It doesn't matter if the automaton is intelligent; rather, it matters if it is SENTIENT.
In any case, such a case will only pass if animal rights are granted first. How can one grant autmaton rights when animals, which are more important and related to humans, aren't protect?
The capitalists (especially in USA) are already on that path. They are much further than you think. For instance, who would have thought that prisons could be privatized? The police is next...
You can tell that most of the readers are capitalists or quasi-capitalists because they didn't get the sarcasm at all... lol:)... the post was SO OBVIOUS yet so many missed it...
The guy has clearly studied government techniques to brainwash the public. Notice the similaries:
Government: "Give up your liberties so that we can save you from some evil force (national defense & security)"
VeriSign: "Let us own the internet so that you are safer (security)"
Often, the next step the government carries out is mass propaganda and/or disinformation, in favour of their above argument. I expect the CEO of VeriSign to the do the same thing. In fact, he already might be doing it (isn't he already claiming that the 'redirection thingie' was a good thing).
Star Trek sucks!!! Star Trek practices a HIGHLY hierarchial system, which means it is strongly elitist (possibly more elitist than capitalism). It is based on military strcuture (militaries suck). Ever notice how the commanders have more power/say/perks/benefits than say the engineers, or the doctors, or others. I would hate to be part of the Federation in Star Trek. It is a terrible econopolitical structure... having said that, some of the other minor "races"/tribes/aliens are more utopian and I wouldn't mind joining them. If I can't find any of those minor aliens, then there is always something like Vulcans:)
It's actually the opposite, if you go with Marx's view (which is more accurate since capitalism's root is not communism): collapse of capitalism will result in communism. My interpretation of the situation:
I think your reasoning can be summed up with the following quote: "The end of colonialism in other places was not a good thing becuase it led to even more opressive dictatorships."
That pretty much sums up our differences. Needless to say, I'm not going to agree with that line of reasoning. Collapse of unjust systems is GOOD.
The reason you think the way you do is because you are looking at the past. Let me ask you this: if you were living in the Roman empire or say in Africa, would you still hold that view? You are living in the ivory tower of the present. Just because something ended up being worse off does not justify taking a position against the initial freedom-seeking position.
BTW Yes, the Russian Revolution was a good thing. Overthrowing the Tzar was well worth it. Similarly, the monarchs in some parts of Europe may have been horrible* but Europeans freeing themselves from Imperialism is only a good thing.
* I am skeptical of your view that the monarchs were indeed worse than the Romans. I don't know much about history but that seems strange. I'll take your word for it now though.
Actually I was referring to any sort of change. I believe that future societies will change without wars. The problem now is that there is no framework for resolving disputes, advancing causes, and so forth. The natural--and often only--way to change something seems to arm yourself and resort to violence. I don't see why it has to be this way.
I totally ignored your comment about sex because I don't know what you are talking about:) What sort of change are you referring to? Sexual change? Or just general social change? And how does sex get us into space?:)
I personally believe that wars (and sex I suppose;) ) will not get us into space. If anything, these are the things holding us back. Cooperation is necessary to get us into space. I don't see how any country, corporation, or organization can get past Jupiter alone. The cost of space exploration is immense. It is FAR more expensive than attempting to sail the world (as in the old days). Even the richest country in the world (USA) can't afford to build a space station on a satellite of Jupiter as long as it is pursuing a military goal and competes alone. One may be able to build a base on the moon, or even on Mars. But anything beyond that is highly doubtful without cooperation.
War is not an agent for change... revolutions are! You could accomplish the same thing as a war with a non-violent revolution. Historically, might has ruled; but there is nothing to say that will be the case for eons...
You have some a good point with regard to tracking civil rights activists. That can be expanded to include nuclear activists and others. I honestly don't know how it was done in the 60s, but today they are actually pretty good about not spying on citizens without probable cause and/or a court order.
It is MUCH better now but it still exists. For instance, protests and marches are secretly recorded by the police. I don't have any links bookmarked but I have read stories where left-wing groups (I'm a leftist) point out people who record the marches but aren't affiliated with any news organization. I'm sure the government has tons of data on protestors.
As far as LSD is concerned, I don't deny that certain government agencies have don't some pretty evil things, but it isn't really part of the issue of spying.
Yeah.. it's not really spying. My point was that the government carries out activities AGAINST its OWN CITIZENS.
Those initiatives of the DHS really just amount to encouraging people to keep their eyes open. Is that distasteful?
Such activities are the principles of totalitarianism. Is the DHS totalitarian? Not RIGHT NOW but how about in 10 years? Condoning such activities and organizations means that you are on a path towards an Orweillian society. What's bad about such society is not that the govt violates your privacy (it already does so it isnt' a big deal). The real problem is that you will end up with a society where the govt or some powerful organization does not TRUST the citizens. Already, governments don't trust their own citizens. This will just make it worse. What's the difference between a liberatarian and authoratarian society? In one the govt trusts you; in other, it doesn't.
