I don't think you understand. I don't believe in the political process itself -- the idea that when a majority stands up, it magically acquires the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. On a more fundamental level, I don't believe in the proposal that it could ever be moral and just to initiate force as a means to an end.
To sum up, you want me to choose sides, in your game, under your rules. I simply refuse to play the game.
The belief that it is moral and just for a majority to initiate force as a means to achieve the majority's objectives. I don't believe in that principle.
I'm not a libertarian, because I dismiss completely the proposal that the initiation of force (government as we know it) can be moral and just. Even libertarians believe that some initiation of force is necessary to "secure" society. (Even the most limited government must collect its revenue through coercive taxing.)
my wife and I are friends with a couple who don't vote (never have) and that drives me crazy
Why does it anger you so much? Do you feel threatened by their lack of conformity? Do you feel jealous or resentful that they spend their time worrying about their own lives? Do you feel insulted that instead of choosing sides, they simply refuse to play the game?
FYI, laziness and indifference are not the only reasons to abstain from voting. (Although I certainly respect the individual's right to be lazy or indifferent.) You probably won't understand/accept this, but there is a moral reason to refuse to participate in the political process: because government is force. No matter who you vote for, you are voting for force. You can't vote for voluntary association. You can't vote for "none of the above" or "eliminate this position of power".
When you look at it that way, you really don't have a choice at all. Force is the only choice. If you don't believe in force, you've already lost the election, and every other government election you will ever see.
Just to clarify, I don't believe that there can be a just and moral initiation of force, no matter how many individuals constitute the majority (the aggressors), or how many consititute the minority (the victims). I was trying to point out the absurdity of the "get out and vote, it doesn't matter who for" campaigns. To claim that it's always better to have a larger voter turnout, regardless of the outcome, is to imply that you don't have a preference. In which case, why are you advocating the voting process in the first place? (If you had a clear preference, and you felt strongly about it, then you'd want that extra turnout only if it fell on your side.)
Congradulations, you are a model statist. (There's no point in arguing with you any longer, because I see now that you have been fully converted and programmed to believe in the process of democracy.)
The fact is, American Citizen #93208239, you had everything to do with those crimes.
Bullshit. That's exactly what government wants you to believe. I will never accept the proposal that the ruler and the subject are one and the same.
Over 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians are dead because of decisions made by the US federal government. You want to relieve them of that responsibility and put the blame on "the people". That's bullshit. What if, for example, I've voted Libertarian every single election, every single race? (The Libertarian party has very little, if any, influence on the policies of the US governments.) Are you still going to hold on to your ridiculous claims?
You have recived the benefits and responsibility of those past actions.
Prove it.
You gain the benfits of shared resources, pooled security, and improvments that are greater than the sum of its parts.
Sounds like the socialist's laundry list. Force me to accept your "benefits" now, so you can blame me later on for your acts of agression.
I suppose if you had children you would expect them to take care of themselves
What exactly does this have to do with my refusing to take responsibility for the actions of government? You seem to be confusing voluntary support with forced participation in socialism. Then again, isn't that what socialism is all about? Blurring the line between voluntary association and force?
All people are directly responsible for what their government did, because the government is representing you and your wishes.
Isn't that how Bin Laden thinks? His objective is to punish US citizens for the actions of their government.
I say bullshit. The ruler and the subject cannot, by any stretch of logic, become one and the same. You cannot, at the same time, (1) posess the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, and (2) NOT posess the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. (Posession of the unique "right" to initiate force is the only absolute way to define government.)
Who's this "we"? I'm a US citizen, but I committed none of those crimes. I am a peaceful individual, not an aggressor. I will NOT be held responsible for the actions of other individuals, let alone the actions of government.
I am exactly responsible for my own actions. No more, no less. I take offense that you imply that I somehow had something to do with those crimes.
That sounds great, until you realize that it's not the US citizens who chose this course of action. It's the US federal government. What do you have to gain by punishing civilians who may very well oppose those policies?
Why archive something you already have a hard copy of?
I could have my entire CD collection stolen or destroyed, and I'd still have my entire CD collection, bit-for-bit identical to what I had before. I could burn new CD's from my flacs, recreating the originals, or I could burn MP3's from my flacs for my portable player. I could do anything with the flacs that I could do with the originals, because what you get when you uncompress the flacs IS the original.
a 224 capped VBR0 mp3 will not be perceptibly different from even a the most perfect "lossless" method for 99% of music
Maybe not, but it's quite a different story when you decide you want to re-encode those mp3's into another lossy format. For archiving purposes, there is no substitute for lossless compression. It has nothing to do with sound quality, and everything to do with having an exact, bit-for-bit duplicate of the original.
To make an analogy, you wouldn't want to backup your CD's on analog cassette tapes. Even if you couldn't tell the difference in sound quality, you still don't have your originals, and thus you have no backup. If it's not bit-for-bit identical, it's not a backup. I'm not saying there isn't a place for lossy compression. I use lossy compression myself for my portable player, and it works great. But that's not a backup, it's only a convienence.
Every government is socialist to some extent. The US is roughly half socialist for example. As far as I am aware, there is no existing government that could be considered "libertarian".
voluntary association (which I believe to be an arbitrary line with many bends)
If the line between voluntary association and force is arbitrary, then you will have to prove how it is possible that an instance of human interaction falls into BOTH categories at the same time.
shouldn't exchange of information not be repressed by force
You'll have to expand on this because I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
Slashdot Mirror
To sum up, you want me to choose sides, in your game, under your rules. I simply refuse to play the game.
