I believe that we are already acting this way, just with fancy costumes on
I fully agree. Government is pure force, as much as they try to sugar-coat it with elections and promises of liberty and prosperity. The fact that we get to choose who acquires power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) does not, in any way, remove the element of power from government. It only makes government seem slightly less dangerous, to the naive, than it truly is.
Human rights -- I just don't get it.
The concept is simple. Respect me and my individual liberty, and I will respect you and your individual liberty. (Individual liberty includes the right to do as you please as long as you don't infringe the same rights of any other individual.) We do this not because we are forced to, but because we realize that each will benefit from mutual respect. That is where evolution comes in. Human beings (well, most) have evolved past the necessary level of intelligence to realize, and implement, the principle of mutual respect.
What you are saying is that our right to voluntary association is derived from force. This makes no sense. The two modes of human interaction are incompatible. You can't interact through voluntary association and by force at the same time!
Do you really believe that, in the absence of power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end), the entire concept of human rights would diappear, and we would be reduced ape-like interaction (where the most powerful rule over the rest, and nobody questions it)?
Bullshit. The ape-like interaction (interaction by force) is exactly what government imposes. Government cannot accomplish ANYTHING through voluntary association. If government suddenly became voluntary, it would no longer be government -- it would be free enterprise.
Communism requires that some group hold complete and total power (the "right" to initate force as a means to an end) over everyone else.
Is open source a product of "communist" thinking? Hell no. Are you coding at gunpoint? No? Than your coding has absolutely nothing in common with communism.
On one side, Capitalism--heartless and evil. On the other Communisim--mushy and incentive-free.
I really don't understand how you can say capitalism is "heartless and evil". The core principle of capitalism is *voluntary* trade. How exactly can any *voluntary* interaction be evil?
On the other hand, commumism requires that some group hold complete and total power (the "right" to initiate force) over everyone else. How exactly is this NOT evil?
Perhaps when you said "heartless and evil", you were thinking of corporate fraud or some other initiation of force. Sure, that's evil. But that's not capitalism -- that's crime.
I don't think you understand what communism is. It does NOT mean simply "working together" -- it means "working together AT GUNPOINT". Communism cannot function without the initiation of force: some group MUST hold complete and total power (the "right" to initiate force) over everyone else. How else are you going to eliminate private property?
My question: How exactly is the initiation of force NOT bad? This is a serious question. Everything evil that has ever happened in the world, since the beginning of history, is the result of an initiation of force. From war crimes to corporate fraud to petty theft, everything evil is an initiation of force. How is communism, which is the complete and total initiation of force, NOT BAD?
a government can never take away your rights, they can only chose to not honor them
Precisely. Rights are not something that you are "given" by those in power (like a gift), or something that you have to "earn" or "win". The truth is exactly the opposite: Human rights are derived from human nature. We are *born* with rights, because it is human nature that gives us those rights, not government. We have evolved as unique, thinking individuals, but at the same time we have evolved to work together in groups for mutual benefit. The only way to interact with other unique individuals, and retain mutual benefit, is to respect the natural rights of other individuals. There is no "list" of rights, nor could there ever possibly be a list. The very notion of enumerating rights implies that freedom will be limited to somebody's arbitrary idea of how people should behave. This requires an initiation of force. The initiation of force is the only mode of human interaction that violates our natural rights.
We are born free, and from there our rights can only be limited. No soldier has ever died to "earn" or "win" those rights. They died to *preserve* the rights that have been with us since the day mother nature gave us the intelligence to respect each other as unique, thinking individuals.
1. Compulsory education 2. Compulsory retirement planning 3. What exactly is that "medicare tax" I see on my pay slip? 4. Welfare 5. Corporate welfare
Those are all examples of robbing Peter for Paul's sake (and taking a cut for administration of course). That's socialism, plain and simple. Of course, I would argue that ANY instance of government could be classified as socialism. What exactly does government do that they don't claim is "providing for the people"?
PNG is a good replacement for.gif, but not for.jpg, yet.
It never will be and never was intended to be, for exactly the reason you stated above: PNG is lossless, while JPEG is lossy. These are two different types of tool, which serve two different purposes. PNG will never achieve the compression rates of JPEG. Just use the right tool for the job.
Would flac ever replace or eliminate the need for mp3 and ogg? No, for the same reason. flac, being lossless, serves an entirely different purpose than mp3 and ogg.
(Some time in the future, I would imagine that disk space will become so cheap and abundant that lossy compression is unnecessary, but in that case I would say that cheap disks -- not lossless compression -- have eliminated the need for lossy compression.)
