STOP PAYING for clicked links! If your business model sucks and is inherently flawed, CHANGE IT.
I've been saying that for years. Pay-per-click is an inefficient, flawed, problematic business model. What exactly makes a web page ad so different than a newspaper, magazing, or TV ad? They don't use pay-per-click, because they realize that it's pointless and serves only to complicate the process.
So the first step is to get dumping garbage in the ocean made into a crime.
Or as I said before, make it a crime to damage property you don't own. (Which it technically is, but as I said before, property rights are not enforced, which is the root of the problem.) When a cruise ship dumps sewage in the ocean, and that sewage finds its way into my backyard, that's property damage.
As for evidence, you'd need exactly the same evidence to prove that somebody committed the crime of dumping as to prove that somebody committed the crime of property damage (again, including the most valuable property you own, your own body).
Of course, IMO restitution (derived from real property rights) is the most proactive solution possible. That was kind of the whole point. Similar to how gun rights are the most effective deterrent against crime -- which city is the criminal going to target, the one known to be defenseless (where it's illegal or difficult to own a gun), or the one where any household could own a gun? You don't have to answer that; statistics have already proved it many times over.
Which sounds like the easier target for the corrupt CEO -- a government that will simply send him to jail for a few months or even years, or the government which makes him give back every penny he defrauded from others PLUS compensation for the experience?
Here's another thought. The US has the largest, most complex set of business regulations in the world (not to mention the government most entangled in business), and at the same time, has the most problems with corrupt business practices. Something's not working.
Under a just system of law (one based on real property rights), regulation would be redundant. Criminals would not only be punished, but forced to pay complete restitution to their victims for loss of property (including your most valuable property, your own body).
Here in Florida we've got sewage and trash washing up on our beaches from cruise ships that dump in the ocean. It's really disgusting. If we actually could claim ownership over our damaged property (including but not limited to our own bodies), those cruise lines would be sued right out of business.
While this disaster is certainly a reason for hate, it was still accidental. I tend to think that terrorists (and non-terrorists alike) derive most of their hate from deliberate aggression, i.e. war and other demonstrations of government force.
When the US government invokes military force (which they have, somewhere in the world, for every year of the past century), it is essentially guaranteed that innocent civilians will die. The war on Iraq is a perfect example. No rational person can claim that tens of thousands of deaths -- occurring continuously, steadily, and endlessly (not all at once like a freak disaster) -- is accidental. The reality is that the US government knew damn well that they were going to kill innocent civilians, and they made a calculated decision that their political goals are worth more than those people's lives.
That kind of policy, IMO, results in a higher level of hate and resentment than any accidental disaster would.
Breaking the law does not necessarily mean that what you are doing is ethically wrong, especially if the law is oppressive
I'd be the first to agree with that. Morality and law are completely seperate and distinct concepts which rarely intersect. The only unambiguous, consistent, and universal way to define morality is in terms of human interaction between two or more parties, by the principle of non-aggression.
But, I think that because the nature of child porn is naturally percieved as criminal by normal people (due to the lack of voluntary consent), law enforcement will have a much easier time making the laws work. (Unless of course, the laws target innocent people and not just the criminals, which they probably do.)
Drug prohibition, on the other hand, is bound to fail because the act of drug using/selling is naturally percieved by normal people as non-criminal. (However, this can be a difficult leap for people who have been taught all their lives that drug users ARE criminals, i.e. anybody who was born and raised in the states.)
It would demonstrate more fraud than all US corporations combined. Government's accounting practices (or lack thereof) make Enron's crimes look like petty theft.
Government has needed marketing ever since it expanded beyond its core functions (protecting the people against force and fraud). Beyond the core functions, all new laws are special interest by definition, because it is impossible to achieve near-universal (99.99999%) majority agreement.
It's still government that holds the keys. The people may influence government, but by the very definition of government (*), the people and the government are two very distinct groups.
(*) Government is the organization which holds the unique right to initiate force as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal. That is the only absolute, universal way to define government.
So no, the people cannot logically "run" the government. At best, they can influence government's decisions on where, when, and how to apply the unique right to initiate force.
trying to stop it is like trying to stop the use of drugs
The fundamental difference being that drug using and selling between adults is clearly an act of voluntary consent -- there is no aggressor, and there is no victim -- while child porn is clearly an act of aggression, because a child is too young to make such a decision.
Selling drugs to minors should be interpreted as an act of aggression, however, for the same reason child porn is interpreted as an act of aggression. The minor is simply too young to make adult decisions.