Will I call the FBI if I see my neighbor with a half ton of fertilizer? Definitely.
What if the guy has a large farm or something?:) Anyway, I'm glad you mentioned it because I can use it as an example. What is YOUR criteria for SUSPICION? What if I have 500kg of fertilizer? How about 250kg? How about 100kg? What's bad? What if I am observing the water pipelines? Am I plotting to poison the water supply? All this is so subjective--and most importantly gives some people or some organization POWER.
See... the thing is.. the whole notion of SUSPICION is very subjective. Building a system based on that (that IS what you are doing), will result in a totalitarian society. What if I don't like you and simply call you in? Your life will be made a mess at my expense. What if some fundamentalists or some extremists get the govt on my case simply because I read Das Kapital or Mein Kampf? Is that suspcious? Someone with 1 ton of fertilizer IS suspcisious. I agree. But another person might consider going to some anti-war website to be just as bad (I know some people who feel that way). So where is the line? And lastly, do you really think the government will make the right decision and ignore the bogus cases?
The DHS is not spying on us, they just want the information they need to do their jobs.
Isn't that what they all say? Isn't that the ultimate slogan of a hypothetical "ministry of information"? Why does a private company need my social insurance number (in Canada)? To do their job? This thing wasn't even supposed to be made public but now everyone wants it?
You don't know me or what I think or believe.
I was mainly addressing that to the original poster, who seemed like he was a blind patriot who worships the government. He dimissed NYT even though it is a mainstream source. I can see him dismissing some leftist magazing like The Nation or Zmag, but NYT and LATimes? If he didn't believe those papers, he surely wouldn't have believed me...
I don't think I can ever change your mind. My message is going to seem like a severe attack on you personally but that isn't my intention....
YOU are someone who does not value FREEDOM! I don't think you really know what freedom is or what it means. There is no IFs and BUTs when it comes to freedom. Even if life is horrible after the collapse of a unjust system, it is worth it--not because you will benefit but because future generations will. The collapse of the Tzar was good; so was collapse of Rome; so was collapse of the Egyptians; etc.
Yes, societies were worse off after the collapse in all these cases. But freedom is worth far more than economics or wealth or even stability!!! The French Revolution failed within 10 years. It was a mess during that time. However, it was the MOST IMPORTANT REVOLUTION of all time--no doubt about that, why?
With your reasoning, end of colonialism was a BAD thing because a lot of countries were worse off right aftewards. Do you really believe that? Similarly, are you really claiming that the collapse of the Ottomon Empire was a bad thing (since it resulted in unstability)?
Just because a horrible regime was replaced with another regime does not mean that the collapse of the initial regime was a bad thing. You cannot predict what is going to happen. Things could have turned out worse in some cases but they could have been better.
Living in an ivory tower, atop a hill, away from the plight of the oppressed, means that you don't know what it means to be oppressed. The collapse of the Imperial Rome resulted in Europe going into the Dark Ages. That was a GOOD THING! Not because it went into the dark ages but because the people were more free. Sure, imperialism was replaced by monarchies but so what? Who could have predicted that? It could have just as easily turned into a democracy-like system. If the Roman Empire did not collapse, Europe could still be ruled by them (unlikely but plausible eg. How long have the monarchs in the Middle East ruled?).
First of all, warmongers and hawks don't really care about any of that. They will do whatever is necessary to gain an edge--including sacrificing their own citizens.
The problem with space right now is that there are no rules or guidelines. When it comes to airspace or oceans, the guidelines are there. But not with space. Every single country on earth, except USA, wants to ban weapons in space (hence avoiding the need to increase hostilities). Until USA and the rest of the world agrees to some standard, there will be problems.
It wouldn't surprise me if World War III broke out simply because of some disagreement in space. The chance of a World War on earth (as opposed to space) is minimized because of the existence of international treaties, and particularly the existence of the UN. If a country attacks another or starts a war, or enters into enemy airspace, or whatever, it is quite easy to say who is at fault (from a neutral point of view--obviously, each side will believe themselves to be correct). With space, one cannot make that determination now. If *I* shoot down your satellite over me, who is at fault? Right now, you can't say and hence will result in a world war.
Hopefully, some sort of international agreement can be drawn up. But it remains to be seen when this can happen...
The Cold War was very safe (contrary to popular opinion, and ignoring proxy wars) precisely because there were agreements over the war. In particular, USA and USSR signed nuclear agreements (anti-ballistic missile treaty, etc). Having such guidelines meant that everyone knew what was "illegal" and what was not. One was never scared of their opponent launching some nuke or tricking you because the rules were explicit. When it comes to space, no such thing exists.
No one invades whoever they want! Even the terrible Romans and Mongols only invaded those that they wanted (usually for wealth, resources, strategic reasons, etc).
If that were the case, why haven't we invaded Cuba?