Specifically, there can be no such thing as "capitalist kings", because the term "capitalism" implies voluntary association, while the term "king" (or "government") implies association by force. It's an oxymoron, and that's why it's silly.
How so? I just explained that the core principle of capitalism (voluntary association) is incompatible with the core principle of government (association by force). So the level of capitalism is inversely proportional to the scope of government. The wider the scope of government, the less capitalist the society. The more limited the scope of government, the more capitalist the society.
I noted that in the US today, the average citizen pays nearly 50% of his yearly earnings to government. So, judging by the raw cost of government and the impact on the individual's ability to control his own wealth, the US is about 50% capitalist (and that's not taking into account the loss of individual liberty). If the other 50% is not capitalism, what is it?
BTW, on the definition of "socialism" -- I would argue that everything government does is supposedly "to provide for the people". That's how they justify all the expansions of government, is it not? Anything government does could be classified as socialism -- so it's really a meaningless term. That's how government justifies all of its programs, right down to the local police service. It's the core business model of government: Rob Peter, give to Paul, and take a cut for yourself. Socialism is really just a sneaky way to say "government control", and paint it as "compassionate" or "nesessary".
You may say that welfare is "providing for the people", but your neighbor might say that a huge military power is "providing for the people". In the end, both of you are conveying pure opinion. See what I mean?
The question is which candidate is best for the *country*.
Don't you mean best for the most powerful special interest group? A "country" is nothing but a collection of unique thinking individuals -- it is not a living, thinking being in itself! It cannot know good or bad, or what's best for itself. Only the individual members of that country can determine that, and they can't speak for anyone but themselves. In order to say, "best interest of the country", then, you must prove that your policy has been endorsed by each and every individual member of your country. Impossible, yes, and that's my point.
There's no such concept as "best for the country". It's nothing but a fairytale made up by the powerful elite to convince us why they should retain and/or expand their powers.
I can still fly a confederate flag and wear a white hood
But if you're a journalist you refuse to reveal the sources of your report, you go to jail. And if you're suspected (not found guilty) of aiding terrorist groups, you are detained without due process.
Turns out that your're not quite as "free" as you think.
Simple: Jesus wouldn't vote. Why? Because if Jesus votes, he endorses the principle of force. No matter who he votes for, force will be employed as a means to an end: certain people will be granted power (the "right" to initiate force) over other people. Force is, after all, the essence and key tool of government.
I could be wrong, but I always thought that Jesus taught us to interact through voluntary association, not through force.
It's approaching a perpetual system of hard working fools and the Capitalist Kings they work for.
Just to illustrate how silly this sounds, let's consider the mode of interaction between citizen and government. It is pure force, not voluntary trade! Are your taxes voluntary? If you don't want or need a particular service from government, are you free to deny the offer and spend your earnings on something you find more important to you? Do you have a choice in law enforcement services, and patronize the organization that suits your needs best? Of course not. You are forced to accept the services government provides, on their terms only. There is no other option, short of jail or banishment from the very land you were born on. You can't just walk away and refuse government's "offer". If you could, it would be free enterprise, not government!
I guess the point I'm driving at (albeit poorly) is Capitalism is perfecting itself.
Don't even go there. What we have in the US today is NOT capitalism, not by a long shot. Capitalism is founded on individual liberty, namely the right to property (including your own body and the fruits of your labor) and the right to decide for yourself how to manage that property. Capitalism depends on voluntary association, not force (the tool of government).
Today in the US, the average citizen forks over nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, local, and state taxes combined. Citizens don't truly own their land, home, or posessions. Government has granted itself the "right" to confiscate everything you own, if it deems necessary -- even if you are a peaceful individual who has initiated force against nobody. (Refer to the widespread abuse of eminent domain.)
Capitalism and big government are not at all compatible. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both at the same time. What we have in the US today is a mix of fascism and socialism. Capitalism? Not even close. You can't even begin to call our society "capitalist" until government gets out of business, and business gets out of government.
Guns are a tool...for killing and/or maming stuff. What else are you gonna use your gun for?
Self defense. There are thousands of instances in the US alone, each year, where crimes are prevented by a person simply brandishing (not firing) a gun (sometimes even unloaded). These examples of moral, responsible gun use normally go unreported in the media, while examples of immoral or irresponsible gun use is always reported. Can you guess why?
Two words: Property rights. Today, you can't legally retaliate against those who pollute your air or water (only government can, and inevitably they side with whoever has the most money to bribe them with). Want to know how those businesses are able to put so much crap in our air and water and get away with it? Because government said it's OK.