The only question left is, exactly when does a child become old enough to make adult decisions? That can only be determined case-by-case, because of the reality of human nature. By the laws of human nature, we are unique individuals with different wants and needs, not borg-like clones that are served well by a one-size-fits-all blanket solution.
There's my weatherbug. Honestly, what does weatherbug have to offer that a simple bookmark in mozilla doesn't, besides another potential problem for your computer?
Because when government spies on innocent people, it adopts the principle of guilty before proven innocent. This principle is immoral, corrupt, unjust, and backwards.
Under a just system of law, individuals are innocent until proven guilty.
People used to smoke weed on downtown street corners, it certainly isn't that way anymore.
Before drug prohibition, people weren't falling victim to to skyrocketing crime rates due to a violent black market. And, we weren't forking over billions to keep non-violent drug offenders in jail. We also didn't have the highest ratio of inmates per population in the world. And, we actually had rights as individuals to protect us from overzealous government.
It certainly isn't that way anymore.
Of course, all that violent crime and loss of human rights is worth it, when you can keep a peaceful individual from smoking weed on the street corner.
Perhaps "unsupported" would be a better term than "dead". I'm still using Potato for our Samba server (which is not exposed to the internet), and although there are no more updates, it's still alive and kicking, good as new.
Lip service. No politician actually wants to eliminate government education (except perhaps a libertarian politician, which are rarely found at levels high enough to influence such a decision).
Government education is a cash cow for government in terms of revenue, power over the people, and (most importantly) the ability to influence people's thinking during their most impressionable years. The last thing government wants to do is eliminate government education. Better to continuously claim that that "reform" (more government) will fix the failing program.
By the time we get to college, we're in charge of making sure we succeed, not the government
Hold it right there -- are you implying that before college, it is government's responsibility to "make sure we succeed"? What exactly are parents for again?
let brain dead politicians and law enforcement officers do the rest of the damage as they seek to make everyone "safe"
Those politicians aren't as brain-dead as you think. Who has the most to gain from expanding government powers over the people -- the guy who runs the show, or the guy who falls victim to it?
China is an amalgam that has been held together by force rather than by desire
Every government is held together by force, because force is the fundamental tool and first prerequisite of government. If government were voluntary, it wouldn't be government at all -- it would be free enterprise, and it wouldn't posess the right to initiate force. Don't be fooled into thinking that the voting process removes the element of force from government.
The difference between force and voluntary association is the difference between government and everyone else. Government is the organization which holds the unique right to initiate force as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal. That is the only consistent, absolute, and universal way to define government. Always has been, and always will be. Notice I've said absolutely nothing about whether government is moral, practical, or efficient -- I've only provided the absolute definition of government.
The concept of "voluntary government" (and I put that in quotes because it cannot possibly exist) is primarily used by democratic governments as justification of their powers over the people. In reality, there is nothing voluntary about any government. If you don't comply, you will be threatened with deadly force, and if you fight in self-defense, you will face deadly force itself.
The bottom line is that the social contract theory is a logical impossibility. It states that citizens volunteer to submit to government rule. On first glance, this seems like a perfect way to justify anything government could possibly do. On closer inspection, you will find that the social contract theory claims the impossible.
Force and voluntary association are the only two possible modes of human interaction. Every single interaction you have with others throughout your life may be classified as either involuntary or voluntary association, but never both. Why? Because the two concepts are mutually exclusive and logically opposite -- a person cannot volunteer to be forced, just as you cannot force a person to volunteer. Otherwise, neither concept would have any meaning!
Either you initiate force as a means to an end, or you don't. Civilians don't; government and criminals do.
It is a fundamental piece of scientific research that advances our entire base of technology
As righteous as you consider your agenda, it's not moral to force it on everyone else. The average Joe couldn't give a damn what happens with stem cell research, and that's his right not to give a damn. You are not a saint for trying to force your agenda on the average Joe -- you are an aggressor, and Joe is the victim.
Realize that the "it benefits society as a whole" justification for more government is the oldest trick in the book. Anything and everything government does is justified with that exact rationale.
Why did the US government chose to wage war on Iraq? "Because it benefits society as a whole."
Industry, on the other hand, is busy trying to patent your *genes*!
Industry is only playing by the rules. The fact that the rules are fundamentally broken is a failure of government, not industry.
The "conservatives" want to initiate force against those who would voluntarily participate in this kind of scientific research. They intend to use force to oppress voluntary participation.
The "liberals" want to initiate force against those who would not voluntarily participate in this kind of scientific research. They intend to use force to (drum roll please) oppress voluntary participation.
Does anyone else see the irony here? Both sides propose more government as the "solution". But when you think about it, is this really a problem that needs "solving" in the first place, let alone one that can only be "solved" by government? What could possibly be wrong with letting scientific research progress voluntarily, like it obviously wants to?
