I'm talking about the modern-day crusade. Did you know that the US government has been involved in some war, somewhere in the world, for every single year of the past century? Were you aware that the US government now has a military presence in over 150 countries around the world?
I could not get this laptop without some flavor of Windows XP.
The question remains, how exactly does this translate to "mugging" or "threatening at gunpoint"? (You did appear to be disputing that point, did you not?)
Face it, you are 100% responsible for your own decisions.
Or we could go on a blood-ridden crusade for empire, leaving behind an endless stream of destruction and innocent deaths, which enrages the victims who start to believe that in the name of revenge, they posess the "right" to attack innocent people too. Oh wait, that's happening right here.
Personally I have never seen a website I considered "better" for the use of Flash or another proprietary extension. In most cases, the people who use Flash are the same people who completely ignore web standards.
Why is it that every time I turn around these days, some sort of idiotic bullshit like this is coming out of the government?
Simple: because it benefits the powerful elite. Any expansion of government, success or failure, can only benefit government. More often than not, government agencies which fail outright are *rewarded* with more revenue.
Those who make the laws are no more likely to abuse them than anyone else.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Naturally, positions of power (*) attract those who intend to control others through force, not those who intend to mind their own business and interact voluntarily with others. (What possible reason would anyone have for achieving policial power, besides the intention to change the behavior of others through force?)
(*) Meaning the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. (This includes government and only government.)
Even if we had such a thing as global laws (which ain't gonna happen anytime soon, either), the difference is that nanotech engineering would just be performed by outlaws instead of official scientists.
What makes you think it wouldn't be abused by those who make the laws?
This is exactly what's happening. Bigger government means more "responsibility" for the powerful elite, which in the end always translates to profit. At least somebody realizes that government is the root of the problem; business is only playing the hand they've been dealt by government.
Technically, lossless has nothing do with quality either, at least not directly speaking. What lossless means is this:
If you take a file containing raw audio (WAV for example), compress with lossless compression, and then decompress back to WAV, the resulting file is bit-for-bit identical to the original.
Absent government, "free enterprise" would be pleased to commit all manner of crimes
That's what government teaches you, however the facts are that (1) no such purely capitalist society has ever existed for long enough to mature before being conquered by government, and (2) there is no evidence that services which are currently provided through forced participation (government) cannot be provided as well or better through voluntary participation.
but they wouldn't be crimes without government, would they?
In the abscence of government, the only crimes would be those concerning the initiation of force (theft, fraud, murder, rape, etc.) -- where there is an actual victim and an actual aggressor. This is often called "natural law". Whether a society without a controlling force (government) would have the means or not to punish and deter criminals is another discussion, but the answer is yes, human beings are quite capable of determining for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
Also, I would like to remind you that prohibition (government) is what created business for Al Capone in the first place.
Yes, the existence of power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) is the *problem*, not the solution. Consolidating all world power in the hands of a single agency is quite literally the worst possible scenario.
Instead of working to increase the availability of power, we should be working to diffuse or eliminate it. Logically, the less power available to the governing elite, the less problems they will cause.
Opinions far from our own aren't inherently nuts, and we don't have to be scared of them -- do we?
There is nothing threatening about opinions, of course. The problem is that once an opinion becomes "endorsed" by government, it's no longer an opinion -- it's pure force.
An opinion is something which is voluntarily accepted. Government is not capable of conducting its business through voluntary means -- if it did, it wouldn't be government (it would be free enterprise). By definition, government must conduct its business by force.
So yes, the moment an opinion becomes "endorsed" by government, we should be very afraid.
We will all be perfectly safe the same day we all become criminals.
We already are criminals, and we are hardly safer for it. The law is so overly complex and ambiguous that it is literally impossible NOT to be a criminal. Why has the law been designed this way? The answer is simple.
There's no way to rule innocent men....When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers....Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
if you're not one of the winners, you're one of the losers
That is a perfect way to describe big government and special-interest politics, and exactly the reason why I believe government should be strictly limited in scope, power, and expense. Beyond the core function of protecting the people against force (theft, fraud, murder, etc), government is nothing but a "formal" way for the powerful elite to screw everyone for their own benefit.
