Property rights and freedom go hand in hand. If you are "against" pritate ownership of property, you are against freedom. Do you not realize that in order to "eliminate" private property, you must do so by force? Or would you actually try to argue that force -- the basic premise of all theft, fraud, rape, and murder -- is a "lesser evil" than private ownership of property?
Moreover, when government owns all property, it is really those who control government who own the property. These are individuals just like you and me, acting in self-interest like you and me. The only difference is that they hold the "right" to invoke force as a means to an end, and we don't.
Think about what you are saying. You are waiting for the day when voluntary association is outlawed, and everything is controlled by a centralized power through force?
Do you value your freedom at all? If not, do you believe that others are wrong to value their freedom, and should be forced to comply against their will?
Capitalism is based on voluntary association (lack of force). Capitalism requires that individuals have the liberty to make their own decisions, free of coercion. By contrast, government is based on involuntary association (force). Everything government does requires, at some level, that individuals be forced to comply. Ergo, the "elimination" of capitalism would mean the elimination of freedom.
Incidentally, the US is not a good example of a capitalist economy. The average US citizen is forced to pay nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes combined. (Again, a capitalist economy is based on voluntary association, which requires that participants in the market are able to make their own decisions. Every dollar that is taken by force is a dollar eliminated from the realm of voluntary association.)
Well, technically, they want control (force) because force is a means for profit. The more a government expands in size, scope, and power, the higher the potential profit for those who control governemnt. Logically, the leader of a communist government, holding virtually unlimited power, stands to profit more than the leader of a government which is strictly limited in power.
There is a very good reason why the US government today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago: because it benefits those in power.
Also, by offering a reward and pointing at the virus writer, they are reinforcing the idea that computer viruses represent a simple criminal problem. This effectively removes the spotlight from the software vendor who produced the buggy code in the first place.
Communism is NOT good in theory, if you understand what the real theory of communism is. The theory is NOT "collective ownership" or "working toward a common goal". That is nothing but trivial propaganda. The theory is, quite simply, that force is a better social model than voluntary association.
Communism proposes that voluntary association (i.e. free trade) among human beings is evil, primative, barbaric, immoral, and counter-productive to the "needs" of "society". The theory proposes that if human beings were FORCED to "contribute" to a common goal,society will benefit as a whole, and inequality would be non-existent.
(In truth, the foundation and first prerequisite of communism is inequality. Communism could never exist without force, and there is no greater inequality than the "legal" ability to initiate force as a means to an end. And that is exactly what those in power need to do to initiate and sustain the communist state.)
The theory can be reduced to "slavery works", or "freedom doesn't work". When exposed, communism sounds just as bad in theory as it works in practice.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Yes, of course, that's exactly how those in power would describe (and justify) the system. What idiot would actually agree to a society where "all property is owned by an elite few by force"? By promoting the ideas of "collective ownership" and the "common advantage", those in power can polish the turd until it shines enough fool the ignorant masses. It's a simple exercise in propaganda.
Funny, but just to nitpick, you can't "give away" anything if you don't own it. Communism is based on the premise that everything is owned by a small elite (government) through force, rather than distributed among the population through voluntary trade.
We also don't see people killing each other in the streets over alcohol, caffeine, or nicotine. Why? These products are bought and sold in a legitimate market, where the producers and consumers must abide by the rules of voluntary association. In the black market, no such rules exist. In the black market, the producers and consumers are already criminals.
Many people don't realize (or want to admit) but the most destructive side-effect of drug prohibition is violent crime. Just as alcohol prohibition gave birth to the mob, modern drug prohibition gave us street gangs and drive-by shootings.
For those who don't know, alcohol prohibition in the 20's caused the murder rate to skyrocket. When alcohol prohibition was abolished a decade later, the murder rate dropped right back down to what it was previously.
the natural evolution of a mature, capitalist society will be towards greater and greater corporate control, until a handful of merged companies + unions control the entire economy, and are indistinguishable from the government.
The only way for corporations to gain actual power (that is, the "right" to initiate force, as a "business model") is for government (which holds a monopoly on the initiation of force) to grant them that power. Therefore, this "natural (de)evolution" of a capitalist society you speak of really has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with government itself. Since only government holds the right to initiate force, only government can "leak" that right into the hands of private individuals or groups (corporations).
So when Marx speaks of the "natural evolution" of capitalism, he is actually referring to the natural evolution of government, not the economy or free trade (the people themselves). He may not have realized it, but if a corporation gains actual power over the people, then government is entirely at fault. Logically, any indivudual or group (corporation) which initiates force without the backing of government is a criminal.
