A private party cannot legally censor another private party. Censorship requires force. Only government holds the power to force anyone to do anything. If you initiate force as a private party, then you are a criminal. However the Scientologists have initiated no force. They have only threatened to call on government to intervene in private affairs. (The Scientologist behavior is not exactly "just", but in no way does it qualify as censorship, which requires force.) The root of the problem is still government; they are the only group capable of initiating force without becoming criminals (in common terms). They are the ones who dictate if and when the Scientologist point of view is correct, and if force will be initiated against a private party.
Don't think for a second that I support the Scientologists or the actions they take. But the root of the problem is still government. When the legal system can be used as a platform for making threats against free speech, there is something fundamentally wrong with the legal system.
where the criminals are always sorry - but usually they're only sorry they got caught
Too bad most of the "criminals" getting busted on Cops are drug users and prostitutes. What a great use of tax dollars -- throwing peaceful civilians in jail for engaging in vicimless crimes. And look at the progress our government is making! At this rate, drug use and prostitution will soon be eliminated!
there is far too many bills every year for either the House or the Senate to actually debate every single one of them
Aha, yet another benefit of Big Government: incompetency, along with its twin brother, inefficiency.
Next time we have a problem we think is solvable only by government, let's remember to think twice. Our current bloat of a government is built on the special interests of people just like me and you: people who don't consider that somebody, somewhere, doesn't want to be forced into adopting the special interests of other people. The solution? Government needs to go on a diet. See this website if you like the sound of this.
Re:What is the relevance of FreeBSD today?
on
FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE
·
· Score: 1
The problem here is that the idea you have about the "great one" isn't the same that I have or that everybody else has.
Funny, that's exactly why I believe in a government that protects its citizens against coercion (force and fraud), and nothing more. (Yes, the Libertarian idea of government.) Everything else is just a battle of special interests, becuase beyond these core functions of government, everybody has different ideas as to what government should do. There's no way in hell they can please one person without offending another, so the proper solution is to give people the liberty to run their own lives.
It ain't that simple. In the case of theft, the thief actually removes something of value (an asset) from the victim's posession. Clearly, the act of theft leaves the victim with less assets than before the theft occurred. In the case of copyright infrigement, no assets are actually removed from the victim's posession. The assets are simply duplicated, which results in both parties (the theif and the victim) having posession of the asset.
Now, I'm not trying to argue that trading mp3's should be legal. I'm simply pointing out that a major difference exists between the "traditional" concept of theft and copyright infrigement in the form of trading music.
Of course they did. Beyond the core function of government, which is to protect the people from the initiation of force, ALL political issues are nothing but a battle of special interests.
I'm with you on this. I've got so many other things going on (hobbies, interests) that I value much, much more than my job. My job is interesting (database programmer, network admin), but 8 hours a day is way too long to be on somebody else's time. I want to get home and work on what's really important to me, on my own time, answering only to myself. Some people claim to love their job, but I think what they actually mean is that they love their field of work. I never could understand how a person could "love" answering to somebody else.
In general you are correct, however there is one very important variable which has the capability to seriourly alter market prices: government. The laws of "intellectual property" in particular have a huge effect on competition and the natural progression of markets. And don't forget the web of regulation which, in effect, creates a huge "startup penalty" for new players in the market. Not to mention the tax money required to implement the system, which in turn, stifles investment in private enterprise. If our markets were based entirely on voluntary exchange (the capitalistic approach), instead of coercion, we could expect to see markets return to a pricing scheme based purely on supply and demand as you describe.
In other words (for anyone who is interested), the government put the responsibility on the taxpayers to clean up the mess created by government. More support for the philosophy that government should be responsible only for securing our human rights and protecting us against coercion. Everything else is just a battle of special interests.
I keep hearing about "voluntary interaction", yet it is proven that smokers do not due so voluntarily.
Again, this is an entirely seperate concept. By "voluntary interaction" I am talking about the interaction between two or more people, not the "interaction" between one person and himself/herself. We are talking about social interaction here, not psychology.
Space exploration is fair game, not coercion.
