I'm going to get flamed badly for this but I actually take USA to be...
Plutocratic Republic of United States of Imperial America
I guess that's why I get labelled anti-American but I really believe that... USA is a republic; it is a plutocracy (not democracy); it is practicing imperialism...
I always consider it one of the great historical ironies that one of the only things Jefferson and Hamilton ever agreed on was that a 2-party system was a bad thing. And yet their battles caused us to get locked into one.
That's not true IMO. You cannot blame the problem on their battle. The problem is due to the flaw with the system and has nothing to do with their system (at least that's my opinion). Hamilton's Federalist Party was very weak and dissapeared very quickly. Even during their reign, the Democratic-Republican Party totally dominated for something like 40 years! In fact, if you count the modern day Democratic Party and the Democratic-Republican Party together (they are the same party but their ideologies changed over time), they literally ruled for 100 years! In essense, USA was a one-party state early on. Although since most of the so-called Founding Fathers were radical liberals, parties didn't mean much. The early day parties weren't as static and conservative as now.
I think it is misleading to blame the early feud for the problem. The problem with USA is so entrenched that I don't think it can be changed without a revolution. USA is just too conservative and it is impossible to alter anything (let alone The Constitution). USA will probably turn into a one-party state after the next Al-Qaida attack and after Patriot Act II (and others like it) is passed. Already, outsiders like me consider the Democrats and the Republicans to be the same and this will just make it official.
'You are with us or against us. There is only one party a true patriot will vote for...the only party that is fighting for freedom and repulsing the invading hordes of evil terrorists. There is no peace without war! There is no liberty without slavery! No freedom without imprisonment! Welcome to the only free country in the World.'
Ok, I'm being paranoid in the last part of my message... OR... am I predicting the future? Remains to be seen...another episode:)
The left wing is generally considered pro-conscription. So ignore that point. My mistake... I think you'll see it work out that way too. The Democrats will start conscripting people if they attack Iran or Syria while the Republicans probably won't (unless they are desperate)...
Slashdot is mostly conservative (this shouldn't surprise anyone since most Americans are conservative--yes, USA IS a conservative country regardless of what you have been led to believe). Fortunately, most of the conservatives here are liberatarian-right (aka liberatarian-conservative), as opposed to Christian Right, neoconservative, or traditional conservative. Come to think of it, I don't think these latter groups are really geeks (not sure though). Therefore, anything that is liberal will get modded down, unless it is libertarian in nature.
So, if you say anything that is related to anti-war, anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism, pro-cooperation (as opposed to competition), govt supported public projects, pro-environment, and so forth, you'll get modded down. BUT if you say something that is pro-homosexual, anti-conscription, pro-human rights, pro-liberty, and the like, you'll be ok. It should be noted that everything I listed are left wing but the latter ones are liberatarian in nature so you won't get flamed.
Can someone explain to me why it's suddenly bad because it's us and not nature.
It's because we are far more powerful than anything else. In other words, it is the our view that we are more intelligent than anything else on earth. What this means is that we can cause massive damage. For instance, it would be very difficult for nature or some other animal to kill off 90% of all 4-legged creatures on earth. Humans, in contrast, should be able to do that easily if we wanted to. Nature will take a long time to eliminate all vegetation in an area. We can do the same thing with a few nukes in a small amount of time. And so on. Human pollution is bad, not because we are the only ones doing it, but because it is far greater. If you plot things like sulfur emissions, or carbon dioxide, or toxic waste produced, and so on, you'll find that OUR actions have a noticeable effect. The graph will literally rise when humans started doing something (eg. you can see the industrial revolution as a big blip).
Anyway, all of this comes down to one assume hypothesis. It all boils down to whether you believe this or not. The thesis is, human survivability depends on OUR actions. If you believe that then we should watch OUR actions (because we are powerful and intelligent and can wipe ourselves out). If you don't believe it, then you can just assume that we are just animals and our actions are totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things...
I don't have a position on this issue yet. I'm as confused on this as anyone (even though I usually have opinions on nearly everything). The difficulty in arriving at a stance is described by your post. However, I do disagree wtih some of your points.
The problem here is that giving rights to one group (those who desire to have copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rightsholder) means taking rights away from another group (artists, poets, composers, writers, or anybody who would like to have a say in who can "share" their work).
I don't really think this has anything to do with rights. I'm speaking as a liberal and as someone who doesn't subscribe to capitalism. An artist has a right to make a living as much as a factor worker, or a cleaner, or a prostitute. That is to say, this has nothing to do with rights. You can argue whether people SHOULD or SHOULD NOT support certain professions but that isn't really about rights. Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing against artists. I'm just questioning your assertion that society is somehow violating the RIGHTS of artists.
A society in which creators of art don't enjoy the rights they do today just might be the Utopia you describe. For clues, we can look at some of the countries which are not signatories to the Berne Convention: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Nepal, Oman, San Marino, Tonga and Yemen.
Your examples are flawed and useless. Some of those countries like Iran DO have art (films, music, etc). In any case, looking at poor countries is misleading. First of all, most people cannot afford anything. This means that people pirate all the time (eg. Malaysia and its pirated computer software) or they never do (eg. Bangladesh and the fact that most cannot afford computers/radios/tv/etc). Then, there are countries where it is all screwed up either because of culture or some other reason. For example, India has a big art industry (Bollywood actually produces more films per year than Hollywood) but piracy is rampant too. Things like music are copied onto casettes all the time yet musicians make a living somehow.
