....If a fundamental right like freedom of speech accrues from the members to the group, then why does a fundamental right like the vote not do the same?.....
It could, because there is no fundamental reason why corporations should not vote, except that we did not see fit so far in our society to let corporations vote. The right to vote is not as fundamental as the right to free speech or assembly. Look how long it took American society and others to allow women or certain minorities to vote. In some societies, such as Moslem countries, women's rights are still very restricted.
Would you name me one society or government that has ever been or is now on the face of the earth, that is not corrupt in some manner? Society, governments, corporations and other groupings are composed of people. All people are corrupted in some way. This means automatically, that if you put a corrupted person at the head of any organized group, be it a government or other grouping, that group will get corrupted eventually.
The only human being who has ever been on this earth, who was not corrupted or sinful in any way shape or form was Jesus Christ. Christians have his promise that one day he will return and head a government which will not be corrupt. Until that day comes, all we can hope for, is that corruption and wickedness will be held to a somewhat tolerable level.
....Then why does it have rights, and how can it have values?...
Don't you understand that the PEOPLE that run a corporation have both? Many smaller corporations are run and owned by the same people.
(....With whom are you associating the term "rich oppressors"?...) Any single person or group of persons (corporations) that use their money for selfish political purposes. A corporation is nothing more and nothing less, than a group of people who have pooled their resources towards a common goal.
....a corporation itself is outside that system... That is not true at all. The management of the corporation is people. Whatever values those people have, they will bring to the corporation. A corporation is nothing more than a convenient business structure. If the wealth and control of a given corporation were concentrated in a single person, then the Corporation would still reflect the morality and values of that person. There are many smaller corporations, wherein the ownership and management is identical. A corporation reflects the value system of its managers more than its owners.
Arguments in this entire thread can be boiled down to the age-old argument of the rich against the poor. It is a fact of the human condition, that the rich always have had and always will have more influence on society than the poor. This is true of every government that is now and has ever been on earth, regardless of its form. Democracy is the best form of government, because it allows the poor masses to rise up against their rich oppressors without bloodshed.
....This circumvents the idea that rich people shouldn't have more chance to influence elections....
As long as there have been governments of any kind whatsoever, those who were rich have always had more influence and power than the poor. That is because in almost every society, someone who is rich will always get around themselves people hoping to benefit from those riches. It's the same reason that a dog will often sit underneath the table, waiting for food scraps to drop off. Whether the rich organized themselves, such as corporations, or not doesn't really matter.
The only real advantage a democracy has over other forms of government, is that the poor majority can rise up in revolution against the rich minority at the ballot box rather than with violence and bloodshed. The recent senatorial election upset in Massachusetts is an example of this. A democracy, the rich can only persuade, not force action. If the rich, including corporations, oppress the poor too hard, no amount of money will protect them.
...It was that very same ideal that allowed the corporations to buy the courts and police force....
I think you and most others here are confusing the tyranny of the rich towards the poor with a convenient business structure, a corporation. Can a rich individual not do the same thing? Does it have to be a corporation? Long before corporations were invented, the rich have oppressed the poor. This court decision won't change that one way or the other.
...immortal profit making machines... Which are run by mortal human beings which don't all agree on any one issue. Historically, certain kinds of corporations have supported the Democrats and other kinds of corporations have supported the Republicans. Corporations can be neither good or evil, only those that control them can. I have never heard of a corporation that isn't run by people. Your Colossus analogy is faulty.
(....They can always say, "we will go to jail if we try that," or "we'll be fined," or even "we'll get bad publicity,"....)
Corporations ultimately don't say anything, but the people that run them say things using the corporations money. Is there really a difference between a one man private business running a full-page ad for a given candidate that he likes for whatever reasons, or a corporation doing the same thing? Is there a difference between an individual businessman expressing his sentiments or those running a corporation?
It's not the business structure, but the people that control such a business structure, that can be either moral or immoral. The business structure itself, whether a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or corporation has no bearing on morality or criminality.
....you've got corporations made up of ten people.....