Anything and everything that government does is coercion. Space exploration by government requries taxes which is a form of coercion. Politics is the "art" of deciding who gets to apply coercion and where. This will never change, because government is defined by organized coercion. I am completely in favor of space exploration/development, as long as I'm not coerced into supporting it. If I'm going to invest my savings in space exploration, I want to do it on my own will. This requires private, voluntary exchange -- not coercion.
You would have a much easier time understanding this point of view if you take a quick look at this introduction.
You would rather have toxic substances for all than to learn what is to be found by going to the moon.
No, I would rather live in a society which operates according to the principle of voluntary interaction, rather than the principle of coercion. Space exploration by government is coercion; engaging in voluntary trade is not. See the difference? This is a debate over liberty, not morality.
Ha! I actually do have an account on K5 but I haven't posted much. I don't like the way it forces you to sift through *all* posts, instead of using a threshold like Slashdot. For a site with that many users, I think you should be able to select a threshold.
P.S. Is Poliglut really back up? It seems that way...
I never said I support the marketing of tobacco products to kids, or the marketing of harmful products in general without a warning. But these are entirely different issues which have already been solved via lawsuit (or so I thought). What I said was that selective *taxing* of certain markets is unfair and creates more problems than it solves. It weakens the foundation of the free market system, which is built upon equal opportunity (NOT equal outcome).
The child prostitute issue is a silly comparison because children do not have the same rights as adults. And for good reason: Children are not experienced enough in the world to make the same decisions as adults.
saying that pushers "fulfil a need" is like saying the rapist "fulfils the need" of the child victim
Sorry, but this analogy is dead wrong. A rapist conducts his business on an involuntary basis, using force, to achieve his goals. This is a violation of the most basic human right of all -- the right to be secure in your posessions (in this case, yourself). The act of dealing drugs, however distasteful or immoral you consider it, is an entirely voluntary, non-coercive practice. This is the fundamental difference between rape (an act of force on an un-consenting person) and the selling/marketing of drugs (a voluntary exchange between consenting adults).
Unfortunately, your argument is invalid because everybody already knows that tobacco causes health problems which eventually result in death. Today more than ever, it's nothing less than common knowledge. In fact, there is a big warning right on the cigarette pack. Thus, the tobacco industry is still providing a voluntary, non-fraudulant service to those who seek it. They supply the demand, and those who choose to smoke are entirely responsible for their own actions.
If they are looking to feed the hungry, then they can take the money from the industries that truely don't benefit mankind, like the tobacco industry
Sorry, but this sort of selective taxing is completely unfair (to both industry and consumers), economically ungrounded, and designed to benefit only special interest groups. The tobacco industry, as much as you may despise it, is providing the supply of a product -- on a voluntary basis -- which is in demand and always will be. Thus the tobacco industry, like it or not, does indeed "benefit mankind" -- just as the dairy industry, or the automobile industry, or the computer industry, or the cotton industry. Your opinion, no matter how widespread, will never change this. The only things that could possibly cause the tobacco industry to stop "benefiting mankind" is (1) if the demand disappears and they go out of business, or (2) if they switch to a non-voluntary (coercive, fraudulant) mode of exchange.
Taxing the hell out of the tobacco industry, or even banning tobacco outright, would not diminish the demand. Instead this would create a black market, much like the market for [aribrarily] illegal drugs, where peaceful citizens are transformed into criminals, violent crime becomes widespread, police become corrupted, the potential profit for tobacco skyrockets, murderers and rapists are let out of prison to make room for tobacco addicts and dealers, and nobody really wins except government which benefits from its new-found power.
Exactly. I always buy hardware that is currently in the sweet spot for pricing. It's the best way to ensure that you get your money's worth. You just need to do a little research on pricewatch.com, or a similar service, before you buy. Simply scan the prices and weigh the average price against performace. Just recently I put together a new system:
Gigabyte GA-7VRX ($80) AMD Athlon XP 1800 ($80) Crucial Micron 256MB PC2100 ($65 x 2) Western Digital 80GB 7200RPM ($105) ATI Radeon 7500 64MB ($62) Antec 660AMG 330W ($100)
I could have went for the XP 2200, but it's twice the price of the 1800. (Obviously it's not twice as fast.) I could have went for the latest and greatest RAM, and the motherboard that supports it, but again, the price doesn't justify the performance. The case was expensive but that's more of a long-term investment.