Government routinely passes laws that have no practical benefit to society, but have many benefits to the powerful elite (the incumbants and the lobbyists). The notion of blindly swinging legislation at "problems" (whether the problems really exist of not) is a convienient way to distract you away from their real goal: to expand their own wealth and power.
If you want to get technical, the root of the problem is power, i.e. the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. As we all know, government holds a monopoly on power -- any private individual or group who initiates force is a criminal, unless government has specifically endorsed that initiation of force via (for example) unjust law.
Naturally, the more power which exists (the wider the scope of government), the more often force will be used as a means to an end. Ergo, the root of the problem is power, which for all intents and purposes, means government.
Government defines the rules. The rules are unjust and hence exploitable. Government has laid the framework which allows big corporations to crush the little guy.
"Unchecked capitalism" (I think you mean unfair business practices?) is an unwanted side effect, not the cause of the problem. The root of the problem is government.
Capitalism (voluntary trade) to blame? Give me a break.
Just who do you think provides the overly complex, ambiguous, exploitable legal system which allows big corporations to force honest competitors out of the market?
I think religion is probably the greatest scam ever invented.
Your points apply to government (organized coercion) more so than religion (organized persuasion).
Throughout history, governments have killed millions of times more, and plundered millions of times more than religious institutions. (Where religious institutions have killed and plundered, it is usually because they are associated somehow with government.) I think it is quite obvious that government, not religion, deserves the crowning of "greatest scam ever invented".
How about the fact that any expansion of government -- any increase in scope, revenue, or power over the people -- benefits those who control government?
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think there is a reason why government tends to expand over its lifetime (as history shows).
I assume you are one who believes that wealth is not created by human beings, but simply "exists" to be confiscated by whoever discovers it. Naturally, this leads to the false conclusion that the rich are rich because of luck, and the poor are poor because they are "deprived" of wealth by the rich. Unfortunately, our leaders are quite willing to propagate this myth in the name of empowering government.
The truth is that wealth only exists because of voluntary trade. Everything you see around you -- all forms of wealth that could possibly exist -- were produced by the principle of mutual benefit. In other words, it is impossible to produce wealth without enriching others at the same time.
Wealth is created ONLY when both parties involved in a transaction have determined a self-benefit. When two parties engage in voluntary trade, each party gains by the transaction, and therefore more wealth exists AFTER the transaction than before (gain + gain = wealth created). If either party had determined they would not gain by the transaction, they would not have engaged the transaction in the first place.
When two parties engage in non-voluntary interaction (force), no wealth is created. For example, a robbery represents a transfer of wealth, not a production of wealth. The aggressor gains, but ONLY at the expense of the victim. After the transaction, no more wealth exists than before (gain + loss = no wealth created).
All wealth that exists in the world today was produced, at some point, by the simple principle of mutual benefit. Unless a wealthy person has engaged in coercion (involuntary trade), it is literally impossible that they are "screwing over the poor".
Actually, true capitalism is rooted in moral decision-making (with "morality" defined as voluntary association, the opposite of coercion).
The core principle of capitalism is voluntary association: participants in the market MUST retain the right to choose, voluntarily, where and when to invest their wealth. The logical opposite of capitalism is coercion (forced association): theft, fraud, murder, extortion. The purely capitalist society is, in fact, one with no government (one which rejects the notion of organized coercion altogether). Of course, such a society does not exist and never has.
In any event, the US is not a good example of capitalism. The US is only half capitalist at best, because the average US citizen is forced to give nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes combined. If half of the citizen's purchasing power is removed by force, then the citizen isn't making decisions for himself, and therefore it can't be capitalism.
Certain groups like to point at Enron (and others) citing a "failure of capitalism". But capitalism is just a way to describe voluntary association in economic terms. There is no such thing as a failure of voluntary association! (All voluntary association is moral by human nature.)
The truth is that Enron is a simple example of fraud, which is incompatible with the core principle of capitalism. Enron is no more a "failure of capitalism" than a street mugging!