No, corporations have shareholders, direct ones and indirect ones through pension funds and mutual funds. These can number in the millions. The management of the corporation is constrained by law to represent the best interests of the shareholders. That best interest includes spending money on political issues that affect said shareholders.
The gum ball machine doesn't get to vote, but whoever manages the gum ball machine on behalf of its owners, is allowed to spend money to elect candidates who favor gumball sales. That is how it should be and the Supreme Court agreed. Whoever manages the gum ball machine is also allowed to vote.
....That's just it...their "free speech" effectively completely eliminates mine....
That just is not true at all. You're perfectly free to get together a group, such as a political action committee and put your money together with others to have a voice. The more people you can get to agree with you on any subject, the more you can speak as a group with one voice.
That is pure unadulterated socialistic garbage. Name one Corporation that is not run by people. Corporations don't vote, only people do. Why should people not have the same right to speak as a group as they would individually? Corporations are no more moral or immoral than the people running them. What difference is there if a corporation or an individual gives $1 million toward a given political candidate or goal?
....corporatism is one of those other systems, which is why they should be treated differently than your union.....
Why? Are not both of them simply groups of people for different purposes? Why should the purpose for which a group gets organized make a difference? Neither unions nor corporations who are churches or whatever other groups people might form vote. Only individual flesh and blood people vote. If a group gets together for the sole purpose in trying to lobby people to vote a certain way, what's wrong with that?
...Corporations, shareholders, and boards of directors do not have democratic interests....
That is plainly an utterly false. All corporations that I have ever heard of are run by people. Corporations do not vote, only people, including their employees vote. Corporations can only persuade people to vote. The very word corporation comes from corpus which means body. A corporation is a body of real-life voting people, who have some sort of common bond. The right of people to form a common bond group is just as fundamental as the right to speak.
....What SCOTUS got wrong is the idea that spending money = free speech...
Now, that was not the issue. Besides they got that exactly right. Money does equal speech, because without money a real flesh and blood person or a group of such persons cannot speak in the media. It costs money to distribute information, just like it costs money to distribute physical goods. It costs money to distribute political information. So yes, speech definitely equals money. It always has and always will. Therefore, somebody with money will always be able to speak to more people than somebody without. It's really very simple isn't it?
...The power needs to lie with the people, not the organization....
So when people organize themselves together, should they not be allowed to pool their resources and speak with one voice? There's an old saying: United we stand, divided we fall.
What are corporations anyway? Are they not simply groups of people that organize themselves together to do business? Should people, as soon as they organize themselves together as a group not be allowed to speak freely, just as they would if they were individual? Do you know of any corporation, that is not run by flesh and blood people?
....For myself, I find it nigh impossible to justify paying for news....
I agree with that. After all, who wants to pay for news of earthquakes, hurricanes, madness, murder and mayhem? There will always be plenty of free sites online, that can keep people informed of the most important goings-on in the world.
...Why are you so enamored with the rules in a court of law?.... Because courts of law is where evidence, including written depositions are methodically considered. The procedures there are developed by society to determine truth. Since you dispute the truth of the Bible, you should be able to do it by the same esablished methods as used by our legal system. You should be able to defend your version of the truth.
(...If the gospels are used to prove the truth of its statements, then they are technically hearsay...) In legal terms, the Gospels are written depositions and not hearsay. They are recorded testimonies of eyewitnesses who heard and saw what they wrote about. Hearsay by definition is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumor.
(...that of unavailable witnesses..) If you do not have any witnesses or other admissible evidence, such as depositions, that is writings of other eyewitnesses, you have no case.
(...Looks like you are shifting the burden of proof again...) Yes I am. A court as well as historians will assume the statements in the written documents are true. Since you are saying they are not, it is indeed YOU who has to come up with credible evidence refuting the eyewitnesses. The Dead Sea Scrolls for example are considered authentic, although initially there were some doubts. It of course your right to reject truth. There is nothing that can be done or said against that.
(...I don't often hear disembodied voices...) I don't either, but that does not make by itself the written depositions of the eyewitnesses untrue. If you are really trying to determine truth, such as you hopefully would if you were on a jury, you would not be allowed to go by your experience, but what is presented to you.