You tried invading Cuba around 30 years ago. The CIA drew up a plan called Bay of Pigs to purposely attack Americans and then blame it on Cuba (hence precipating a war). JFK shot that idea down and no one has ressurrectd it. That was then. Now, USA doesn't invade Cuba because it is not in its interest. Invading Cuba will just be like Haiti. Supporting Haiti was a total mess and got nowhere.
Plus we've got a sizable ex-Cuban population that continually calls for the invasion of Cuba.
Most of that is just show and initiated (likely) by the CIA. If someone paid you $50,000 to protest some country you probably would too. There is no true Cuban American support for overthrowing Cuba. Why would there be? It will only end up killing thousands of Cubans. This is just like the case with Iraq. There really wasn't any true support. The people who supported the Iraqi invasion were Chalabi and his buddies. Other than them, there was no one who really allied with USA or took up arms against Iraq on USA's behalf. Where are all the Iraqis that were in favour of the invasion? There ar more than 10,000 Iraqis and Iraqi Americans in USA, where is all the support for the Iraq invasion?
If you thought the march to Baghdad was quick, you haven't seen nothin' yet. Heck, even the after-war would be easy, with that pro-democracy group in Cuba, and all those Cuban-Americans that would move back.
As I said, you would get as many Cuban Americans supporting post-Cuba as you get for post-Iraq, which is to say nothing. How many Iraqi Americans (other than Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress) are over in Iraq helping USA? None!
If the United States is a Terrible Imperialistic Power(tm), then why is Fidel Castro still ruling Cuba?
Let me repeat it... it is not in the imperialist's INTEREST to do so. Imperialists act on the basis of interests. They don't invade a country just for the sake of it. They do it for reasons that range from enriching themselves, to supporting their imperial vision. Cuba does not fit their plans now. They would rather invade, say Venezuela (for oil), than Cuba. Study Rome and think about why they did NOT invade certain countries/regions even though they were totally dominant and their military was powerful.
The collapse of Rome only impacted Europe. The rest of the world was humming along as before. Same thing will happen now. In the short term, it will be bad. But the long term should be better. Collapse of USA will bring down modern societies, but it will also probably bring down capitalism (which is a terrible system). In the long run, this will be good, just like how the collapse of the British Empire actually ended colonialism.
BTW, collapse of IMPERIAL Rome was a GOOD thing. Europeans were severly oppressed by the Romans. YOU don't know that and you probably don't. But it was terrible for the Europeans. Romans brought wealth and technology but they also destroyed the original European cultures (ever wonder why modern European culture is Roman with very little traces of the indigenous people (only left in Ireland, and Nordic countries)). When Romans raped all the women in Europe, it certainly wasn't a good thing. Of course, no one mentions it.
With the Bush pre-emptive doctrine, which you clearly subscribe to, are you going to attack the other 100+ countries which are hostile or neutral to USA? Do note that the US government has stated that there are no neutrals. Get this through your head: you cannot attempt to enforce justice without a crime being committed. Doing so will simply bring down the whole justice system. The best you can do is to DEFNED your country; not go off on offensive pursuits.
As far as the Iraq report, lol. Ramp up production in a MATTER OF WEEKS? Could you explain how you can produce these agents so easily (not to mention in large quantities)? Even if they did (which is a near impossibility) so what? Iraq hasn't attacked you and had no plans to do so. How can you justify an invasion on the fact that a hostile country has weapons? If you really followed your logic, why aren't you invading North Korea? We all know why but maybe you don't?
Look up the budget of NSA and tell me what it does. It spends all its time spying on its own citizens, rather than enemies....CIA spends a chunk of its resources spying on its own citizens too. It's hard to prove this so you either believe me or not. Examples include tracking civil rights activists during the civil rights era in the 60's, attempting to brainwash citizens using LSD (look up the origin of LSD), trafficking drugs to support its activities (drugs hurt citizens), etc.... more recently, Department of Homeland Security has been trying to get some programs going but haven't had much success (eg. getting utility workers to spy on citizens, establishing toll-free snitch line, Total Information Awareness, etc). I expect that they already spend a few million on such programs, which haven't been publicized. In about 10 years, expect their budget on these clandestine activities to zoom towards $1billion, just like how the CIA and DEA have. Right now (for 2004), the Department of Homeland security has a budget of around $36.2 billion. I suspect around 0.1% is spent spying on innocient citizens (36.5million) and you can expect this to increase as the department increases it size (due to bureacratization, as DEA and CIA have).
Of course, you probably don't believe any of this. Just like how you probably have no idea that the DEA spends $1.8billion on the "war" on drugs.
I don't think you know much about humanity or history. I don't really know what your definition of a "tribal" is but such a society does not necesarily mean war. In fact, many "primitive" societies were egalitarian and there wasn't much war. The whole notion of war (along with related concepts like imperialism, and colonialism) started later on. Even things like slavery did not exist in the "primitive" societies (well, it did exist but it was used for punishment and crimes, in contrast to the post-Egyptian civilizations which used slavery to run economies).
