A government will only keep something secret if the cost of it being revealed is not high enough to bring them down. This is the same strategy used by corporations. Corporations will purposely enter into unethical and illegal activities as long as the payoff is high enough, given the risk. An example would be a corporation choosing to hire organized criminals (such as mafia) to do work for them, or to carry out espionage on their competitors. These things happen on a regular basis yet they are never caught (because they only enter into deals where they cannot be caught easily).
Governments behave the same way. If they can get away with it, or if the benefit of hiding something is high, they will do it. However, unlike corporations, governments are scrutinized to a greater degree (at least in developed countries) so it is hard to get away with much. This is why governments always attempt to use agents (eg. CIA, NSA, Secret Service, etc) to carry out their illegal activities.
So... I don't think a government will cover up a terrorist attack on electricty infrastructure. The benefit of covering that up is too low and the risk of someone revealing it is too high. But a govt is more likely to cover up say a terrorist attack on food supply.
The last blackout in Toronto resulted in a few deaths. I believe some people died in car accidents, and a few other physically disabled people died too.
I COMPLETELY disagree with your assertion that people are beocming more resistant as technology increases. If anything, it is the complete opposite. People's lives are more seriously affected now than ever. Someone like Usama bin Laden can cause FAR more damage by hitting the elctricity or water infrastructure than by blowing up buildings (of course, Al-Qaida doesn't target economic targets so that's unlikey). The damage from electricity shortage can easily run up into hundreads of millions of dollars. Fortunately, most blackouts only last a few hours, or a few days (at worst). If it lasts one month, I'll bet a major city will rack up $1billion in losses.
Provided that there is competition, which does not seem to exist now. So the problem is rather (over)regulation raising the entry barrier, than free markets.
I just love how capitalists always blame regulation for everything. I hope you guys get it through your heads one day--although I suspect you people never will. There will ONLY be 3 or 4 companies involved in electricity generation REGARDLESS of what you do. The reason is because it is TOO EXPENSIVE to build the power plants (i.e. need lots of capital). So no matter what you do, you will only have a few companies. This is just like airline manufacturing, where it is difficult for anyone to enter because capital costs are high. How many new companies will start competing with Boeing and Airbus? Very few, regardless of what governments do.
Needless to say, once a company enters the market, it attempts to monoplize the market (since that generates the highest profits). Unlike many other markets, companies in energy markets are able to erect high barriers to entry easily (mostly by hoarding a resource, such as natural gas or a lake/hydro dam).
A common first right to go is the ability of private citizens to be armed... Since a revolt by unarmed people against a well armed army is unlikely to be sucessful.
I guess you are a gun-rights supporter. I personally don't think it helps. At one time, it may have helped (say 200 years ago). But nowadays, it is not very helpful. The reason is due to the massive difference in strength between the military and the people. Even the best armed militia in USA is no match for the US military, for example. How much would guns really help?
I have nothing but respect for the people who drafted the United States constitution -- it is a truly remarkable document.
Americans did two things right: one is the US constitution. I agree that it is good. However, I don't give it the same amount of praise as you. The constitution (as well as all laws) were radical at that time. That's why they seem so good. But there are major flaws, and things sometimes happened for unexpected reasons.
For example, if you went by the original documents, slavery would have always been permitted (since slaves were property, freeing them would be illegal). Similarly, it's not as if the original documents grant equality to women or to non-whites. On top of all these tradiontal static implications, don't forget that the US govt is not egalitarian. For instance, it stripped Japanese Americans of their property and sent them to camps, both of which are totally illegal under the Constitution. In fact, some people claim the detentions in Guantanomo are not in the spirit of the Constitution either (since people can be locked up forever without any evidence or trial).
Now, consider the seperation of church and state. What happened is a twist of the original intention (I consider this good but that's because I'm an atheist). The original Founders were HEAVILY in favour of religion. If anything, they were hardcore Christians. The reason they wanted to seperate church from state was simply because they didn't want the major religions oppressing the minor ones (like Quakers and stuff). If anything, the original Founders would have been heavily in favour of religion in schools, etc (although not controlled by a major religion perhaps). The people who benefitted from this seperation were atheists/agnostics and scientists. The modern wold has largely been shaped by these people. BUT the original intention was never to let atheism take hold. If anything, people like Jefferson would probably be mad at the modern world (kind of like how Christian Fundamentalists are unhappy). So it is a total fluke that the seperation of church and state turned out the way it did. I'm happy (since I'm an atheist) but I'll bet the original Founders would be quite unpleased...
The US constitution deserves credit... but like all static ideas, it is seriously flawed.
The only problem with the US Constitution is that it lends itself too easily to interpretation through the lens of contemporary culture. Instead of predicting the malicious intent of greedy and insecure people centuries into the future, the forefathers naively assumed that their intent would be upheld; that it would rise above the letter of the law.
Either you are a conservative, or mistaken. What you are referring to is called common law (judges interpret based on the modern environment). This is actually a good thing--a VERY GOOD thing!
If the US constitution and other laws were upheld as originally stated, women will not have equality with men, non-whites will not be equal, slavery would be totally acceptable (freeing slaves would be considered illegal since you are "stealing" the property of someone), etc...
Conservatives would prefer to live in a society like that (in fact many long for the "good old days"). But liberals would be totally against it...
The courts and laws MUST change over time. Humans are dynamic and having a static system will not work. If anything, I would prefer if modern day courts were even more dynamic and spent time deciding what is best rather than what someone wrote a long time ago with no idea of the state of the modern world...
Even in the worse dictatorship you are always free to say whatever you want as long as there is no one to listen to you.
Yep... consider something like modern day China. It is totalitarian and wouldn't put up with political dissent. BUT the VAST majority of Chinese can openly criticize the govt. If you go to restaurants, or coffe shops, or online chat forms, people always criticize the govt. It's just that, these people are unimportant and can be left alone. If you were an activist (who are usually more poweful because they have skills to influence people) that criticized the govt, expect to be charged or jailed.
Remember, which rights did YOU PERSONALLY used to enjoy but no longer can, due to the Patriot Act?
That is the most idiotic way of looking at things. If you know ANYTHING about totalitarianism, you'll know that you personally hardly ever lose any rights. In fact, even through human progress over hundreads of years, you personally probably never again any.
You do realize that the Nazi regime, for example, had "zero" impact on most Germans. Yet here we are in a world that claims they were one of the worst. Let me put it another way... if VAST majority of hte people lost their rights, there would be a revolt overnight. So that never happens. Instead, totalitarians strip away a FEW rights for SOME people at a SLOW pace. If you understand anything about totalitarianism you would understand that. In other words, a typical person will not lose many rights. Those that lose their rights are almost always political dissients. Also, they don't lose ALL their rights or even a majority of them. Instead, they lose a few rights.
To put all this into practice... if *I* wanted to convert USA to a totalitarian govt, I would NOT go around stripping the rights of everyone. In fact, after I'm successful, most people wouldn't notice--that's perfection. What I would do is to strip a few rights from the left and right wings but keep all the centrists/moderates untouched. Most political dissenters are left of left (i.e. left to far-left) or right of right (i.e. right to far-right). Once you eliminate these guys, you are set. The moderates and those close to the center (eg. center-left) usually have weak opinions and can be brainwashed by initiating propaganda (or disinformation) campaigns...