(...I have to wonder where they all got the idea,...) I am in your company there. I haven't seen anybody rise from the dead either. My lack of experience of someone rising from the dead, doesn't mean it could not have happened to Jesus. Many skeptics and scholars have examined the evidence, as written, trying to refute it. The more I study the Bible, the more I come to the conclusion of its truth and divine authorship.
(...Either retract that statement, or admit the Bible has a flaw...) A sheep that has wandered willingly and purposefully away from the shepherd is by definition evil. Anyone who will purposefully not humble himself under the rightful rulership of Almighty God is evil. This leaves you out, because presumably you are still willing to submit to truth WHEN you find it.
(...do you really want to live forever?...) Definitely not under the present conditions of life here on earth. Think about it, death is really a blessing. What if all the evil dictators and other evildoers could not be killed? What if Caligula and Nero and Hitler and such would be alive here forever? I would call that hell on earth.
God promises that eventually there will be a new heaven and a new earth, essentially a new universe. The Bible tells us that this universe will be rolled up like a scroll. (Big Crunch?) If you would read your Bible, you would learn that God is always having humans participate in what he's doing. Personally, since I am an engineer, God may allow me to participate in the design and creation of some aspect of the new universe.
(...And would it still be you?...) The short answer is yes. But there are a number of answers to that found in the Bible. One of them is in Matthew 17:1-17:9.
(....will you still in any way be the same person?...) We humans think of eternity or the eternal mostly in terms of time. Your questions echo this. When we transfer from time to eternity, we go into a new dimension, an existence where time is not measured. There are no clocks nor calendars in heaven or hell.
Those who believe God now, will be eternally with him, but those who don't will not be forced to be in the presence of God forever. In eternity, there will be no yesterday and no tomorrow, only a forever present.
No, if this were tried in a court of law, the burden of proof would be on you. This is also true of historians when they find ancient documents. The presumption is truth of the document, not falsehood. It is contingent upon the one who has reasons to believe that the document is false, to come forth with good reasons for such an assertion.
(....How do you know he wasn't on drugs?....) What evidence can you bring forth that this is so? Were those that were with him on drugs also? Did the drugs make him blind? If you think that the apostle Paul's experience on the Damascus road did not happen as related in Scripture, you would have to bring forth evidence against it.
(....They have, however, heard of the Beatles....) Only in cultures where this kind of music is appreciated. Also, they are contemporary to our times, not someone who was on earth 2000 years ago. Name someone from that time who is as well known to as many people as Jesus Christ or the apostle Paul.
(...How do you know they weren't all under the influence of something similar?...) Again, under the universal assumption of truth by both courts and historians, you as the opposition would have to provide evidence of this. What evidence other than your conjecture can you give for this assertion?
(....Yet the Bible calls them evil....) I think the biblical definition of evil and yours are different. What, in your estimation is the essence of evil?
(...Dying sucks. We don't like the idea that we won't be here anymore...) Yes, it does in a big way, especially for those who have no hope of eternal life.
John 11:25 Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live.
My body, just like yours will die, but my real self, my spirit lives forever. According to the promises in the Bible, I will get a new body that transcends space and time, no longer subject to some of the laws of physics that the one I live in now is constrained by. God, through the apostle Paul gives us a little insight.
1Corinthians 15:35 But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?"
You can read the answer to this question in the rest of this chapter.
(....who plays the role of a father in our lives?...) That is true, but what is your explanation? Why do people, especially little girls cling to a loving father? Christians are people who call their God "Father". The Jewish religious leader were extremely upset when Jesus called God his father.
(... Here's an analysis of why you believe....) I looked at it, but it does not explain missionary experience. Muslims for example, severely persecute anyone who turns from their faith to Christ. This is true where the vast majority is against very few Christians. People of every ethnic group have responded to the Christian message even though the majority of their culture group were against them.