Your notion that militarization of space will be good is absurb and illogical. Even if your only desire in life is to leave earth, militarization will not save your life. If people start leaving earth, and space is militarized, people will just develop even more powerful weapons to destroy those that have left. Planet destroying weapons as well as inter-star system missiles, which don't exist now, come to mind. Whether you leave earth or not is irrelevant. You cannot escape those that want to kill you!
If all you care about is getting to space, war is a great thing for you (just like how WWII was great for those that wanted to fly--aviation was significantly improved)...those that perish in the wars to accomodate your selfish desires might have another opinion (just like all those killed during WWII wouldn't approve of it)...
I ran into the post limit yesterday so I'm posting this now...
...people tend to expect their governments to actually work for their good.
Such belief is nothing more than the govt propaganda at work. The govt hardly ever works for the good of the citizens. Since you seem to support the status-quo, I guess you won't see why the system is pretty bad. Just remember: the peasents/workers in aristocratic socities claimed the same thing. They were so confident that the system was actually for their good that they allowed themselves to be sentenced to death for adultery while kings were committing adultery on a daily basis. I don't think my words will have much impact but all I can say is that, your belief in the system is misplaced.
You advocate change for the sake of change alone.
No. I'm not proposing the alternate system simply for the sake of it. There is more to it. I believe that humans are dynamic, organic beings. We change over time. Therefore, it is best if we build a society where the system is just as dynamic. Ther modern "justice" system is nothing more than a revenge system, created by the elites several thousand years ago. It was simply to keep the masses in line and let the elites carry out abuses. The same system has stuck since then. It is different; it's more egalitarian; it's more fairer; but the system is a weakness.
You misuse the word when you say that laws can be "circumvented" by passing new laws when this is in fact the Constitutional method of implementing the change you advocate.
I'm not really sure what your point is. My position is that everything should be dynamic. My point had nothing to do with my system. I was simply pointing out that the "Constitutional method of implementing change" can also lead to circumvension towards bad deeds. In other words, the system that you hold dear is not so dear. *I* can take over USA tomorrow and run it as a dictatorship simply by passing a few laws here and there. Consider the recent cases with the Guantanomo Bay prisoners. USA has classified them as "enemy combatants" which really doesn't fit any category. With a simple stroke of the pen, or more like passing a 200+ page law that no one read, USA just introduced a whole new notion that did not exist before. USA has been able to jail without trial a bunch of people that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. If someone said that a person can be jailed without trial (by USA of all countries) how many would have believed it? Even totalitarian regimes like USSR and Nazi Germany charged people with bogus crimes (although it is not clear whether being jailed without a charge or being jailed with a bogus charge is worse). Furthermore, USA has classified Jose Padilla, a US citizen, as an "enemy combatant". How many would have thought that an American can be held in a jail perpetually without allowing any contact with family, lawyers etc?
Now, I'm not saying it is easy or that I am a dictator (I'm not:) ). In fact, people realize the mistake and are trying to undo it. BUT your perceived strength in the system is nonexistent.
Libertarians, for example, will blather on about laissez-faire capitalism as if it had never been tried. It has been tried of course; in England during the Industrial Revolution. It was disastrous economically, environmentally, and in terms of human rights. You owe it to yourself to examine past anarchic societies and see why they went wrong.
I'm neither a liberatarian nor an anarchist. I am a leftist, a socialist, with anarchist tendencies:) I don't come across as that because I'm arguing for an anarchist system. I am totally against capitalism so your Industrial Revolution
Liberals who stand still become conservatives over time. So "classical liberals" (eg. Thomas Jefferson, Madison, et al) would be conservatives today to a large extent. Modern day liberalism still shares some key traits with "classical liberalism" but most of it is different.
The erosion of the legal system is not due to "activist" judges (whatever they are). The legal system is inherently flawed. The rise of "lawyerism" is the #1 reason courts mean nothing.
Everything you are saying is kind of obsolete. At one time, launching into space was required to build ICBMs. But that isn't the case anymore. China is already known to have ICBMs (I'm not sure of the date but I think they developed it in the 70's or 80's). Furthermore, launching humans is not required; lauching satellites is good enough. Lastly, North Korea is rumoured to have ICBMs. I'm not sure how correct that is, but if it were true, it is further proof that ICBMs aren't a big deal anymore.
I personally don't think militarization of space will result in people putting "bombs" up in space (why would they? ICBMs are already very accurate and do the same thing, albeit a little slower). Instead, I expect it to involve technologies to shoot down enemy stuff. For example, you can deploy "offensive" vehicles to shoot down enemy satellites (which will cripple the whole country). You may also put some beam weapon (only candidate so far is laser) that can shoot down enemy planes (flying below orbit).
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter if the automaton is intelligent; rather, it matters if it is SENTIENT.
In any case, such a case will only pass if animal rights are granted first. How can one grant autmaton rights when animals, which are more important and related to humans, aren't protect?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The capitalists (especially in USA) are already on that path. They are much further than you think. For instance, who would have thought that prisons could be privatized? The police is next...
