the rest of the world is not going to convert the mp3 collection to ogg's
I certainly hope not. Once you go lossy, you're stuck. Re-encoding with lossy compression would be (in a metaphorical sense) like replacing your 2nd generation analog tapes with 3rd generation copies: pointless.
If you have a collection of mp3's which you don't have the original cd-quality audio for, the best thing you can do is leave it alone.
For the purpose of science, "nothing" or "no reason" (lack of cause) is not a valid answer. It is the same as saying "we don't know", and that is not a valid conclusion. If we admit that we don't know how or why the universe came about, then we haven't ruled out the existence of a higher power at all. (Your objective was to rule out the existence of a higher power, was it not?)
The problem is tyranny of the majority, or the simple fact that power (the "right" to initiate force) exists and will be abused by definition. Even if everyone was "informed" and everyone voted, democracy is still based on the premise that a majority has the "right" to initiate force (on a minority) as a means to an end. Tyranny of the majority is guaranteed.
Furthermore, democracy doesn't guarantee freedom, or justice, or morality. A democracy (or republic) breeds opression just as easily (some have said more easily) than a monarchy, for example.
On a psychological level, positions of power do not attract those who just want to live their lives in peace and mind their own business. Positions of power attract those who wish to control others through force. Government is, after all, pure force (to paraphrase George Washington).
If our universe is infinite, then there is no outside and God must live inside our universe.
You are making the mistake of trying to comprehend the higher power in human terms ("living", "being somewhere"). By definition the higher power is not comprehendable to human beings except to acknowledge its existence. If the higher power were comprehendable, there would have to be an "end" or final solution to the problem of infinite recursion, which science could explain in human terms.
As for the rest of your comments, you are essentially describing the problem of infinite recursion. What created the universe? What created the creator of the universe? What created the creator of the creator of the universe? At some point you have to admit the existence of a higher power, because there is no possible "end" to the problem.
scientific theory that explains everything, and no questions left unanswered
But there is a question left unanswered: What created the means for this scientific theory to exist? Solve that one, and you're left in a similar situation. What I'm trying to say is that we're looking at a problem of infinite recursion that has no possible "end" or final solution, except to admit the existence of a higher power that human beings will never comprehend.
Don't even go there. Open source is voluntary. People contribute to open source because they want to contribute, not because they are forced to contribute. If you don't want to contribute, you can simply walk away from it.
Socialism is not voluntary. People contribute to socialism because they are forced to contribute. (If it was voluntary, it would be free enterprise.) You can't just walk away from socialism. What happens if you refuse to pay your taxes?
Infinity does not prove God directly; it proves that we will never unlock the "final solution" to the age-old, fundamental question (i.e. how did we get here). Every time we get closer, (via scientific advancement for example), we simply open up a new set of problems to solve. I propose that, because we will never reach the "end" or final solution, the only possible explanation is the existence of a higher power that human beings are incapable of understanding.
For the record, I am not a religious person, and I don't have an agenda to push. This is just my own imagination which I like to call philosophy.
Um, I'm not talking about infinite numbers. Maybe I should have been more clear. I'm talking about infinite questions that need to be answered. As soon as we solve one problem (what created the universe) another takes its place (what created the creator of the universe). There is no way to reach the "end", because the "end" doesn't exist. The only "end" lies in the existence of a higher power which human beings are not capable of understanding.
No, that is absolutely not fair, because the solution involves forcing individuals to comply regardless of their will. If the solution requires force, then it isn't fair by definition, because force is the logical opposite of individual liberty.
Offtopic, but we already have proof that God (or some higher power) exists: infinity.
If the universe is infinite, then the question is already answered. Human beings will never find a "solution" for infinity (a "reason" behind it) because infinity never ends. It is logically impossible to reach the final solution, because every solution is superceded by an even bigger problem. Therefore the only possible "solution" lies in the existence of a higher power that we don't have the capability of understanding through human logic.