Just using your example (of looking at the signatories of the Berne convention) doesn't show anything. I mean, many signatories probably don't enforce any of it (similar to many UN treaties).
If I choose to pirate something, I'll admit that it's because I'm a cheap bastard, rather than some adopt some pseudo-altrustic "information wants to be free" stance or otherwise trying to convince myself that I'm somehow doing them a favor or that I'm committing some sort of social protest. Standing in front of a fucking tank or staging a sit-in at a lunch counter in Birmingham... now that's a social protest.
Actually, that IS a social protest. However, most people who do it aren't doing it as a protest; they are simply doing it because they are greedy and want it for free.
Downloading a CD instead of buying it, when I know that somewhere there's somebody much like me who relies on CD sales to feed their family? That doesn't make me a hero.
If you are just stealing content because you are greedy, you shouldn't do it. But in general, it's more complicated than that. If you are like me (anti-capitalist, far-left), what matters are ideals and ideologies. All that matters is the society as a whole. The question is: are we creating the society we (or at worst, I) want? For instance, technology puts people out of work (eg. automated payroll puts payroll specialists out of work) yet it cannot be construed as a bad thing. What is bad is not the technology but the system where people's lives are being destroyed. Similar thing with p2p/piracy/sharing and artists. THe current p2p thingie may or may not be a good thing but far more important is whether it is good for society or not. It's unclear to me.
hmm... I think I just wrote a long message and ended up with the original point: I'm confused and I don't know what is right:|
I'm glad you guys (the original poster and you) mentioned television commercials. There are more parallels between tv commercials and music than either of you realize.
Something is happening in the tv industry that is similar to the music industry (although not on the same scale). Believe it or not, there are actually attempts to ban people from skipping commercials. There is massive controversies over Digital Video Recoders and other similar things. The tv industry (I'm not sure who; maybe the studios) don't want people skipping commercials on their recorded tv shows.
That's a great post! One of the most eloquent and inspiring I have read on slashdot. You don't offer any concrete answers but you raise some important points...
I think what you are saying is only true if the application is ONLY used for some illegal activity. Otherwise, I don't think the court has a case (I'm not a lawyer and simply speaking on moral grounds). It is not sensible to arrest someone for using a tool that has legitimate uses. If it can be shown that a certain (p2p) application is only used for illegal activities, you are right... but if there are people doing other LEGAL activities, there isn't much there.
Have you ever had to live in a neighborhood destroyed by both the drug pushers and the addicted users?
And what has the billion dollars spent on the drug war done? The drug market is even worse now because they are controlled by monopolies (drug cartles) as opposed to being a little bit freer... When alcohol was banned (20's), it was run by the mafia. And guess what? There was a ton of violence associated with it! How much violence do you see now (that alcohol is legal)? Yes there are addicts but the damage they do (generally by abusing their children, wife, etc) does not compare to some gangster in the 20's shooting up your neighbourhood...
But I don't think that this is so bad, in free societies such anonymizer tools are often abused by criminals, spammers and perverts and in oppressive societies the use of the tool gets you in prison anyway.
That is such a naive argument. Not only that, you certainly aren't a liberatarian (not to be confused with Americans who call themselves liberatarian--these guys are liberatarian-conservative).
You either stand for freedom, human rights, liberty, security, etc--or you don't! There is no if's and but's. Just because a criminal can use a particular technology does not mean that we should ban that technology. Just because a criminal uses a human right doesn't mean that we should abolish it. I mean, we all know that the people who benefit from strict search laws by the police are criminals. The average citizen has nothing to hide so the search laws don't even matter. So criminals exploit the restrictions placed on police. Does this mean that we should abolish all these laws? Should the police be allowed to do full searches and the like? Liberatarians would say no; you are saying yes.
It's too bad that you don't value freedom. I guess is that you are too naive. Let me tell you something. There is no such thing as a FREE society!!! USA (for example) is NOT free! Obviously you are the type of person who supported the FBI tracking and monitoring Martin Lurther King and other civil rights activists. Blacks were living in a free society all right!
The Chinese gov is not so stupid to get caught by the "hahaha - my data was encrypted, you can't prove anything"-argument.
If something is ANONYMOUS, totalitarians can't do anything to you. They will do all sorts of crazy things, including doing massive sweeps and jailing all sorts of innocent people. But ultimately, they will lose. The reason China can SUCCESSFULLY penalize activists is precisely because things aren't anonymous and don't provide the required security right now. Consider the recent Steel Mighty Mouse case. She was picked up because the authorities traced things to her. In fact, they can trace literally anything on the internet to their citizens. If security was much stronger, or if anonymity was possible, then the authorities would have ultimately failed.
The ones I'm blaming is those that complain about their job being outsourced who haven't been productive themselves.
You are just repeating the capitalist line. What aspects of productivity is the workforce lacking? Maybe if you start giving some answers, then people can correct themselves...
I happen to have concrete plans...but I'm not going to tell everybody about them. I need to compete as well you know.
That's so lame... your argument is totally bogus then. You blame people for being unproductive (without saying how) and then you won't even provide suggestions (because you might not get a job if you provided suggestions). That's not a good way to build society, is it?
Please describe the world situation where it would be in Japan's interest for the USA to collapse overnight. Or Germany's interest, or the UK's interest. If the USA 'collapsed' the entire world would plunge into economic ruin and chaos. It ain't going to happen.