The 40 hour work week
How exactly is it beneficial to override the contract between employer and employee in this way? Do you really think that, in a free market scenario (which we are far from BTW), the bulk of the workforce would simply shrug their shoulders and comply when asked to work more than 8 hours a day, putting work above family? I sure as hell wouldn't. If they don't like it, I'd find an employer who respects my need for personal time. How would I do this? By taking full responsibility for myself, and not expecting anyone to do it for me.
Automobile and Highway safety standards
I'll accept this one, at this point in time. However, I would argue that traffic laws are now determined moreso by how much revenue they bring in to the local government, not by how much safer the roads will be.
Regulation of the Markets
Banking and Finance Regulation
That's a broad claim (that regulation is inherently "good"), but I'll answer anyway. How exactly is regulation necessary to charge a criminal with a crime? Again, property rights. Make people responsible for their own actions. (The more government, the less personal responsibility, and vice-versa.)
Better education
Government ("public") education has consistently proven to be lesser quality than private education, despite working against the tide (big government). With a smaller, less costly government, private schools would be affordable for everyone. There would be a huge range of schools to suit the needs of everyone. Did you know that the average US citizen forks over nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes combined? Do you really think that government knows better how to spend your earnings than you do?
Longer life span
There's no way that government has produced more advances in the health industry than private industry.
In the end, anything that can be accomplished through force (government) can be accomplished more efficiently and productively through voluntary association. We just need to believe in ourselves, and take responsibility for our own lives.
Lawyers, farmers, techies, or garbage collectors -- government will always have a tendency to expand over its lifetime. It always has, and it always will. The reason is simple: because expansion of government benefits those in power.
Look what's happend in the US: government today is many times more powerful, more oppressive, and more costly than only a hundred years ago. We have proved that even strict, explicit limits on the scope of government -- as the founders imposed -- cannot stop the expansion of government.
I know that I don't benefit from this expansion of power. I am hurt by it in too many ways to list. Can anyone here (who doesn't work in government) honestly say that the exponential growth of the US government over the past 100 years has helped more than it's hurt?
Yes, but what's the difference? Either you work at the threat of violence or you work at your own will. (There are exactly two possible modes of human interaction: voluntary association, and force.) Government operates on the principle of force, not voluntary association.
Slashdot Mirror
I fully agree. Government is pure force, as much as they try to sugar-coat it with elections and promises of liberty and prosperity. The fact that we get to choose who acquires power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) does not, in any way, remove the element of power from government. It only makes government seem slightly less dangerous, to the naive, than it truly is.
Human rights -- I just don't get it.
The concept is simple. Respect me and my individual liberty, and I will respect you and your individual liberty. (Individual liberty includes the right to do as you please as long as you don't infringe the same rights of any other individual.) We do this not because we are forced to, but because we realize that each will benefit from mutual respect. That is where evolution comes in. Human beings (well, most) have evolved past the necessary level of intelligence to realize, and implement, the principle of mutual respect.
Agreed! It's a shame the philosophy of the founders was destroyed by the power-hungry looters.
Please refer to this article.
You sure you aren't barking up the wrong tree? Where did I dispute the right to private property?
Of course they have. It wouldn't be in the interest of government to admit that the concept of human rights exists independent of its rule.
What you are saying is that our right to voluntary association is derived from force. This makes no sense. The two modes of human interaction are incompatible. You can't interact through voluntary association and by force at the same time!
Do you really believe that, in the absence of power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end), the entire concept of human rights would diappear, and we would be reduced ape-like interaction (where the most powerful rule over the rest, and nobody questions it)?
Bullshit. The ape-like interaction (interaction by force) is exactly what government imposes. Government cannot accomplish ANYTHING through voluntary association. If government suddenly became voluntary, it would no longer be government -- it would be free enterprise.
Communism requires that some group hold complete and total power (the "right" to initate force as a means to an end) over everyone else.
Is open source a product of "communist" thinking? Hell no. Are you coding at gunpoint? No? Than your coding has absolutely nothing in common with communism.
I really don't understand how you can say capitalism is "heartless and evil". The core principle of capitalism is *voluntary* trade. How exactly can any *voluntary* interaction be evil?
On the other hand, commumism requires that some group hold complete and total power (the "right" to initiate force) over everyone else. How exactly is this NOT evil?
Perhaps when you said "heartless and evil", you were thinking of corporate fraud or some other initiation of force. Sure, that's evil. But that's not capitalism -- that's crime.