If the universe is finite, then we are faced with the question "what contains the universe"? If the container of the universe is finite, then we are faced with the question "what contains the container of the universe"? And so on. But then we are right back where we started -- infinity. We can't escape it, and we will never solve it.
While infinity proves that God (or some higher power) exists, it is impossible to prove that God is concerned with human affairs, or even knows of our existence.
You have missed the fundamental difference between government prohibiting a technology vs. "refusing" to fund it: freedom. From the standpoint of individual liberty, those concepts are actually opposites.
Prohibiting a technology by the force of government is an attack on individual liberty, because the free choice of the individual is eliminated. "Refusing" to fund a technology by the force of government is an endorsement of individual liberty, because the free choice of the individual is preserved. (Funding the technology would be the attack on individual liberty, because the funding is necessarily achieved through force, which is logical opposite of free choice.)
Politicians, no matter which country they come from, are only concerned with their adgendas.
That's absolutely right, but there's nothing inherently wrong with being motivated by self interest. The danger comes when one individual tries to forcibly impose that self interest on another.
This is why government must be strictly limited in scope, power, and expense (as the founders of the US intended). Individuals in government are motivated by self interest just like every other individual -- the difference is that individuals in government hold the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while the common individual does not.
Put another way, government is the most dangerous force that could ever possibly exist. There could be no greater threat to peace than a group of individuals who hold the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end.
It's also quite short-sighted to blindly assume that government can provide health care better than the market. There is no shortage of studies that conclude the exact opposite. The advocates of government health care will try to paint a picture of "national crisis" in the absence of the socialist program -- as if health care is impossible to provide through voluntary means.
which means it doesn't count. The price of that DVD burner is not $100, it is $100 plus the labor you need to complete in order to get your money back, plus the temporary loss of wealth, plus the hassle of accounting for it all.
The fact that they won't sell me the product without strings attached tells me that they never intended to sell me the product at the "special" price in the first place.
They'd never be doing this if every single customer sent in the rebate. They only do it because they know that some percentage of customers will fail to do it, or fail to do it according to the requirements. They could operate more efficiently by just selling the product at the sale price, no strings attached.
Thanks, but I don't need gimmicks. I'll take my business to a vendor who does business in a more truthful manner.
I certainly do, and this ain't it. Freedom is (you guessed it) voluntary association. In general, the bigger the government, the less voluntary association, and therefore the less freedom. I find it amusing that you list everything that's wrong with the world today, and then conclude that our "freedom" just isn't worth it due to all the problems in the world.
Wake up. We are NOT free. We never have been.
You are living in a fantasy world.
It's beyond me why I bother responding to these mindless insults, but speaking of fantasy worlds, how about the one where everything is provided by the all-powerful state, and everyone happily lives their lives as slaves to whoever holds power?
So, when the American government initiates force against the inferior native americans, clearing them from the land so the Amish can live there, thats ok?
Of course not. The europeans were wrong and immoral, because they invoked force as a means to an end. I'm not going to back-pedal on my philosophy just because I live on land that was acquired by force hundreds of years before I even existed.
However, neither the victims nor the aggressors are alive today, so this is water under the bridge. It's simply history, and hopefully we can learn from it.
You don't have to be a pacifist to operate on the principle of voluntary association. Pacifism is irrelevant to the concepts I'm trying to explain.
In congressional hearings regarding the draft, they have said that if they were required to defend their immediate homeland in the event of an invasion, they would.
According to Rand, force in self-defense is moral and acceptable. The initiation of force is what is immoral and unacceptable. The Amish do not force any members of their society to work or otherwise contribute to the society, nor would they force any memeber to take up arms to defend their society. If they took up arms in defense of their society, that is a moral and acceptable use of force (not an initiation of force). Therefore, the Amish are entirely consistent with Rand's philosophy.
As far as initiating force, they haven't gotten to a point where it is necessary.