It is not in the interest of capitalists to allow capitalism to collapse. USA is practicing capitalism, so is Germany, so is Japan, and so forth. Therefore, they wouldn't let each other collapse. This is precisely why USA pumps billions into the IMF to protect countries like Indonesia.
So countries won't let others collapse. However, INDIVIDUALS don't care if they need the money. Even capitalists who spend all their time and resources blocking the collapse of USA (or others like Indonesia, Argentina, etc) will want their money back if they are desperate. You know, if YOU need to pay your debt/bills/whatever, you WILL want your money back. Are the Japanese (and others) going to stop investing or ask for their money back from USA just for the sake of it? Nope. But if they are desperate and if their economic conidtions are terrible, they will want their money back. Japan went into some deflation and has been stuck at that for the last 10 years (!) or so. If things don't improve and the country keeps declining (some people even speculate that Japan can't compete with China), then watch out.
When it comes to economics, there really isn't a country called USA, any more than Canada or Japan. What you have are capitalist entities. The G8 acts together with one mind. They all think the same way, do the same thing, bail each other out, etc. Countries are more than happy to spend billions propping up each other (or bailing out failing situtations) than helping their own citizens. Capitalists and their institutions (eg. corporations) have no loyalty to any country. IBM, for example, is as American as Toyota is. Given the choice, they will be more than happy to move to another country tomorrow.
I agree with you that if USA collapses, the whole world is going to go down with it. By this, I mean the economic system (not the political one). If USA goes down, it will be the end of capitalism (at least the modern version of it) and US imperialism. The impact will be similar to the collapse of British colonialism/imperialism. Some say the collapse of the British empire was massive, while others say it was irrelevant to an average citizen. Same thing here.
To me, Man's greatest technological achievement is the ability to leave his planet.
I disagree but that's your opinion and I can see why you think that. Going to space IS tough. It DOES take a lot of effort. However, there are many other things that are far more important IN MY OPINION. For instance, I consider THE INTERNET to be the greatest technological achievement in the last 200 years! Yes, I place that above flight, space ships, automobiles, etc. It may not be as sexy:) but it will have massive social ramifications. Internet is the modern day PRINTING PRESS. The printing press had the greatest impact on humanity in the last 500 years IMO. The internet will do the same.
As a side note, my picks for the top technologies of all time are:
ancient era: irrigation
2000 to 500 years ago: writing
500 to 100 years ago: printing press
present to 300 years from now: internet
300 to 500 years from now: genetic engineering
500 to 600 years from now: space exploration and planetary terraforming
That's my view. I would love to hear anyone's thoughts. You'll note that the time periods are shrinking (this is because scientific growth is non-linear). What takes us 20 years will be a joke in 200 years (can probably do it in 2 years).
So based on my view, if you are a space fan, and if you can figure out how to live for another 600 years, you'll get your dreams;)
At any rate, I'd love for Bush to announce that the US is going back ASAP. I'd want th
No, it certainly wouldn't. First, not all debt can be called in at once; in fact, a lot of it can't at any given time. Nor, by the way, can most of it be paid at any given time, even if that were desired. Other forms of debt have early redemption penalties; assuming a great many Japanese investors simultaneously lost all confidence in their US Savings Bonds, they could indeed cash them, but they'd lose a significant amount of the interest calculated as part of our debt.
I didn't mean it literally. What I was trying to imply was that investment to USA will stop. Yes, you cannot rely withdraw your money right away since most of these are long term bonds. BUT if people stop investing, it'll precipitate what I have described: foreigners stop buying US instruments->USA has harder time raising money->interest rates USA pays goes up->...->USA cannot afford to pay debt->USA defaults->USA gets cut off->capitalism collapses:)
Second, why would the US choose to collapse over this?
Because that's how USA finances their operations. In fact, USA can't even run their country without borrowing (that's why it has a deficit). Not all of this borrowing is local. I sort of said it above but just to reiterate... if investors stop investing in USA, it will have to pay greater interst to attract foreign investment. Costs will go up. This will make it even more difficult and drive up costs even more. You'll hit the point where you can't finance anything. Many poor or developing countries are like this (obviously it hasn't happend to USA yet).
While the US government has never defaulted on a loan before, other governments certainly have, without collapsing.
Technically NO country has defaulted. The way the rules are, COUNTRIES cannot default (even though, capitalism call for defaulting). At worst, what has happened is that countries have re-financed their debt. So countries like Indonesia, Argentina, etc have just refinanced their debt via the IMF. Incidentally, it is countries like USA that fund the IMF. Capitalists can't let countries collapse or else it is a threat to their system. I would GUESS that USA spends more money proping up failing regimes than giving money to starving people or drought-stricken countries, or something...
And defaulting certainly isn't the only option; the US could try to call in debt from other countries (of which there's quite a lot), or it could, in part or in whole, monetize the debt (ie. print more money).
Point 1: My understanding is that USA's NET debt is negative. That is, it owes more than it is owed. So even if you add up all the money that is owed to USA, it still won't be enough. In any case, a lot of US debt will never be paid back (capitalists know this too). Everything that USA pumps into the IMF, or money that USA donates as military "aid" (i.e. loans) will never be paid back. The poor countries that owe USA will never be able to pay back. Most people, including capitalists, know this in the back of their head--it's just that they don't acknowledge it. To put it another way, the countries that owe USA are in a MUCH WORSE situation than USA.