(...This explains why, when you look out into the beauty of the Universe, you see God all around you....) So when you look out into the beauty of the universe what do you see? Where did the laws that control the beauty comes from? Is there a person behind the universe or is it all impersonal, such as time and chance? Is there a purpose and meaning to it all? Only a person can appreciate beauty. Who or what appreciated beauty in the universe before people existed? Was there no beauty in the universe before people could appreciate it? The very word "Universe" means "one word" as spoken by God, recorded in the first sentence of the Bible. David my friend, you can't get away from God. He is with you and around you and loves you very much.
(...reasons why we, as a species, are drawn to religion...) The essence of religion is worship. Why is it that humans are the ONLY species on this whole planet that is drawn to worship something external to ourselves? If the chemical explanations were correct, then
...Which one, if I may ask?... Charles Schulz the creator of "Peanuts"
(....How do you know Paul got it from God?...)
How do you know he did not? Both the courts and historians generally ascribe truthfulness to witnesses and documents.
It is always up to the opposition to prove witnesses and documents to be false. You know the innocent until proven guilty thing. I don't have to prove that the statements in the Bible are true. Historians and the courts are on my side in that they assume truth. You, as the opposition has to prove falsehood. Saying that it doesn't make sense is not good enough. It is true, that generally people don't rise from the dead, but you have to prove that Jesus in particular did not.
(....we know about Nero....) People may name their dogs Nero, but their sons have biblical names such as David, Peter, James, Joseph had many many more. You, and some other well-educated people like you know about Nero, but millions of others all around the world have never heard of him. They have however heard of David and how he killed Goliath. They also have heard about Jesus and Paul.
(...Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was anything other than dementia?....) If it was, then Paul was not the only one hallucinating.
Act 9:7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, indeed hearing a voice but seeing no one.
(....I doubt you would seriously claim that they are all evil....) Of course they are not evil, but lost, like sheep in the wilderness. It is instructive that the Bible, both in the Old and New Testament compares people to sheep needing a shepherd. Your namesake in the Bible was a shepherd who knew what sheep are like. Jesus calls himself the good Shepherd.
This comparison of humans to the dumbest domestic animal we know of is not much to my liking either, but if you look at the sweep of human history, there is definitely something to that.
The stubborn persistence of religion, including atheism, speaks of the deep human need for significance and purpose. What would you call the curiously enduring belief of almost all of humanity in a dimension of existence beyond the here and now? Why do so many people WANT to believe in something or someone outside of themselves?
In line with the subject of this thread, people being sheep, also means there will never be complete computer security. Ease of use and security, are like so many things in life, a trade-off. The phenomenal success of social sites like Facebook testify to the fact that many people are more than willing to share some of their most intimate secrets with the world. Most people don't have very many deep dark secrets. That to me is the biggest reason why encryption has not become more common.
I guess that could be rephrased: see the padlock, you think, "Oh, I'm safer." Having the padlock their is definitely better than not, don't you think? Nothing, including your life, is absolutely safe in this world.
PS I looked up the link in your sig. That is a rather impressive list of people. At least one of them I know was a Christian.
I am almost positively sure that nobody will know of any of these people 3000 or more years from now. Yet there are millions of people, right now, all over the earth, that are reading the words of this shepherd boy who later became king of Israel, written about 3000 years ago. Even today, you would probably find one or two orders of magnitude more people in this world, in all lands, on all continents, who know about that shepherd boy David, than about most of the people in that video.
If you want to, you can read God's opinion of that otherwise well-done video. The apostle Paul wrote it down for us about 20 centuries ago. 1Corinthians 1:19 - 1Corinthians 1:29
....My publisher wants me to send things to them using FTP. I refused...
Mail (snail) the editor or whoever processes your file a CD with one or more passwords for the encrypted files you would be sending them over plain unencrypted FTP. You might also want to include the decryption software. Even relatively dumb users configure stuff like that out. Alternatively, you could probably give them the password over the telephone with reasonable safety. It's low tech, but it should work pretty well.
...... If one ISP offered raw pipe and another one offered pipe plus "free YouTube" (meaning ISP-subsidized YouTube), would that be so terrible?....
I suppose that would be great if it were truly free. However if that ISP charged more for everybody, then it wouldn't be free would it? Your analogy of public broadcasting stations doesn't really apply, unless access to the Internet were free, as it is for ordinary television and radio broadcasts.
When new technology comes along, those with older technology impacted by the new have to change and adapt. When the automobile came along livery stables became gas stations and blacksmiths went into the automobile service business. Those that did not adapt, went out of business.
Why should it be any different with print media? If people don't buy the dead tree products anymore, they have to go online. Those that get a good audience, will also be able to sell advertising and make a living just like radio and television.
(...If journalism just disappears and all we have left are amateur blogs....)
In some fields, the difference between an amateur and professional is only the fact that professionals earn their living by their activity. Amateurs, so-called, often do a better job doing the same thing. Many amateurs get so good at whatever it is they do, that people are willing to pay for their product or service. That's when we call them professionals. The people that are now called professionals in the media, specifically newspapers, all have to rethink their careers in light of the Internet and other new technologies. The ones that are really good at what they do, will always find customers willing to pay for their output. The mediocre and crummy ones will have to learn some other way to make a living.
.... sort of like how you buy a bundle of "premium" channels from the cable company....
Oh I hope that they never implement your suggestion. I have quit our cable provider, because they charge a flat rate for a bundle of hundreds of channels which I never watch. They refused to sell only the half dozen or so I would watch for a reasonable price. Now you want to extend that same crummy business model to the Internet.
(...Right now, ISPs are competing on raw pipe....)
That is the way it should be. That's how the telephone works. The telephone company doesn't charge extra for me to talk to people who don't have some sort of a special deal with my telephone company. ISPs should not have the remotest connection with the content that travels over their wires. They should be a common carrier, just like the phone company. Long before the Internet, there was only one phone company in a given locality. I just cannot understand why the Internet should be treated any differently. Just as phone companies are regulated as common carriers, so it should be with ISPs. Large content providers need fat pipes to the Internet. They pay for these to the carriers, the folks who own the wires. Why should the people that own the wires make more or less money, depending on what the bits represent that travel over their wires? In my estimation, bits are bits are bits are bits are bits and there is no way to tell one bit from another.
...I'll just go somewhere else where the news is free"... News has always been free, especially for big events such as what happened in Haiti. What has been harder to come by is interesting, worthwhile local news. You know, to find out what friends and neighbors are up to? That is the reason we still subscribe to a paper edition of our hometown newspaper. Getting the special ads for local supermarkets is quite useful at times as well. There are also usually coupons for even bigger savings.
I have never, even once, surfed to a big-city newspaper site other than through Google. If the NYT can no longer be accessed this way for free, they will lose a large number of readers. There will always be free access to big important news events. There will also always be plenty of commentary on news and current events, more than I have time to read anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
....If a fundamental right like freedom of speech accrues from the members to the group, then why does a fundamental right like the vote not do the same?.....
It could, because there is no fundamental reason why corporations should not vote, except that we did not see fit so far in our society to let corporations vote. The right to vote is not as fundamental as the right to free speech or assembly. Look how long it took American society and others to allow women or certain minorities to vote. In some societies, such as Moslem countries, women's rights are still very restricted.
...politics = corruption...
Would you name me one society or government that has ever been or is now on the face of the earth, that is not corrupt in some manner? Society, governments, corporations and other groupings are composed of people. All people are corrupted in some way. This means automatically, that if you put a corrupted person at the head of any organized group, be it a government or other grouping, that group will get corrupted eventually.
The only human being who has ever been on this earth, who was not corrupted or sinful in any way shape or form was Jesus Christ. Christians have his promise that one day he will return and head a government which will not be corrupt. Until that day comes, all we can hope for, is that corruption and wickedness will be held to a somewhat tolerable level.
....Then why does it have rights, and how can it have values?...
Don't you understand that the PEOPLE that run a corporation have both? Many smaller corporations are run and owned by the same people.
(....With whom are you associating the term "rich oppressors"?...)
Any single person or group of persons (corporations) that use their money for selfish political purposes. A corporation is nothing more and nothing less, than a group of people who have pooled their resources towards a common goal.
....a corporation itself is outside that system...