Those are all "natural" crimes, i.e. behaviors which are naturally considered immoral (violation of human rights). What exactly makes you think these behaviors would be acceptable in the absence of government?
Wrong analogy. Of course it would be illegal for you to attack another individual with your frying pan -- that would be a violation of the other individual's rights to ownership of THEIR own body. A better analogy would be whether it is "legal" for you to attack yourself (your own body which you supposedly own) with your frying pan. (The question is whether the individual actually possesses ownership over their own body, not whether the individual posesses ownership over another individual's body.)
Realizing that drug using/selling is a voluntary act of trade like any other, there is only one possible argument (although government would never word it like this): You don't own your own body. Government owns your body.
Sound far-fetched? Not to me. If you were the owner of your own body, then logically, you would be the only individual on the planet who could possibly decide what is acceptable behavior and what is unacceptable behavior for your body to engage in (so long as you don't violate the same rights of any other individual). But as we already know, you do not hold this power -- government does. How can an individual both (1) own their own body and (2) not hold complete and soverign rights over their own body? The answer is that it's not possible -- the individual does not, in fact, own their own body.
I would hardly equate downloading music with drug pushing.
Why not? Both "crimes" were created entirely by government, not human nature. This is opposed to "natural" crime, i.e. the initiation of force (theft, fraud, threat, assault) which any human being would immediately (and necessarily) identify as "criminal" behavior, or simply behavior which violates the natural human concept of individual liberty. In the absence of government (coercion), neither drug using/selling or copying music would be considered an initiation of force.
So, the two examples of human behavior are quite similar in that each represents a voluntary act which has been criminalized by government.
Not only is it silly, it's destructive. Patent law in the states is destroying free competition, holding the market hostage for the benefit of an elite few. The US government has created a ridiculously complex, ambiguous, and highly exploitable system of law where the crooks are the winners, and the fair players are the losers.
US patent law is a failure of government, one which caused many more and worse problems than it intended to solve in the first place. Guess who's paying for this failure? (Hint: It sure ain't government.)
If I'm going to spend a million dollars to research a new drug therapy, and somebody else can duplicate my work for free, why would I spend the million dollars?
Simple: for the publicity, reputation, marketing and/or production advantages of being first to market. Of course, the advantages of being first to market would be worth a lot more in the absence of IP law. Perhaps the "problem" (lack of incentive to innovate) wasn't really a problem in the first place?
My point is that you don't have a right in the world to determine whether or not "it was worth it" -- nor does government, nor does a majority, and nor does a "society" (which is nothing but a collection of unique thinking indivudals). Only the actual individuals who had their lives stolen can answer this, but they weren't given the chance. They were stripped of this most fundamental human right, by force, because some superpower government believed their cause to be worth more than the most fundamental human right to life.
At the root of it all, you (or government, or a majority, or "society") can only say "it was worth it" because you weren't the one who was actually murdered. In other words, while you are lucky enough to retain your most fundamental human rights, at the same time, you won't respect the same fundamental rights of other individuals. And that is a superb example of hypocracy. If you ask me, that is the thinking of the devil himself.
Don't you realize that your own government would strip YOU of your most fundamental human right -- just as easily as they murdered these poor people -- if they saw fit to do so? After all, you are a human being just like the poor people who were murdered in Iraq. Don't you see that the root of everything we're talking about is personal gain, masked by a lie called "the necessity of war"?
Again, you know damn well that you wouldn't sacrifice your own life for the arbitrary "cause" of some superpower government. No sane human being would. So how can you just shrug your shoulders and say "collateral damage" when other human beings are brutally murdered, WITHOUT being a bloody hypocrite?
Can you answer that question logically, or will you admit that hypocracy a necessary component of war? (Hint: No, you won't be able to answer that question logically. I've already proven that nobody can.)
I hope you realize exactly how lucky you are NOT to be one of those poor people who had their lives stolen from them. After all, you're a human being just like them, equally deserving of life. Right?
Just as I thought, you couldn't answer the question because you refuse to put yourself in their shoes. You know damn well that if it was you or your family or friend who was murdered, you'd change your mind in a heartbeat. So tell me, just how much more is your life worth than the typical Iraqi citizen?
I'm pro-invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. They're better off under military occupation than with the dictators they had.
Are the thousands of dead innocent civilians better off now? Seriously, I want you to try to answer that question. Put yourself in their shoes, and try to answer that question.
As the saying goes, war is the health of the state. We'll probably never know whether Bin Laden and Saddam were deliberately "not caught", but nobody can deny the incentive.
