I'd like to mod the parent up, but I'm sure somebody else will;-) So, just in case it takes long, I'll quote:
There is one concept that you are missing in your analysis, and that is "natural monopoly". Unless we want fifteen different wires coming into people's homes, the telcos, power companies, and cable companies will have a natural monopoly on service to your home.
That's the point: just like in LLU, sometimes you want to regulate one thing (A), in order to create conditions for some other thing (B) to "explode", because you consider that an increase of B results in benefits for more people; i.e., it's worth the sin of regulating.
The thing is: what do we need the DOGMA for? Libertarianism, although sounds nice, don't make you rich, right? It's always sane to balance the pros and cons of every choice, instead of choose "don't regulate because regulation is evil" by default.
Yeah, OT, but I'm really sick and tired of how happily these comparisons go on and on, about how there are more dead soldiers in Iraq than 9/11 victims.
Please, repeat after me:
Iraq had NOTHING TO DO with the 9/11 attacks. Nothing at all.
"I suggested that one might be able to avoid the charge of assaulting a police officer by pulling the guy who was tased away from the wannabe-fascist cops -- by using the common civil disobedience protest tactic of "de-arresting" someone. You get everyone in the immediate area to put their arms around his body and don't let go, and just drag him away. Make two cops try to arrest a dozen people all holding on to eachother."
That would require two things most (us)americans lack: care about the other, and compromise.
Americans live in fear. Terrorists have won already.
Egypt is one the "moderate" arab countries, always eager to support USA in all of their cowboy adventures in the middle east. In return of that, they don't get "democratized" a la Iraq.
Oh, the hipocrisy!!
"Wanna stop the US from messing with everyone? Invent a way to power our cars and cities that is renewable, abundant, cheap, and easily attainable. As long as scarcity prevails our predations will continue. All we require is someone with the ability to stand in the oval office and tell us why we are justified in our actions.
You think you have seen the bully? Just wait till we start to run dangerously low on oil. You haven't seen shit yet."
Sorry to ask, but aren't you ashamed of being part of THAT?
Your analogy fails because you don't seem to remember that it was France who declared war on Germany.
More than 6 months passed, and NOTHING happened. Hitler had to secure it's western front before engaging in the East (since you never want to fight two fronts simultaneaously), so he attacked pre-emptively.
"...or perhaps to support the local military in their protection of a local elected official (say, the Interior Minister of Carjakistan, who is friendly to democracy..."
US Marines supporting democratic leaders? Not that usual, you know.
"Hitler actually lost the war because he decided to split his attentions and attack the Soviet Union, who were perfectly willing to sit out the war on the sidelines till then."
Sorry, but that's really wrong. You see, invading the Soviet Union was ALWAYS the plan. Western Europe got in the way, and Hitler had to deal with it because he had no other choice (Hitler attacked France, right, but 8 months after THEY declared war. He had to do it because he had to secure his back, and didn't want to lose more time, since USSR was also preparing for war and it was some 2-4 years behind Germany). Going EAST, Lebensraum and stuff, ever heard of it?
Hitler DIDN'T WANT to fight France nor Britain. He had to do it, because THEY DECLARED WAR to Germany. That's also why he didn't crush the BEF (he let them go away instead) in Dunkirk: he wanted the peace with Britain ASAP, so he could take care of the USSR as initially intended.
"A nuke can be used for only one thing - cause destruction. The only positive use it might have is to threaten the other person with destruction. It has been created with the specific purpose and intent of causing mass destruction, and nothing else."
"(...)No matter which way you look at using a nuke, you end up killing people and destroying large areas."
Slightly OT, I know, but well...
Dude, you have a contradiction right there. Which is what I was gonna point out: If you use a nuke as a deterrent to avoid war with other countries, you're certainly AVOIDING killing people. So it is not necessarily true that by using a nuke you kill people.
What's next? What else should be forced upon individuals because it's clearly in the best interest of humanity? Where are the limits? Anyone who doesn't think there are any, and that the need of humanity goes before the need of individuals have justified Dr Mengele and his research too.
Man that's a little naive and narrow minded. Suppose YOU are in the position where you can decide saving 1000 lives by sacrifying one. Just one. Maybe yours, maybe someone else's. But you and only you have that responsability. What would you do?
Slashdot Mirror
USA has also invaded
Need more info? Wanna know how many people was killed in each one of these adventures? Just ask.-
Excuse me: which world do you live in, sir? Israel seized Palestine Territories 40 YEARS AGO, and it is -literally- wiping them out since then.
There is one concept that you are missing in your analysis, and that is "natural monopoly". Unless we want fifteen different wires coming into people's homes, the telcos, power companies, and cable companies will have a natural monopoly on service to your home.
