens from criminals and foreign enemies, but it is not necessary for that government to create fraudulent Ponzi schemes (aka Social Security), invade law-abiding citizens' privacy (Echelon, Know Your Customer, crypto restrictions), and extort over half of all income through excessive taxes and regulations. Regarding the environment, take a look at what your socialist friends did to Eastern Europe, and let's not forget Chernobyl.
Um...so your church believes that its followers are so fragile that being exposed to any amount of "forbidden" material will corrupt them forever? Don't you find that the least bit patronizing?
I agree. Look at Rosa Parks and Dr. King and their callous disregard for the Jim Crow laws that had been passed by a democratically elected government. Not to mention the troublemakers who insisted on hiding Jews when "the system" had decided that they would be better off in concentration camps. The world would be a much better place without these types of amoral hooligans bent on destroying the sacred order of society.
For the seriously clue-impaired, that was sarcasm.
I don't need to say it hamstrings programmers, because you just said it yourself. Regardless of whether they can write other software, they fact that they cannot export crypto software does hinder them. By your logic, a law banning pro-Communist speech does not violate the First Amendment, because you can still say other things. Furthermore, you have also admitted that the current regulations do not prevent bad guys from getting crypto. Saddam doesn't need us to give him crypto, in fact he doesn't even need to hire his own developers, because he can freely download it from non-US servers. The only people hurt by the current restrictions are law-abiding Americans for whom real Internet security has been made very difficult. Oh, and the NSA types who believe they have a God-given right to spy on everyone's correspondence, but I don't really care about them.
The fact that you do not "need" something in order to live does not mean that it is bad or that wanting it is wrong. To physically stay alive, you certainly do not need an Internet connection, a computer, or even a high school education. Also, by your argument any website with advertising is evil (and apparently equivalent to drugs) since from the advertiser's perspective it is "just a way to get people to look at banner ads."
I partially disagree. Most women I know rate a male's physical appearance as at least as important as men rate womens'. I think there are two main reasons why women tend to be more obsessed about it: 1. Men will more freely admit that they consider beauty important than women will. 2. There is more of a universal standard for female beauty. I've seen women I know argue about whether Leonardo DiCaprio/Brad Pitt/etc are or are not attractive. But it's probably very difficult to find a guy who doesn't want Cindy Crawford.
I'd argue that the goverment has accomplished something, they've prevented millions of "normal" US users from using strong encryption. Most Americans aren't going to jump through the ridiculous hoops to get the 128-bit versions of Netscape or IE, and don't know about things like Fortify. I believe this is the real goal of the export controls, and if so it has succeeded very well. If strong encryption were allowed to become ubiquitous it would be transparently built into email software (yes, you can do it now, but it takes work), supported at the OS level, and virtually all communication would be encrypted. And then our favorite three letter agencies couldn't use their wiretapping systems to spy on innocent Americans...um, I mean, to protect the children.
Re:Could someone tell me why it was bad?
on
DIVX is dead
·
· Score: 1
Ok, I'll take a stab at this. If I buy a DVD, I can play it anywhere, anytime, without asking anyone's permission. If you want privacy, walk into a Best Buy, pick up a DVD, and pay $20 cash. But with DIVX, every disc you own is accessible only with the blessing of Circuit City, who can (in fact, did) revoke your ability to play what you had supposedly bought. And then there's the well-documented crippling of abilities in DIVX players so they can support the encryption, and the user-hostile features such as charging you if you view a disc in a different player even if you had upgraded it to unlimited viewing. Even if you don't mind a single corporation knowing everything about your viewing habits (even Blockbuster doesn't know what you do with the movies, CC does), there are plenty of reasons to celebrate the death of this anti-consumer technology.
"Gun supporters think that killing and seriously injuring can be good, if the person being killed or seriously injured is a 'bad person'."