It's funny to see people still dropping $1500+ on a new computer when they could get 80-90% of the performance for 50% of the price.
So when I go punch my neighbor in the nose for no reason at all, I am not initiating force?
OK, I think we need to combine our definitions of government. How about "government is the orginization which holds a monopoly on the legal initiation of force"?;) I see now that both concepts (legality and initiation) are crucial to describing the force of government.
I should have said the government has a "legal monopoly" on the use of force.
Yes, but this is still missing the word "initiation", which is crucial to defining the monopoly.
You took the words right out of my mouth. If there's one way to inhibit the development of private sector space exploration/exploitation, it's to keep government involved. Perhaps under current law the FAA needs to coordinate the blastoff so they don't take out any 747s on the way up. But I can't think of any reason why government needs to be involved after that. If these people want to take the risk, and do it in a peaceful manner, I'm all for it.
Insted it has a monopoly on the legal use of force.
Close, but no cigar. Government holds a monopoly on the *initiation* of force (force as a means to an end, or a "business model" so to speak). I should have been clear about that, admittedly. Consider that the term "legal" is defined by government in the first place, so we're walking a circular rope by defining government's use of force via "legality". And don't forget about self-defense, which is a type of force that can be used legally by civilians.
There is a subtle difference.
I would hardly call it subtle. I would call it fundamental. The orginization called government is *defined* by it's monopoly on [the initiation of] force. In fact, this is the only definition or description of government which stands under *all* circumstances, at any point in history, under any society. At the bottom of anything and everything that government does is [the initiation of] force.
OK, I was a bit too wordy and went off on a tangent. My point was that only members of government can generate corruption in government, because members of government cannot be forced into corruption by members of the private sector. The private sector can provide *incentive* for corruption in government (ex. campaign donations in exchange for tax breaks), but in the end, it takes a member of government to step over the line and engage in corruption. You can attempt to bribe government, but you cannot forcibly alter the function of government. Only government itself (a member of government, as you said) can do this.
I simply wanted to disprove the notion that corruption in government can be *caused* by the private sector. It cannot. Any time we encounter corruption in government, the root cause can be traced to a decision made by a member (or group of members) of government.
[Patents] are made to give people incentive to invent.
This is the rationale, not the implementation. The implementation most certainly qualifies as "protection". Patent law works by "protecting" the patent holder from competition in the market, which would certainly arise in the absence of patent law, given that the product in question is valued by others.
Slashdot Mirror
A private party cannot legally censor another private party. Censorship requires force. Only government holds the power to force anyone to do anything. If you initiate force as a private party, then you are a criminal. However the Scientologists have initiated no force. They have only threatened to call on government to intervene in private affairs. (The Scientologist behavior is not exactly "just", but in no way does it qualify as censorship, which requires force.) The root of the problem is still government; they are the only group capable of initiating force without becoming criminals (in common terms). They are the ones who dictate if and when the Scientologist point of view is correct, and if force will be initiated against a private party.
Don't think for a second that I support the Scientologists or the actions they take. But the root of the problem is still government. When the legal system can be used as a platform for making threats against free speech, there is something fundamentally wrong with the legal system.
Too bad most of the "criminals" getting busted on Cops are drug users and prostitutes. What a great use of tax dollars -- throwing peaceful civilians in jail for engaging in vicimless crimes. And look at the progress our government is making! At this rate, drug use and prostitution will soon be eliminated!
NOT.
Aha, yet another benefit of Big Government: incompetency, along with its twin brother, inefficiency.
Next time we have a problem we think is solvable only by government, let's remember to think twice. Our current bloat of a government is built on the special interests of people just like me and you: people who don't consider that somebody, somewhere, doesn't want to be forced into adopting the special interests of other people. The solution? Government needs to go on a diet. See this website if you like the sound of this.