Slashdot Mirror
Property rights and freedom go hand in hand. If you are "against" pritate ownership of property, you are against freedom. Do you not realize that in order to "eliminate" private property, you must do so by force? Or would you actually try to argue that force -- the basic premise of all theft, fraud, rape, and murder -- is a "lesser evil" than private ownership of property?
Moreover, when government owns all property, it is really those who control government who own the property. These are individuals just like you and me, acting in self-interest like you and me. The only difference is that they hold the "right" to invoke force as a means to an end, and we don't.
Think about what you are saying. You are waiting for the day when voluntary association is outlawed, and everything is controlled by a centralized power through force?
Do you value your freedom at all? If not, do you believe that others are wrong to value their freedom, and should be forced to comply against their will?
Capitalism is based on voluntary association (lack of force). Capitalism requires that individuals have the liberty to make their own decisions, free of coercion. By contrast, government is based on involuntary association (force). Everything government does requires, at some level, that individuals be forced to comply. Ergo, the "elimination" of capitalism would mean the elimination of freedom.
Incidentally, the US is not a good example of a capitalist economy. The average US citizen is forced to pay nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes combined. (Again, a capitalist economy is based on voluntary association, which requires that participants in the market are able to make their own decisions. Every dollar that is taken by force is a dollar eliminated from the realm of voluntary association.)
Well, technically, they want control (force) because force is a means for profit. The more a government expands in size, scope, and power, the higher the potential profit for those who control governemnt. Logically, the leader of a communist government, holding virtually unlimited power, stands to profit more than the leader of a government which is strictly limited in power.
There is a very good reason why the US government today dwarfs the US government of only 100 years ago: because it benefits those in power.
Good riddance.
Have you ever heard it? Live at the Acropolis is one incredible performance. I don't care for his studio albums however.
Also, by offering a reward and pointing at the virus writer, they are reinforcing the idea that computer viruses represent a simple criminal problem. This effectively removes the spotlight from the software vendor who produced the buggy code in the first place.
Communism is NOT good in theory, if you understand what the real theory of communism is. The theory is NOT "collective ownership" or "working toward a common goal". That is nothing but trivial propaganda. The theory is, quite simply, that force is a better social model than voluntary association.
Communism proposes that voluntary association (i.e. free trade) among human beings is evil, primative, barbaric, immoral, and counter-productive to the "needs" of "society". The theory proposes that if human beings were FORCED to "contribute" to a common goal,society will benefit as a whole, and inequality would be non-existent.
(In truth, the foundation and first prerequisite of communism is inequality. Communism could never exist without force, and there is no greater inequality than the "legal" ability to initiate force as a means to an end. And that is exactly what those in power need to do to initiate and sustain the communist state.)
The theory can be reduced to "slavery works", or "freedom doesn't work". When exposed, communism sounds just as bad in theory as it works in practice.
Yes, of course, that's exactly how those in power would describe (and justify) the system. What idiot would actually agree to a society where "all property is owned by an elite few by force"? By promoting the ideas of "collective ownership" and the "common advantage", those in power can polish the turd until it shines enough fool the ignorant masses. It's a simple exercise in propaganda.
Funny, but just to nitpick, you can't "give away" anything if you don't own it. Communism is based on the premise that everything is owned by a small elite (government) through force, rather than distributed among the population through voluntary trade.
The crime resulting from drug use is nothing compared to the crime resulting from drug prohibition: Link
Also note that nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol addicts have no problem funding their habits. Can you explain why?
Here's a good overview if you are interested: Link
Certainly not when it causes the murder rate to skyrocket: Link
We also don't see people killing each other in the streets over alcohol, caffeine, or nicotine. Why? These products are bought and sold in a legitimate market, where the producers and consumers must abide by the rules of voluntary association. In the black market, no such rules exist. In the black market, the producers and consumers are already criminals.
Many people don't realize (or want to admit) but the most destructive side-effect of drug prohibition is violent crime. Just as alcohol prohibition gave birth to the mob, modern drug prohibition gave us street gangs and drive-by shootings.
For those who don't know, alcohol prohibition in the 20's caused the murder rate to skyrocket. When alcohol prohibition was abolished a decade later, the murder rate dropped right back down to what it was previously.
The only way for corporations to gain actual power (that is, the "right" to initiate force, as a "business model") is for government (which holds a monopoly on the initiation of force) to grant them that power. Therefore, this "natural (de)evolution" of a capitalist society you speak of really has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with government itself. Since only government holds the right to initiate force, only government can "leak" that right into the hands of private individuals or groups (corporations).