Point 2: Printing the money generally doesn't solve anything. It depends on the specifics though (I'm not sure how it is in this case). If the debt is owed in foreign currency, or something like that, printing money doesn't help. Printing will only be useful if you owe US currency. I'm not sure what the case is here. All I know is that most poor and other failing countries run into problems because they owe money in foreign currencies. Printing money doesn't help in paying that off.
In messages above, some people talk about countries switching to Euro. If USA owes Euros, for example, printing US dollars won't help.
This is a half truth. Yes, people's confidence is basic to the value of money. But it always has been.
That's not really true (you are correct in some se
You aren't even talking about supply side economics, or so-called neo-liberal economics. Instead, you are talking about capitalism as a system.
The things you mentioned are the result of capitalism, regardless of what brand is practiced.
When mega corporations hold all the cards, including democratic institutions, depression will be perpetual. Autocracy will reign.
My theory is that capitalism will result in that. When that happens, the system will collapse and there will be a revolution:) During the Great Depression, USA instituted some socialist policies. That's the only thing that prevented the total collapse. Those measures are too small and too temporary, not to mention the fact that they are being dismantled. The problem is still at hand. Countries have simply swept the problem under the carpet for future generations to "discover"
YOU cannot stop what is happening. The reason is because everything is happening according to the capitalist plan. Nothing is wrong; and everything is right. The world is closer to (pure) capitalism than ever.
BTW, nice to see you supporting Kuicinich. I'm not American but at least he was one of the few who actually does what he speaks (eg. he voted against the Iraqi war).
If we were simply talking about software techniques, or some social policy, I agree that capitalism doesn't enter into it. However, we are dealing with the labour market, which exists under capitalism.
For instance, if were just asked if open source is good from a social point of view, the answer will be a resounding yes. But if you consider the impact on labour, it enters into capitalism. After all, workers (regardless of what profession) are partaking in the capitalist system.
But criticizing people for not doing something that even you haven't pinned down is cruel... I mean, we are talking about people's lives here. There are many people who are unemployed and struggling to adjust (myself included--I'm from Canada BTW).
You are just repeating the capitalist line. I don't know if you really believe in it or if you are just influenced but whatever it is, you aren't really doing any good. You need concrete plans and ideas before you start BLAMING those that compalin about jobs.
As long as those countries don't pull out their money, the U.S. is not currently in as much debt as you think.
A big IF there. Not likely in the near term but it's a dangerous game the capitalists are playing with USA (or for that matter any other country). If Japanese (who is the largest majority foreign owner of US debt), and a bunch of other foreign investors asked for their money back, USA will collapse overnight.
What's really funny is how the U.S. ditched the sole backing for it's monetary system (gold, something physical) for just T-bills (not really physical, just a printed image). Years ago, a sale involving cash transaction says "this $1 bill I'm handing you is a representation of the gold I personally own...being physically held in the fed". Now it just means "the fed says this $1 I'm handing you is worth something...or so they tell me...not sure what it really represents".
That's why, when capitalism collapses (which I think it will--probably within 50 years), make sure you convert all your assets into something tangible (eg. gold, house, buildings, etc). THe US dollar, as well as other currencies, are not backed by anything (other than trust). Unlike the olden (is this even a word?:) ) days, the govt cannot give you anything of value for your money. Modern currencies are nothing more than paper with some trust attached to it. Once you lose the trust, it is worth nothing.
Here's another absurd thing about debt: if A owes B $10, and B owes C $10, and C owes A $10, is anyone really in debt?
I think the individual IS in debt. However, the whole society has a net zero debt. For example, USA is in debt but the world as a whole is not.
After the year, he demands all of his property back plus 1% interest. In one sense you could say "well he was without his gold for a year, so he deserves something in return"....but where are the people going to get the additional 1% of gold (assuming there was absolutely none on the island)? They don't have it, so now they're in debt.
Under capitalism, you are allowed to default. A loan is a risky proposition. So if no one can pay it, thenthey will all default and the original guy "understands" that:)
You can't cut out the banks without the collapse of capitalism because they are the heart of capitalism. The closest to what you are saying are credit unions and other community-owned institutions.
BTW, you aren't really borrowing from the govt (depends how you look at it though). Overall, the government is borrowing from you (and other foreign investors). That's why the US govt has the debt and not you.
I'm not sure if that is a joke or not... the debt is very real all right. You are not feeling the impact now because it is not "out of control" yet. But you WILL feel the impact. If the US govt "defaults" on the debt (not possible under capitalism), they will get cut off from the world money supply. The currency will plummet.... you just need to look at other countries like Argentina, Ecuador, etc.
One more thing that came to my mind... theoretically, you don't save ANYTHING by doing the managment yourself. The reason is because YOU have to be compensated. YOU, acting as an overseer/manager/whatever, should be paid for your services. Whether you pay yourself from the profits or with a salary, it's all the same (ignoring taxes and stuff like that). Unless your time is FREE (not true since you have to make a living), you technically aren't saving any money.
So, you really have to have a competitive advantage of some sort (as I mentioned in my previous post). Simply doing it yourself doesn't mean anything (although, you may be able to extract some advantage out of doing it yourself).
Slashdot Mirror
We AREN'T a democracy. We're a Republic.
:)
I'm going to get flamed badly for this but I actually take USA to be...
Plutocratic Republic of United States of Imperial America
I guess that's why I get labelled anti-American but I really believe that... USA is a republic; it is a plutocracy (not democracy); it is practicing imperialism...
