Consider it an extension of the war on terror. So, why does the government need a law? Why dont they just put spammers in Guantanamo and replace them with corporate executives who founded their campaigns? But, well IANALAINW (iamnotalawyerandneverwill)
> The US, as a member of the WTO, has to respect it Sorry to rant offtopicly, but: Does that mean that the US, as a member of the WTO has to reduce its subsidies ? That as a member of the UN has to obey its decisions? Or that as a member of the IMF has to reduce its deficit? Really???
Western movies arent all from Hollywood. French Spanish, English and Latin American cinema is quite different from Hollywood. Even so, its a great comment
They were ALSO screwing their investors. The employees lost their jobs and the previsional funds (dont know the exact term in US), which consisted mainly on stock.
and makes use of it for the public good. Not quite. It makes use of it to produce wealth. But it does nothing to translate that wealth in public good. In fact, that's the point where it fails miserably. You have more wealth, but way more unevenly distributed. And the amount of power that capitalism gives capital owners makes pressure against progressive tax measures (the ones that would redistribute wealth). There's a point where wealth production and wealth distribution are balanced for the public good, and IMHO its not in the extreme of untaxed wealth production.
You mean that in capitalism there IS a difference between people and things? If so, what is meant by "human capital" or "human resources"? Besides, materialism does not set goals, just seek explanations. I do prefer explanations that dont use concepts such as "spirit" or "soul".
You totally missed what materialism means. It means that it explains history based in man an its influence over matter (specially by the production methods). It has nothing to do with materialism as "Caring for things more than for people". Personally, I find materialism much more solid than idealism (what capitalism is, ie: "An invisible hand that sorts it out for well"), but that is probably because I am more inclined to scientifical, cause-consequence way of thinking.
I would think that the "violent criminal" bit could be unconstitutional. This is assuming that they're refering to ex-cons; I don't think that a wanted violent criminal would be given a red flag, rather they'd have the police called on them. Does that mean ex-conservatives??
OK, but how were the representatives elected? If by a majority, then they *could* have decided to wipe off the minority. If not, how does it come that they werent an opressing minority.
I dont think you can restrict the decisions to be taken by the majority. With whose power would you do such a thing? Besides discouragement of discrimination (ie, law treating jews different than other people -nazi germany or israel like -, or by ethnic origin) and free speech, I cant think of any other restriction that you can impose to a majority.
I mean, even the universal declaration of humans rights is by no means universal. But should it?
This is why our Founding Fathers were quite careful not to choose democracy but rather a limited, Constitutional form of republicanism for their new nation. So that a rabid, banal majority couldn't legally seize control of the government and use it to cruelly oppress the minority. So, how can you tell THEY werent a minority trying to opress the majority? That's simply stupid. So, they (less than 40 people) took certain decision that then weren't subject to the decision of the majority. I can hardly see any progress here. How can we distinct between a 'rabid' and 'banal' majority and a good one?
He was stating that he 'thinks internationally', not that he was outside US. He was criticizing us-centrism. Let's face it, if I talked of Nunavut without saying its a canadian state, the most common post would be 'what the hell are you talking of?' But that does not mean he does not live in the US.
The Nazis were socialist (German National Social Worker's Party), not capitalists
That is quite wrong. First of all, you should think about why, besides jews, gays and gipsies, there were communists in the concentration camps. Then recall the place that switzerland and the financial power played in supporting the nazi regime, even some curious cases like Henry Ford and G W Bush's grandfather (you wouldn't say they're commies, would you?)
From the wikipedia: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism Like other fascist regimes, the Nazi regime emphasized anti-communism and the leader principle (Fuhrerprinzip), a key element of fascist ideology in which the ruler is deemed to embody the political movement and the nation. Unlike other fascist ideologies, Nazism was virulently racist. Some of the manifestations of Nazi racism were:
Slashdot Mirror
Consider it an extension of the war on terror.
So, why does the government need a law? Why dont they just put spammers in Guantanamo and replace them with corporate executives who founded their campaigns?