I don't think you understand what communism is. It does NOT mean simply "working together" -- it means "working together AT GUNPOINT". Communism cannot function without the initiation of force: some group MUST hold complete and total power (the "right" to initiate force) over everyone else. How else are you going to eliminate private property?
My question: How exactly is the initiation of force NOT bad? This is a serious question. Everything evil that has ever happened in the world, since the beginning of history, is the result of an initiation of force. From war crimes to corporate fraud to petty theft, everything evil is an initiation of force. How is communism, which is the complete and total initiation of force, NOT BAD?
Precisely. Rights are not something that you are "given" by those in power (like a gift), or something that you have to "earn" or "win". The truth is exactly the opposite: Human rights are derived from human nature. We are *born* with rights, because it is human nature that gives us those rights, not government. We have evolved as unique, thinking individuals, but at the same time we have evolved to work together in groups for mutual benefit. The only way to interact with other unique individuals, and retain mutual benefit, is to respect the natural rights of other individuals. There is no "list" of rights, nor could there ever possibly be a list. The very notion of enumerating rights implies that freedom will be limited to somebody's arbitrary idea of how people should behave. This requires an initiation of force. The initiation of force is the only mode of human interaction that violates our natural rights.
We are born free, and from there our rights can only be limited. No soldier has ever died to "earn" or "win" those rights. They died to *preserve* the rights that have been with us since the day mother nature gave us the intelligence to respect each other as unique, thinking individuals.
Indeed. I just read an article the other day that stated exactly the opposite of what this poster claims.
No socialism?
1. Compulsory education
2. Compulsory retirement planning
3. What exactly is that "medicare tax" I see on my pay slip?
4. Welfare
5. Corporate welfare
Those are all examples of robbing Peter for Paul's sake (and taking a cut for administration of course). That's socialism, plain and simple. Of course, I would argue that ANY instance of government could be classified as socialism. What exactly does government do that they don't claim is "providing for the people"?
It never will be and never was intended to be, for exactly the reason you stated above: PNG is lossless, while JPEG is lossy. These are two different types of tool, which serve two different purposes. PNG will never achieve the compression rates of JPEG. Just use the right tool for the job.
Would flac ever replace or eliminate the need for mp3 and ogg? No, for the same reason. flac, being lossless, serves an entirely different purpose than mp3 and ogg.
(Some time in the future, I would imagine that disk space will become so cheap and abundant that lossy compression is unnecessary, but in that case I would say that cheap disks -- not lossless compression -- have eliminated the need for lossy compression.)
Specifically, there can be no such thing as "capitalist kings", because the term "capitalism" implies voluntary association, while the term "king" (or "government") implies association by force. It's an oxymoron, and that's why it's silly.
How so? I just explained that the core principle of capitalism (voluntary association) is incompatible with the core principle of government (association by force). So the level of capitalism is inversely proportional to the scope of government. The wider the scope of government, the less capitalist the society. The more limited the scope of government, the more capitalist the society.
I noted that in the US today, the average citizen pays nearly 50% of his yearly earnings to government. So, judging by the raw cost of government and the impact on the individual's ability to control his own wealth, the US is about 50% capitalist (and that's not taking into account the loss of individual liberty). If the other 50% is not capitalism, what is it?
BTW, on the definition of "socialism" -- I would argue that everything government does is supposedly "to provide for the people". That's how they justify all the expansions of government, is it not? Anything government does could be classified as socialism -- so it's really a meaningless term. That's how government justifies all of its programs, right down to the local police service. It's the core business model of government: Rob Peter, give to Paul, and take a cut for yourself. Socialism is really just a sneaky way to say "government control", and paint it as "compassionate" or "nesessary".
You may say that welfare is "providing for the people", but your neighbor might say that a huge military power is "providing for the people". In the end, both of you are conveying pure opinion. See what I mean?
Don't you mean best for the most powerful special interest group? A "country" is nothing but a collection of unique thinking individuals -- it is not a living, thinking being in itself! It cannot know good or bad, or what's best for itself. Only the individual members of that country can determine that, and they can't speak for anyone but themselves. In order to say, "best interest of the country", then, you must prove that your policy has been endorsed by each and every individual member of your country. Impossible, yes, and that's my point.
There's no such concept as "best for the country". It's nothing but a fairytale made up by the powerful elite to convince us why they should retain and/or expand their powers.
But if you're a journalist you refuse to reveal the sources of your report, you go to jail. And if you're suspected (not found guilty) of aiding terrorist groups, you are detained without due process.
Turns out that your're not quite as "free" as you think.