I always consider it one of the great historical ironies that one of the only things Jefferson and Hamilton ever agreed on was that a 2-party system was a bad thing. And yet their battles caused us to get locked into one.
That's not true IMO. You cannot blame the problem on their battle. The problem is due to the flaw with the system and has nothing to do with their system (at least that's my opinion). Hamilton's Federalist Party was very weak and dissapeared very quickly. Even during their reign, the Democratic-Republican Party totally dominated for something like 40 years! In fact, if you count the modern day Democratic Party and the Democratic-Republican Party together (they are the same party but their ideologies changed over time), they literally ruled for 100 years! In essense, USA was a one-party state early on. Although since most of the so-called Founding Fathers were radical liberals, parties didn't mean much. The early day parties weren't as static and conservative as now.
I think it is misleading to blame the early feud for the problem. The problem with USA is so entrenched that I don't think it can be changed without a revolution. USA is just too conservative and it is impossible to alter anything (let alone The Constitution). USA will probably turn into a one-party state after the next Al-Qaida attack and after Patriot Act II (and others like it) is passed. Already, outsiders like me consider the Democrats and the Republicans to be the same and this will just make it official.
'You are with us or against us. There is only one party a true patriot will vote for...the only party that is fighting for freedom and repulsing the invading hordes of evil terrorists. There is no peace without war! There is no liberty without slavery! No freedom without imprisonment! Welcome to the only free country in the World.'
Ok, I'm being paranoid in the last part of my message... OR... am I predicting the future? Remains to be seen...another episode
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Correction to my post....
The left wing is generally considered pro-conscription. So ignore that point. My mistake... I think you'll see it work out that way too. The Democrats will start conscripting people if they attack Iran or Syria while the Republicans probably won't (unless they are desperate)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Slashdot is mostly conservative (this shouldn't surprise anyone since most Americans are conservative--yes, USA IS a conservative country regardless of what you have been led to believe). Fortunately, most of the conservatives here are liberatarian-right (aka liberatarian-conservative), as opposed to Christian Right, neoconservative, or traditional conservative. Come to think of it, I don't think these latter groups are really geeks (not sure though). Therefore, anything that is liberal will get modded down, unless it is libertarian in nature.
So, if you say anything that is related to anti-war, anti-imperialism, anti-capitalism, pro-cooperation (as opposed to competition), govt supported public projects, pro-environment, and so forth, you'll get modded down. BUT if you say something that is pro-homosexual, anti-conscription, pro-human rights, pro-liberty, and the like, you'll be ok. It should be noted that everything I listed are left wing but the latter ones are liberatarian in nature so you won't get flamed.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
lol hehe :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I would pick the Canadian Supreme Court over the US one any day of the week... but then again, I'm a liberal. :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Can someone explain to me why it's suddenly bad because it's us and not nature.
It's because we are far more powerful than anything else. In other words, it is the our view that we are more intelligent than anything else on earth. What this means is that we can cause massive damage. For instance, it would be very difficult for nature or some other animal to kill off 90% of all 4-legged creatures on earth. Humans, in contrast, should be able to do that easily if we wanted to. Nature will take a long time to eliminate all vegetation in an area. We can do the same thing with a few nukes in a small amount of time. And so on. Human pollution is bad, not because we are the only ones doing it, but because it is far greater. If you plot things like sulfur emissions, or carbon dioxide, or toxic waste produced, and so on, you'll find that OUR actions have a noticeable effect. The graph will literally rise when humans started doing something (eg. you can see the industrial revolution as a big blip).
Anyway, all of this comes down to one assume hypothesis. It all boils down to whether you believe this or not. The thesis is, human survivability depends on OUR actions. If you believe that then we should watch OUR actions (because we are powerful and intelligent and can wipe ourselves out). If you don't believe it, then you can just assume that we are just animals and our actions are totally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
How much do you want to bet John Ashcroft's long-distance relative is running things over there? ;)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't have a position on this issue yet. I'm as confused on this as anyone (even though I usually have opinions on nearly everything). The difficulty in arriving at a stance is described by your post. However, I do disagree wtih some of your points.
:|
The problem here is that giving rights to one group (those who desire to have copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rightsholder) means taking rights away from another group (artists, poets, composers, writers, or anybody who would like to have a say in who can "share" their work).
I don't really think this has anything to do with rights. I'm speaking as a liberal and as someone who doesn't subscribe to capitalism. An artist has a right to make a living as much as a factor worker, or a cleaner, or a prostitute. That is to say, this has nothing to do with rights. You can argue whether people SHOULD or SHOULD NOT support certain professions but that isn't really about rights. Don't get me wrong: I'm not arguing against artists. I'm just questioning your assertion that society is somehow violating the RIGHTS of artists.
A society in which creators of art don't enjoy the rights they do today just might be the Utopia you describe. For clues, we can look at some of the countries which are not signatories to the Berne Convention: Afghanistan, Bhutan, Ethiopia, Iran, Iraq, Nepal, Oman, San Marino, Tonga and Yemen.
Your examples are flawed and useless. Some of those countries like Iran DO have art (films, music, etc). In any case, looking at poor countries is misleading. First of all, most people cannot afford anything. This means that people pirate all the time (eg. Malaysia and its pirated computer software) or they never do (eg. Bangladesh and the fact that most cannot afford computers/radios/tv/etc). Then, there are countries where it is all screwed up either because of culture or some other reason. For example, India has a big art industry (Bollywood actually produces more films per year than Hollywood) but piracy is rampant too. Things like music are copied onto casettes all the time yet musicians make a living somehow.