So the question you should ask is not 'what rights did YOU lose?' but rather 'what rights did an American, any American, lose?'
Claiming India is a democracy is an insult to democrats everywhere. India is a kleptocracy, a govt HIGHLY corrupt and serves only the elites. If India is a democracy, Zimbabwe is too...
India is one of the least democratic countries in Asia. This is a country that would let millions starve to death while implementing policies helping the wealthy. This is a country that will lock up political dissidents, censor films, and ban anything threatening to the establishment.
The only reason anyone even considers India to be a "model" democracy is because of US propaganda during the Cold War. USA spent tens of millions--if not more--initiating propaganda campaigns in order to battle the Communists. Needless to say, the "brainwashed" population of the world actually believed it. Now that the Cold War is over, very few consider it to be a democracy. It wouldn't suprise me if the US govt considers the Chinese govt to be more "democratic" than India now.
Socialism is not a totalitarian ideology, nor is capitalism, environmentalism or libertarianism. But you can get people who will turn any ideology into the basis for a totalitarian movement.
I STRONGLY disagree with you (it's a disagreement of semantics but important). Totalitarianism has a particular meaning and you are watering it down. The two closest systems that ever came to totalitarianism is Soviet Communism and Nazism. In particular, the most totalitarian society I can think of in recent memory is East Germany (under Soviet Communism).
I think a particular econopolitcal system can be said to BE or BE NOT totalitarian. I don't think you can say that a system can be turned into one. This is untrue because if you change a system so much that it is totalitarian, it isn't even the original system anymore. For example, liberatarianism is the opposite of authoratarianism (or totalitarianism to a large extent). There is NO WAY you can consider liberatarianism to be totalitarian!!! If liberatarianism is altered to to be totalitarian, it isn't liberatarianism anymore! Similarly, other systems are inherently totalitarian or not.
I don't see how you can consider "eco-terrorism" to be totalitarian. If anything, these guys DON'T want to control other humans! Similarly, I don't think McVeigh is a totalitarian. I am not clear on his ideologies but it just seemed like he was angry and seeking revenge, AND NOT trying to implement a totalitarian system.
Of course, with Ascroft and Bush in power there could be an alternative explanation.
The Bush regime is more interested in IMPERIALISM than TOTALITARIANISM--although most imperialist powers benefit from practicing totalitarianism (ever watch Star Wars?:) )
At this point the US has one true aly left in the whole world, Tony Blair's socialist government in the UK.
Whether you like him or not, Charles de Gaulle said it best: "Countries have no friends; they only have interests". I would actually say that Isreal is the closest ally of USA. You can easily tell this by voting patterns at the UN, where Britain actually votes against USA quite often while USA and Isreal always vote the same. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if Britain does not enter the next Imperialistic war carried out by USA (likely Iran)...
Any one notice that about 100 years ago people stopped refering to the US as a republic and started calling the US a democracy?
This probably has to do with the fact that USA wanted to be the opposite of "Communism". If I remember, USA introduced a whole hoarde of things, including adding the word 'God' to things that did not have it before, banning (or purposely changing) 'Labour Day', etc. This is probably also the last nail in the coffin of state rights (in favour of national govt)...
Ann Coulter is proof that conservative Christians are considered to be perfectly acceptable targets of attack and hatred from the Left.
EVERYONE is a valid target. She goes around worshipping Joe McCarthy; and I go around worshipping Karl Marx. If she kept her mouth shut then she wouldn't be attacked. But as long as she is attacking us, we are going to strike back. I don't know what sort of idiot launches an attack and does not expect any counter-attacks...
And what do we in the moral community do to bring this upon ourselves? Simple. We (gasp!) tell the truth. Truth is a hated commodity indeed when the truth is unpopular. Go, Ann, go!
lol What truth is this? That Joe McCarthy was a great man? That suppressing people's rights and opinions is the American way? That the New York Times editor is a traitor? Those that claim to speak the truth are often the liars!!!
BTW, when did you become moral? Just because you follow some scripture does not make you moral in my eyes. You, the so-called Christian-right, is the most pro-war segment in USA. There is blood dripping from your hands. Your unholy alliance with the Imperialist neocons will result in tens of thousands of innocent deaths. Who is next on your target? Iran?
I don't know about the Christian-Right but there are a lot of conservatives who support McCarthy. McCarthy destroyed communism/socialism/marxism in USA and they worship McCarthy for it. It wouldn't surprise me if these guys also supported John Ashcroft.
I'm going to get flamed for this but considerate and Christian-right do not go together. If anything, the so-called Christian-right is one of the most pro-war crowd in all of Western world.
Ann is my enemy... As far as I'm concerned, Ann is a quasi-fascist. Because of her religious views, I can't tell if she is a neocon or a traditional conservative...
Your journal sucks... no offense:) There is nothing there--you just started it. BTW, is the first comment due to this discussion?:)
Well, if my choice is between a platform whose aim is to try and reduce government and a platform whose aim is to try and increase government (and I realize that is a huge simplification) then I choose the first alternative.
BUT how about things like freedom, which left-leaning parties support to a greater degree? For instance, civil liberties, legalization of drugs, pro-choice (as in abortion), etc are supported by left-leaning parties. Right-leaning parties often crack down on freedoms in the name of national security... See... you are not really a liberatarian; you are liberatarian-right! That's why you (or someone like you) would vote for Republicans.
This seems obvious, and which house will have more value I wonder? I don't see how you can fail to distinguish between skilled and unskilled labor.
I don't understand your view. How do you tell who is a skilled worker? Your definition is unique and I have never heard of it before. Most people just go with the capitalist view, which is primarly based on the value of job (i.e. job classifications). According to your view, everyone is a skilled worker (once they gain experience). Isn't that correct?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:What have you done to discuss gov. corruption?2
on
TIA Project to End
·
· Score: 1
I don't think you're anti-American, just misinformed.
What's the difference? Don't those that throw around the 'anti-American' label consider others to be misinformed?
What I meant was, this is a conversation that cannot be resolved in this forum and will create an endless string of replies and counter-replies.
One of us will win:)... Anyway, if you don't feel like responding or you get tired, don't reply. I'm cool with that... The messages ARE getting LONG.. you could write a book from these:)
Anti-Americanism only means something if you believe that- A. America is something special or deserves special regard, or B. America is somehow specially persecuted or criticized. This is similar to "Anti-Israeli". If you don't believe either of the two, then it just means, you don't like America, or more specifically, the US.
I don't really understand what you are saying there. Are you saying someone who doesn't like USA is anti-American? Or is it someone who doesn't regard USA as special or criticizes it? In addition, can an American be anti-American? If yes, who determines who is or isn't "American"? The government? (note: I'm not American but just asking)...
If they were against an involvement, why did we get unanimous consent in the Security Council on a very strongly worded condemnation of Iraq's actions in UN resolution 1441?
Very few people would consider that sufficient to start a war. Yes, wars have been started with far less but in those cases, you are clearly breaking the rules. For instance, USA invaded Panama (circa 1991(?)) without any authorization at all. No one needs authorization to start wars. Countries like USA, USSR, and China have demonstrated that. However, all those countries are breaking international rules. USA did that with Iraq.