So when Marx speaks of the "natural evolution" of capitalism, he is actually referring to the natural evolution of government, not the economy or free trade (the people themselves). He may not have realized it, but if a corporation gains actual power over the people, then government is entirely at fault. Logically, any indivudual or group (corporation) which initiates force without the backing of government is a criminal.
Those are all "natural" crimes, i.e. behaviors which are naturally considered immoral (violation of human rights). What exactly makes you think these behaviors would be acceptable in the absence of government?
Wrong analogy. Of course it would be illegal for you to attack another individual with your frying pan -- that would be a violation of the other individual's rights to ownership of THEIR own body. A better analogy would be whether it is "legal" for you to attack yourself (your own body which you supposedly own) with your frying pan. (The question is whether the individual actually possesses ownership over their own body, not whether the individual posesses ownership over another individual's body.)
Realizing that drug using/selling is a voluntary act of trade like any other, there is only one possible argument (although government would never word it like this): You don't own your own body. Government owns your body.
Sound far-fetched? Not to me. If you were the owner of your own body, then logically, you would be the only individual on the planet who could possibly decide what is acceptable behavior and what is unacceptable behavior for your body to engage in (so long as you don't violate the same rights of any other individual). But as we already know, you do not hold this power -- government does. How can an individual both (1) own their own body and (2) not hold complete and soverign rights over their own body? The answer is that it's not possible -- the individual does not, in fact, own their own body.
Why not? Both "crimes" were created entirely by government, not human nature. This is opposed to "natural" crime, i.e. the initiation of force (theft, fraud, threat, assault) which any human being would immediately (and necessarily) identify as "criminal" behavior, or simply behavior which violates the natural human concept of individual liberty. In the absence of government (coercion), neither drug using/selling or copying music would be considered an initiation of force.
So, the two examples of human behavior are quite similar in that each represents a voluntary act which has been criminalized by government.
Not only is it silly, it's destructive. Patent law in the states is destroying free competition, holding the market hostage for the benefit of an elite few. The US government has created a ridiculously complex, ambiguous, and highly exploitable system of law where the crooks are the winners, and the fair players are the losers.
US patent law is a failure of government, one which caused many more and worse problems than it intended to solve in the first place. Guess who's paying for this failure? (Hint: It sure ain't government.)
Simple: for the publicity, reputation, marketing and/or production advantages of being first to market. Of course, the advantages of being first to market would be worth a lot more in the absence of IP law. Perhaps the "problem" (lack of incentive to innovate) wasn't really a problem in the first place?
My point is that you don't have a right in the world to determine whether or not "it was worth it" -- nor does government, nor does a majority, and nor does a "society" (which is nothing but a collection of unique thinking indivudals). Only the actual individuals who had their lives stolen can answer this, but they weren't given the chance. They were stripped of this most fundamental human right, by force, because some superpower government believed their cause to be worth more than the most fundamental human right to life. At the root of it all, you (or government, or a majority, or "society") can only say "it was worth it" because you weren't the one who was actually murdered. In other words, while you are lucky enough to retain your most fundamental human rights, at the same time, you won't respect the same fundamental rights of other individuals. And that is a superb example of hypocracy. If you ask me, that is the thinking of the devil himself. Don't you realize that your own government would strip YOU of your most fundamental human right -- just as easily as they murdered these poor people -- if they saw fit to do so? After all, you are a human being just like the poor people who were murdered in Iraq. Don't you see that the root of everything we're talking about is personal gain, masked by a lie called "the necessity of war"?
Again, you know damn well that you wouldn't sacrifice your own life for the arbitrary "cause" of some superpower government. No sane human being would. So how can you just shrug your shoulders and say "collateral damage" when other human beings are brutally murdered, WITHOUT being a bloody hypocrite?
Can you answer that question logically, or will you admit that hypocracy a necessary component of war? (Hint: No, you won't be able to answer that question logically. I've already proven that nobody can.)
I hope you realize exactly how lucky you are NOT to be one of those poor people who had their lives stolen from them. After all, you're a human being just like them, equally deserving of life. Right?
Just as I thought, you couldn't answer the question because you refuse to put yourself in their shoes. You know damn well that if it was you or your family or friend who was murdered, you'd change your mind in a heartbeat. So tell me, just how much more is your life worth than the typical Iraqi citizen?
Are the thousands of dead innocent civilians better off now? Seriously, I want you to try to answer that question. Put yourself in their shoes, and try to answer that question.
As the saying goes, war is the health of the state. We'll probably never know whether Bin Laden and Saddam were deliberately "not caught", but nobody can deny the incentive.