Your campus is, of course, free to implement whatever security policy they choose. But we are not talking about a campus freely choosing their own security policy. We are talking about a government forcing a campus to implement a security policy which they did not choose to implment by their own will. This is the difference between voluntary association and coercion.
It could be said that a law that can only be enforced effectively through unjust means is inherently unjust itself, which I think is what you are saying.
That is exactly what I am saying. The injustice is the act of coercing private organizations into doing the work of government.
I agreee. If the law cannot be enforced without coercing private organizations into becoming arms of government, than the law is not just in the first place.
As the saying goes, you can't rule a nation of innocents. The more criminals, the larger the government, and the more profit for those in power. Am I asserting that people of political power are driven by self-interest, just like any other rational human being? You bet I am.
there are F1 teams that spend that type of money in one season
F1 teams, howerver, acquire their revenue through voluntary means. The people who invest in the F1 team have personally chosen to endorse the team. When the F1 team makes a bad investment, they experience a loss. If they can't figure out how to invest their revenue wisely, they will be eliminated from the market and replaced with a better F1 team.
NASA, by contrast, aquires their revenue through the force of government. The people who pay for NASA did not personally choose to endorse the organization. They are given a choice: pay up, leave the country, or go to prison. This "choice" is hardly equivalant to the choice made by F1 investors. When NASA makes a bad investment, they experience no loss -- it wasn't their money in the first place! When a government agency makes a bad investment, more often than not they are rewarded with more revenue.
Perhaps we should be thinking about ways to privatize the space industry, instead of thinking of ways to continue funneling tax dollars into an organization which (and I'm sorry I have to say this) dramatically failed its investors at least twice and continues to recieve funding, whether the investors (taxpayers) approve of it or not.
Have you considered the possibility that terrorism is directly related to political power? Could there be a connection, for instance, between US foreign policy and 9/11?
Power is corrupt by definition, because power requires the initiation of force (power is defined by coercion, rather than voluntary association). Logically, the individuals most interested in gaining power are those with a desire to control others. Peaceful individuals -- those who respect the concept of personal liberty and personal responsibility -- tend to be the ones who don't want anything to do with political power.
You give up your "natural rights", that is, the right to take by force whatever you have the power to take
An individual does not have a "natural right" to initiate force on other individuals. Let's see you prove that, in the absence of government, the "natural" (preferred) mode of human interaction is coercion.
Re:The future? Just like the past should be...
on
More on Columbia
·
· Score: 1
They are not private firms if they accept contracts from government. A private firm is a competitor in the open market who generates revenue through voluntary trade. Boeing (for example) generates a significant part of their revenue through force, which they inherit from government. Thus Boeing is not a true competitor in the market, because they are not engaging in voluntary trade. In other words, Boeing's customers (the taxpayers) did not choose Boeing because they want to -- they chose Boeing because they were forced to. Ultimately, Boeing represents a subdivision of government, and not a competitor in the open market.
To put it another way, the individuals most likely to strive for political power are those with a desire to control others and reduce personal liberty. Those who just want to live their lives in peace, according to their own will, are those least likely to strive for political power.
And there we have the reason why, as time progresses, the US government becomes more expensive, more corrupt, and more oppressive.
Of course not. But this is how a corrupt government works (*). Also note that rapists and murderers often spend less time in jail than non-violent drug offenders.
(*) If anyone has a problem with me accusing the US government of being corrupt, feel free to explain the rationale for letting rapists and murderers go free while non-violent drug offenders.
Google also has sponsored text ads at the top. These are the premium ad spots and hence they cost a lot more than the spots on the right. Google's text ads are distinguished from regular search results by background and text color. They've hit on a brilliant business model if you ask me, and Google's success as a business is proof of that. Google is fast and unobtrusive for the user, yet effective and valuable for the advertiser, and ultimately profitable for Google. It's a win-win situation for everybody.
I most certainly do want government to enforce property rights. In fact, that is one of the only things I *do* want government to be involved in. But we already have laws to enforce property rights!
If you are that concerned about spam, then why can't you take them to court? Because the judicial system is corrupt, inefficient, and overly expensive? Sorry, but that's not my fault.
We already have laws to enforce property rights! It's not my fault that our legal system is corrupt, inefficient, and ridiculously expensive. What I am against, for the last time, is an expansion of government that I do not want or need, yet I am forced to support anyway.
I never said that you should never be able to prove in civil court that a spammer has wasted your money and owes you compensation. If you can take the initiative to do that, and your case is legitimate, then more power to you. What I am against is the government forcing me to support an expansion of power that I do not want or need. We already have laws to deal with this.