You still misunderstand the concept of force as a means to an end (the initiation of force) vs. voluntary association as a means to an end. If the government initiates an attack on the Amish, and the Amish invoke force in self-defense, then the government is the initiator of force (the immoral party) and the Amish are still moral and just.
Of course, if I can pursuade enough people to follow me then it won't be just me now will it? You got a problem with that randroid?
Persuasion is not an initiation of force. So no, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. Socialism, on the other hand, depends on the initiation of force. So which one is it? Are you talking about socialism or free enterprise? There's your answer.
There is a very easy way to ensure that Government is only made up of the best and wisest people.
If there is, I'd certainly like to know about it. Every government since the beginning of time has abused its power over the people, empowering and enriching the elite few at the expense of individual freedom. This "method" you speak of -- which ensures that our rulers are "wise" -- is still theory, no?
Is this a joke? Statisically, the US is one of the most dangerous "first world" countries to live in. But, the US has the most powerful, most expensive government (element of force) in the world. By your logic, the US should be the safest country in the world to live in, because the US government (the element of force) is the strongest in the world. WHAT HAPPENED?
Their little fantasy world where no one can initiate force is DEPENDENT upon a vast police force ready and willing to impliment such a system.
This is nonsense. In a pinch, your theory has already been disproved by (for example) the Amish. Peaceful anarchy is not only possible -- it is quite logically the ultimate social achievement. Unfortunately, we are taught by government from a very early age that force is the better solution.
Unless you're a criminal, you interact with other people voluntarily. You do so on a daily basis. So do the people you interact with. They do not engage in voluntary interaction because they are forced to -- they engage in voluntary interaction because they want to. They do this because they realize that voluntary interaction benefits them more than forceful interaction would.
If that can happen in your little corner of the world, then why couldn't it happen on a larger scale? As long as no one group is empowered with the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, why wouldn't it be possible? (Note that force in self-defense is entirely acceptable. It is the initiation of force that I am concerned with.)
Force is how nature survives.
Force is how criminals survive. I survive through voluntary association, and I suspect that you do too.
Don't muddy the waters. There are exactly 2 types of human interaction possible: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary interaction is devoid of force; involuntary interaction relies on force. Examples of voluntary interaction include marriage, friendship, employment, and basically everything you do throughout the day, if you're not a criminal. Examples of involuntary interaction include theft, fraud, murder, and of course, the citizen-government relationship.
You, as an individual, do not hold the "right" to initiate force. You may use force in self-defense, but if you initiate force, you are a criminal. Government, on the other hand, does hold the "right" to initiate force. Everything government does is based on force -- otherwise it would be private enterprise. At the very least, government must initiate force in order to generate revenue.
The examples you give are not types of human interaction. They are examples of inanimate posessions (guns, money) and abstract concepts (intellect). They have no relation to force because they are not actions. For example, a gun does not decide whether to invoke force as a means to an end. It could be used as a tool of force (i.e. armed robbery) or it could be used as an object of voluntary interaction (i.e. shooting range). It is not the gun that determines whether a human interaction is voluntary or involuntary -- it is the human being.
Civilization needs a goal, without a goal, its just endless individualist pricks who all want to be different and be special.
Let me guess: This "goal" you speak of is something that YOU personally value and consider worthy?
Open your eyes. Government is nothing but a collection of "individualist pricks" just like you, me, the corporations, and everyone else on this planet. Individuals in government act in their own interest, just like everyone else. The difference is that individuals in government hold the "right" to invoke force as a means to an end, while the common individual does not.
I can't see how the patent system is anything but a joke, one that does good for nobody but the lawyers.
And government. Remember the simple business model of government: You take resources (things of value) from some people, you give some of these resources to other people, and you keep the rest for yourself. Any government program that has ever existed in the history of human civilization has followed this simple business plan, in some shape or form.
On a simpler level, the notion of force (which all government is fundamentally based on) naturally divides us into winners and losers. The winners are those who benefit from the application of force as a means to an end; the losers are those who are hurt by the application of force. Those who make the laws are, obviously, on the winning team.
Basically, the bigger the government, the bigger the potential profit for those in power. It's really no surprise that government has a tendency to expand -- not reduce -- its powers over time. The US government today, for example, dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
I think "rumor" is the word you're looking for, not "FUD".
I certainly hope not. Once you go lossy, you're stuck. Re-encoding with lossy compression would be (in a metaphorical sense) like replacing your 2nd generation analog tapes with 3rd generation copies: pointless.
If you have a collection of mp3's which you don't have the original cd-quality audio for, the best thing you can do is leave it alone.
For the purpose of science, "nothing" or "no reason" (lack of cause) is not a valid answer. It is the same as saying "we don't know", and that is not a valid conclusion. If we admit that we don't know how or why the universe came about, then we haven't ruled out the existence of a higher power at all. (Your objective was to rule out the existence of a higher power, was it not?)
The problem is tyranny of the majority, or the simple fact that power (the "right" to initiate force) exists and will be abused by definition. Even if everyone was "informed" and everyone voted, democracy is still based on the premise that a majority has the "right" to initiate force (on a minority) as a means to an end. Tyranny of the majority is guaranteed.
Furthermore, democracy doesn't guarantee freedom, or justice, or morality. A democracy (or republic) breeds opression just as easily (some have said more easily) than a monarchy, for example.
On a psychological level, positions of power do not attract those who just want to live their lives in peace and mind their own business. Positions of power attract those who wish to control others through force. Government is, after all, pure force (to paraphrase George Washington).
You are making the mistake of trying to comprehend the higher power in human terms ("living", "being somewhere"). By definition the higher power is not comprehendable to human beings except to acknowledge its existence. If the higher power were comprehendable, there would have to be an "end" or final solution to the problem of infinite recursion, which science could explain in human terms.
As for the rest of your comments, you are essentially describing the problem of infinite recursion. What created the universe? What created the creator of the universe? What created the creator of the creator of the universe? At some point you have to admit the existence of a higher power, because there is no possible "end" to the problem.
But there is a question left unanswered: What created the means for this scientific theory to exist? Solve that one, and you're left in a similar situation. What I'm trying to say is that we're looking at a problem of infinite recursion that has no possible "end" or final solution, except to admit the existence of a higher power that human beings will never comprehend.
Don't even go there. Open source is voluntary. People contribute to open source because they want to contribute, not because they are forced to contribute. If you don't want to contribute, you can simply walk away from it.
Socialism is not voluntary. People contribute to socialism because they are forced to contribute. (If it was voluntary, it would be free enterprise.) You can't just walk away from socialism. What happens if you refuse to pay your taxes?
Infinity does not prove God directly; it proves that we will never unlock the "final solution" to the age-old, fundamental question (i.e. how did we get here). Every time we get closer, (via scientific advancement for example), we simply open up a new set of problems to solve. I propose that, because we will never reach the "end" or final solution, the only possible explanation is the existence of a higher power that human beings are incapable of understanding.
For the record, I am not a religious person, and I don't have an agenda to push. This is just my own imagination which I like to call philosophy.
Um, I'm not talking about infinite numbers. Maybe I should have been more clear. I'm talking about infinite questions that need to be answered. As soon as we solve one problem (what created the universe) another takes its place (what created the creator of the universe). There is no way to reach the "end", because the "end" doesn't exist. The only "end" lies in the existence of a higher power which human beings are not capable of understanding.
No, that is absolutely not fair, because the solution involves forcing individuals to comply regardless of their will. If the solution requires force, then it isn't fair by definition, because force is the logical opposite of individual liberty.
Offtopic, but we already have proof that God (or some higher power) exists: infinity.
If the universe is infinite, then the question is already answered. Human beings will never find a "solution" for infinity (a "reason" behind it) because infinity never ends. It is logically impossible to reach the final solution, because every solution is superceded by an even bigger problem. Therefore the only possible "solution" lies in the existence of a higher power that we don't have the capability of understanding through human logic.
If the universe is finite, then we are faced with the question "what contains the universe"? If the container of the universe is finite, then we are faced with the question "what contains the container of the universe"? And so on. But then we are right back where we started -- infinity. We can't escape it, and we will never solve it.
While infinity proves that God (or some higher power) exists, it is impossible to prove that God is concerned with human affairs, or even knows of our existence.
You have missed the fundamental difference between government prohibiting a technology vs. "refusing" to fund it: freedom. From the standpoint of individual liberty, those concepts are actually opposites.
Prohibiting a technology by the force of government is an attack on individual liberty, because the free choice of the individual is eliminated. "Refusing" to fund a technology by the force of government is an endorsement of individual liberty, because the free choice of the individual is preserved. (Funding the technology would be the attack on individual liberty, because the funding is necessarily achieved through force, which is logical opposite of free choice.)
That's absolutely right, but there's nothing inherently wrong with being motivated by self interest. The danger comes when one individual tries to forcibly impose that self interest on another.
This is why government must be strictly limited in scope, power, and expense (as the founders of the US intended). Individuals in government are motivated by self interest just like every other individual -- the difference is that individuals in government hold the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while the common individual does not.
Put another way, government is the most dangerous force that could ever possibly exist. There could be no greater threat to peace than a group of individuals who hold the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end.
It's also quite short-sighted to blindly assume that government can provide health care better than the market. There is no shortage of studies that conclude the exact opposite. The advocates of government health care will try to paint a picture of "national crisis" in the absence of the socialist program -- as if health care is impossible to provide through voluntary means.
which means it doesn't count. The price of that DVD burner is not $100, it is $100 plus the labor you need to complete in order to get your money back, plus the temporary loss of wealth, plus the hassle of accounting for it all.
The fact that they won't sell me the product without strings attached tells me that they never intended to sell me the product at the "special" price in the first place.
They'd never be doing this if every single customer sent in the rebate. They only do it because they know that some percentage of customers will fail to do it, or fail to do it according to the requirements. They could operate more efficiently by just selling the product at the sale price, no strings attached.
Thanks, but I don't need gimmicks. I'll take my business to a vendor who does business in a more truthful manner.
Stay out of it, troll.
I certainly do, and this ain't it. Freedom is (you guessed it) voluntary association. In general, the bigger the government, the less voluntary association, and therefore the less freedom. I find it amusing that you list everything that's wrong with the world today, and then conclude that our "freedom" just isn't worth it due to all the problems in the world.
Wake up. We are NOT free. We never have been.
You are living in a fantasy world.
It's beyond me why I bother responding to these mindless insults, but speaking of fantasy worlds, how about the one where everything is provided by the all-powerful state, and everyone happily lives their lives as slaves to whoever holds power?
Of course not. The europeans were wrong and immoral, because they invoked force as a means to an end. I'm not going to back-pedal on my philosophy just because I live on land that was acquired by force hundreds of years before I even existed.
However, neither the victims nor the aggressors are alive today, so this is water under the bridge. It's simply history, and hopefully we can learn from it.
You don't have to be a pacifist to operate on the principle of voluntary association. Pacifism is irrelevant to the concepts I'm trying to explain.
In congressional hearings regarding the draft, they have said that if they were required to defend their immediate homeland in the event of an invasion, they would.
According to Rand, force in self-defense is moral and acceptable. The initiation of force is what is immoral and unacceptable. The Amish do not force any members of their society to work or otherwise contribute to the society, nor would they force any memeber to take up arms to defend their society. If they took up arms in defense of their society, that is a moral and acceptable use of force (not an initiation of force). Therefore, the Amish are entirely consistent with Rand's philosophy.
As far as initiating force, they haven't gotten to a point where it is necessary.
You still misunderstand the concept of force as a means to an end (the initiation of force) vs. voluntary association as a means to an end. If the government initiates an attack on the Amish, and the Amish invoke force in self-defense, then the government is the initiator of force (the immoral party) and the Amish are still moral and just.