The belief that it is moral and just for a majority to initiate force as a means to achieve the majority's objectives. I don't believe in that principle.
Perhaps there's something good on television?
I don't watch television.
I'm not a libertarian, because I dismiss completely the proposal that the initiation of force (government as we know it) can be moral and just. Even libertarians believe that some initiation of force is necessary to "secure" society. (Even the most limited government must collect its revenue through coercive taxing.)
Why does it anger you so much? Do you feel threatened by their lack of conformity? Do you feel jealous or resentful that they spend their time worrying about their own lives? Do you feel insulted that instead of choosing sides, they simply refuse to play the game?
FYI, laziness and indifference are not the only reasons to abstain from voting. (Although I certainly respect the individual's right to be lazy or indifferent.) You probably won't understand/accept this, but there is a moral reason to refuse to participate in the political process: because government is force. No matter who you vote for, you are voting for force. You can't vote for voluntary association. You can't vote for "none of the above" or "eliminate this position of power".
When you look at it that way, you really don't have a choice at all. Force is the only choice. If you don't believe in force, you've already lost the election, and every other government election you will ever see.
Congradulations, that's exactly what government wants you to believe.
Um, no. I agree with that 100%.
Just to clarify, I don't believe that there can be a just and moral initiation of force, no matter how many individuals constitute the majority (the aggressors), or how many consititute the minority (the victims). I was trying to point out the absurdity of the "get out and vote, it doesn't matter who for" campaigns. To claim that it's always better to have a larger voter turnout, regardless of the outcome, is to imply that you don't have a preference. In which case, why are you advocating the voting process in the first place? (If you had a clear preference, and you felt strongly about it, then you'd want that extra turnout only if it fell on your side.)
Congradulations, you are a model statist. (There's no point in arguing with you any longer, because I see now that you have been fully converted and programmed to believe in the process of democracy.)
Bullshit. That's exactly what government wants you to believe. I will never accept the proposal that the ruler and the subject are one and the same.
Over 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians are dead because of decisions made by the US federal government. You want to relieve them of that responsibility and put the blame on "the people". That's bullshit. What if, for example, I've voted Libertarian every single election, every single race? (The Libertarian party has very little, if any, influence on the policies of the US governments.) Are you still going to hold on to your ridiculous claims?
What if the result of more people voting is exactly the opposite of what you want?
Prove it.
You gain the benfits of shared resources, pooled security, and improvments that are greater than the sum of its parts.
Sounds like the socialist's laundry list. Force me to accept your "benefits" now, so you can blame me later on for your acts of agression.
I suppose if you had children you would expect them to take care of themselves
What exactly does this have to do with my refusing to take responsibility for the actions of government? You seem to be confusing voluntary support with forced participation in socialism. Then again, isn't that what socialism is all about? Blurring the line between voluntary association and force?
Isn't that how Bin Laden thinks? His objective is to punish US citizens for the actions of their government.
I say bullshit. The ruler and the subject cannot, by any stretch of logic, become one and the same. You cannot, at the same time, (1) posess the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, and (2) NOT posess the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end. (Posession of the unique "right" to initiate force is the only absolute way to define government.)
Who's this "we"? I'm a US citizen, but I committed none of those crimes. I am a peaceful individual, not an aggressor. I will NOT be held responsible for the actions of other individuals, let alone the actions of government.
I am exactly responsible for my own actions. No more, no less. I take offense that you imply that I somehow had something to do with those crimes.
I don't think anything else needs to be said.
Agreed. There are also some radicals in the US who believe that the slaughter of thousands of Iraqi civilians is moral and just.
Who's this "we"? I'm a US citizen, and I never supported the invasion of Iraq.
If only it was. You sure you haven't been blinded by promising hallucinations of "government by the people"?
Why not? The more crimes, the more criminals. The more criminals, the more power and revenue for those who control government.
That sounds great, until you realize that it's not the US citizens who chose this course of action. It's the US federal government. What do you have to gain by punishing civilians who may very well oppose those policies?
I could have my entire CD collection stolen or destroyed, and I'd still have my entire CD collection, bit-for-bit identical to what I had before. I could burn new CD's from my flacs, recreating the originals, or I could burn MP3's from my flacs for my portable player. I could do anything with the flacs that I could do with the originals, because what you get when you uncompress the flacs IS the original.
I can't say I've ever heard a politician proclaim that!
Maybe not, but it's quite a different story when you decide you want to re-encode those mp3's into another lossy format. For archiving purposes, there is no substitute for lossless compression. It has nothing to do with sound quality, and everything to do with having an exact, bit-for-bit duplicate of the original.
To make an analogy, you wouldn't want to backup your CD's on analog cassette tapes. Even if you couldn't tell the difference in sound quality, you still don't have your originals, and thus you have no backup. If it's not bit-for-bit identical, it's not a backup. I'm not saying there isn't a place for lossy compression. I use lossy compression myself for my portable player, and it works great. But that's not a backup, it's only a convienence.
Every government is socialist to some extent. The US is roughly half socialist for example. As far as I am aware, there is no existing government that could be considered "libertarian".
Also see my other comment above.
If the line between voluntary association and force is arbitrary, then you will have to prove how it is possible that an instance of human interaction falls into BOTH categories at the same time.
shouldn't exchange of information not be repressed by force
You'll have to expand on this because I'm not sure what you're trying to say.