But, well IANALAINW (iamnotalawyerandneverwill)
> The US, as a member of the WTO, has to respect it
Sorry to rant offtopicly, but:
Does that mean that the US, as a member of the WTO has to reduce its subsidies ? That as a member of the UN has to obey its decisions?
Or that as a member of the IMF has to reduce its deficit?
Really???
Western movies arent all from Hollywood. French Spanish, English and Latin American cinema is quite different from Hollywood.
Even so, its a great comment
They were ALSO screwing their investors. The employees lost their jobs and the previsional funds (dont know the exact term in US), which consisted mainly on stock.
and makes use of it for the public good.
Not quite. It makes use of it to produce wealth. But it does nothing to translate that wealth in public good. In fact, that's the point where it fails miserably. You have more wealth, but way more unevenly distributed. And the amount of power that capitalism gives capital owners makes pressure against progressive tax measures (the ones that would redistribute wealth).
There's a point where wealth production and wealth distribution are balanced for the public good, and IMHO its not in the extreme of untaxed wealth production.
You mean that in capitalism there IS a difference between people and things? If so, what is meant by "human capital" or "human resources"?
Besides, materialism does not set goals, just seek explanations. I do prefer explanations that dont use concepts such as "spirit" or "soul".
You totally missed what materialism means. It means that it explains history based in man an its influence over matter (specially by the production methods). It has nothing to do with materialism as "Caring for things more than for people".
Personally, I find materialism much more solid than idealism (what capitalism is, ie: "An invisible hand that sorts it out for well"), but that is probably because I am more inclined to scientifical, cause-consequence way of thinking.
I would think that the "violent criminal" bit could be unconstitutional. This is assuming that they're refering to ex-cons; I don't think that a wanted violent criminal would be given a red flag, rather they'd have the police called on them.
Does that mean ex-conservatives??
OK, but how were the representatives elected?
If by a majority, then they *could* have decided to wipe off the minority. If not, how does it come that they werent an opressing minority.
I dont think you can restrict the decisions to be taken by the majority. With whose power would you do such a thing? Besides discouragement of discrimination (ie, law treating jews different than other people -nazi germany or israel like -, or by ethnic origin) and free speech, I cant think of any other restriction that you can impose to a majority.
I mean, even the universal declaration of humans rights is by no means universal. But should it?
This is why our Founding Fathers were quite careful not to choose democracy but rather a limited, Constitutional form of republicanism for their new nation. So that a rabid, banal majority couldn't legally seize control of the government and use it to cruelly oppress the minority.
So, how can you tell THEY werent a minority trying to opress the majority?
That's simply stupid. So, they (less than 40 people) took certain decision that then weren't subject to the decision of the majority.
I can hardly see any progress here.
How can we distinct between a 'rabid' and 'banal' majority and a good one?
He was stating that he 'thinks internationally', not that he was outside US.
He was criticizing us-centrism. Let's face it, if I talked of Nunavut without saying its a canadian state, the most common post would be 'what the hell are you talking of?'
But that does not mean he does not live in the US.
Still, when it comes to Trademark violations on the Internet, courts do not have a hard time justifying the reach of the law outside US borders.
And even so, we refuse to see to give the control over Internet to an (almost) international and democratic institution (UN).
</offtopic>
The Nazis were socialist (German National Social Worker's Party), not capitalists
Like other fascist regimes, the Nazi regime emphasized anti-communism and the leader principle (Fuhrerprinzip), a key element of fascist ideology in which the ruler is deemed to embody the political movement and the nation. Unlike other fascist ideologies, Nazism was virulently racist. Some of the manifestations of Nazi racism were:
That is quite wrong. First of all, you should think about why, besides jews, gays and gipsies, there were communists in the concentration camps.
Then recall the place that switzerland and the financial power played in supporting the nazi regime, even some curious cases like Henry Ford and G W Bush's grandfather (you wouldn't say they're commies, would you?)
From the wikipedia:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism