"Granted, for this to work people and society and family would all be significantly different too: No one gets to involuntarily force others into action. There are real alternatives for people"
I think the only difference between us is that I realize that will NEVER happen.
"As for children, it is kids who actually understand these ideas much better than you do. They get it immediately."
Children have not yet grown up yet and recognized the realities of life and the world we live in, if you still believe these fairy tales at any reasonable adult age, that's a problem, sorry.
He states that private property should be abolished, I quoted that to you. His ideal is that the government owns everything and the subjects just use it when they deem it necessary.
You've obviously drank the socialist kool-aid and love every drop of it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are still young (pre-career). If not, please don't have children.
Welcome to another fact of life. Those less equipped to deal with life die sooner (as they should). Nature is a harsh mistress and if people don't die we end up with larger problems like overpopulation and the straining of natural resources. The trick to understanding these issues on a large scale is disconnecting yourself from the emotional reaction to the thought of letting a poor person with cancer die. It's sad yes, but you can't fuck everyone over one life. Additionally your point about the influence of money in US elections is a very valid concern that I share. I am however not afraid of an elected government (any other type would be a major problem), I am afraid of an elected government that thinks it knows how to better manage my money and property (It does not, and never will.)
The source of human rights is property. For example, why can I break my own window, but I can't break yours (without your permission)? Because it's YOUR window. Additionally, why can't you murder me? Because my body and life belong only to myself, you have no right ot violate it. Once you violate the sanctity of property ownership, you are on a downward slide to totalitarianism.
I said uneven REdistribution of money. If both of us put in $1 and we both get $1 in value back, that's fine. If we both put in $1 and you get $2 and I get $0, that's a problem. As for your other comments, they're not even close to the truth about me. I work hard to make ends meet, but I work my ass off to do so and deserve every penny of it.
Religion is close, but still #2 for the most dangerous ideas man has ever had. Communism/Socialism will most likely hold the #1 spot until every human is dead (Probably due to communism)
You fall into the group of the people who can't see/understand the big, long term picture of "free healthcare". Universal Healthcare requires an uneven redistribution of private property (Money). Meaning we both put in X dollars, you decide to go bungee jumping and break your arm, then you use your money and my money to fix your arm. So in the end I'm paying for your stupidity. If you don't see that as a problem, there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
I am not by any means saying capitalism is perfect, it is not for the very reason you stated, consumerism and greed. What I am saying is that capitalism on at it's worst is better than socialism/communism at it's best within the system we have to work with.
You assume correctly that I am an American (for very flawed reasons however), and I realize my country is not as free-market-based as it used to be, but guess what I don't like it. The democrats have, throughout the last 50 or so years moved my country more and more towards socialism (New Deal, Welfare, etc) and they're still trying to (Universal Healthcare).
It's a bad path for any country to go down, unfortunately the average person is an idiot and goes "Oh wow, free hospital visits!" not realizing the true cost (freedom, independence, liberty, rights)
It's fairly simple logic. If someone else owns something, your ability to use it is a priviledge they grant to you and can be rescinded at any time. Do you REALLY want the government to own anything? Government owned computers? printing presses? It's fairly hard to have free speech when the government controls the means to communicate and can tell you what you can and can't do with them.
Your point? Not forseeing something doesn't make communism not a horribly flawed idea that fundamentally threatens human rights (No property = No rights).
Anyone who hasn't yet figured out that communism/socialism is the single worst idea mankind has ever thought either lives in a fantasy land or seriously lacks critical and logical thinking skills.
So basically you're re-writing "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx...To quote
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
It didn't work, it doesn't work, and it will never work. Sorry.
Most countries in europe do not recognize the right to free speech. Look at the anti-nazi-speech laws in Germany and many other countries in europe.
The most important speech to protect is the speech that you despise.
It's not really that hard if you know what you're doing. as for not implementing fixes and hacks, well unfortunately I live in the real world, not an ideal utopia where I can tell my clients users to go to hell.
Sometimes you just want to see the show you want, when you want to. I'm actually surprised it took so long for it to come about. But now that on-demand television is getting popular, on-demand TV from your computer is the next logical step.
Most of the development I do at my job is Coldfusion+Fusebox with SQL Server on the backend (I don't care if you hate MS, don't bother knocking SQL Server) and stored procedures just make life easier. They're also handy in the instance that you may have multiple front-ends written in multiple languages accessing the same database in many cases. Making a change to the way data is returned is far easier to do in one stored procedure than in X number of front-ends. One of the main reasons we don't use mysql is because the stable versions don't have them.
*NOTE* I pre-apologize for possibly posting this twice, I created an account just to ask this question and am a complete noob to the system *NOTE*
-Physical Theft-
Joe walks into a store.
Joe steals a lof of bread.
That store is now short one loaf of bread
and has lost actual revenue.
-Electronic Theft-
Joe copy a piece of software.
The company has not actually lost anything
except the *potential* sale of that software to Joe
Assuming Joe could never have afforded the software in the first place, and never would have bought it, the company has lost absolutely nothing.
If someone found a way to copy bread, they'd probably be given a nobel peace prize for solving world hunger...
I understand that there is a difference between bread and food, but does law recognize the difference between losing actual revenue and potential revenue? We're entering an era where you can give something to someone without losing posession of it yourself, do you think laws should be modified to accurately reflect this?
That store is now short one loaf of bread and has lost actual revenue.
-Electronic Theft-
Joe copy a piece of software.
The company has not actually lost anything except the *potential* sale of that software to me
Assuming Joe could never have afforded the software in the first place, and never woul dhave bought it, the company has lost absolutely nothing.
If someone found a way to copy bread, they'd probably be given a nobel peace prize for solving world hunger...
I understand that there is a difference between bread and food, but does law recognize the difference between losing actual revenue and potential revenue? We're entering an era where you can give something to someone without losing posession of it yourself, do you think laws should be modified to accurately reflect this?
Slashdot Mirror
Good old Europe, beacon of freedom and social advancement to the whole world!
"Granted, for this to work people and society and family would all be significantly different too: No one gets to involuntarily force others into action. There are real alternatives for people"
I think the only difference between us is that I realize that will NEVER happen.
"As for children, it is kids who actually understand these ideas much better than you do. They get it immediately."
Children have not yet grown up yet and recognized the realities of life and the world we live in, if you still believe these fairy tales at any reasonable adult age, that's a problem, sorry.
He states that private property should be abolished, I quoted that to you. His ideal is that the government owns everything and the subjects just use it when they deem it necessary. You've obviously drank the socialist kool-aid and love every drop of it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are still young (pre-career). If not, please don't have children.
Welcome to another fact of life. Those less equipped to deal with life die sooner (as they should). Nature is a harsh mistress and if people don't die we end up with larger problems like overpopulation and the straining of natural resources. The trick to understanding these issues on a large scale is disconnecting yourself from the emotional reaction to the thought of letting a poor person with cancer die. It's sad yes, but you can't fuck everyone over one life. Additionally your point about the influence of money in US elections is a very valid concern that I share. I am however not afraid of an elected government (any other type would be a major problem), I am afraid of an elected government that thinks it knows how to better manage my money and property (It does not, and never will.)
The source of human rights is property. For example, why can I break my own window, but I can't break yours (without your permission)? Because it's YOUR window. Additionally, why can't you murder me? Because my body and life belong only to myself, you have no right ot violate it. Once you violate the sanctity of property ownership, you are on a downward slide to totalitarianism.
I said uneven REdistribution of money. If both of us put in $1 and we both get $1 in value back, that's fine. If we both put in $1 and you get $2 and I get $0, that's a problem. As for your other comments, they're not even close to the truth about me. I work hard to make ends meet, but I work my ass off to do so and deserve every penny of it.
Religion is close, but still #2 for the most dangerous ideas man has ever had. Communism/Socialism will most likely hold the #1 spot until every human is dead (Probably due to communism)
You fall into the group of the people who can't see/understand the big, long term picture of "free healthcare". Universal Healthcare requires an uneven redistribution of private property (Money). Meaning we both put in X dollars, you decide to go bungee jumping and break your arm, then you use your money and my money to fix your arm. So in the end I'm paying for your stupidity. If you don't see that as a problem, there's nothing I can say to convince you otherwise.
I am not by any means saying capitalism is perfect, it is not for the very reason you stated, consumerism and greed. What I am saying is that capitalism on at it's worst is better than socialism/communism at it's best within the system we have to work with. You assume correctly that I am an American (for very flawed reasons however), and I realize my country is not as free-market-based as it used to be, but guess what I don't like it. The democrats have, throughout the last 50 or so years moved my country more and more towards socialism (New Deal, Welfare, etc) and they're still trying to (Universal Healthcare). It's a bad path for any country to go down, unfortunately the average person is an idiot and goes "Oh wow, free hospital visits!" not realizing the true cost (freedom, independence, liberty, rights) It's fairly simple logic. If someone else owns something, your ability to use it is a priviledge they grant to you and can be rescinded at any time. Do you REALLY want the government to own anything? Government owned computers? printing presses? It's fairly hard to have free speech when the government controls the means to communicate and can tell you what you can and can't do with them.
Your point? Not forseeing something doesn't make communism not a horribly flawed idea that fundamentally threatens human rights (No property = No rights). Anyone who hasn't yet figured out that communism/socialism is the single worst idea mankind has ever thought either lives in a fantasy land or seriously lacks critical and logical thinking skills.
So basically you're re-writing "The Communist Manifesto" by Karl Marx...To quote "In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." It didn't work, it doesn't work, and it will never work. Sorry.
Most countries in europe do not recognize the right to free speech. Look at the anti-nazi-speech laws in Germany and many other countries in europe. The most important speech to protect is the speech that you despise.
Sorry, I was busy toothing.
Big f'n surprise. I'm astonished! Absolutely dumbfounded!
It's not really that hard if you know what you're doing. as for not implementing fixes and hacks, well unfortunately I live in the real world, not an ideal utopia where I can tell my clients users to go to hell.
Sometimes you just want to see the show you want, when you want to. I'm actually surprised it took so long for it to come about. But now that on-demand television is getting popular, on-demand TV from your computer is the next logical step.
Most of the development I do at my job is Coldfusion+Fusebox with SQL Server on the backend (I don't care if you hate MS, don't bother knocking SQL Server) and stored procedures just make life easier. They're also handy in the instance that you may have multiple front-ends written in multiple languages accessing the same database in many cases. Making a change to the way data is returned is far easier to do in one stored procedure than in X number of front-ends. One of the main reasons we don't use mysql is because the stable versions don't have them.
-Physical Theft-
Joe walks into a store.
Joe steals a lof of bread.
That store is now short one loaf of bread
and has lost actual revenue.
-Electronic Theft-
Joe copy a piece of software.
The company has not actually lost anything
except the *potential* sale of that software to Joe
Assuming Joe could never have afforded the software in the first place, and never would have bought it, the company has lost absolutely nothing.
If someone found a way to copy bread, they'd probably be given a nobel peace prize for solving world hunger...
I understand that there is a difference between bread and food, but does law recognize the difference between losing actual revenue and potential revenue? We're entering an era where you can give something to someone without losing posession of it yourself, do you think laws should be modified to accurately reflect this?
Joe walks into a store.
Joe steals a lof of bread.
That store is now short one loaf of bread and has lost actual revenue.
-Electronic Theft-
Joe copy a piece of software.
The company has not actually lost anything except the *potential* sale of that software to me
Assuming Joe could never have afforded the software in the first place, and never woul dhave bought it, the company has lost absolutely nothing.
If someone found a way to copy bread, they'd probably be given a nobel peace prize for solving world hunger... I understand that there is a difference between bread and food, but does law recognize the difference between losing actual revenue and potential revenue? We're entering an era where you can give something to someone without losing posession of it yourself, do you think laws should be modified to accurately reflect this?