Simple: Jesus wouldn't vote. Why? Because if Jesus votes, he endorses the principle of force. No matter who he votes for, force will be employed as a means to an end: certain people will be granted power (the "right" to initiate force) over other people. Force is, after all, the essence and key tool of government.
I could be wrong, but I always thought that Jesus taught us to interact through voluntary association, not through force.
Just to illustrate how silly this sounds, let's consider the mode of interaction between citizen and government. It is pure force, not voluntary trade! Are your taxes voluntary? If you don't want or need a particular service from government, are you free to deny the offer and spend your earnings on something you find more important to you? Do you have a choice in law enforcement services, and patronize the organization that suits your needs best? Of course not. You are forced to accept the services government provides, on their terms only. There is no other option, short of jail or banishment from the very land you were born on. You can't just walk away and refuse government's "offer". If you could, it would be free enterprise, not government!
Don't even go there. What we have in the US today is NOT capitalism, not by a long shot. Capitalism is founded on individual liberty, namely the right to property (including your own body and the fruits of your labor) and the right to decide for yourself how to manage that property. Capitalism depends on voluntary association, not force (the tool of government).
Today in the US, the average citizen forks over nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, local, and state taxes combined. Citizens don't truly own their land, home, or posessions. Government has granted itself the "right" to confiscate everything you own, if it deems necessary -- even if you are a peaceful individual who has initiated force against nobody. (Refer to the widespread abuse of eminent domain.)
Capitalism and big government are not at all compatible. You can have one or the other, but you can't have both at the same time. What we have in the US today is a mix of fascism and socialism. Capitalism? Not even close. You can't even begin to call our society "capitalist" until government gets out of business, and business gets out of government.
Ha. The typical slashdotter thinks government should provide "free" broadband, and force me to pay for it whether I like it or not.
Self defense. There are thousands of instances in the US alone, each year, where crimes are prevented by a person simply brandishing (not firing) a gun (sometimes even unloaded). These examples of moral, responsible gun use normally go unreported in the media, while examples of immoral or irresponsible gun use is always reported. Can you guess why?
Clener Air
Two words: Property rights. Today, you can't legally retaliate against those who pollute your air or water (only government can, and inevitably they side with whoever has the most money to bribe them with). Want to know how those businesses are able to put so much crap in our air and water and get away with it? Because government said it's OK.
The 40 hour work week
How exactly is it beneficial to override the contract between employer and employee in this way? Do you really think that, in a free market scenario (which we are far from BTW), the bulk of the workforce would simply shrug their shoulders and comply when asked to work more than 8 hours a day, putting work above family? I sure as hell wouldn't. If they don't like it, I'd find an employer who respects my need for personal time. How would I do this? By taking full responsibility for myself, and not expecting anyone to do it for me.
Automobile and Highway safety standards
I'll accept this one, at this point in time. However, I would argue that traffic laws are now determined moreso by how much revenue they bring in to the local government, not by how much safer the roads will be.
Regulation of the Markets
Banking and Finance Regulation
That's a broad claim (that regulation is inherently "good"), but I'll answer anyway. How exactly is regulation necessary to charge a criminal with a crime? Again, property rights. Make people responsible for their own actions. (The more government, the less personal responsibility, and vice-versa.)
Better education
Government ("public") education has consistently proven to be lesser quality than private education, despite working against the tide (big government). With a smaller, less costly government, private schools would be affordable for everyone. There would be a huge range of schools to suit the needs of everyone. Did you know that the average US citizen forks over nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes combined? Do you really think that government knows better how to spend your earnings than you do?
Longer life span
There's no way that government has produced more advances in the health industry than private industry.
In the end, anything that can be accomplished through force (government) can be accomplished more efficiently and productively through voluntary association. We just need to believe in ourselves, and take responsibility for our own lives.
Lawyers, farmers, techies, or garbage collectors -- government will always have a tendency to expand over its lifetime. It always has, and it always will. The reason is simple: because expansion of government benefits those in power.
Look what's happend in the US: government today is many times more powerful, more oppressive, and more costly than only a hundred years ago. We have proved that even strict, explicit limits on the scope of government -- as the founders imposed -- cannot stop the expansion of government.
I know that I don't benefit from this expansion of power. I am hurt by it in too many ways to list. Can anyone here (who doesn't work in government) honestly say that the exponential growth of the US government over the past 100 years has helped more than it's hurt?
Yes, but what's the difference? Either you work at the threat of violence or you work at your own will. (There are exactly two possible modes of human interaction: voluntary association, and force.) Government operates on the principle of force, not voluntary association.