Sivaram Velauthpaillai
You have any ideas? Some dude above was recommending wi-fi networks.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You can tell that most of the readers are capitalists or quasi-capitalists because they didn't get the sarcasm at all... lol :) ... the post was SO OBVIOUS yet so many missed it...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The guy has clearly studied government techniques to brainwash the public. Notice the similaries:
Government: "Give up your liberties so that we can save you from some evil force (national defense & security)"
VeriSign: "Let us own the internet so that you are safer (security)"
Often, the next step the government carries out is mass propaganda and/or disinformation, in favour of their above argument. I expect the CEO of VeriSign to the do the same thing. In fact, he already might be doing it (isn't he already claiming that the 'redirection thingie' was a good thing).
Sivaram Velauthpaillai
Star Trek sucks!!! Star Trek practices a HIGHLY hierarchial system, which means it is strongly elitist (possibly more elitist than capitalism). It is based on military strcuture (militaries suck). Ever notice how the commanders have more power/say/perks/benefits than say the engineers, or the doctors, or others. I would hate to be part of the Federation in Star Trek. It is a terrible econopolitical structure... having said that, some of the other minor "races"/tribes/aliens are more utopian and I wouldn't mind joining them. If I can't find any of those minor aliens, then there is always something like Vulcans :)
Sivaram Velauthapillai
It's actually the opposite, if you go with Marx's view (which is more accurate since capitalism's root is not communism): collapse of capitalism will result in communism. My interpretation of the situation:
m -->anarchism
merchantilism-->capitalism-->socialism-->communis
Sivaram Velauthapillai
What's wrong with Andrew Jackson? I don't know the history...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I think your reasoning can be summed up with the following quote:
"The end of colonialism in other places was not a good thing becuase it led to even more opressive dictatorships."
That pretty much sums up our differences. Needless to say, I'm not going to agree with that line of reasoning. Collapse of unjust systems is GOOD.
The reason you think the way you do is because you are looking at the past. Let me ask you this: if you were living in the Roman empire or say in Africa, would you still hold that view? You are living in the ivory tower of the present. Just because something ended up being worse off does not justify taking a position against the initial freedom-seeking position.
BTW Yes, the Russian Revolution was a good thing. Overthrowing the Tzar was well worth it. Similarly, the monarchs in some parts of Europe may have been horrible* but Europeans freeing themselves from Imperialism is only a good thing.
* I am skeptical of your view that the monarchs were indeed worse than the Romans. I don't know much about history but that seems strange. I'll take your word for it now though.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Actually I was referring to any sort of change. I believe that future societies will change without wars. The problem now is that there is no framework for resolving disputes, advancing causes, and so forth. The natural--and often only--way to change something seems to arm yourself and resort to violence. I don't see why it has to be this way.
:) What sort of change are you referring to? Sexual change? Or just general social change? And how does sex get us into space? :)
;) ) will not get us into space. If anything, these are the things holding us back. Cooperation is necessary to get us into space. I don't see how any country, corporation, or organization can get past Jupiter alone. The cost of space exploration is immense. It is FAR more expensive than attempting to sail the world (as in the old days). Even the richest country in the world (USA) can't afford to build a space station on a satellite of Jupiter as long as it is pursuing a military goal and competes alone. One may be able to build a base on the moon, or even on Mars. But anything beyond that is highly doubtful without cooperation.
I totally ignored your comment about sex because I don't know what you are talking about
I personally believe that wars (and sex I suppose
Sivaram Velauthapillai
War is not an agent for change... revolutions are! You could accomplish the same thing as a war with a non-violent revolution. Historically, might has ruled; but there is nothing to say that will be the case for eons...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
You have some a good point with regard to tracking civil rights activists. That can be expanded to include nuclear activists and others. I honestly don't know how it was done in the 60s, but today they are actually pretty good about not spying on citizens without probable cause and/or a court order.
:) Anyway, I'm glad you mentioned it because I can use it as an example. What is YOUR criteria for SUSPICION? What if I have 500kg of fertilizer? How about 250kg? How about 100kg? What's bad? What if I am observing the water pipelines? Am I plotting to poison the water supply? All this is so subjective--and most importantly gives some people or some organization POWER.
It is MUCH better now but it still exists. For instance, protests and marches are secretly recorded by the police. I don't have any links bookmarked but I have read stories where left-wing groups (I'm a leftist) point out people who record the marches but aren't affiliated with any news organization. I'm sure the government has tons of data on protestors.
As far as LSD is concerned, I don't deny that certain government agencies have don't some pretty evil things, but it isn't really part of the issue of spying.
Yeah.. it's not really spying. My point was that the government carries out activities AGAINST its OWN CITIZENS.
Those initiatives of the DHS really just amount to encouraging people to keep their eyes open. Is that distasteful?