Getting to the point, morality not only has "something to do with" capitalism -- morality is the very first prerequisite of capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm talking about the modern-day crusade. Did you know that the US government has been involved in some war, somewhere in the world, for every single year of the past century? Were you aware that the US government now has a military presence in over 150 countries around the world?
The question remains, how exactly does this translate to "mugging" or "threatening at gunpoint"? (You did appear to be disputing that point, did you not?)
Face it, you are 100% responsible for your own decisions.
Or we could go on a blood-ridden crusade for empire, leaving behind an endless stream of destruction and innocent deaths, which enrages the victims who start to believe that in the name of revenge, they posess the "right" to attack innocent people too. Oh wait, that's happening right here.
Personally I have never seen a website I considered "better" for the use of Flash or another proprietary extension. In most cases, the people who use Flash are the same people who completely ignore web standards.
Simple: because it benefits the powerful elite. Any expansion of government, success or failure, can only benefit government. More often than not, government agencies which fail outright are *rewarded* with more revenue.
How about an overly complex, ambiguous, highly exploitable system of law? (in other words, big government)
I wouldn't be so sure of that. Naturally, positions of power (*) attract those who intend to control others through force, not those who intend to mind their own business and interact voluntarily with others. (What possible reason would anyone have for achieving policial power, besides the intention to change the behavior of others through force?)
(*) Meaning the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. (This includes government and only government.)
What makes you think it wouldn't be abused by those who make the laws?
This is exactly what's happening. Bigger government means more "responsibility" for the powerful elite, which in the end always translates to profit. At least somebody realizes that government is the root of the problem; business is only playing the hand they've been dealt by government.
Technically, lossless has nothing do with quality either, at least not directly speaking. What lossless means is this:
If you take a file containing raw audio (WAV for example), compress with lossless compression, and then decompress back to WAV, the resulting file is bit-for-bit identical to the original.
That's what government teaches you, however the facts are that (1) no such purely capitalist society has ever existed for long enough to mature before being conquered by government, and (2) there is no evidence that services which are currently provided through forced participation (government) cannot be provided as well or better through voluntary participation.
but they wouldn't be crimes without government, would they?
In the abscence of government, the only crimes would be those concerning the initiation of force (theft, fraud, murder, rape, etc.) -- where there is an actual victim and an actual aggressor. This is often called "natural law". Whether a society without a controlling force (government) would have the means or not to punish and deter criminals is another discussion, but the answer is yes, human beings are quite capable of determining for themselves what is right and what is wrong.
Also, I would like to remind you that prohibition (government) is what created business for Al Capone in the first place.
Instead of working to increase the availability of power, we should be working to diffuse or eliminate it. Logically, the less power available to the governing elite, the less problems they will cause.
There is nothing threatening about opinions, of course. The problem is that once an opinion becomes "endorsed" by government, it's no longer an opinion -- it's pure force.
An opinion is something which is voluntarily accepted. Government is not capable of conducting its business through voluntary means -- if it did, it wouldn't be government (it would be free enterprise). By definition, government must conduct its business by force.
So yes, the moment an opinion becomes "endorsed" by government, we should be very afraid.
We already are criminals, and we are hardly safer for it. The law is so overly complex and ambiguous that it is literally impossible NOT to be a criminal. Why has the law been designed this way? The answer is simple.
There's no way to rule innocent men. ...When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers. ...Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
That is a perfect way to describe big government and special-interest politics, and exactly the reason why I believe government should be strictly limited in scope, power, and expense. Beyond the core function of protecting the people against force (theft, fraud, murder, etc), government is nothing but a "formal" way for the powerful elite to screw everyone for their own benefit.
Government routinely passes laws that have no practical benefit to society, but have many benefits to the powerful elite (the incumbants and the lobbyists). The notion of blindly swinging legislation at "problems" (whether the problems really exist of not) is a convienient way to distract you away from their real goal: to expand their own wealth and power.
