Not my fault that two countries with higher tax rates, more regulation, and socialized services up the wazoo debunk your entire ideology
You haven't yet shown this. You would have to answer my points to show this. As it stands now, you're begging the question.
Yes, the inherent rights violations in having 10 weeks of vacation a year. The rights violations in suffering a serious illness or accident and knowing you will be treated and you wont lose your house. The rights violations of graduating from school without six figures in student loan debt and being able to start your own business without worrying about health insurance for yourself or your employees.
Which rights are violated by these examples? Name them.
I'm talking about the fact that Norway and Sweden spend far more on public education and health care, yet have higher per-capita GDP than the United States.
And now you simply have to show 1) that their public education and health care is somehow causally tied to their growth in GDP, 2) that such a scheme is sustainable in the long-term, and 3) that it justifies the inherent violation of individual rights. Good luck with that.
The "system" is not broken, so long as it is left alone (ie, no govt or Fed involvement) - but it's been quite a while since that was the case. We have been long overdue for a correction thanks to previous government intervention into the economy. Rather than let the correction occur, the government has continually delayed it, which will result in a much bigger correction in the future. A complete stock bubble correction was prevented by creating a housing bubble, the correction of which they are now attempting to delay, meanwhile sending us into enormous debt.
So what you're saying is that even though the system is broken it is your own damn fault for having put up with it to get a college education? That's not solving anything.
It's precisely the solution - personal responsibility.
There are no underlying concepts. Having had to deal with several courses on this topic in pursuit of my physics degree, I can attest to the thorough incoherence of quantum physics. The equations produce results, but there is no conceptualization at any level.
STOP ADVERTISING TO ME WHEN I'VE ALREADY PAID FOR YOUR PRODUCT
Err, you seem to have that completely backwards. The product doesn't exist yet. With the possibility of in-game advertising, the game developers will have more resources (CASH MONEY) to work with. They'll then make the game, and then you can decide whether or not to buy it.
Your wording implies that you've already agreed to a purchase of a game that previously didn't have advertisements, but is now going to get them. Either that, or you believe that the game would be possible regardless of whether the developers had the funding from the advertisers. What makes you think that?
Do you feel like your rights have just been violated by the FTC?
Well, the FTC shouldn't exist, for the same reason, but regarding your question, yes, not necessarily *my* rights, but rights nonetheless.
I'm not suggesting that anonymity should be outlawed, just that we need channels of information that are not anonymous. If people see the need, a new generation of web sites could fix the problem, and still leave the old ones as a sewer for the propaganda army to play with undisturbed.
Exactly. That is free market capitalism. People see a big enough demand for something, and they'll have a huge incentive to provide the service. I'm reminded of the non-anonymous, expert-driven fork of Wikipedia called Citizendium, where the identities of editors are verified.
What I am arguing is that either the internet is a toy, or it's a critical piece of information infrastructure, and if it's the latter than tracking the sources of your information is actually, you know, kind of important.
The internet is a bunch of interconnected computers, used by different people with different interests and goals. There is no "common" goal or use for the internet that renders it "either a toy, or a critical piece of infrastructure". For some it is one, for others the other. Any regulation of the internet to make it abide by some common goal that you envision must necessarily violate the rights of those computer users.
Ahh yes, because Goebbels and Hitler would have been so powerful if they didn't have the voluntary backing of their countrymen to enforce their will. What you're advocating is the destruction of freedom of speech, the destruction of the internet.
It depends, are you looking into a place where I can expect privacy?
It doesn't depend. You don't own or have any right to the light that leaves your property.
You don't get to peek into my shower from 100 yards away because you have a good binocular set.
How is that possible unless you are dumb enough to have a huge window in your shower? Rights don't exist out of convenience, or to protect people from bad decisions. They protect people from force.
Actually, it's pretty specifically worded to be correct. If I have a contract with you, and in the contract I demand my information be kept secret, and you start spreading my information, you've broken the contract and I can take you to court.
If however that is not specified in the contract, you can freely spread my information, and you should be free to. But if I then tried to force you to keep my information secret (even if I got the help of the cops or government) - that would violate your rights. It wasn't in the contract, so it wasn't a precondition to our trade, so fraud wasn't committed, so no rights were violated by you in spreading my information.
It would probably be dumb of you to do that though, as you would ultimately lose business due to bad publicity, but making such decisions, whether they help or harm your business, is your right to do.
Of course it is, you have no business into my private life unless I either permit you access to the information or I violate the law.
You seem to misunderstand me. There are obviously rights to life, property, pursuit of happiness. If I were to come into your home, that would violate rights. If I were to sit outside, off your property, and watch you with binoculars, that would not violate rights. To stop me from doing the latter would necessarily violate rights.
There could not be, as such a right would invariably violate other, actual rights by forcing people to do with their knowledge other than they please outside of any contractual obligations.
Slashdot Mirror
A) Without the vaccine you can develop pretty serious health issues.
Severe health issues can happen - the question is, what are the chances of it happening?
B) You will then spread it to others.
Again, even if I had it, there is only a probability of it being spread to others. Has anyone figured this number out?
What? That's insane and selfish.
Putting your interests above others is not insane. We're not talking about a plague here, so please stop fearmongering.
Not my fault that two countries with higher tax rates, more regulation, and socialized services up the wazoo debunk your entire ideology
You haven't yet shown this. You would have to answer my points to show this. As it stands now, you're begging the question.
Yes, the inherent rights violations in having 10 weeks of vacation a year. The rights violations in suffering a serious illness or accident and knowing you will be treated and you wont lose your house. The rights violations of graduating from school without six figures in student loan debt and being able to start your own business without worrying about health insurance for yourself or your employees.