This reminds me of the current Presidential hopefuls fielded by the Democrat Party (who are anything but Democratic) who voted for authority for President Bush to attack Saddam, but then later criticized him and said they didn't want this to happen.
The US Democratic Party and the Republicans are different sides of the same coin. It's just too bad that Americans don't realize that the Democrats aren't what they seem to be. For instance, Democrats, just like Republicans, are in bed with corporations, run by elites, are Imperialists, etc. Having said that, Dean and Kucincinch(sp?) both opposed the war from the beginning; the rest of the field are a bunch of hypocrites. Wesley Clark, for instance, isn't even a Democrat! If there was a Republican opening, I"ll bet he would have run for that!
The UN themselves said that Iraq had WMD.
The UN never said such a thing. It said that there are things unaccounted for and that's why you had the weapons inspectors. No one, including Hans Blix, knew whether Iraq had WMD. It seems that you, along with the Bush administration, are the only ones that believes that.
The inspectors left themselves after they realized that action would not continue to be stalled against Iraq continuing to block inspections as they had for over ten years. The US didn't "kick out the weapons inspectors".
USA (and Britain) kicked out the weapons inspectors both times. This year (before the war) and a few years ago before the big bombing campaign. I really don't know where you get the idea that the inspectors left by themselves. The UN does not withdraw its insepctors, especially when things are unaccounted for. The UN asked for more time, USA said 'no...leave now' and that was that...
Though I realize it will likely happen at some point in the future, interestingly enough we have not had another major terrorist attack since September 11, 2001.
Roughly, Al-Qaida attacks have a period of 2 years or so. If you look at their past (embassy bombings, Yemen ship, WTC, 9/11), they attack every few years.
Actually, there was no such thing as a "Libertarian" then, so it's kind of tough to argue.
True. Liberatarianism didn't exist back then. In fact, people only started used that word in the 1900's (well after that period). BUT if we go by the present day econopolitical classification of systems, I think one CAN argue one way or the other. It's sort of like capitalism. In the 1700's and 1800's, there was no such thing as capitalism--at least people didn't call it that. People simply considered capitalism to be nature and the only system around. But after Marx's works, we developed the notion that capitalism DID exist in the 1800's. No one called it that back then but by our modern day classifications, it IS capitalism. Same thing here...
But at least I'm not totally rewriting what they intended as the politicians have been doing basically since the days of Lincoln.
This was inevitable. I consider the original US constitution to be extremely liberal (at that time). But things progress over time and hence requires changes. For instance, liberalism would have forced (assuming liberalism triumphs) the original laws to be changed so that equality for women, non-whites, etc are incorporated. The only way it wouldn't have, is if conseratives win--which rarely happens in the long term.
In Marx's writings he made it clear that labor added value to material, but he did not distinguish between skilled and unskilled labor.
*I* don't distinguish between the two either. Do you really think there is a difference? I personally claim that the difference is due to elitism that is propagated by capitalists. For example, what exactly is skilled labour today? Would a sports athlete making millions be considered skilled work? How about a movie star? How about a factory worker? How about a firefighter? How about the garbageperson? I personally don't see any difference between them. I guess one would argue that a movie star is 100x more skilled that a firefighter (due to their differeing compensations and higher competition) but I don't see any difference. I suspect you dont' agree with my views:)
I don't think the Free Software movement is necessarily for or against capitalism.
I don't know if it is against capitatlism but it is definitely a competing system. There is very little for-profit motive in Free Software. This is not to say that you can't make money off Free Software or that it is free as in money (it isn't). But the motive isn't profit. The motive is freedom. In contrast, the motive under capitalism is profit (every single minute of a capitalist's life is spent worrying about profit;) )...
Just one last thing that bothered me a bit. Why is it your (i.e. the non-US definition> definition that I have to achieve compatibility with?
Because the American definition is not general and is not the World-view. I would prefer if Americans went with the general view, which is older and more general. You don't HAVE to change but I suggest that you do... this is like me saying that the metric measurement system is more general and widely accepted than the Imperial system. You don't HAVE to change the Imperial system, but I suggest that you do:)
I also have a few other minor issues with the US view of liberatarianism. For instance, MOST American liberatarians do NOT consider any of the leftist branches to be liberatarian. In other words, most American liberatarians only consider liberatarian-right (aka liberatarian/conserative) to be liberatarian. This is quite evident when you look at the US political system. The US Liberatarian Party is pretty much liberatarian-right. Most liberatarians who run for office actually end up running or supporting the Republicans. In essence, Americans do not consider anything related to anarchism to be liberatarian, which IMO is wrong...
Of course the sort of Libertarianism I talk about is U.S. centric, that's where I'm from after all.
That is what I don';t like. Liberatarians in USA have their own definition which is somewhat incompatible with the rest of the world. Liberatarianism didn't start with US independence. For instance, you claim Jefferson is a liberatarian (partly he was). But he is mostly a (classical) liberal. He was mostly interested in empowering people (and eliminating the monarchy) more so than the liberatarian notion of "self-rule". Anyway, this is a debatable point because a liberal that stands still becomes a conservative. If Jefferson lived today and held the same views, he wouldn't be liberal at all--I don't think he would be a liberatarian either (although he would support some elements of it).
In Marxist communism an item's value is based on its material worth and skilled workmanship/labor contributes no more added value than unskilled workmanship/labor does. Open-source says the opposite, code in and of itself has no value until a skilled individual makes it useful.
I think you are wrong about Marx's views. Under Marxism/communism/socialism/trokyism, labour is what is valued; Property or the underlying materials are not valued. So Free Software is closer to socialism than anything.
I guess we can agree on one thing: Free Software is not capitalism--or do you disagree?
Anarchism IS a liberatarian system. It is sometimes called liberatarian socialism. This is in contrast with liberatarian-right, such as anarcho-capitalism. Most liberatarians in USA are liberatarian-right and like to distance themselves from all other liberatarian systems. The link that you listed, although accurate, is dealing with the US view of liberatarianism. For instance, if you look at the history page, it basically starts with US independence. The reality is that, liberatarianism is much older and has a slightly different meaning in the rest of the world. The American liberatarian view does not even consider any aspect of the left to be part of it--which is incorrect. Check out this link:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
I think you are overlooking the root philosophy of anarchism. Anarchism isn't against government, per se; Rather, it is against AUTHORITY. It just so happens that government is the biggest authority around in most societies (ignoring dictators, mafia lords, etc). Also, anarchists aren't against any rules or social institutions, and the like. You can have the same thing, say a social institution like school or a tax, under anarchism. The difference is that these must be VOLUNTARY. Most anarchists are perfectly ok with rules as long as they are voluntary (this is in contrast with the modern world, where rules are forced upon you via some authority). What does this have to do with what we are talking about?