Such activities are the principles of totalitarianism. Is the DHS totalitarian? Not RIGHT NOW but how about in 10 years? Condoning such activities and organizations means that you are on a path towards an Orweillian society. What's bad about such society is not that the govt violates your privacy (it already does so it isnt' a big deal). The real problem is that you will end up with a society where the govt or some powerful organization does not TRUST the citizens. Already, governments don't trust their own citizens. This will just make it worse. What's the difference between a liberatarian and authoratarian society? In one the govt trusts you; in other, it doesn't.
Will I call the FBI if I see my neighbor with a half ton of fertilizer? Definitely.
What if the guy has a large farm or something?
See... the thing is.. the whole notion of SUSPICION is very subjective. Building a system based on that (that IS what you are doing), will result in a totalitarian society. What if I don't like you and simply call you in? Your life will be made a mess at my expense. What if some fundamentalists or some extremists get the govt on my case simply because I read Das Kapital or Mein Kampf? Is that suspcious? Someone with 1 ton of fertilizer IS suspcisious. I agree. But another person might consider going to some anti-war website to be just as bad (I know some people who feel that way). So where is the line? And lastly, do you really think the government will make the right decision and ignore the bogus cases?
The DHS is not spying on us, they just want the information they need to do their jobs.
Isn't that what they all say? Isn't that the ultimate slogan of a hypothetical "ministry of information"? Why does a private company need my social insurance number (in Canada)? To do their job? This thing wasn't even supposed to be made public but now everyone wants it?
You don't know me or what I think or believe.
I was mainly addressing that to the original poster, who seemed like he was a blind patriot who worships the government. He dimissed NYT even though it is a mainstream source. I can see him dismissing some leftist magazing like The Nation or Zmag, but NYT and LATimes? If he didn't believe those papers, he surely wouldn't have believed me...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think I can ever change your mind. My message is going to seem like a severe attack on you personally but that isn't my intention....
YOU are someone who does not value FREEDOM! I don't think you really know what freedom is or what it means. There is no IFs and BUTs when it comes to freedom. Even if life is horrible after the collapse of a unjust system, it is worth it--not because you will benefit but because future generations will. The collapse of the Tzar was good; so was collapse of Rome; so was collapse of the Egyptians; etc.
Yes, societies were worse off after the collapse in all these cases. But freedom is worth far more than economics or wealth or even stability!!! The French Revolution failed within 10 years. It was a mess during that time. However, it was the MOST IMPORTANT REVOLUTION of all time--no doubt about that, why?
With your reasoning, end of colonialism was a BAD thing because a lot of countries were worse off right aftewards. Do you really believe that? Similarly, are you really claiming that the collapse of the Ottomon Empire was a bad thing (since it resulted in unstability)?
Just because a horrible regime was replaced with another regime does not mean that the collapse of the initial regime was a bad thing. You cannot predict what is going to happen. Things could have turned out worse in some cases but they could have been better.
Living in an ivory tower, atop a hill, away from the plight of the oppressed, means that you don't know what it means to be oppressed. The collapse of the Imperial Rome resulted in Europe going into the Dark Ages. That was a GOOD THING! Not because it went into the dark ages but because the people were more free. Sure, imperialism was replaced by monarchies but so what? Who could have predicted that? It could have just as easily turned into a democracy-like system. If the Roman Empire did not collapse, Europe could still be ruled by them (unlikely but plausible eg. How long have the monarchs in the Middle East ruled?).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
First of all, warmongers and hawks don't really care about any of that. They will do whatever is necessary to gain an edge--including sacrificing their own citizens.
The problem with space right now is that there are no rules or guidelines. When it comes to airspace or oceans, the guidelines are there. But not with space. Every single country on earth, except USA, wants to ban weapons in space (hence avoiding the need to increase hostilities). Until USA and the rest of the world agrees to some standard, there will be problems.
It wouldn't surprise me if World War III broke out simply because of some disagreement in space. The chance of a World War on earth (as opposed to space) is minimized because of the existence of international treaties, and particularly the existence of the UN. If a country attacks another or starts a war, or enters into enemy airspace, or whatever, it is quite easy to say who is at fault (from a neutral point of view--obviously, each side will believe themselves to be correct). With space, one cannot make that determination now. If *I* shoot down your satellite over me, who is at fault? Right now, you can't say and hence will result in a world war.
Hopefully, some sort of international agreement can be drawn up. But it remains to be seen when this can happen...
The Cold War was very safe (contrary to popular opinion, and ignoring proxy wars) precisely because there were agreements over the war. In particular, USA and USSR signed nuclear agreements (anti-ballistic missile treaty, etc). Having such guidelines meant that everyone knew what was "illegal" and what was not. One was never scared of their opponent launching some nuke or tricking you because the rules were explicit. When it comes to space, no such thing exists.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
We invade whoever we want?
No one invades whoever they want! Even the terrible Romans and Mongols only invaded those that they wanted (usually for wealth, resources, strategic reasons, etc).
If that were the case, why haven't we invaded Cuba?