Which rights are violated by these examples? Name them.
I'm talking about the fact that Norway and Sweden spend far more on public education and health care, yet have higher per-capita GDP than the United States.
And now you simply have to show 1) that their public education and health care is somehow causally tied to their growth in GDP, 2) that such a scheme is sustainable in the long-term, and 3) that it justifies the inherent violation of individual rights. Good luck with that.
You fixed it by using meaningless catch-phrases? Nice!
The "system" is not broken, so long as it is left alone (ie, no govt or Fed involvement) - but it's been quite a while since that was the case. We have been long overdue for a correction thanks to previous government intervention into the economy. Rather than let the correction occur, the government has continually delayed it, which will result in a much bigger correction in the future. A complete stock bubble correction was prevented by creating a housing bubble, the correction of which they are now attempting to delay, meanwhile sending us into enormous debt.
So what you're saying is that even though the system is broken it is your own damn fault for having put up with it to get a college education? That's not solving anything.
It's precisely the solution - personal responsibility.
Congratulations, you've taken a keyboarding course.
There, I fixed that for ya.
Uhh.... no. Ring finger for W, middle finger for E, index finger for B. I can do it almost instantaneously.
There are no underlying concepts. Having had to deal with several courses on this topic in pursuit of my physics degree, I can attest to the thorough incoherence of quantum physics. The equations produce results, but there is no conceptualization at any level.
Of all alternate Earths
And incoherence is achieved yet again. Record time!
Is it science fiction if the science is incoherent and anticonceptual? A better category would be fantasy, or (*gasp*) religion.
You've strung words together, but they are incoherent, so you've made no statement.
Scientists...will move around the lower digestive tract using legs
That sounds quite painful!
STOP ADVERTISING TO ME WHEN I'VE ALREADY PAID FOR YOUR PRODUCT
Err, you seem to have that completely backwards. The product doesn't exist yet. With the possibility of in-game advertising, the game developers will have more resources (CASH MONEY) to work with. They'll then make the game, and then you can decide whether or not to buy it.
Your wording implies that you've already agreed to a purchase of a game that previously didn't have advertisements, but is now going to get them. Either that, or you believe that the game would be possible regardless of whether the developers had the funding from the advertisers. What makes you think that?
Do you feel like your rights have just been violated by the FTC?
Well, the FTC shouldn't exist, for the same reason, but regarding your question, yes, not necessarily *my* rights, but rights nonetheless.
I'm not suggesting that anonymity should be outlawed, just that we need channels of information that are not anonymous. If people see the need, a new generation of web sites could fix the problem, and still leave the old ones as a sewer for the propaganda army to play with undisturbed.
Exactly. That is free market capitalism. People see a big enough demand for something, and they'll have a huge incentive to provide the service. I'm reminded of the non-anonymous, expert-driven fork of Wikipedia called Citizendium, where the identities of editors are verified.
What I am arguing is that either the internet is a toy, or it's a critical piece of information infrastructure, and if it's the latter than tracking the sources of your information is actually, you know, kind of important.
The internet is a bunch of interconnected computers, used by different people with different interests and goals. There is no "common" goal or use for the internet that renders it "either a toy, or a critical piece of infrastructure". For some it is one, for others the other. Any regulation of the internet to make it abide by some common goal that you envision must necessarily violate the rights of those computer users.
Ahh yes, because Goebbels and Hitler would have been so powerful if they didn't have the voluntary backing of their countrymen to enforce their will. What you're advocating is the destruction of freedom of speech, the destruction of the internet.
The I Love Lucy and The Honeymooners shows are arguably much more influential (and funnier) than Monty Python, as far as actual influence goes.
No they aren't.
MP may have been funny and set the standard for sketch comedy, it doesn't really have much influence on popular culture.
Yes it does.
The two shows mentioned above have essentially defined the groundwork and format for all sitcoms to follow.
No they haven't.
Whether popular culture should be used to judge the positive influence of something could be debated, of course.
No it couldn't.
Shut your festering gob, you insensitive tit!
It depends, are you looking into a place where I can expect privacy?
It doesn't depend. You don't own or have any right to the light that leaves your property.
You don't get to peek into my shower from 100 yards away because you have a good binocular set.
How is that possible unless you are dumb enough to have a huge window in your shower? Rights don't exist out of convenience, or to protect people from bad decisions. They protect people from force.
That's pretty poorly worded
Actually, it's pretty specifically worded to be correct. If I have a contract with you, and in the contract I demand my information be kept secret, and you start spreading my information, you've broken the contract and I can take you to court.
If however that is not specified in the contract, you can freely spread my information, and you should be free to. But if I then tried to force you to keep my information secret (even if I got the help of the cops or government) - that would violate your rights. It wasn't in the contract, so it wasn't a precondition to our trade, so fraud wasn't committed, so no rights were violated by you in spreading my information.
It would probably be dumb of you to do that though, as you would ultimately lose business due to bad publicity, but making such decisions, whether they help or harm your business, is your right to do.
Of course it is, you have no business into my private life unless I either permit you access to the information or I violate the law.
You seem to misunderstand me. There are obviously rights to life, property, pursuit of happiness. If I were to come into your home, that would violate rights. If I were to sit outside, off your property, and watch you with binoculars, that would not violate rights. To stop me from doing the latter would necessarily violate rights.
Now, these electricians are going to be installing webcams into your house now so we can monitor your daily life a la The Truman Show.
Except there is the right to property, and those electricians are violating that right.
yeah but there is.
There could not be, as such a right would invariably violate other, actual rights by forcing people to do with their knowledge other than they please outside of any contractual obligations.
Privacy is an unalienable right.
No, it is not. Such a "right" - if it were one - would invariably violate actual inalienable rights.