There are two things you are overlooking, with respect to Free Software:
1. Free Software is partly socialist (I'll explain later)
2. There is very little authority of any sort involved in any of this
Free Software has elements of socialism. Perhaps GPL itself is not socialist. BUT when you add GPL+open source, you end up with socialist elements. For instance, the vast majority of Free Software are developed by many people. It is inherently socialist, with very strong communal elements. It is also "free" in the sense that it isn't owned by anyone. Sure, the software belongs to the copyright holder(s). However, ANYONE has access to it (often for free or very low cost). *I* may develop something but you can come and fork a project off mine. This basically implies a notion of common ownership. I still get credit for it; my name will still be all over the software (wherever the copyright notices are); but I don't really EXCLUSIVELY "own" it.
The way I look at it... GPL=liberatarian, open-source=socialism, Free Software=anarchism+socialism
I don't see how you can consider Free Software to be liberatarian (alone) when it has strong elements of socialism, particularly the communal aspects.
Htichcock was popular.. no doubt about that... Kubrick was not. None of the films you listed were commercial successes. Even 2001:ASO, generally considered one of the top sci-fi films, was a bust by all accounts. Those films may have made money now (after VHS and DVD sales/rentals). But their theatrical run were hardly commercial successes...
I agree with your view for the most part... Here are some nitpickings:)
It can also be considered a reaction to the oppression of workers...
Capitalism is clearly not a reaction to the oppression of workers. If anything, it is the opposite. It is the owners that attempt to further capitalism, while the workers attempt to shun it. Capitalism is nothing more than remnants of the past, particularly merchantilism. It's simply a system that evolved from elitism of the past.
One more thing, command economies, on certain scales, are very efficient. That is why major companies use them.
You are correct in saying that command economies are efficient. In fact, they are the most efficient of all. The problem, however, is that you need to be able to OPTIMALLY allocate resources. Clearly the so-called Communist countries never were able to. This is plausible given that we can't even predict the consumption of one good (how do you expect to predict millions of products with millions of consumers?). Clearly humans aren't ready for it. Our technology isn't there; our science isn't there; and out "intelligence" isn't either.
Having said that, I disagree with your view that corporations (such as MS) attempt to use command economy because it is efficient. I think MS, for example, uses command economies because it is attempting to MONOPOLIZE the industry. Monopolies, as you likely know, are the MOST PROFITABLE for the corporation. It is in their interest to create monopolies (in contrast, consumers are worst off under monopolies). So I think corporations use command economies, not because they are efficient, but because it allows them to monopolize the industry.
What is open source software? I would say it is a mix of capitalism and socialism, similar to mixed economies like Europe and Canada. There is the communal, work-for-free, help others aspect of socialism while still retaining the competitive, for-profit motive. Free Software, on the other hand, is different.
What is Free Software? As you pointed out, it isn't really communist (no central authority controls it; people can choose to modify/use/delete software; etc). It isn't capitalist (if anything, it is the furthest thing from it). I think Free Software is a cross between anarchism and socialism. It's socialist for the reasons mentioned above (for open source software). Anarchism is something that no one talks about but Free Software has strong elements of that. It is anarchist because Free Software does not bound you to many conditions. In fact, it removes the most conditions when compared to other types of software. You can do SO MUCH more with Free Software than with other types.
So Free Software is 70% anarchist and 30% socialist.
Dances with Wolves was a great film. It's too bad you don't see its greatness.
Hitchcock should have won but I don't know why he didn't (perhaps his films were all genre films, which some people don't value). As far as Kubrick and Kurosawa are concerned, I really can't see them winning. Oscars are about MAINSTREAM films. Artistic films never win Oscars. As much as I love artistic films over mainstream ones, I have to admit that the mainstream awards like Oscars is more in line with the general population. For instance, hardly anyone (outside the hardcore movie fan base) has heard of Kubrick (who has zero awards). In contrast, they have heard of Spielberg (who has awards).
That's the way things are...and I don't see it changing.
Some people in Hollywood ARE geniuses. Perhaps not in science but in art they are. Unless you don't value art as worthy of anything (a weak proposition), some filmmakers should be considered as important as others. Nowadays, films can shape humans as much as books used to...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Re:What have you done to discuss gov. corruption?2
on
TIA Project to End
·
· Score: 1
Thanks for fixing the HTML message. I saw the first one and I was thinking that I had to "decode" it into legible language but:)
This is just flame-bait anyway, but here-goes-...
Whose message is flamebait? Mine or yours? I suppose you consider me anti-American but that's ok with me. As Noam Chomsky once remarked, calling someone anti-American is a trait of totalitarian regimes. That's what the Soviets and the Nazis used to use. The Soviets wouldn't call you anti-Communist, they would call you anti-Soviet! It is almost unheard of in democracy-like countries. Ever heard anyone say anti-Canadian? Anti-German? Anti-Chinese?
Counterpoint: We negotiated for months, even years through the UN. Saddam broke every treaty every time. There was little hope of overcoming this through negotiation. Saddam defied the International Community, the UN, and the US.
The point isn't the "negotiations" (BTW, your so-called negotiation is nothing more than gunpoint diplomacy). The point isn't even that Saddam is a dictator (which I'm sure we all agree). The real question is: what gives YOU the authority in invade another country unilaterally? You attempt to legitimize it by involving the international community and the UN, but they were against an involvement. Only around 20 countries supported the invasion and many of them only did so under US bribes (that's why they are all little countries).
On top of all this, there wasn't even any evidence Iraq had WMD. USA was the one that kicked out the weapons inspectors. Now, even they can't find it.
Your support of unilateral pre-emptive strikes will further destabilize the world. I suppose that is ok with you... And Rumsfeld's notion that the front on terror is in Iraq is utter nonsense. Wait until Al-Qaida strikes USA or some other (non-Iraqi) target. Then we'll see how central Iraq is to the "war" on terror.
The problem is that terrorists and former Iraqi militants disguise themselves as civilians and fire at troops from public crowds. This is a dispicable act, and yes, mistakes are made and civilians are killed. Comparitively, though, the numbers are very small. We're talking about around a quarter-million troops and a country of several million. There were casualties before the war even began due to accidents on the side of the US. Casualties will happen. However, is this worse or better than hundreds of thousands killed under Saddam's rule?
Yes, the "coalition" enemies are camouflaged. Is this anything new? They are waging a guerilla war (in addition to a bunch of terrorists waging a terrorist campaign). You can't excuse yourself for that. Did you even read my article that I referenced? There are thousands of Iraqis dying (almost hundreads in a week--not due to US troops but also due to rampant crime). I suggest that you lay off the mainstream media, which has stopped covering the Iraq war to a large extent.
As far as Saddam Hussein killing people, I don't think he killed HUNDREADS of thousands of people (it's more like TENS of thousands). Of course, when Turkey was killing the Kurds with US weapons, I don't know where you were. In any case, getting rid of Saddam was a GOOD THING. However, teh means to achieve it (ie. launching massive pre-emptive unilateral action against international norms) is not worth it. Rather let tyrants rule than create a world where pre-emptive strikes can be used by anyone. You do realize that if China invaded Tibet today, it would be perfectly "legitimate" due to US actions right?
The United States has a pretty good record with its efforts to help rebuild nations.