You tried invading Cuba around 30 years ago. The CIA drew up a plan called Bay of Pigs to purposely attack Americans and then blame it on Cuba (hence precipating a war). JFK shot that idea down and no one has ressurrectd it. That was then. Now, USA doesn't invade Cuba because it is not in its interest. Invading Cuba will just be like Haiti. Supporting Haiti was a total mess and got nowhere.
Plus we've got a sizable ex-Cuban population that continually calls for the invasion of Cuba.
Most of that is just show and initiated (likely) by the CIA. If someone paid you $50,000 to protest some country you probably would too. There is no true Cuban American support for overthrowing Cuba. Why would there be? It will only end up killing thousands of Cubans. This is just like the case with Iraq. There really wasn't any true support. The people who supported the Iraqi invasion were Chalabi and his buddies. Other than them, there was no one who really allied with USA or took up arms against Iraq on USA's behalf. Where are all the Iraqis that were in favour of the invasion? There ar more than 10,000 Iraqis and Iraqi Americans in USA, where is all the support for the Iraq invasion?
If you thought the march to Baghdad was quick, you haven't seen nothin' yet. Heck, even the after-war would be easy, with that pro-democracy group in Cuba, and all those Cuban-Americans that would move back.
As I said, you would get as many Cuban Americans supporting post-Cuba as you get for post-Iraq, which is to say nothing. How many Iraqi Americans (other than Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress) are over in Iraq helping USA? None!
If the United States is a Terrible Imperialistic Power(tm), then why is Fidel Castro still ruling Cuba?
Let me repeat it... it is not in the imperialist's INTEREST to do so. Imperialists act on the basis of interests. They don't invade a country just for the sake of it. They do it for reasons that range from enriching themselves, to supporting their imperial vision. Cuba does not fit their plans now. They would rather invade, say Venezuela (for oil), than Cuba. Study Rome and think about why they did NOT invade certain countries/regions even though they were totally dominant and their military was powerful.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The collapse of Rome only impacted Europe. The rest of the world was humming along as before. Same thing will happen now. In the short term, it will be bad. But the long term should be better. Collapse of USA will bring down modern societies, but it will also probably bring down capitalism (which is a terrible system). In the long run, this will be good, just like how the collapse of the British Empire actually ended colonialism.
BTW, collapse of IMPERIAL Rome was a GOOD thing. Europeans were severly oppressed by the Romans. YOU don't know that and you probably don't. But it was terrible for the Europeans. Romans brought wealth and technology but they also destroyed the original European cultures (ever wonder why modern European culture is Roman with very little traces of the indigenous people (only left in Ireland, and Nordic countries)). When Romans raped all the women in Europe, it certainly wasn't a good thing. Of course, no one mentions it.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
With the Bush pre-emptive doctrine, which you clearly subscribe to, are you going to attack the other 100+ countries which are hostile or neutral to USA? Do note that the US government has stated that there are no neutrals. Get this through your head: you cannot attempt to enforce justice without a crime being committed. Doing so will simply bring down the whole justice system. The best you can do is to DEFNED your country; not go off on offensive pursuits.
As far as the Iraq report, lol. Ramp up production in a MATTER OF WEEKS? Could you explain how you can produce these agents so easily (not to mention in large quantities)? Even if they did (which is a near impossibility) so what? Iraq hasn't attacked you and had no plans to do so. How can you justify an invasion on the fact that a hostile country has weapons? If you really followed your logic, why aren't you invading North Korea? We all know why but maybe you don't?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
This is why the USA should continue to pour money into our space program--not just for research, but for security.
With people like you around, no wonder USA keeps vetoing any attempts to ban the militarization of space.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Look up the budget of NSA and tell me what it does. It spends all its time spying on its own citizens, rather than enemies....CIA spends a chunk of its resources spying on its own citizens too. It's hard to prove this so you either believe me or not. Examples include tracking civil rights activists during the civil rights era in the 60's, attempting to brainwash citizens using LSD (look up the origin of LSD), trafficking drugs to support its activities (drugs hurt citizens), etc.... more recently, Department of Homeland Security has been trying to get some programs going but haven't had much success (eg. getting utility workers to spy on citizens, establishing toll-free snitch line, Total Information Awareness, etc). I expect that they already spend a few million on such programs, which haven't been publicized. In about 10 years, expect their budget on these clandestine activities to zoom towards $1billion, just like how the CIA and DEA have. Right now (for 2004), the Department of Homeland security has a budget of around $36.2 billion. I suspect around 0.1% is spent spying on innocient citizens (36.5million) and you can expect this to increase as the department increases it size (due to bureacratization, as DEA and CIA have).
Of course, you probably don't believe any of this. Just like how you probably have no idea that the DEA spends $1.8billion on the "war" on drugs.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think you know much about humanity or history. I don't really know what your definition of a "tribal" is but such a society does not necesarily mean war. In fact, many "primitive" societies were egalitarian and there wasn't much war. The whole notion of war (along with related concepts like imperialism, and colonialism) started later on. Even things like slavery did not exist in the "primitive" societies (well, it did exist but it was used for punishment and crimes, in contrast to the post-Egyptian civilizations which used slavery to run economies).