Funny, that's exactly why I believe in a government that protects its citizens against coercion (force and fraud), and nothing more. (Yes, the Libertarian idea of government.) Everything else is just a battle of special interests, becuase beyond these core functions of government, everybody has different ideas as to what government should do. There's no way in hell they can please one person without offending another, so the proper solution is to give people the liberty to run their own lives.
Now, I'm not trying to argue that trading mp3's should be legal. I'm simply pointing out that a major difference exists between the "traditional" concept of theft and copyright infrigement in the form of trading music.
Vote Libertarian
I'm with you on this. I've got so many other things going on (hobbies, interests) that I value much, much more than my job. My job is interesting (database programmer, network admin), but 8 hours a day is way too long to be on somebody else's time. I want to get home and work on what's really important to me, on my own time, answering only to myself. Some people claim to love their job, but I think what they actually mean is that they love their field of work. I never could understand how a person could "love" answering to somebody else.
Ha! Very good point.
In general you are correct, however there is one very important variable which has the capability to seriourly alter market prices: government. The laws of "intellectual property" in particular have a huge effect on competition and the natural progression of markets. And don't forget the web of regulation which, in effect, creates a huge "startup penalty" for new players in the market. Not to mention the tax money required to implement the system, which in turn, stifles investment in private enterprise. If our markets were based entirely on voluntary exchange (the capitalistic approach), instead of coercion, we could expect to see markets return to a pricing scheme based purely on supply and demand as you describe.
In other words (for anyone who is interested), the government put the responsibility on the taxpayers to clean up the mess created by government. More support for the philosophy that government should be responsible only for securing our human rights and protecting us against coercion. Everything else is just a battle of special interests.
libertarian.org
Again, this is an entirely seperate concept. By "voluntary interaction" I am talking about the interaction between two or more people, not the "interaction" between one person and himself/herself. We are talking about social interaction here, not psychology.
Space exploration is fair game, not coercion.
Anything and everything that government does is coercion. Space exploration by government requries taxes which is a form of coercion. Politics is the "art" of deciding who gets to apply coercion and where. This will never change, because government is defined by organized coercion. I am completely in favor of space exploration/development, as long as I'm not coerced into supporting it. If I'm going to invest my savings in space exploration, I want to do it on my own will. This requires private, voluntary exchange -- not coercion.
You would have a much easier time understanding this point of view if you take a quick look at this introduction.
Ah, a fellow drummer! Cheers!
No, I would rather live in a society which operates according to the principle of voluntary interaction, rather than the principle of coercion. Space exploration by government is coercion; engaging in voluntary trade is not. See the difference? This is a debate over liberty, not morality.
P.S. I don't smoke.
Ha! I actually do have an account on K5 but I haven't posted much. I don't like the way it forces you to sift through *all* posts, instead of using a threshold like Slashdot. For a site with that many users, I think you should be able to select a threshold.
P.S. Is Poliglut really back up? It seems that way...
Checking Slashdot for new articles every so often... ;)
The child prostitute issue is a silly comparison because children do not have the same rights as adults. And for good reason: Children are not experienced enough in the world to make the same decisions as adults.
saying that pushers "fulfil a need" is like saying the rapist "fulfils the need" of the child victim
Sorry, but this analogy is dead wrong. A rapist conducts his business on an involuntary basis, using force, to achieve his goals. This is a violation of the most basic human right of all -- the right to be secure in your posessions (in this case, yourself). The act of dealing drugs, however distasteful or immoral you consider it, is an entirely voluntary, non-coercive practice. This is the fundamental difference between rape (an act of force on an un-consenting person) and the selling/marketing of drugs (a voluntary exchange between consenting adults).
Unfortunately, your argument is invalid because everybody already knows that tobacco causes health problems which eventually result in death. Today more than ever, it's nothing less than common knowledge. In fact, there is a big warning right on the cigarette pack. Thus, the tobacco industry is still providing a voluntary, non-fraudulant service to those who seek it. They supply the demand, and those who choose to smoke are entirely responsible for their own actions.