Let's see... since WWII... Guatemala... El Salvador... Chile... Iraq... Panama... Afghanistan... Nicaragua... Vietnam... hmm, I think I see how successful rebuilding has been. USA certainly has a lot of credibility;|
There are daily protests, but it is largely due to many not having jobs. Electricity is flow
Slashdot Mirror
A government will only keep something secret if the cost of it being revealed is not high enough to bring them down. This is the same strategy used by corporations. Corporations will purposely enter into unethical and illegal activities as long as the payoff is high enough, given the risk. An example would be a corporation choosing to hire organized criminals (such as mafia) to do work for them, or to carry out espionage on their competitors. These things happen on a regular basis yet they are never caught (because they only enter into deals where they cannot be caught easily).
Governments behave the same way. If they can get away with it, or if the benefit of hiding something is high, they will do it. However, unlike corporations, governments are scrutinized to a greater degree (at least in developed countries) so it is hard to get away with much. This is why governments always attempt to use agents (eg. CIA, NSA, Secret Service, etc) to carry out their illegal activities.
So... I don't think a government will cover up a terrorist attack on electricty infrastructure. The benefit of covering that up is too low and the risk of someone revealing it is too high. But a govt is more likely to cover up say a terrorist attack on food supply.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The last blackout in Toronto resulted in a few deaths. I believe some people died in car accidents, and a few other physically disabled people died too.
I COMPLETELY disagree with your assertion that people are beocming more resistant as technology increases. If anything, it is the complete opposite. People's lives are more seriously affected now than ever. Someone like Usama bin Laden can cause FAR more damage by hitting the elctricity or water infrastructure than by blowing up buildings (of course, Al-Qaida doesn't target economic targets so that's unlikey). The damage from electricity shortage can easily run up into hundreads of millions of dollars. Fortunately, most blackouts only last a few hours, or a few days (at worst). If it lasts one month, I'll bet a major city will rack up $1billion in losses.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Provided that there is competition, which does not seem to exist now. So the problem is rather (over)regulation raising the entry barrier, than free markets.
I just love how capitalists always blame regulation for everything. I hope you guys get it through your heads one day--although I suspect you people never will. There will ONLY be 3 or 4 companies involved in electricity generation REGARDLESS of what you do. The reason is because it is TOO EXPENSIVE to build the power plants (i.e. need lots of capital). So no matter what you do, you will only have a few companies. This is just like airline manufacturing, where it is difficult for anyone to enter because capital costs are high. How many new companies will start competing with Boeing and Airbus? Very few, regardless of what governments do.
Needless to say, once a company enters the market, it attempts to monoplize the market (since that generates the highest profits). Unlike many other markets, companies in energy markets are able to erect high barriers to entry easily (mostly by hoarding a resource, such as natural gas or a lake/hydro dam).
Sivaram Velauthapillai
A common first right to go is the ability of private citizens to be armed... Since a revolt by unarmed people against a well armed army is unlikely to be sucessful.
I guess you are a gun-rights supporter. I personally don't think it helps. At one time, it may have helped (say 200 years ago). But nowadays, it is not very helpful. The reason is due to the massive difference in strength between the military and the people. Even the best armed militia in USA is no match for the US military, for example. How much would guns really help?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I have nothing but respect for the people who drafted the United States constitution -- it is a truly remarkable document.
Americans did two things right: one is the US constitution. I agree that it is good. However, I don't give it the same amount of praise as you. The constitution (as well as all laws) were radical at that time. That's why they seem so good. But there are major flaws, and things sometimes happened for unexpected reasons.
For example, if you went by the original documents, slavery would have always been permitted (since slaves were property, freeing them would be illegal). Similarly, it's not as if the original documents grant equality to women or to non-whites. On top of all these tradiontal static implications, don't forget that the US govt is not egalitarian. For instance, it stripped Japanese Americans of their property and sent them to camps, both of which are totally illegal under the Constitution. In fact, some people claim the detentions in Guantanomo are not in the spirit of the Constitution either (since people can be locked up forever without any evidence or trial).
Now, consider the seperation of church and state. What happened is a twist of the original intention (I consider this good but that's because I'm an atheist). The original Founders were HEAVILY in favour of religion. If anything, they were hardcore Christians. The reason they wanted to seperate church from state was simply because they didn't want the major religions oppressing the minor ones (like Quakers and stuff). If anything, the original Founders would have been heavily in favour of religion in schools, etc (although not controlled by a major religion perhaps). The people who benefitted from this seperation were atheists/agnostics and scientists. The modern wold has largely been shaped by these people. BUT the original intention was never to let atheism take hold. If anything, people like Jefferson would probably be mad at the modern world (kind of like how Christian Fundamentalists are unhappy). So it is a total fluke that the seperation of church and state turned out the way it did. I'm happy (since I'm an atheist) but I'll bet the original Founders would be quite unpleased...
The US constitution deserves credit... but like all static ideas, it is seriously flawed.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
The only problem with the US Constitution is that it lends itself too easily to interpretation through the lens of contemporary culture. Instead of predicting the malicious intent of greedy and insecure people centuries into the future, the forefathers naively assumed that their intent would be upheld; that it would rise above the letter of the law.
Either you are a conservative, or mistaken. What you are referring to is called common law (judges interpret based on the modern environment). This is actually a good thing--a VERY GOOD thing!
If the US constitution and other laws were upheld as originally stated, women will not have equality with men, non-whites will not be equal, slavery would be totally acceptable (freeing slaves would be considered illegal since you are "stealing" the property of someone), etc...
Conservatives would prefer to live in a society like that (in fact many long for the "good old days"). But liberals would be totally against it...
The courts and laws MUST change over time. Humans are dynamic and having a static system will not work. If anything, I would prefer if modern day courts were even more dynamic and spent time deciding what is best rather than what someone wrote a long time ago with no idea of the state of the modern world...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Even in the worse dictatorship you are always free to say whatever you want as long as there is no one to listen to you.
Yep... consider something like modern day China. It is totalitarian and wouldn't put up with political dissent. BUT the VAST majority of Chinese can openly criticize the govt. If you go to restaurants, or coffe shops, or online chat forms, people always criticize the govt. It's just that, these people are unimportant and can be left alone. If you were an activist (who are usually more poweful because they have skills to influence people) that criticized the govt, expect to be charged or jailed.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Remember, which rights did YOU PERSONALLY used to enjoy but no longer can, due to the Patriot Act?
That is the most idiotic way of looking at things. If you know ANYTHING about totalitarianism, you'll know that you personally hardly ever lose any rights. In fact, even through human progress over hundreads of years, you personally probably never again any.
You do realize that the Nazi regime, for example, had "zero" impact on most Germans. Yet here we are in a world that claims they were one of the worst. Let me put it another way... if VAST majority of hte people lost their rights, there would be a revolt overnight. So that never happens. Instead, totalitarians strip away a FEW rights for SOME people at a SLOW pace. If you understand anything about totalitarianism you would understand that. In other words, a typical person will not lose many rights. Those that lose their rights are almost always political dissients. Also, they don't lose ALL their rights or even a majority of them. Instead, they lose a few rights.
To put all this into practice... if *I* wanted to convert USA to a totalitarian govt, I would NOT go around stripping the rights of everyone. In fact, after I'm successful, most people wouldn't notice--that's perfection. What I would do is to strip a few rights from the left and right wings but keep all the centrists/moderates untouched. Most political dissenters are left of left (i.e. left to far-left) or right of right (i.e. right to far-right). Once you eliminate these guys, you are set. The moderates and those close to the center (eg. center-left) usually have weak opinions and can be brainwashed by initiating propaganda (or disinformation) campaigns...