The problem is that not everyone wants or needs this expansion of government, yet they are forced to support it. Of course, this the is root problem with any expansion of government.
Trespassing isn't even close. The "crime" amounts to nothing but a simple waste of somebody's time (and a miniscule one, at that, unless you're receiving hundreds of spams a week). Think about it. Spammers aren't the only (or first) people wasting your time. I could easily name 100 examples of time-wasting more significant than spam, some of which I have no control over. I'd like to see anyone try to prove that it represents anything more than a simple, insignificant waste of time.
Sure I would mind. But I realize that the solution is not to penalize the entire tax-paying populace in an attempt to solve a "problem" that only exists for a few.
Look, I've been "on the internet" as long as any of you, and somehow I manage to avoid spam. Want to know how I do it? By not giving out my email address. I also manage to ward off the few telemarketers that call my house. How do I do it? I simply tell them to hold on, leave the phone hanging, and go about my business. Cost: 10 seconds of my own time. Hardly worth penalizing th entire tax-paying public for.
You've got a difficult task ahead of you, proving that telemarketers should be classified as invaders who operate on the principle of coercion, just as thieves and kidnappers do.
Maybe he's smart enough to avoid spam and telemarketers in the first place. Or maybe he doesn't mind it so much. Perhaps he even likes it. Have you considered that people are unique, thinking individuals, each with their own values, ideals, likes, dislikes, and philosophy? Or have you simply assumed that everyone thinks alike, as government has taught you since you were a small child?
If I might remind you, he's the one who accepts that individuals are fully responsible for thier own lives. He's the one who wants to take responsibility for his own life. As far as I can tell, you are part of the group who rejects that responsibility and puts it on everyone else.
Nor should you, as a taxpayer, be penalized because others don't know how to avoid spam, or because the legal system is so corrupted it takes millions of dollars to win a legitimate lawsuit. At the root, it's about personal responsibility. Those who favor this law don't want to be responsible for their own choices -- they intend to put the responsibility on you and me. It's hardly surprising considering that US citizens are taught (fed propaganda) from an early age that promotes government as the solution to any conceivable "problem".
Slashdot Mirror
Your campus is, of course, free to implement whatever security policy they choose. But we are not talking about a campus freely choosing their own security policy. We are talking about a government forcing a campus to implement a security policy which they did not choose to implment by their own will. This is the difference between voluntary association and coercion.
That is exactly what I am saying. The injustice is the act of coercing private organizations into doing the work of government.
As far as I can tell, the GPL is enforcable without the need to subsidize distributors of GPL software.
I agreee. If the law cannot be enforced without coercing private organizations into becoming arms of government, than the law is not just in the first place.
As the saying goes, you can't rule a nation of innocents. The more criminals, the larger the government, and the more profit for those in power. Am I asserting that people of political power are driven by self-interest, just like any other rational human being? You bet I am.
F1 teams, howerver, acquire their revenue through voluntary means. The people who invest in the F1 team have personally chosen to endorse the team. When the F1 team makes a bad investment, they experience a loss. If they can't figure out how to invest their revenue wisely, they will be eliminated from the market and replaced with a better F1 team.
NASA, by contrast, aquires their revenue through the force of government. The people who pay for NASA did not personally choose to endorse the organization. They are given a choice: pay up, leave the country, or go to prison. This "choice" is hardly equivalant to the choice made by F1 investors. When NASA makes a bad investment, they experience no loss -- it wasn't their money in the first place! When a government agency makes a bad investment, more often than not they are rewarded with more revenue.
Perhaps we should be thinking about ways to privatize the space industry, instead of thinking of ways to continue funneling tax dollars into an organization which (and I'm sorry I have to say this) dramatically failed its investors at least twice and continues to recieve funding, whether the investors (taxpayers) approve of it or not.
Have you considered the possibility that terrorism is directly related to political power? Could there be a connection, for instance, between US foreign policy and 9/11?
Power is corrupt by definition, because power requires the initiation of force (power is defined by coercion, rather than voluntary association). Logically, the individuals most interested in gaining power are those with a desire to control others. Peaceful individuals -- those who respect the concept of personal liberty and personal responsibility -- tend to be the ones who don't want anything to do with political power.
An individual does not have a "natural right" to initiate force on other individuals. Let's see you prove that, in the absence of government, the "natural" (preferred) mode of human interaction is coercion.