That's the point: just like in LLU, sometimes you want to regulate one thing (A), in order to create conditions for some other thing (B) to "explode", because you consider that an increase of B results in benefits for more people; i.e., it's worth the sin of regulating.
The thing is: what do we need the DOGMA for? Libertarianism, although sounds nice, don't make you rich, right? It's always sane to balance the pros and cons of every choice, instead of choose "don't regulate because regulation is evil" by default.
Yeah, OT, but I'm really sick and tired of how happily these comparisons go on and on, about how there are more dead soldiers in Iraq than 9/11 victims.
Please, repeat after me:
Iraq had NOTHING TO DO with the 9/11 attacks. Nothing at all.
But don't give me that crap of "bush tried to fix it". Come on!
It has ALWAYS BEEN FOR THE OIL.
"I suggested that one might be able to avoid the charge of assaulting a police officer by pulling the guy who was tased away from the wannabe-fascist cops -- by using the common civil disobedience protest tactic of "de-arresting" someone. You get everyone in the immediate area to put their arms around his body and don't let go, and just drag him away. Make two cops try to arrest a dozen people all holding on to eachother."
That would require two things most (us)americans lack: care about the other, and compromise.
Americans live in fear. Terrorists have won already.
Egypt is one the "moderate" arab countries, always eager to support USA in all of their cowboy adventures in the middle east. In return of that, they don't get "democratized" a la Iraq. Oh, the hipocrisy!!
So you want to invest? Did you consider Latin America? ;-)
I use tinimailto
"Wanna stop the US from messing with everyone? Invent a way to power our cars and cities that is renewable, abundant, cheap, and easily attainable. As long as scarcity prevails our predations will continue. All we require is someone with the ability to stand in the oval office and tell us why we are justified in our actions.
You think you have seen the bully? Just wait till we start to run dangerously low on oil. You haven't seen shit yet."
Sorry to ask, but aren't you ashamed of being part of THAT?
More than 6 months passed, and NOTHING happened. Hitler had to secure it's western front before engaging in the East (since you never want to fight two fronts simultaneaously), so he attacked pre-emptively.
"The only way for us to protect against a nuclear attack is to pose a nuclear threat ourselves."
Kim Jong-il, is it you?
Can you tell me how would Kim Jong Il could think such a thing? Oh, I forgot he is a MADMAN. HE is EVIL.
You can kill all spammers, but there will be more soon taking their places.
As long as it is profitable, it will be done.
US Marines supporting democratic leaders? Not that usual, you know.
Try "our son of a bitch" kind of dictators or stuff like that...
Sorry, but that's really wrong. You see, invading the Soviet Union was ALWAYS the plan. Western Europe got in the way, and Hitler had to deal with it because he had no other choice (Hitler attacked France, right, but 8 months after THEY declared war. He had to do it because he had to secure his back, and didn't want to lose more time, since USSR was also preparing for war and it was some 2-4 years behind Germany). Going EAST, Lebensraum and stuff, ever heard of it?
Hitler DIDN'T WANT to fight France nor Britain. He had to do it, because THEY DECLARED WAR to Germany. That's also why he didn't crush the BEF (he let them go away instead) in Dunkirk: he wanted the peace with Britain ASAP, so he could take care of the USSR as initially intended.
How does the site design weight in the pagerank?
I get 92 too.
...is glamorous.
How many division does the Pope have?
"(...)No matter which way you look at using a nuke, you end up killing people and destroying large areas."
Slightly OT, I know, but well...
Dude, you have a contradiction right there. Which is what I was gonna point out: If you use a nuke as a deterrent to avoid war with other countries, you're certainly AVOIDING killing people. So it is not necessarily true that by using a nuke you kill people.
OMG, did he hire YOU to advertise for him!! Man he is resourceful!
Seriously buddy, shouldn't you spend your 5 minutes in something else? Like in, for example, getting a life? Yep, a real one.
Ok ok, (most of) we already knew that.
So what? I still can't see what is wrong about it...
Yeah, I'll sacrifice YOUR life, but not that of myself or my family. Satisfied now?
Exactly. That's what the government has to do in this case.
What's next? What else should be forced upon individuals because it's clearly in the best interest of humanity? Where are the limits? Anyone who doesn't think there are any, and that the need of humanity goes before the need of individuals have justified Dr Mengele and his research too.
Man that's a little naive and narrow minded. Suppose YOU are in the position where you can decide saving 1000 lives by sacrifying one. Just one. Maybe yours, maybe someone else's. But you and only you have that responsability. What would you do?