What is so difficult about this concept? If an armed person comes across a stabbing or rape or Littleton-style massacre in progress and kills or seriously injures the perpetrators, explain why that is not a good thing. Contrary to what you've implied, guns can be and are used for beneficial purposes. The overwhelming majority of gun owners use them responsibly. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of computer users do not use encryption to plan crimes. In neither case should everyone have their freedoms removed because of the criminal actions of a few.
Slashdot Mirror
As you probably know, libertarians do not advocate the elimination of all government, simply restoring government to its proper size and power as specified in the Constitution. It is necessary to have a government to protect citizens from criminals and foreign enemies, but it is not necessary for that government to create fraudulent Ponzi schemes (aka Social Security), invade law-abiding citizens' privacy (Echelon, Know Your Customer, crypto restrictions), and extort over half of all income through excessive taxes and regulations. Regarding the environment, take a look at what your socialist friends did to Eastern Europe, and let's not forget Chernobyl.
Um...so your church believes that its followers are so fragile that being exposed to any amount of "forbidden" material will corrupt them forever? Don't you find that the least bit patronizing?
For the seriously clue-impaired, that was sarcasm.
I don't need to say it hamstrings programmers, because you just said it yourself. Regardless of whether they can write other software, they fact that they cannot export crypto software does hinder them. By your logic, a law banning pro-Communist speech does not violate the First Amendment, because you can still say other things. Furthermore, you have also admitted that the current regulations do not prevent bad guys from getting crypto. Saddam doesn't need us to give him crypto, in fact he doesn't even need to hire his own developers, because he can freely download it from non-US servers. The only people hurt by the current restrictions are law-abiding Americans for whom real Internet security has been made very difficult. Oh, and the NSA types who believe they have a God-given right to spy on everyone's correspondence, but I don't really care about them.
By the way, the link doesn't work.
I partially disagree. Most women I know rate a male's physical appearance as at least as important as men rate womens'. I think there are two main reasons why women tend to be more obsessed about it:
1. Men will more freely admit that they consider beauty important than women will.
2. There is more of a universal standard for female beauty. I've seen women I know argue about whether Leonardo DiCaprio/Brad Pitt/etc are or are not attractive. But it's probably very difficult to find a guy who doesn't want Cindy Crawford.
I'd argue that the goverment has accomplished something, they've prevented millions of "normal" US users from using strong encryption. Most Americans aren't going to jump through the ridiculous hoops to get the 128-bit versions of Netscape or IE, and don't know about things like Fortify. I believe this is the real goal of the export controls, and if so it has succeeded very well. If strong encryption were allowed to become ubiquitous it would be transparently built into email software (yes, you can do it now, but it takes work), supported at the OS level, and virtually all communication would be encrypted. And then our favorite three letter agencies couldn't use their wiretapping systems to spy on innocent Americans...um, I mean, to protect the children.
Ok, I'll take a stab at this. If I buy a DVD, I can play it anywhere, anytime, without asking anyone's permission. If you want privacy, walk into a Best Buy, pick up a DVD, and pay $20 cash. But with DIVX, every disc you own is accessible only with the blessing of Circuit City, who can (in fact, did) revoke your ability to play what you had supposedly bought. And then there's the well-documented crippling of abilities in DIVX players so they can support the encryption, and the user-hostile features such as charging you if you view a disc in a different player even if you had upgraded it to unlimited viewing. Even if you don't mind a single corporation knowing everything about your viewing habits (even Blockbuster doesn't know what you do with the movies, CC does), there are plenty of reasons to celebrate the death of this anti-consumer technology.
What is so difficult about this concept? If an armed person comes across a stabbing or rape or Littleton-style massacre in progress and kills or seriously injures the perpetrators, explain why that is not a good thing. Contrary to what you've implied, guns can be and are used for beneficial purposes. The overwhelming majority of gun owners use them responsibly. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of computer users do not use encryption to plan crimes. In neither case should everyone have their freedoms removed because of the criminal actions of a few.