Just using your example (of looking at the signatories of the Berne convention) doesn't show anything. I mean, many signatories probably don't enforce any of it (similar to many UN treaties).
If I choose to pirate something, I'll admit that it's because I'm a cheap bastard, rather than some adopt some pseudo-altrustic "information wants to be free" stance or otherwise trying to convince myself that I'm somehow doing them a favor or that I'm committing some sort of social protest. Standing in front of a fucking tank or staging a sit-in at a lunch counter in Birmingham... now that's a social protest.
Actually, that IS a social protest. However, most people who do it aren't doing it as a protest; they are simply doing it because they are greedy and want it for free. Downloading a CD instead of buying it, when I know that somewhere there's somebody much like me who relies on CD sales to feed their family? That doesn't make me a hero.
If you are just stealing content because you are greedy, you shouldn't do it. But in general, it's more complicated than that. If you are like me (anti-capitalist, far-left), what matters are ideals and ideologies. All that matters is the society as a whole. The question is: are we creating the society we (or at worst, I) want? For instance, technology puts people out of work (eg. automated payroll puts payroll specialists out of work) yet it cannot be construed as a bad thing. What is bad is not the technology but the system where people's lives are being destroyed. Similar thing with p2p/piracy/sharing and artists. THe current p2p thingie may or may not be a good thing but far more important is whether it is good for society or not. It's unclear to me.
hmm... I think I just wrote a long message and ended up with the original point: I'm confused and I don't know what is right
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm glad you guys (the original poster and you) mentioned television commercials. There are more parallels between tv commercials and music than either of you realize.
Something is happening in the tv industry that is similar to the music industry (although not on the same scale). Believe it or not, there are actually attempts to ban people from skipping commercials. There is massive controversies over Digital Video Recoders and other similar things. The tv industry (I'm not sure who; maybe the studios) don't want people skipping commercials on their recorded tv shows.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
That's a great post! One of the most eloquent and inspiring I have read on slashdot. You don't offer any concrete answers but you raise some important points...
Someone mod this up plz...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think what you are saying is only true if the application is ONLY used for some illegal activity. Otherwise, I don't think the court has a case (I'm not a lawyer and simply speaking on moral grounds). It is not sensible to arrest someone for using a tool that has legitimate uses. If it can be shown that a certain (p2p) application is only used for illegal activities, you are right... but if there are people doing other LEGAL activities, there isn't much there.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What you are saying shouldn't be happening. If it is happening, it is a flaw with the legal system. The laws ought to be changed...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Have you ever had to live in a neighborhood destroyed by both the drug pushers and the addicted users?
And what has the billion dollars spent on the drug war done? The drug market is even worse now because they are controlled by monopolies (drug cartles) as opposed to being a little bit freer... When alcohol was banned (20's), it was run by the mafia. And guess what? There was a ton of violence associated with it! How much violence do you see now (that alcohol is legal)? Yes there are addicts but the damage they do (generally by abusing their children, wife, etc) does not compare to some gangster in the 20's shooting up your neighbourhood...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
But I don't think that this is so bad, in free societies such anonymizer tools are often abused by criminals, spammers and perverts and in oppressive societies the use of the tool gets you in prison anyway.
That is such a naive argument. Not only that, you certainly aren't a liberatarian (not to be confused with Americans who call themselves liberatarian--these guys are liberatarian-conservative).
You either stand for freedom, human rights, liberty, security, etc--or you don't! There is no if's and but's. Just because a criminal can use a particular technology does not mean that we should ban that technology. Just because a criminal uses a human right doesn't mean that we should abolish it. I mean, we all know that the people who benefit from strict search laws by the police are criminals. The average citizen has nothing to hide so the search laws don't even matter. So criminals exploit the restrictions placed on police. Does this mean that we should abolish all these laws? Should the police be allowed to do full searches and the like? Liberatarians would say no; you are saying yes.
It's too bad that you don't value freedom. I guess is that you are too naive. Let me tell you something. There is no such thing as a FREE society!!! USA (for example) is NOT free! Obviously you are the type of person who supported the FBI tracking and monitoring Martin Lurther King and other civil rights activists. Blacks were living in a free society all right!
The Chinese gov is not so stupid to get caught by the "hahaha - my data was encrypted, you can't prove anything"-argument.
If something is ANONYMOUS, totalitarians can't do anything to you. They will do all sorts of crazy things, including doing massive sweeps and jailing all sorts of innocent people. But ultimately, they will lose. The reason China can SUCCESSFULLY penalize activists is precisely because things aren't anonymous and don't provide the required security right now. Consider the recent Steel Mighty Mouse case. She was picked up because the authorities traced things to her. In fact, they can trace literally anything on the internet to their citizens. If security was much stronger, or if anonymity was possible, then the authorities would have ultimately failed.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The ones I'm blaming is those that complain about their job being outsourced who haven't been productive themselves.
You are just repeating the capitalist line. What aspects of productivity is the workforce lacking? Maybe if you start giving some answers, then people can correct themselves...
I happen to have concrete plans...but I'm not going to tell everybody about them. I need to compete as well you know.
That's so lame... your argument is totally bogus then. You blame people for being unproductive (without saying how) and then you won't even provide suggestions (because you might not get a job if you provided suggestions). That's not a good way to build society, is it?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Please describe the world situation where it would be in Japan's interest for the USA to collapse overnight. Or Germany's interest, or the UK's interest. If the USA 'collapsed' the entire world would plunge into economic ruin and chaos. It ain't going to happen.