Slashdot Mirror
And I suppose government, the organization which actually holds the keys and makes the decisions, is just the innocent bystander?
I've been saying that for years. Pay-per-click is an inefficient, flawed, problematic business model. What exactly makes a web page ad so different than a newspaper, magazing, or TV ad? They don't use pay-per-click, because they realize that it's pointless and serves only to complicate the process.
Or as I said before, make it a crime to damage property you don't own. (Which it technically is, but as I said before, property rights are not enforced, which is the root of the problem.) When a cruise ship dumps sewage in the ocean, and that sewage finds its way into my backyard, that's property damage.
As for evidence, you'd need exactly the same evidence to prove that somebody committed the crime of dumping as to prove that somebody committed the crime of property damage (again, including the most valuable property you own, your own body).
Of course, IMO restitution (derived from real property rights) is the most proactive solution possible. That was kind of the whole point. Similar to how gun rights are the most effective deterrent against crime -- which city is the criminal going to target, the one known to be defenseless (where it's illegal or difficult to own a gun), or the one where any household could own a gun? You don't have to answer that; statistics have already proved it many times over.
Which sounds like the easier target for the corrupt CEO -- a government that will simply send him to jail for a few months or even years, or the government which makes him give back every penny he defrauded from others PLUS compensation for the experience?
Here's another thought. The US has the largest, most complex set of business regulations in the world (not to mention the government most entangled in business), and at the same time, has the most problems with corrupt business practices. Something's not working.
Under a just system of law (one based on real property rights), regulation would be redundant. Criminals would not only be punished, but forced to pay complete restitution to their victims for loss of property (including your most valuable property, your own body).
Here in Florida we've got sewage and trash washing up on our beaches from cruise ships that dump in the ocean. It's really disgusting. If we actually could claim ownership over our damaged property (including but not limited to our own bodies), those cruise lines would be sued right out of business.
While this disaster is certainly a reason for hate, it was still accidental. I tend to think that terrorists (and non-terrorists alike) derive most of their hate from deliberate aggression, i.e. war and other demonstrations of government force.
When the US government invokes military force (which they have, somewhere in the world, for every year of the past century), it is essentially guaranteed that innocent civilians will die. The war on Iraq is a perfect example. No rational person can claim that tens of thousands of deaths -- occurring continuously, steadily, and endlessly (not all at once like a freak disaster) -- is accidental. The reality is that the US government knew damn well that they were going to kill innocent civilians, and they made a calculated decision that their political goals are worth more than those people's lives.
That kind of policy, IMO, results in a higher level of hate and resentment than any accidental disaster would.
I'd be the first to agree with that. Morality and law are completely seperate and distinct concepts which rarely intersect. The only unambiguous, consistent, and universal way to define morality is in terms of human interaction between two or more parties, by the principle of non-aggression.
But, I think that because the nature of child porn is naturally percieved as criminal by normal people (due to the lack of voluntary consent), law enforcement will have a much easier time making the laws work. (Unless of course, the laws target innocent people and not just the criminals, which they probably do.)
Drug prohibition, on the other hand, is bound to fail because the act of drug using/selling is naturally percieved by normal people as non-criminal. (However, this can be a difficult leap for people who have been taught all their lives that drug users ARE criminals, i.e. anybody who was born and raised in the states.)
It would demonstrate more fraud than all US corporations combined. Government's accounting practices (or lack thereof) make Enron's crimes look like petty theft.
Government has needed marketing ever since it expanded beyond its core functions (protecting the people against force and fraud). Beyond the core functions, all new laws are special interest by definition, because it is impossible to achieve near-universal (99.99999%) majority agreement.
It's still government that holds the keys. The people may influence government, but by the very definition of government (*), the people and the government are two very distinct groups.
(*) Government is the organization which holds the unique right to initiate force as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal. That is the only absolute, universal way to define government.
So no, the people cannot logically "run" the government. At best, they can influence government's decisions on where, when, and how to apply the unique right to initiate force.
The fundamental difference being that drug using and selling between adults is clearly an act of voluntary consent -- there is no aggressor, and there is no victim -- while child porn is clearly an act of aggression, because a child is too young to make such a decision.
Selling drugs to minors should be interpreted as an act of aggression, however, for the same reason child porn is interpreted as an act of aggression. The minor is simply too young to make adult decisions.
The only question left is, exactly when does a child become old enough to make adult decisions? That can only be determined case-by-case, because of the reality of human nature. By the laws of human nature, we are unique individuals with different wants and needs, not borg-like clones that are served well by a one-size-fits-all blanket solution.