Your notion that militarization of space will be good is absurb and illogical. Even if your only desire in life is to leave earth, militarization will not save your life. If people start leaving earth, and space is militarized, people will just develop even more powerful weapons to destroy those that have left. Planet destroying weapons as well as inter-star system missiles, which don't exist now, come to mind. Whether you leave earth or not is irrelevant. You cannot escape those that want to kill you!
If all you care about is getting to space, war is a great thing for you (just like how WWII was great for those that wanted to fly--aviation was significantly improved)...those that perish in the wars to accomodate your selfish desires might have another opinion (just like all those killed during WWII wouldn't approve of it)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I ran into the post limit yesterday so I'm posting this now...
...people tend to expect their governments to actually work for their good.
:) ). In fact, people realize the mistake and are trying to undo it. BUT your perceived strength in the system is nonexistent.
:) I don't come across as that because I'm arguing for an anarchist system. I am totally against capitalism so your Industrial Revolution
Such belief is nothing more than the govt propaganda at work. The govt hardly ever works for the good of the citizens. Since you seem to support the status-quo, I guess you won't see why the system is pretty bad. Just remember: the peasents/workers in aristocratic socities claimed the same thing. They were so confident that the system was actually for their good that they allowed themselves to be sentenced to death for adultery while kings were committing adultery on a daily basis. I don't think my words will have much impact but all I can say is that, your belief in the system is misplaced.
You advocate change for the sake of change alone.
No. I'm not proposing the alternate system simply for the sake of it. There is more to it. I believe that humans are dynamic, organic beings. We change over time. Therefore, it is best if we build a society where the system is just as dynamic. Ther modern "justice" system is nothing more than a revenge system, created by the elites several thousand years ago. It was simply to keep the masses in line and let the elites carry out abuses. The same system has stuck since then. It is different; it's more egalitarian; it's more fairer; but the system is a weakness.
You misuse the word when you say that laws can be "circumvented" by passing new laws when this is in fact the Constitutional method of implementing the change you advocate.
I'm not really sure what your point is. My position is that everything should be dynamic. My point had nothing to do with my system. I was simply pointing out that the "Constitutional method of implementing change" can also lead to circumvension towards bad deeds. In other words, the system that you hold dear is not so dear. *I* can take over USA tomorrow and run it as a dictatorship simply by passing a few laws here and there. Consider the recent cases with the Guantanomo Bay prisoners. USA has classified them as "enemy combatants" which really doesn't fit any category. With a simple stroke of the pen, or more like passing a 200+ page law that no one read, USA just introduced a whole new notion that did not exist before. USA has been able to jail without trial a bunch of people that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. If someone said that a person can be jailed without trial (by USA of all countries) how many would have believed it? Even totalitarian regimes like USSR and Nazi Germany charged people with bogus crimes (although it is not clear whether being jailed without a charge or being jailed with a bogus charge is worse). Furthermore, USA has classified Jose Padilla, a US citizen, as an "enemy combatant". How many would have thought that an American can be held in a jail perpetually without allowing any contact with family, lawyers etc?
Now, I'm not saying it is easy or that I am a dictator (I'm not
Libertarians, for example, will blather on about laissez-faire capitalism as if it had never been tried. It has been tried of course; in England during the Industrial Revolution. It was disastrous economically, environmentally, and in terms of human rights. You owe it to yourself to examine past anarchic societies and see why they went wrong.
I'm neither a liberatarian nor an anarchist. I am a leftist, a socialist, with anarchist tendencies
Liberals who stand still become conservatives over time. So "classical liberals" (eg. Thomas Jefferson, Madison, et al) would be conservatives today to a large extent. Modern day liberalism still shares some key traits with "classical liberalism" but most of it is different.
The erosion of the legal system is not due to "activist" judges (whatever they are). The legal system is inherently flawed. The rise of "lawyerism" is the #1 reason courts mean nothing.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Everything you are saying is kind of obsolete. At one time, launching into space was required to build ICBMs. But that isn't the case anymore. China is already known to have ICBMs (I'm not sure of the date but I think they developed it in the 70's or 80's). Furthermore, launching humans is not required; lauching satellites is good enough. Lastly, North Korea is rumoured to have ICBMs. I'm not sure how correct that is, but if it were true, it is further proof that ICBMs aren't a big deal anymore.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I personally don't think militarization of space will result in people putting "bombs" up in space (why would they? ICBMs are already very accurate and do the same thing, albeit a little slower). Instead, I expect it to involve technologies to shoot down enemy stuff. For example, you can deploy "offensive" vehicles to shoot down enemy satellites (which will cripple the whole country). You may also put some beam weapon (only candidate so far is laser) that can shoot down enemy planes (flying below orbit).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
But when the work of fiction very closely resembles the future, then it is quite something--especially in sci-fi where anything is possible.
Sivaram Velauthapillai