So the question you should ask is not 'what rights did YOU lose?' but rather 'what rights did an American, any American, lose?'
Sivaram Velauthapillai
So communism is more corrupt than fascism? Who wants to bet this guy is a right-winger dreaming of the "good old times"?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Claiming India is a democracy is an insult to democrats everywhere. India is a kleptocracy, a govt HIGHLY corrupt and serves only the elites. If India is a democracy, Zimbabwe is too...
India is one of the least democratic countries in Asia. This is a country that would let millions starve to death while implementing policies helping the wealthy. This is a country that will lock up political dissidents, censor films, and ban anything threatening to the establishment.
The only reason anyone even considers India to be a "model" democracy is because of US propaganda during the Cold War. USA spent tens of millions--if not more--initiating propaganda campaigns in order to battle the Communists. Needless to say, the "brainwashed" population of the world actually believed it. Now that the Cold War is over, very few consider it to be a democracy. It wouldn't suprise me if the US govt considers the Chinese govt to be more "democratic" than India now.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Socialism is not a totalitarian ideology, nor is capitalism, environmentalism or libertarianism. But you can get people who will turn any ideology into the basis for a totalitarian movement.
:) )
I STRONGLY disagree with you (it's a disagreement of semantics but important). Totalitarianism has a particular meaning and you are watering it down. The two closest systems that ever came to totalitarianism is Soviet Communism and Nazism. In particular, the most totalitarian society I can think of in recent memory is East Germany (under Soviet Communism).
I think a particular econopolitcal system can be said to BE or BE NOT totalitarian. I don't think you can say that a system can be turned into one. This is untrue because if you change a system so much that it is totalitarian, it isn't even the original system anymore. For example, liberatarianism is the opposite of authoratarianism (or totalitarianism to a large extent). There is NO WAY you can consider liberatarianism to be totalitarian!!! If liberatarianism is altered to to be totalitarian, it isn't liberatarianism anymore! Similarly, other systems are inherently totalitarian or not.
I don't see how you can consider "eco-terrorism" to be totalitarian. If anything, these guys DON'T want to control other humans! Similarly, I don't think McVeigh is a totalitarian. I am not clear on his ideologies but it just seemed like he was angry and seeking revenge, AND NOT trying to implement a totalitarian system.
Of course, with Ascroft and Bush in power there could be an alternative explanation.
The Bush regime is more interested in IMPERIALISM than TOTALITARIANISM--although most imperialist powers benefit from practicing totalitarianism (ever watch Star Wars?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
At this point the US has one true aly left in the whole world, Tony Blair's socialist government in the UK.
Whether you like him or not, Charles de Gaulle said it best: "Countries have no friends; they only have interests". I would actually say that Isreal is the closest ally of USA. You can easily tell this by voting patterns at the UN, where Britain actually votes against USA quite often while USA and Isreal always vote the same. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if Britain does not enter the next Imperialistic war carried out by USA (likely Iran)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Any one notice that about 100 years ago people stopped refering to the US as a republic and started calling the US a democracy?
This probably has to do with the fact that USA wanted to be the opposite of "Communism". If I remember, USA introduced a whole hoarde of things, including adding the word 'God' to things that did not have it before, banning (or purposely changing) 'Labour Day', etc. This is probably also the last nail in the coffin of state rights (in favour of national govt)...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Ann Coulter is proof that conservative Christians are considered to be perfectly acceptable targets of attack and hatred from the Left.
EVERYONE is a valid target. She goes around worshipping Joe McCarthy; and I go around worshipping Karl Marx. If she kept her mouth shut then she wouldn't be attacked. But as long as she is attacking us, we are going to strike back. I don't know what sort of idiot launches an attack and does not expect any counter-attacks...
And what do we in the moral community do to bring this upon ourselves? Simple. We (gasp!) tell the truth. Truth is a hated commodity indeed when the truth is unpopular. Go, Ann, go!
lol What truth is this? That Joe McCarthy was a great man? That suppressing people's rights and opinions is the American way? That the New York Times editor is a traitor? Those that claim to speak the truth are often the liars!!!
BTW, when did you become moral? Just because you follow some scripture does not make you moral in my eyes. You, the so-called Christian-right, is the most pro-war segment in USA. There is blood dripping from your hands. Your unholy alliance with the Imperialist neocons will result in tens of thousands of innocent deaths. Who is next on your target? Iran?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't know about the Christian-Right but there are a lot of conservatives who support McCarthy. McCarthy destroyed communism/socialism/marxism in USA and they worship McCarthy for it. It wouldn't surprise me if these guys also supported John Ashcroft.
I'm going to get flamed for this but considerate and Christian-right do not go together. If anything, the so-called Christian-right is one of the most pro-war crowd in all of Western world.
Ann is my enemy... As far as I'm concerned, Ann is a quasi-fascist. Because of her religious views, I can't tell if she is a neocon or a traditional conservative...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Your journal sucks... no offense :) There is nothing there--you just started it. BTW, is the first comment due to this discussion? :)
Well, if my choice is between a platform whose aim is to try and reduce government and a platform whose aim is to try and increase government (and I realize that is a huge simplification) then I choose the first alternative.
BUT how about things like freedom, which left-leaning parties support to a greater degree? For instance, civil liberties, legalization of drugs, pro-choice (as in abortion), etc are supported by left-leaning parties. Right-leaning parties often crack down on freedoms in the name of national security... See... you are not really a liberatarian; you are liberatarian-right! That's why you (or someone like you) would vote for Republicans.
This seems obvious, and which house will have more value I wonder? I don't see how you can fail to distinguish between skilled and unskilled labor.
I don't understand your view. How do you tell who is a skilled worker? Your definition is unique and I have never heard of it before. Most people just go with the capitalist view, which is primarly based on the value of job (i.e. job classifications). According to your view, everyone is a skilled worker (once they gain experience). Isn't that correct?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I don't think you're anti-American, just misinformed.
:) ... Anyway, if you don't feel like responding or you get tired, don't reply. I'm cool with that... The messages ARE getting LONG.. you could write a book from these :)
What's the difference? Don't those that throw around the 'anti-American' label consider others to be misinformed?
What I meant was, this is a conversation that cannot be resolved in this forum and will create an endless string of replies and counter-replies.
One of us will win
Anti-Americanism only means something if you believe that- A. America is something special or deserves special regard, or B. America is somehow specially persecuted or criticized. This is similar to "Anti-Israeli". If you don't believe either of the two, then it just means, you don't like America, or more specifically, the US.
I don't really understand what you are saying there. Are you saying someone who doesn't like USA is anti-American? Or is it someone who doesn't regard USA as special or criticizes it? In addition, can an American be anti-American? If yes, who determines who is or isn't "American"? The government? (note: I'm not American but just asking)...
If they were against an involvement, why did we get unanimous consent in the Security Council on a very strongly worded condemnation of Iraq's actions in UN resolution 1441?
Very few people would consider that sufficient to start a war. Yes, wars have been started with far less but in those cases, you are clearly breaking the rules. For instance, USA invaded Panama (circa 1991(?)) without any authorization at all. No one needs authorization to start wars. Countries like USA, USSR, and China have demonstrated that. However, all those countries are breaking international rules. USA did that with Iraq.
This reminds me of the current Presidential hopefuls fielded by the Democrat Party (who are anything but Democratic) who voted for authority for President Bush to attack Saddam, but then later criticized him and said they didn't want this to happen.
The US Democratic Party and the Republicans are different sides of the same coin. It's just too bad that Americans don't realize that the Democrats aren't what they seem to be. For instance, Democrats, just like Republicans, are in bed with corporations, run by elites, are Imperialists, etc. Having said that, Dean and Kucincinch(sp?) both opposed the war from the beginning; the rest of the field are a bunch of hypocrites. Wesley Clark, for instance, isn't even a Democrat! If there was a Republican opening, I"ll bet he would have run for that!
The UN themselves said that Iraq had WMD.
The UN never said such a thing. It said that there are things unaccounted for and that's why you had the weapons inspectors. No one, including Hans Blix, knew whether Iraq had WMD. It seems that you, along with the Bush administration, are the only ones that believes that.
The inspectors left themselves after they realized that action would not continue to be stalled against Iraq continuing to block inspections as they had for over ten years. The US didn't "kick out the weapons inspectors".
USA (and Britain) kicked out the weapons inspectors both times. This year (before the war) and a few years ago before the big bombing campaign. I really don't know where you get the idea that the inspectors left by themselves. The UN does not withdraw its insepctors, especially when things are unaccounted for. The UN asked for more time, USA said 'no...leave now' and that was that...
Though I realize it will likely happen at some point in the future, interestingly enough we have not had another major terrorist attack since September 11, 2001.
Roughly, Al-Qaida attacks have a period of 2 years or so. If you look at their past (embassy bombings, Yemen ship, WTC, 9/11), they attack every few years.
Actually, there was no such thing as a "Libertarian" then, so it's kind of tough to argue.
:)
;) )...
:)
True. Liberatarianism didn't exist back then. In fact, people only started used that word in the 1900's (well after that period). BUT if we go by the present day econopolitical classification of systems, I think one CAN argue one way or the other. It's sort of like capitalism. In the 1700's and 1800's, there was no such thing as capitalism--at least people didn't call it that. People simply considered capitalism to be nature and the only system around. But after Marx's works, we developed the notion that capitalism DID exist in the 1800's. No one called it that back then but by our modern day classifications, it IS capitalism. Same thing here...
But at least I'm not totally rewriting what they intended as the politicians have been doing basically since the days of Lincoln.
This was inevitable. I consider the original US constitution to be extremely liberal (at that time). But things progress over time and hence requires changes. For instance, liberalism would have forced (assuming liberalism triumphs) the original laws to be changed so that equality for women, non-whites, etc are incorporated. The only way it wouldn't have, is if conseratives win--which rarely happens in the long term.
In Marx's writings he made it clear that labor added value to material, but he did not distinguish between skilled and unskilled labor.
*I* don't distinguish between the two either. Do you really think there is a difference? I personally claim that the difference is due to elitism that is propagated by capitalists. For example, what exactly is skilled labour today? Would a sports athlete making millions be considered skilled work? How about a movie star? How about a factory worker? How about a firefighter? How about the garbageperson? I personally don't see any difference between them. I guess one would argue that a movie star is 100x more skilled that a firefighter (due to their differeing compensations and higher competition) but I don't see any difference. I suspect you dont' agree with my views
I don't think the Free Software movement is necessarily for or against capitalism.
I don't know if it is against capitatlism but it is definitely a competing system. There is very little for-profit motive in Free Software. This is not to say that you can't make money off Free Software or that it is free as in money (it isn't). But the motive isn't profit. The motive is freedom. In contrast, the motive under capitalism is profit (every single minute of a capitalist's life is spent worrying about profit
Just one last thing that bothered me a bit. Why is it your (i.e. the non-US definition> definition that I have to achieve compatibility with?
Because the American definition is not general and is not the World-view. I would prefer if Americans went with the general view, which is older and more general. You don't HAVE to change but I suggest that you do... this is like me saying that the metric measurement system is more general and widely accepted than the Imperial system. You don't HAVE to change the Imperial system, but I suggest that you do
I also have a few other minor issues with the US view of liberatarianism. For instance, MOST American liberatarians do NOT consider any of the leftist branches to be liberatarian. In other words, most American liberatarians only consider liberatarian-right (aka liberatarian/conserative) to be liberatarian. This is quite evident when you look at the US political system. The US Liberatarian Party is pretty much liberatarian-right. Most liberatarians who run for office actually end up running or supporting the Republicans. In essence, Americans do not consider anything related to anarchism to be liberatarian, which IMO is wrong...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Of course the sort of Libertarianism I talk about is U.S. centric, that's where I'm from after all.
That is what I don';t like. Liberatarians in USA have their own definition which is somewhat incompatible with the rest of the world. Liberatarianism didn't start with US independence. For instance, you claim Jefferson is a liberatarian (partly he was). But he is mostly a (classical) liberal. He was mostly interested in empowering people (and eliminating the monarchy) more so than the liberatarian notion of "self-rule". Anyway, this is a debatable point because a liberal that stands still becomes a conservative. If Jefferson lived today and held the same views, he wouldn't be liberal at all--I don't think he would be a liberatarian either (although he would support some elements of it).
In Marxist communism an item's value is based on its material worth and skilled workmanship/labor contributes no more added value than unskilled workmanship/labor does. Open-source says the opposite, code in and of itself has no value until a skilled individual makes it useful.
I think you are wrong about Marx's views. Under Marxism/communism/socialism/trokyism, labour is what is valued; Property or the underlying materials are not valued. So Free Software is closer to socialism than anything.
I guess we can agree on one thing: Free Software is not capitalism--or do you disagree?
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Anarchism IS a liberatarian system. It is sometimes called liberatarian socialism. This is in contrast with liberatarian-right, such as anarcho-capitalism. Most liberatarians in USA are liberatarian-right and like to distance themselves from all other liberatarian systems. The link that you listed, although accurate, is dealing with the US view of liberatarianism. For instance, if you look at the history page, it basically starts with US independence. The reality is that, liberatarianism is much older and has a slightly different meaning in the rest of the world. The American liberatarian view does not even consider any aspect of the left to be part of it--which is incorrect. Check out this link:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
I think you are overlooking the root philosophy of anarchism. Anarchism isn't against government, per se; Rather, it is against AUTHORITY. It just so happens that government is the biggest authority around in most societies (ignoring dictators, mafia lords, etc). Also, anarchists aren't against any rules or social institutions, and the like. You can have the same thing, say a social institution like school or a tax, under anarchism. The difference is that these must be VOLUNTARY. Most anarchists are perfectly ok with rules as long as they are voluntary (this is in contrast with the modern world, where rules are forced upon you via some authority). What does this have to do with what we are talking about?
There are two things you are overlooking, with respect to Free Software:
1. Free Software is partly socialist (I'll explain later)
2. There is very little authority of any sort involved in any of this
Free Software has elements of socialism. Perhaps GPL itself is not socialist. BUT when you add GPL+open source, you end up with socialist elements. For instance, the vast majority of Free Software are developed by many people. It is inherently socialist, with very strong communal elements. It is also "free" in the sense that it isn't owned by anyone. Sure, the software belongs to the copyright holder(s). However, ANYONE has access to it (often for free or very low cost). *I* may develop something but you can come and fork a project off mine. This basically implies a notion of common ownership. I still get credit for it; my name will still be all over the software (wherever the copyright notices are); but I don't really EXCLUSIVELY "own" it.
The way I look at it... GPL=liberatarian, open-source=socialism, Free Software=anarchism+socialism
I don't see how you can consider Free Software to be liberatarian (alone) when it has strong elements of socialism, particularly the communal aspects.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Htichcock was popular.. no doubt about that... Kubrick was not. None of the films you listed were commercial successes. Even 2001:ASO, generally considered one of the top sci-fi films, was a bust by all accounts. Those films may have made money now (after VHS and DVD sales/rentals). But their theatrical run were hardly commercial successes...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
I agree with your view for the most part... Here are some nitpickings :)
It can also be considered a reaction to the oppression of workers...
Capitalism is clearly not a reaction to the oppression of workers. If anything, it is the opposite. It is the owners that attempt to further capitalism, while the workers attempt to shun it. Capitalism is nothing more than remnants of the past, particularly merchantilism. It's simply a system that evolved from elitism of the past.
One more thing, command economies, on certain scales, are very efficient. That is why major companies use them.
You are correct in saying that command economies are efficient. In fact, they are the most efficient of all. The problem, however, is that you need to be able to OPTIMALLY allocate resources. Clearly the so-called Communist countries never were able to. This is plausible given that we can't even predict the consumption of one good (how do you expect to predict millions of products with millions of consumers?). Clearly humans aren't ready for it. Our technology isn't there; our science isn't there; and out "intelligence" isn't either.
Having said that, I disagree with your view that corporations (such as MS) attempt to use command economy because it is efficient. I think MS, for example, uses command economies because it is attempting to MONOPOLIZE the industry. Monopolies, as you likely know, are the MOST PROFITABLE for the corporation. It is in their interest to create monopolies (in contrast, consumers are worst off under monopolies). So I think corporations use command economies, not because they are efficient, but because it allows them to monopolize the industry.
What is open source software? I would say it is a mix of capitalism and socialism, similar to mixed economies like Europe and Canada. There is the communal, work-for-free, help others aspect of socialism while still retaining the competitive, for-profit motive. Free Software, on the other hand, is different.
What is Free Software? As you pointed out, it isn't really communist (no central authority controls it; people can choose to modify/use/delete software; etc). It isn't capitalist (if anything, it is the furthest thing from it). I think Free Software is a cross between anarchism and socialism. It's socialist for the reasons mentioned above (for open source software). Anarchism is something that no one talks about but Free Software has strong elements of that. It is anarchist because Free Software does not bound you to many conditions. In fact, it removes the most conditions when compared to other types of software. You can do SO MUCH more with Free Software than with other types.
So Free Software is 70% anarchist and 30% socialist.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Dances with Wolves was a great film. It's too bad you don't see its greatness.
Hitchcock should have won but I don't know why he didn't (perhaps his films were all genre films, which some people don't value). As far as Kubrick and Kurosawa are concerned, I really can't see them winning. Oscars are about MAINSTREAM films. Artistic films never win Oscars. As much as I love artistic films over mainstream ones, I have to admit that the mainstream awards like Oscars is more in line with the general population. For instance, hardly anyone (outside the hardcore movie fan base) has heard of Kubrick (who has zero awards). In contrast, they have heard of Spielberg (who has awards).
That's the way things are...and I don't see it changing.
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Some people in Hollywood ARE geniuses. Perhaps not in science but in art they are. Unless you don't value art as worthy of anything (a weak proposition), some filmmakers should be considered as important as others. Nowadays, films can shape humans as much as books used to...
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Thanks for fixing the HTML message. I saw the first one and I was thinking that I had to "decode" it into legible language but :)
;|
This is just flame-bait anyway, but here-goes-...
Whose message is flamebait? Mine or yours? I suppose you consider me anti-American but that's ok with me. As Noam Chomsky once remarked, calling someone anti-American is a trait of totalitarian regimes. That's what the Soviets and the Nazis used to use. The Soviets wouldn't call you anti-Communist, they would call you anti-Soviet! It is almost unheard of in democracy-like countries. Ever heard anyone say anti-Canadian? Anti-German? Anti-Chinese?
Counterpoint: We negotiated for months, even years through the UN. Saddam broke every treaty every time. There was little hope of overcoming this through negotiation. Saddam defied the International Community, the UN, and the US.
The point isn't the "negotiations" (BTW, your so-called negotiation is nothing more than gunpoint diplomacy). The point isn't even that Saddam is a dictator (which I'm sure we all agree). The real question is: what gives YOU the authority in invade another country unilaterally? You attempt to legitimize it by involving the international community and the UN, but they were against an involvement. Only around 20 countries supported the invasion and many of them only did so under US bribes (that's why they are all little countries).
On top of all this, there wasn't even any evidence Iraq had WMD. USA was the one that kicked out the weapons inspectors. Now, even they can't find it.
Your support of unilateral pre-emptive strikes will further destabilize the world. I suppose that is ok with you... And Rumsfeld's notion that the front on terror is in Iraq is utter nonsense. Wait until Al-Qaida strikes USA or some other (non-Iraqi) target. Then we'll see how central Iraq is to the "war" on terror.
The problem is that terrorists and former Iraqi militants disguise themselves as civilians and fire at troops from public crowds. This is a dispicable act, and yes, mistakes are made and civilians are killed. Comparitively, though, the numbers are very small. We're talking about around a quarter-million troops and a country of several million. There were casualties before the war even began due to accidents on the side of the US. Casualties will happen. However, is this worse or better than hundreds of thousands killed under Saddam's rule?
Yes, the "coalition" enemies are camouflaged. Is this anything new? They are waging a guerilla war (in addition to a bunch of terrorists waging a terrorist campaign). You can't excuse yourself for that. Did you even read my article that I referenced? There are thousands of Iraqis dying (almost hundreads in a week--not due to US troops but also due to rampant crime). I suggest that you lay off the mainstream media, which has stopped covering the Iraq war to a large extent.
As far as Saddam Hussein killing people, I don't think he killed HUNDREADS of thousands of people (it's more like TENS of thousands). Of course, when Turkey was killing the Kurds with US weapons, I don't know where you were. In any case, getting rid of Saddam was a GOOD THING. However, teh means to achieve it (ie. launching massive pre-emptive unilateral action against international norms) is not worth it. Rather let tyrants rule than create a world where pre-emptive strikes can be used by anyone. You do realize that if China invaded Tibet today, it would be perfectly "legitimate" due to US actions right?
The United States has a pretty good record with its efforts to help rebuild nations.
Let's see... since WWII... Guatemala... El Salvador... Chile... Iraq... Panama... Afghanistan... Nicaragua... Vietnam... hmm, I think I see how successful rebuilding has been. USA certainly has a lot of credibility
There are daily protests, but it is largely due to many not having jobs. Electricity is flow