Sorry, but this sort of selective taxing is completely unfair (to both industry and consumers), economically ungrounded, and designed to benefit only special interest groups. The tobacco industry, as much as you may despise it, is providing the supply of a product -- on a voluntary basis -- which is in demand and always will be. Thus the tobacco industry, like it or not, does indeed "benefit mankind" -- just as the dairy industry, or the automobile industry, or the computer industry, or the cotton industry. Your opinion, no matter how widespread, will never change this. The only things that could possibly cause the tobacco industry to stop "benefiting mankind" is (1) if the demand disappears and they go out of business, or (2) if they switch to a non-voluntary (coercive, fraudulant) mode of exchange.
Taxing the hell out of the tobacco industry, or even banning tobacco outright, would not diminish the demand. Instead this would create a black market, much like the market for [aribrarily] illegal drugs, where peaceful citizens are transformed into criminals, violent crime becomes widespread, police become corrupted, the potential profit for tobacco skyrockets, murderers and rapists are let out of prison to make room for tobacco addicts and dealers, and nobody really wins except government which benefits from its new-found power.
Exactly. I always buy hardware that is currently in the sweet spot for pricing. It's the best way to ensure that you get your money's worth. You just need to do a little research on pricewatch.com, or a similar service, before you buy. Simply scan the prices and weigh the average price against performace. Just recently I put together a new system:
Gigabyte GA-7VRX ($80)
AMD Athlon XP 1800 ($80)
Crucial Micron 256MB PC2100 ($65 x 2)
Western Digital 80GB 7200RPM ($105)
ATI Radeon 7500 64MB ($62)
Antec 660AMG 330W ($100)
I could have went for the XP 2200, but it's twice the price of the 1800. (Obviously it's not twice as fast.) I could have went for the latest and greatest RAM, and the motherboard that supports it, but again, the price doesn't justify the performance. The case was expensive but that's more of a long-term investment.
It's funny to see people still dropping $1500+ on a new computer when they could get 80-90% of the performance for 50% of the price.
OK, I think we need to combine our definitions of government. How about "government is the orginization which holds a monopoly on the legal initiation of force"? ;) I see now that both concepts (legality and initiation) are crucial to describing the force of government.
I should have said the government has a "legal monopoly" on the use of force.
Yes, but this is still missing the word "initiation", which is crucial to defining the monopoly.
You took the words right out of my mouth. If there's one way to inhibit the development of private sector space exploration/exploitation, it's to keep government involved. Perhaps under current law the FAA needs to coordinate the blastoff so they don't take out any 747s on the way up. But I can't think of any reason why government needs to be involved after that. If these people want to take the risk, and do it in a peaceful manner, I'm all for it.
Close, but no cigar. Government holds a monopoly on the *initiation* of force (force as a means to an end, or a "business model" so to speak). I should have been clear about that, admittedly. Consider that the term "legal" is defined by government in the first place, so we're walking a circular rope by defining government's use of force via "legality". And don't forget about self-defense, which is a type of force that can be used legally by civilians.
There is a subtle difference.
I would hardly call it subtle. I would call it fundamental. The orginization called government is *defined* by it's monopoly on [the initiation of] force. In fact, this is the only definition or description of government which stands under *all* circumstances, at any point in history, under any society. At the bottom of anything and everything that government does is [the initiation of] force.
OK, I was a bit too wordy and went off on a tangent. My point was that only members of government can generate corruption in government, because members of government cannot be forced into corruption by members of the private sector. The private sector can provide *incentive* for corruption in government (ex. campaign donations in exchange for tax breaks), but in the end, it takes a member of government to step over the line and engage in corruption. You can attempt to bribe government, but you cannot forcibly alter the function of government. Only government itself (a member of government, as you said) can do this.
I simply wanted to disprove the notion that corruption in government can be *caused* by the private sector. It cannot. Any time we encounter corruption in government, the root cause can be traced to a decision made by a member (or group of members) of government.
Any time. ;)
This is the rationale, not the implementation. The implementation most certainly qualifies as "protection". Patent law works by "protecting" the patent holder from competition in the market, which would certainly arise in the absence of patent law, given that the product in question is valued by others.