Tab 1 + Tab 2
There's my weatherbug. Honestly, what does weatherbug have to offer that a simple bookmark in mozilla doesn't, besides another potential problem for your computer?
Because when government spies on innocent people, it adopts the principle of guilty before proven innocent. This principle is immoral, corrupt, unjust, and backwards.
Under a just system of law, individuals are innocent until proven guilty.
Before drug prohibition, people weren't falling victim to to skyrocketing crime rates due to a violent black market. And, we weren't forking over billions to keep non-violent drug offenders in jail. We also didn't have the highest ratio of inmates per population in the world. And, we actually had rights as individuals to protect us from overzealous government.
It certainly isn't that way anymore.
Of course, all that violent crime and loss of human rights is worth it, when you can keep a peaceful individual from smoking weed on the street corner.
Perhaps "unsupported" would be a better term than "dead". I'm still using Potato for our Samba server (which is not exposed to the internet), and although there are no more updates, it's still alive and kicking, good as new.
Lip service. No politician actually wants to eliminate government education (except perhaps a libertarian politician, which are rarely found at levels high enough to influence such a decision).
Government education is a cash cow for government in terms of revenue, power over the people, and (most importantly) the ability to influence people's thinking during their most impressionable years. The last thing government wants to do is eliminate government education. Better to continuously claim that that "reform" (more government) will fix the failing program.
Bingo, you've pinpointed the problem: Government is entangled in education. As long as that remains true, the market cannot function properly.
Hold it right there -- are you implying that before college, it is government's responsibility to "make sure we succeed"? What exactly are parents for again?
Those politicians aren't as brain-dead as you think. Who has the most to gain from expanding government powers over the people -- the guy who runs the show, or the guy who falls victim to it?
Every government is held together by force, because force is the fundamental tool and first prerequisite of government. If government were voluntary, it wouldn't be government at all -- it would be free enterprise, and it wouldn't posess the right to initiate force. Don't be fooled into thinking that the voting process removes the element of force from government.
The difference between force and voluntary association is the difference between government and everyone else. Government is the organization which holds the unique right to initiate force as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal. That is the only consistent, absolute, and universal way to define government. Always has been, and always will be. Notice I've said absolutely nothing about whether government is moral, practical, or efficient -- I've only provided the absolute definition of government.
The concept of "voluntary government" (and I put that in quotes because it cannot possibly exist) is primarily used by democratic governments as justification of their powers over the people. In reality, there is nothing voluntary about any government. If you don't comply, you will be threatened with deadly force, and if you fight in self-defense, you will face deadly force itself.
The bottom line is that the social contract theory is a logical impossibility. It states that citizens volunteer to submit to government rule. On first glance, this seems like a perfect way to justify anything government could possibly do. On closer inspection, you will find that the social contract theory claims the impossible.
Force and voluntary association are the only two possible modes of human interaction. Every single interaction you have with others throughout your life may be classified as either involuntary or voluntary association, but never both. Why? Because the two concepts are mutually exclusive and logically opposite -- a person cannot volunteer to be forced, just as you cannot force a person to volunteer. Otherwise, neither concept would have any meaning!
Either you initiate force as a means to an end, or you don't. Civilians don't; government and criminals do.
As righteous as you consider your agenda, it's not moral to force it on everyone else. The average Joe couldn't give a damn what happens with stem cell research, and that's his right not to give a damn. You are not a saint for trying to force your agenda on the average Joe -- you are an aggressor, and Joe is the victim.
Realize that the "it benefits society as a whole" justification for more government is the oldest trick in the book. Anything and everything government does is justified with that exact rationale.
Why did the US government chose to wage war on Iraq? "Because it benefits society as a whole."
Industry, on the other hand, is busy trying to patent your *genes*!
Industry is only playing by the rules. The fact that the rules are fundamentally broken is a failure of government, not industry.
The "conservatives" want to initiate force against those who would voluntarily participate in this kind of scientific research. They intend to use force to oppress voluntary participation.
The "liberals" want to initiate force against those who would not voluntarily participate in this kind of scientific research. They intend to use force to (drum roll please) oppress voluntary participation.
Does anyone else see the irony here? Both sides propose more government as the "solution". But when you think about it, is this really a problem that needs "solving" in the first place, let alone one that can only be "solved" by government? What could possibly be wrong with letting scientific research progress voluntarily, like it obviously wants to?
Let's be realistic. Rapid application development was technolgically unfeasible before the Information Superhighway came along.
Indeed. Most of these corporations are actually playing by the rules. The problem is that the rules are horribly broken.
This is a failure of government, not free enterprise.