If you want to get technical, the root of the problem is power, i.e. the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. As we all know, government holds a monopoly on power -- any private individual or group who initiates force is a criminal, unless government has specifically endorsed that initiation of force via (for example) unjust law.
Naturally, the more power which exists (the wider the scope of government), the more often force will be used as a means to an end. Ergo, the root of the problem is power, which for all intents and purposes, means government.
Government defines the rules. The rules are unjust and hence exploitable. Government has laid the framework which allows big corporations to crush the little guy.
"Unchecked capitalism" (I think you mean unfair business practices?) is an unwanted side effect, not the cause of the problem. The root of the problem is government.
Capitalism (voluntary trade) to blame? Give me a break.
Just who do you think provides the overly complex, ambiguous, exploitable legal system which allows big corporations to force honest competitors out of the market?
Legally wrong, but not necessarily morally wrong. If the law is unjust, then it is morally correct to override or ignore the law.
Your points apply to government (organized coercion) more so than religion (organized persuasion).
Throughout history, governments have killed millions of times more, and plundered millions of times more than religious institutions. (Where religious institutions have killed and plundered, it is usually because they are associated somehow with government.) I think it is quite obvious that government, not religion, deserves the crowning of "greatest scam ever invented".
How about the fact that any expansion of government -- any increase in scope, revenue, or power over the people -- benefits those who control government?
Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think there is a reason why government tends to expand over its lifetime (as history shows).
Amazing how one slashdot user can single-handedly represent the collective values of the entire open source community. Give me a break.
I do agree with the rest of your post, though. In fact, I (like many other slashdot users) consider the BSD license "more free" than the GPL.
I assume you are one who believes that wealth is not created by human beings, but simply "exists" to be confiscated by whoever discovers it. Naturally, this leads to the false conclusion that the rich are rich because of luck, and the poor are poor because they are "deprived" of wealth by the rich. Unfortunately, our leaders are quite willing to propagate this myth in the name of empowering government.
The truth is that wealth only exists because of voluntary trade. Everything you see around you -- all forms of wealth that could possibly exist -- were produced by the principle of mutual benefit. In other words, it is impossible to produce wealth without enriching others at the same time.
Wealth is created ONLY when both parties involved in a transaction have determined a self-benefit. When two parties engage in voluntary trade, each party gains by the transaction, and therefore more wealth exists AFTER the transaction than before (gain + gain = wealth created). If either party had determined they would not gain by the transaction, they would not have engaged the transaction in the first place.
When two parties engage in non-voluntary interaction (force), no wealth is created. For example, a robbery represents a transfer of wealth, not a production of wealth. The aggressor gains, but ONLY at the expense of the victim. After the transaction, no more wealth exists than before (gain + loss = no wealth created).
All wealth that exists in the world today was produced, at some point, by the simple principle of mutual benefit. Unless a wealthy person has engaged in coercion (involuntary trade), it is literally impossible that they are "screwing over the poor".
Actually, true capitalism is rooted in moral decision-making (with "morality" defined as voluntary association, the opposite of coercion).
The core principle of capitalism is voluntary association: participants in the market MUST retain the right to choose, voluntarily, where and when to invest their wealth. The logical opposite of capitalism is coercion (forced association): theft, fraud, murder, extortion. The purely capitalist society is, in fact, one with no government (one which rejects the notion of organized coercion altogether). Of course, such a society does not exist and never has.
In any event, the US is not a good example of capitalism. The US is only half capitalist at best, because the average US citizen is forced to give nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes combined. If half of the citizen's purchasing power is removed by force, then the citizen isn't making decisions for himself, and therefore it can't be capitalism.
Certain groups like to point at Enron (and others) citing a "failure of capitalism". But capitalism is just a way to describe voluntary association in economic terms. There is no such thing as a failure of voluntary association! (All voluntary association is moral by human nature.)
The truth is that Enron is a simple example of fraud, which is incompatible with the core principle of capitalism. Enron is no more a "failure of capitalism" than a street mugging!
Getting to the point, morality not only has "something to do with" capitalism -- morality is the very first prerequisite of capitalism.