They are not private firms if they accept contracts from government. A private firm is a competitor in the open market who generates revenue through voluntary trade. Boeing (for example) generates a significant part of their revenue through force, which they inherit from government. Thus Boeing is not a true competitor in the market, because they are not engaging in voluntary trade. In other words, Boeing's customers (the taxpayers) did not choose Boeing because they want to -- they chose Boeing because they were forced to. Ultimately, Boeing represents a subdivision of government, and not a competitor in the open market.
To put it another way, the individuals most likely to strive for political power are those with a desire to control others and reduce personal liberty. Those who just want to live their lives in peace, according to their own will, are those least likely to strive for political power. And there we have the reason why, as time progresses, the US government becomes more expensive, more corrupt, and more oppressive.
...are kept in jail. Sorry about that. ;)
Of course not. But this is how a corrupt government works (*). Also note that rapists and murderers often spend less time in jail than non-violent drug offenders.
(*) If anyone has a problem with me accusing the US government of being corrupt, feel free to explain the rationale for letting rapists and murderers go free while non-violent drug offenders.
Google also has sponsored text ads at the top. These are the premium ad spots and hence they cost a lot more than the spots on the right. Google's text ads are distinguished from regular search results by background and text color. They've hit on a brilliant business model if you ask me, and Google's success as a business is proof of that. Google is fast and unobtrusive for the user, yet effective and valuable for the advertiser, and ultimately profitable for Google. It's a win-win situation for everybody.
I most certainly do want government to enforce property rights. In fact, that is one of the only things I *do* want government to be involved in. But we already have laws to enforce property rights!
If you are that concerned about spam, then why can't you take them to court? Because the judicial system is corrupt, inefficient, and overly expensive? Sorry, but that's not my fault.
We already have laws to enforce property rights! It's not my fault that our legal system is corrupt, inefficient, and ridiculously expensive. What I am against, for the last time, is an expansion of government that I do not want or need, yet I am forced to support anyway.
I never said that you should never be able to prove in civil court that a spammer has wasted your money and owes you compensation. If you can take the initiative to do that, and your case is legitimate, then more power to you. What I am against is the government forcing me to support an expansion of power that I do not want or need. We already have laws to deal with this.
The problem is that not everyone wants or needs this expansion of government, yet they are forced to support it. Of course, this the is root problem with any expansion of government.
Trespassing isn't even close. The "crime" amounts to nothing but a simple waste of somebody's time (and a miniscule one, at that, unless you're receiving hundreds of spams a week). Think about it. Spammers aren't the only (or first) people wasting your time. I could easily name 100 examples of time-wasting more significant than spam, some of which I have no control over. I'd like to see anyone try to prove that it represents anything more than a simple, insignificant waste of time.
Sure I would mind. But I realize that the solution is not to penalize the entire tax-paying populace in an attempt to solve a "problem" that only exists for a few.
Look, I've been "on the internet" as long as any of you, and somehow I manage to avoid spam. Want to know how I do it? By not giving out my email address. I also manage to ward off the few telemarketers that call my house. How do I do it? I simply tell them to hold on, leave the phone hanging, and go about my business. Cost: 10 seconds of my own time. Hardly worth penalizing th entire tax-paying public for.
You've got a difficult task ahead of you, proving that telemarketers should be classified as invaders who operate on the principle of coercion, just as thieves and kidnappers do.
Safer, yes. Easier? Not on my time. Why don't you consider taking responsibility for your own life, instead of brushing it off on me?
Maybe he's smart enough to avoid spam and telemarketers in the first place. Or maybe he doesn't mind it so much. Perhaps he even likes it. Have you considered that people are unique, thinking individuals, each with their own values, ideals, likes, dislikes, and philosophy? Or have you simply assumed that everyone thinks alike, as government has taught you since you were a small child?
If I might remind you, he's the one who accepts that individuals are fully responsible for thier own lives. He's the one who wants to take responsibility for his own life. As far as I can tell, you are part of the group who rejects that responsibility and puts it on everyone else.
Nor should you, as a taxpayer, be penalized because others don't know how to avoid spam, or because the legal system is so corrupted it takes millions of dollars to win a legitimate lawsuit. At the root, it's about personal responsibility. Those who favor this law don't want to be responsible for their own choices -- they intend to put the responsibility on you and me. It's hardly surprising considering that US citizens are taught (fed propaganda) from an early age that promotes government as the solution to any conceivable "problem".
Way to moderate based on personal opinion. Now let's see you prove that it's off-topic.