:) but it will have massive social ramifications. Internet is the modern day PRINTING PRESS. The printing press had the greatest impact on humanity in the last 500 years IMO. The internet will do the same.
;)
It is not in the interest of capitalists to allow capitalism to collapse. USA is practicing capitalism, so is Germany, so is Japan, and so forth. Therefore, they wouldn't let each other collapse. This is precisely why USA pumps billions into the IMF to protect countries like Indonesia.
So countries won't let others collapse. However, INDIVIDUALS don't care if they need the money. Even capitalists who spend all their time and resources blocking the collapse of USA (or others like Indonesia, Argentina, etc) will want their money back if they are desperate. You know, if YOU need to pay your debt/bills/whatever, you WILL want your money back. Are the Japanese (and others) going to stop investing or ask for their money back from USA just for the sake of it? Nope. But if they are desperate and if their economic conidtions are terrible, they will want their money back. Japan went into some deflation and has been stuck at that for the last 10 years (!) or so. If things don't improve and the country keeps declining (some people even speculate that Japan can't compete with China), then watch out.
When it comes to economics, there really isn't a country called USA, any more than Canada or Japan. What you have are capitalist entities. The G8 acts together with one mind. They all think the same way, do the same thing, bail each other out, etc. Countries are more than happy to spend billions propping up each other (or bailing out failing situtations) than helping their own citizens. Capitalists and their institutions (eg. corporations) have no loyalty to any country. IBM, for example, is as American as Toyota is. Given the choice, they will be more than happy to move to another country tomorrow.
I agree with you that if USA collapses, the whole world is going to go down with it. By this, I mean the economic system (not the political one). If USA goes down, it will be the end of capitalism (at least the modern version of it) and US imperialism. The impact will be similar to the collapse of British colonialism/imperialism. Some say the collapse of the British empire was massive, while others say it was irrelevant to an average citizen. Same thing here.
To me, Man's greatest technological achievement is the ability to leave his planet.
I disagree but that's your opinion and I can see why you think that. Going to space IS tough. It DOES take a lot of effort. However, there are many other things that are far more important IN MY OPINION. For instance, I consider THE INTERNET to be the greatest technological achievement in the last 200 years! Yes, I place that above flight, space ships, automobiles, etc. It may not be as sexy
As a side note, my picks for the top technologies of all time are:
ancient era: irrigation
2000 to 500 years ago: writing
500 to 100 years ago: printing press
present to 300 years from now: internet
300 to 500 years from now: genetic engineering
500 to 600 years from now: space exploration and planetary terraforming
That's my view. I would love to hear anyone's thoughts. You'll note that the time periods are shrinking (this is because scientific growth is non-linear). What takes us 20 years will be a joke in 200 years (can probably do it in 2 years).
So based on my view, if you are a space fan, and if you can figure out how to live for another 600 years, you'll get your dreams
At any rate, I'd love for Bush to announce that the US is going back ASAP. I'd want th
No, it certainly wouldn't. First, not all debt can be called in at once; in fact, a lot of it can't at any given time. Nor, by the way, can most of it be paid at any given time, even if that were desired. Other forms of debt have early redemption penalties; assuming a great many Japanese investors simultaneously lost all confidence in their US Savings Bonds, they could indeed cash them, but they'd lose a significant amount of the interest calculated as part of our debt.
:)
I didn't mean it literally. What I was trying to imply was that investment to USA will stop. Yes, you cannot rely withdraw your money right away since most of these are long term bonds. BUT if people stop investing, it'll precipitate what I have described: foreigners stop buying US instruments->USA has harder time raising money->interest rates USA pays goes up->...->USA cannot afford to pay debt->USA defaults->USA gets cut off->capitalism collapses
Second, why would the US choose to collapse over this?
Because that's how USA finances their operations. In fact, USA can't even run their country without borrowing (that's why it has a deficit). Not all of this borrowing is local. I sort of said it above but just to reiterate... if investors stop investing in USA, it will have to pay greater interst to attract foreign investment. Costs will go up. This will make it even more difficult and drive up costs even more. You'll hit the point where you can't finance anything. Many poor or developing countries are like this (obviously it hasn't happend to USA yet).
While the US government has never defaulted on a loan before, other governments certainly have, without collapsing.
Technically NO country has defaulted. The way the rules are, COUNTRIES cannot default (even though, capitalism call for defaulting). At worst, what has happened is that countries have re-financed their debt. So countries like Indonesia, Argentina, etc have just refinanced their debt via the IMF. Incidentally, it is countries like USA that fund the IMF. Capitalists can't let countries collapse or else it is a threat to their system. I would GUESS that USA spends more money proping up failing regimes than giving money to starving people or drought-stricken countries, or something...
And defaulting certainly isn't the only option; the US could try to call in debt from other countries (of which there's quite a lot), or it could, in part or in whole, monetize the debt (ie. print more money).
Point 1: My understanding is that USA's NET debt is negative. That is, it owes more than it is owed. So even if you add up all the money that is owed to USA, it still won't be enough. In any case, a lot of US debt will never be paid back (capitalists know this too). Everything that USA pumps into the IMF, or money that USA donates as military "aid" (i.e. loans) will never be paid back. The poor countries that owe USA will never be able to pay back. Most people, including capitalists, know this in the back of their head--it's just that they don't acknowledge it. To put it another way, the countries that owe USA are in a MUCH WORSE situation than USA.
Point 2: Printing the money generally doesn't solve anything. It depends on the specifics though (I'm not sure how it is in this case). If the debt is owed in foreign currency, or something like that, printing money doesn't help. Printing will only be useful if you owe US currency. I'm not sure what the case is here. All I know is that most poor and other failing countries run into problems because they owe money in foreign currencies. Printing money doesn't help in paying that off.
In messages above, some people talk about countries switching to Euro. If USA owes Euros, for example, printing US dollars won't help.
This is a half truth. Yes, people's confidence is basic to the value of money. But it always has been.
That's not really true (you are correct in some se
You aren't even talking about supply side economics, or so-called neo-liberal economics. Instead, you are talking about capitalism as a system.
:) During the Great Depression, USA instituted some socialist policies. That's the only thing that prevented the total collapse. Those measures are too small and too temporary, not to mention the fact that they are being dismantled. The problem is still at hand. Countries have simply swept the problem under the carpet for future generations to "discover"
The things you mentioned are the result of capitalism, regardless of what brand is practiced.
When mega corporations hold all the cards, including democratic institutions, depression will be perpetual. Autocracy will reign.
My theory is that capitalism will result in that. When that happens, the system will collapse and there will be a revolution
YOU cannot stop what is happening. The reason is because everything is happening according to the capitalist plan. Nothing is wrong; and everything is right. The world is closer to (pure) capitalism than ever.
BTW, nice to see you supporting Kuicinich. I'm not American but at least he was one of the few who actually does what he speaks (eg. he voted against the Iraqi war).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
If we were simply talking about software techniques, or some social policy, I agree that capitalism doesn't enter into it. However, we are dealing with the labour market, which exists under capitalism.
For instance, if were just asked if open source is good from a social point of view, the answer will be a resounding yes. But if you consider the impact on labour, it enters into capitalism. After all, workers (regardless of what profession) are partaking in the capitalist system.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Thanks... that's what I was looking for... :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
But criticizing people for not doing something that even you haven't pinned down is cruel... I mean, we are talking about people's lives here. There are many people who are unemployed and struggling to adjust (myself included--I'm from Canada BTW).
You are just repeating the capitalist line. I don't know if you really believe in it or if you are just influenced but whatever it is, you aren't really doing any good. You need concrete plans and ideas before you start BLAMING those that compalin about jobs.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
(Quoted in reverse order--don't ask :) )
:) ) days, the govt cannot give you anything of value for your money. Modern currencies are nothing more than paper with some trust attached to it. Once you lose the trust, it is worth nothing.
:)
As long as those countries don't pull out their money, the U.S. is not currently in as much debt as you think.
A big IF there. Not likely in the near term but it's a dangerous game the capitalists are playing with USA (or for that matter any other country). If Japanese (who is the largest majority foreign owner of US debt), and a bunch of other foreign investors asked for their money back, USA will collapse overnight.
What's really funny is how the U.S. ditched the sole backing for it's monetary system (gold, something physical) for just T-bills (not really physical, just a printed image). Years ago, a sale involving cash transaction says "this $1 bill I'm handing you is a representation of the gold I personally own...being physically held in the fed". Now it just means "the fed says this $1 I'm handing you is worth something...or so they tell me...not sure what it really represents".
That's why, when capitalism collapses (which I think it will--probably within 50 years), make sure you convert all your assets into something tangible (eg. gold, house, buildings, etc). THe US dollar, as well as other currencies, are not backed by anything (other than trust). Unlike the olden (is this even a word?
Here's another absurd thing about debt: if A owes B $10, and B owes C $10, and C owes A $10, is anyone really in debt?
I think the individual IS in debt. However, the whole society has a net zero debt. For example, USA is in debt but the world as a whole is not.
After the year, he demands all of his property back plus 1% interest. In one sense you could say "well he was without his gold for a year, so he deserves something in return"....but where are the people going to get the additional 1% of gold (assuming there was absolutely none on the island)? They don't have it, so now they're in debt.
Under capitalism, you are allowed to default. A loan is a risky proposition. So if no one can pay it, thenthey will all default and the original guy "understands" that
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You can't cut out the banks without the collapse of capitalism because they are the heart of capitalism. The closest to what you are saying are credit unions and other community-owned institutions.
BTW, you aren't really borrowing from the govt (depends how you look at it though). Overall, the government is borrowing from you (and other foreign investors). That's why the US govt has the debt and not you.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I'm not sure if that is a joke or not... the debt is very real all right. You are not feeling the impact now because it is not "out of control" yet. But you WILL feel the impact. If the US govt "defaults" on the debt (not possible under capitalism), they will get cut off from the world money supply. The currency will plummet.... you just need to look at other countries like Argentina, Ecuador, etc.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
One more thing that came to my mind... theoretically, you don't save ANYTHING by doing the managment yourself. The reason is because YOU have to be compensated. YOU, acting as an overseer/manager/whatever, should be paid for your services. Whether you pay yourself from the profits or with a salary, it's all the same (ignoring taxes and stuff like that). Unless your time is FREE (not true since you have to make a living), you technically aren't saving any money.
So, you really have to have a competitive advantage of some sort (as I mentioned in my previous post). Simply doing it yourself doesn't mean anything (although, you may be able to extract some advantage out of doing it yourself).
Sivaram Velauthapillai