Persuasion is not an initiation of force. So no, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. Socialism, on the other hand, depends on the initiation of force. So which one is it? Are you talking about socialism or free enterprise? There's your answer.
There is a very easy way to ensure that Government is only made up of the best and wisest people.
If there is, I'd certainly like to know about it. Every government since the beginning of time has abused its power over the people, empowering and enriching the elite few at the expense of individual freedom. This "method" you speak of -- which ensures that our rulers are "wise" -- is still theory, no?
I really don't know how to answer that. It's like you're looking truth in the face, and denying it.
Please explain, in detail, exactly how a consumer invokes force as a means to an end by choosing to purchase Coke over Pepsi.
Is this a joke? Statisically, the US is one of the most dangerous "first world" countries to live in. But, the US has the most powerful, most expensive government (element of force) in the world. By your logic, the US should be the safest country in the world to live in, because the US government (the element of force) is the strongest in the world. WHAT HAPPENED? Their little fantasy world where no one can initiate force is DEPENDENT upon a vast police force ready and willing to impliment such a system.
This is nonsense. In a pinch, your theory has already been disproved by (for example) the Amish. Peaceful anarchy is not only possible -- it is quite logically the ultimate social achievement. Unfortunately, we are taught by government from a very early age that force is the better solution.
Unless you're a criminal, you interact with other people voluntarily. You do so on a daily basis. So do the people you interact with. They do not engage in voluntary interaction because they are forced to -- they engage in voluntary interaction because they want to. They do this because they realize that voluntary interaction benefits them more than forceful interaction would.
If that can happen in your little corner of the world, then why couldn't it happen on a larger scale? As long as no one group is empowered with the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, why wouldn't it be possible? (Note that force in self-defense is entirely acceptable. It is the initiation of force that I am concerned with.)
Force is how nature survives.
Force is how criminals survive. I survive through voluntary association, and I suspect that you do too.
Don't muddy the waters. There are exactly 2 types of human interaction possible: voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary interaction is devoid of force; involuntary interaction relies on force. Examples of voluntary interaction include marriage, friendship, employment, and basically everything you do throughout the day, if you're not a criminal. Examples of involuntary interaction include theft, fraud, murder, and of course, the citizen-government relationship.
You, as an individual, do not hold the "right" to initiate force. You may use force in self-defense, but if you initiate force, you are a criminal. Government, on the other hand, does hold the "right" to initiate force. Everything government does is based on force -- otherwise it would be private enterprise. At the very least, government must initiate force in order to generate revenue.
The examples you give are not types of human interaction. They are examples of inanimate posessions (guns, money) and abstract concepts (intellect). They have no relation to force because they are not actions. For example, a gun does not decide whether to invoke force as a means to an end. It could be used as a tool of force (i.e. armed robbery) or it could be used as an object of voluntary interaction (i.e. shooting range). It is not the gun that determines whether a human interaction is voluntary or involuntary -- it is the human being.
Let me guess: This "goal" you speak of is something that YOU personally value and consider worthy?
Open your eyes. Government is nothing but a collection of "individualist pricks" just like you, me, the corporations, and everyone else on this planet. Individuals in government act in their own interest, just like everyone else. The difference is that individuals in government hold the "right" to invoke force as a means to an end, while the common individual does not.
And government. Remember the simple business model of government: You take resources (things of value) from some people, you give some of these resources to other people, and you keep the rest for yourself. Any government program that has ever existed in the history of human civilization has followed this simple business plan, in some shape or form.
On a simpler level, the notion of force (which all government is fundamentally based on) naturally divides us into winners and losers. The winners are those who benefit from the application of force as a means to an end; the losers are those who are hurt by the application of force. Those who make the laws are, obviously, on the winning team.
Basically, the bigger the government, the bigger the potential profit for those in power. It's really no surprise that government has a tendency to expand -- not reduce -- its powers over time. The US government today, for example, dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago.