You say "Money IS speech" and "money = speech". I can only assume that you mean that money is a form of speech. That's the only way I can parse it. Let me rephrase your argument by equating money to blogs (since both are forms of speech):
"You do not have a first ammendment right to blog for your candidate for the very reason that it is Blogging IS speech. The person with the most popular blog has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district."
As I stated before: you do not understand the difference between rights (a protected exercise of a right) and license (an exercise of a right that infringes on the rights of others so is not protected by said right)
I am very well aware of the difference. But my money, wealth, property, jelly beans, or whatever, do not infringe on anyone else's rights. I am stopping no one from speaking. The lubrication of my wallet has no more impact upon your ability to speak than does the popularity of my blog.
Don't release the documents and Bush gets blamed for hiding the truth. Release the documents and Bush gets blamed for manipulating the truth.
Further, Washington knows that on, say, page 15 (of the documents), there is a tidbit or blatant statement asserting that Saddam Hussein had planned to create weapons of mass destruction all along.
Well DUH! We KNOW he used them in Gulf War I, and we KNOW he used them on the Kurds. We had a UN resolution demanding Saddam prove he got rid of them, but he never did. Only an idiot would think he didn't have them. Saddam is like the nutbag that gets shot by the police because he pretended he had a gun and refused to drop it.
You do not have a first ammendment right to give money to your candidate for the very reason that Money IS speech. The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.
Pleased with himself, LordKazan went on to prove that black was white and promptly got himself run over at the next zebra crossing.
Everything the government does should be held to public scrutiny.
Would you extend that to local governments as well? I ask because I'm from California where the Brown Act is quite strict regarding open government, yet many city councils routinely meet before or after their "official" sessions to discuss business in private. It's illegal but they don't care.
This is regards to a 1972 law. The Constitution was written almost two hundred years earlier. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding this wholly procedural issue.
There are other nations that have been dealing with "terrorist activity" in the past and their reaction has been nothing so drastic as what is happening in the US.
Do you know if most other nations of openness laws as strict as ours? Without doing a survey, I would suspect most European and Asian leaders would wonder what the big deal is about holding a closed door emergency meeting of this type. While I don't like this particular move, it is hardly drastic.
I live in Boston and if I shot someone for trespassing I'd end up in jail... You're correct that I can't protect intellectual property without the application of government enforcement. I'd argue, however, that the same is true for physical property.
Are you unable to see the irony in your own post? In the first instance I can't protect my property with government, in the second I can't protect it without. Physical property can exist without the application of government force, but intellectual property cannot.
And by the way, I am arguing from the point of a mythical proto-society where property is involving. I most certainly am NOT arguing that this is the way things should be in modern Boston. Sheesh.
I've never said that. In my opinion you can do whatever you want with your software. Just don't go lobbying to congress for stronger copyright laws and we'll get along.
If a gang of armed thugs breaks into your locked house...
Notice the word "armed". I can be armed as well. I can put a "trespassers will be shot" notice on my fence and mean it. Physical property is property not because the government says so, but because it can be defended. I might not be able to defend it sucessfully, but at least the attempt can be made. This doesn't say who actually owns the property (I could be a squatter), but that's irrelevant as to the existance of property itself.
They are both property because if you try and take them from someone a you'll be stopped.
Yet I can take intellectual property from someone else without being stopped. There, I just did it! Hey, I did it again! Whoops, there it goes! You see, while you can protect the media that the information is on, you cannot protect the information itself without the application of coercive government enforcement.
Your armed thugs are initiating force against me. I can shoot back. But how do I shoot back at someone copying my music over on a completely different continent? That music isn't my property because I cannot defend it.
Note that this is much different from the media the information resides on. The harddrive on my ftp server is my property. But once the information leaves it and get transmitted to someone else's computer (their property), it no longer belongs to me. Which is why I might choose to use a EULA (which aren't copyright based, btw), to require people to obligate themselves to me *before* I give them access to my ftp server. But even then I'm powerless against third parties who might somehow get ahold of the information (or independently rediscover the patented idea).
Unfortunately that compass is skewed. Economic freedom is not orthogonal to social freedom. Have you ever met any liberals in the far liberal corner, or any conservative in the far conservative corner? I haven't. I suspect they don't exist.
I came across a similar chart last week, but one with orthogonal axis. It's by David Brin, and was only a throwaway exercise in labelling, but it makes much more sense to me than the Nolan chart. You can see it at http://www.reformthelp.org/theory/positioning/mode ls.php The vertical axis measures acceptance of state coercion, with authoritarianism at top and anarchism at bottom. The horizontal axis measures acceptance of property ownership, with socialism on the left and propertarianism on the right.
Now look how things fit into the chart. Both anarcho-syndalicalists and communists are on the left, but the former are anarchists and the latter are authoritarians. Both libertarians (in the Cato sense) and fascists are on the right, but the former want a minimal government while the latter hold that the state encompasses all. In this model the Democrats fit in the middle left, and the Republicans in the middle right.
Just thought I would throw this out, because it makes more sense to me than the older chart you linked to.
Then I've met terribly few honest left-wing liberals, I'm sorry to say.... and I lived in the SF Bay Area for over two years, too.
Ditto [sic]. I remember the distant days when you could calmly and rationally discuss a political issue with a progressive liberal. Now they just shreak and spray spittle when they discover someone who isn't one of them. I learned quickly NOT to discuss politics in the SF Bay Area.
The grandparent post said Kyoto would alter the market forces such that we would get clean air. But we don't have Kyoto and we do have clean air. That's the point of the parent post.
Sure sounds a lot like America's current situation to me.
Get a grip on reality, man!
Your definition is incomplete, as it fits for ANY totalitarian regime, left, right or middle. It fits Stalin and Mao just as much as it fits Marcos and Allende. Finish reading the wikipedia article. Here's the remainder of the paragraph you cited, which does not describe the US at all: "The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality."
The US is not a totalitarian regime. Nor is it trying to impose state control over all aspects of political, social, cultural and economic life.
You must put things into their proper perspective. I am no fan of the current administration, and I am somewhat distressed in the direction this country has been moving in the past fifty years. But it is NOT a fascist totalitarian state! That's freaking ridiculous.
Here's another sentence from that article: "In contemporary political discourse, adherents of some political ideologies tend to associate fascism with their enemies, or define it as the opposite of their own views." That is what you are doing. You are using "fascism" as a pejorative, and have stripped it of all meaning.
There are restrictions on prayer in public schools. A teacher may not prayer in front of his students in many jurisdictions, and in all others may only do so outside of class time itself. Whether you agree or disagree with this is IRRELEVANT, because it is still a restriction.
So let me restate my premise for the hard of hearing. Forbidding porn on primetime broadcast television no more restricts free speech, than does forbidding a teacher from praying in front of captive students restricts freedom of religion.
p.s. And before your Slashdot nazis start assuming stuff, I am NOT arguing that either of the above restrictions are bad. NEITHER am I arguing that they are good. I am ONLY making a comparison.
p.p.s. For the easily offended (which there are a few, considering the number of replies I got folks offended that I used the word "religion", here is another analogy free of religion: Forbidding porn on primetime broadcast television no more restricts free speech, than does forbidding the carrying of concealed fragmentation grenades restricts the right to bear arms.
p.p.p.s. The above is only an analogy, and I does not reflect any belief of mine that folks should walk around with grenades. Get your knickers unknotted!
First people bitch that the US didn't approve the.xxx domain, which led to worldwide calls for the US to hand over the internet. Now they're bitching that the US is trying to corral porn with the.xxx domain. You can't have it both ways!
Yet according to the description of the scene, there was indeed some brief nudity.
But regardless, it's STILL easier to simulate violence than it is sex. That's my point. Add to that the dramatic conflict inherent in violence, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out why violence is more common on television than sex.
Slashdot Mirror
You say "Money IS speech" and "money = speech". I can only assume that you mean that money is a form of speech. That's the only way I can parse it. Let me rephrase your argument by equating money to blogs (since both are forms of speech):
"You do not have a first ammendment right to blog for your candidate for the very reason that it is Blogging IS speech. The person with the most popular blog has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district."
As I stated before: you do not understand the difference between rights (a protected exercise of a right) and license (an exercise of a right that infringes on the rights of others so is not protected by said right)
I am very well aware of the difference. But my money, wealth, property, jelly beans, or whatever, do not infringe on anyone else's rights. I am stopping no one from speaking. The lubrication of my wallet has no more impact upon your ability to speak than does the popularity of my blog.
This story simply does not add up.
Don't release the documents and Bush gets blamed for hiding the truth. Release the documents and Bush gets blamed for manipulating the truth.
Further, Washington knows that on, say, page 15 (of the documents), there is a tidbit or blatant statement asserting that Saddam Hussein had planned to create weapons of mass destruction all along.
Well DUH! We KNOW he used them in Gulf War I, and we KNOW he used them on the Kurds. We had a UN resolution demanding Saddam prove he got rid of them, but he never did. Only an idiot would think he didn't have them. Saddam is like the nutbag that gets shot by the police because he pretended he had a gun and refused to drop it.
Go read your post again. You said that I don't have the right of free speech because money is speech.
You do not have a first ammendment right to give money to your candidate for the very reason that Money IS speech. The person with the most money has more of a voice, violating the right to equal representation of the other people in the district.
Pleased with himself, LordKazan went on to prove that black was white and promptly got himself run over at the next zebra crossing.
Everything the government does should be held to public scrutiny.
Would you extend that to local governments as well? I ask because I'm from California where the Brown Act is quite strict regarding open government, yet many city councils routinely meet before or after their "official" sessions to discuss business in private. It's illegal but they don't care.
Why not just suspend that pesky Constitution?
This is regards to a 1972 law. The Constitution was written almost two hundred years earlier. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding this wholly procedural issue.
There are other nations that have been dealing with "terrorist activity" in the past and their reaction has been nothing so drastic as what is happening in the US.
Do you know if most other nations of openness laws as strict as ours? Without doing a survey, I would suspect most European and Asian leaders would wonder what the big deal is about holding a closed door emergency meeting of this type. While I don't like this particular move, it is hardly drastic.
I live in Boston and if I shot someone for trespassing I'd end up in jail... You're correct that I can't protect intellectual property without the application of government enforcement. I'd argue, however, that the same is true for physical property.
Are you unable to see the irony in your own post? In the first instance I can't protect my property with government, in the second I can't protect it without. Physical property can exist without the application of government force, but intellectual property cannot.
And by the way, I am arguing from the point of a mythical proto-society where property is involving. I most certainly am NOT arguing that this is the way things should be in modern Boston. Sheesh.
Sorry, I wasn't directing my statement at you, but at the grandparent post. We are on the same side, I was just backing you up.
Just don't tell me that I can't charge for mine.
I've never said that. In my opinion you can do whatever you want with your software. Just don't go lobbying to congress for stronger copyright laws and we'll get along.
If a gang of armed thugs breaks into your locked house...
Notice the word "armed". I can be armed as well. I can put a "trespassers will be shot" notice on my fence and mean it. Physical property is property not because the government says so, but because it can be defended. I might not be able to defend it sucessfully, but at least the attempt can be made. This doesn't say who actually owns the property (I could be a squatter), but that's irrelevant as to the existance of property itself.
They are both property because if you try and take them from someone a you'll be stopped.
Yet I can take intellectual property from someone else without being stopped. There, I just did it! Hey, I did it again! Whoops, there it goes! You see, while you can protect the media that the information is on, you cannot protect the information itself without the application of coercive government enforcement.
Your armed thugs are initiating force against me. I can shoot back. But how do I shoot back at someone copying my music over on a completely different continent? That music isn't my property because I cannot defend it.
Note that this is much different from the media the information resides on. The harddrive on my ftp server is my property. But once the information leaves it and get transmitted to someone else's computer (their property), it no longer belongs to me. Which is why I might choose to use a EULA (which aren't copyright based, btw), to require people to obligate themselves to me *before* I give them access to my ftp server. But even then I'm powerless against third parties who might somehow get ahold of the information (or independently rediscover the patented idea).
The amount of stopping is zero, naught, nada, zip.
Either you're being unsuccessfully sarcastic, or you're an idiot.
Frankly, I wouldn't own either Ferrari or an Alienware. Neither will increase the size of your penis nor get you laid. Not even if you're gay.
Indeed. I wish people would stop talking about copyright violations when no copyrights have been fondled.
My point is that no DRM will ever work to stop a pirate.
THAT'S THE POINT! It inconveniences users while doing little to stop pirates.
I'm curious as to what part of the country you live in that conservatives are an endangered species.
I live in the SF bay area, and they're damned well scarce out here. There's certainly not enough to support a viable breeding population.
Unfortunately that compass is skewed. Economic freedom is not orthogonal to social freedom. Have you ever met any liberals in the far liberal corner, or any conservative in the far conservative corner? I haven't. I suspect they don't exist.
e ls.php The vertical axis measures acceptance of state coercion, with authoritarianism at top and anarchism at bottom. The horizontal axis measures acceptance of property ownership, with socialism on the left and propertarianism on the right.
I came across a similar chart last week, but one with orthogonal axis. It's by David Brin, and was only a throwaway exercise in labelling, but it makes much more sense to me than the Nolan chart. You can see it at http://www.reformthelp.org/theory/positioning/mod
Now look how things fit into the chart. Both anarcho-syndalicalists and communists are on the left, but the former are anarchists and the latter are authoritarians. Both libertarians (in the Cato sense) and fascists are on the right, but the former want a minimal government while the latter hold that the state encompasses all. In this model the Democrats fit in the middle left, and the Republicans in the middle right.
Just thought I would throw this out, because it makes more sense to me than the older chart you linked to.
I am glad the right wing is getting on board in the fight against DMCA.
Now all we need is the left wing to get on board too!
Then I've met terribly few honest left-wing liberals, I'm sorry to say.... and I lived in the SF Bay Area for over two years, too.
Ditto [sic]. I remember the distant days when you could calmly and rationally discuss a political issue with a progressive liberal. Now they just shreak and spray spittle when they discover someone who isn't one of them. I learned quickly NOT to discuss politics in the SF Bay Area.
The grandparent post said Kyoto would alter the market forces such that we would get clean air. But we don't have Kyoto and we do have clean air. That's the point of the parent post.
The door opens...
WTF? What kind of prison break is that? Give the players a spoon and ten years to dig a hole!
Sure sounds a lot like America's current situation to me.
Get a grip on reality, man!
Your definition is incomplete, as it fits for ANY totalitarian regime, left, right or middle. It fits Stalin and Mao just as much as it fits Marcos and Allende. Finish reading the wikipedia article. Here's the remainder of the paragraph you cited, which does not describe the US at all: "The fascist state regulates and controls (as opposed to nationalizing) the means of production. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or race as superior to the individuals, institutions, or groups composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, often to the point of a cult of personality."
The US is not a totalitarian regime. Nor is it trying to impose state control over all aspects of political, social, cultural and economic life.
You must put things into their proper perspective. I am no fan of the current administration, and I am somewhat distressed in the direction this country has been moving in the past fifty years. But it is NOT a fascist totalitarian state! That's freaking ridiculous.
Here's another sentence from that article: "In contemporary political discourse, adherents of some political ideologies tend to associate fascism with their enemies, or define it as the opposite of their own views." That is what you are doing. You are using "fascism" as a pejorative, and have stripped it of all meaning.
There are restrictions on prayer in public schools. A teacher may not prayer in front of his students in many jurisdictions, and in all others may only do so outside of class time itself. Whether you agree or disagree with this is IRRELEVANT, because it is still a restriction.
So let me restate my premise for the hard of hearing. Forbidding porn on primetime broadcast television no more restricts free speech, than does forbidding a teacher from praying in front of captive students restricts freedom of religion.
p.s. And before your Slashdot nazis start assuming stuff, I am NOT arguing that either of the above restrictions are bad. NEITHER am I arguing that they are good. I am ONLY making a comparison.
p.p.s. For the easily offended (which there are a few, considering the number of replies I got folks offended that I used the word "religion", here is another analogy free of religion: Forbidding porn on primetime broadcast television no more restricts free speech, than does forbidding the carrying of concealed fragmentation grenades restricts the right to bear arms.
p.p.p.s. The above is only an analogy, and I does not reflect any belief of mine that folks should walk around with grenades. Get your knickers unknotted!
First people bitch that the US didn't approve the .xxx domain, which led to worldwide calls for the US to hand over the internet. Now they're bitching that the US is trying to corral porn with the .xxx domain. You can't have it both ways!
Yet according to the description of the scene, there was indeed some brief nudity.
But regardless, it's STILL easier to simulate violence than it is sex. That's my point. Add to that the dramatic conflict inherent in violence, and it doesn't take a genius to figure out why violence is more common on television than sex.