That is not true at all. The management of the corporation is people. Whatever values those people have, they will bring to the corporation. A corporation is nothing more than a convenient business structure. If the wealth and control of a given corporation were concentrated in a single person, then the Corporation would still reflect the morality and values of that person. There are many smaller corporations, wherein the ownership and management is identical. A corporation reflects the value system of its managers more than its owners.
Arguments in this entire thread can be boiled down to the age-old argument of the rich against the poor. It is a fact of the human condition, that the rich always have had and always will have more influence on society than the poor. This is true of every government that is now and has ever been on earth, regardless of its form. Democracy is the best form of government, because it allows the poor masses to rise up against their rich oppressors without bloodshed.
....This circumvents the idea that rich people shouldn't have more chance to influence elections....
As long as there have been governments of any kind whatsoever, those who were rich have always had more influence and power than the poor. That is because in almost every society, someone who is rich will always get around themselves people hoping to benefit from those riches. It's the same reason that a dog will often sit underneath the table, waiting for food scraps to drop off. Whether the rich organized themselves, such as corporations, or not doesn't really matter.
The only real advantage a democracy has over other forms of government, is that the poor majority can rise up in revolution against the rich minority at the ballot box rather than with violence and bloodshed. The recent senatorial election upset in Massachusetts is an example of this. A democracy, the rich can only persuade, not force action. If the rich, including corporations, oppress the poor too hard, no amount of money will protect them.
...It was that very same ideal that allowed the corporations to buy the courts and police force....
I think you and most others here are confusing the tyranny of the rich towards the poor with a convenient business structure, a corporation. Can a rich individual not do the same thing? Does it have to be a corporation? Long before corporations were invented, the rich have oppressed the poor. This court decision won't change that one way or the other.
...immortal profit making machines ...
Which are run by mortal human beings which don't all agree on any one issue. Historically, certain kinds of corporations have supported the Democrats and other kinds of corporations have supported the Republicans. Corporations can be neither good or evil, only those that control them can. I have never heard of a corporation that isn't run by people. Your Colossus analogy is faulty.
(....They can always say, "we will go to jail if we try that," or "we'll be fined," or even "we'll get bad publicity,"....)
Corporations ultimately don't say anything, but the people that run them say things using the corporations money. Is there really a difference between a one man private business running a full-page ad for a given candidate that he likes for whatever reasons, or a corporation doing the same thing? Is there a difference between an individual businessman expressing his sentiments or those running a corporation?
It's not the business structure, but the people that control such a business structure, that can be either moral or immoral. The business structure itself, whether a sole proprietorship, a partnership, or corporation has no bearing on morality or criminality.
....you've got corporations made up of ten people.....
No, corporations have shareholders, direct ones and indirect ones through pension funds and mutual funds. These can number in the millions. The management of the corporation is constrained by law to represent the best interests of the shareholders. That best interest includes spending money on political issues that affect said shareholders.
....now see much of our work go and fuel much of the corruption....
So are you not allowed to quit your job and get one with someone who is more in agreement with you politically?
....How about a gumball machine?....
The gum ball machine doesn't get to vote, but whoever manages the gum ball machine on behalf of its owners, is allowed to spend money to elect candidates who favor gumball sales. That is how it should be and the Supreme Court agreed. Whoever manages the gum ball machine is also allowed to vote.
....That's just it...their "free speech" effectively completely eliminates mine....
That just is not true at all. You're perfectly free to get together a group, such as a political action committee and put your money together with others to have a voice. The more people you can get to agree with you on any subject, the more you can speak as a group with one voice.
...Corporations are not people....
That is pure unadulterated socialistic garbage. Name one Corporation that is not run by people. Corporations don't vote, only people do. Why should people not have the same right to speak as a group as they would individually? Corporations are no more moral or immoral than the people running them. What difference is there if a corporation or an individual gives $1 million toward a given political candidate or goal?
....corporatism is one of those other systems, which is why they should be treated differently than your union.....
Why? Are not both of them simply groups of people for different purposes? Why should the purpose for which a group gets organized make a difference? Neither unions nor corporations who are churches or whatever other groups people might form vote. Only individual flesh and blood people vote. If a group gets together for the sole purpose in trying to lobby people to vote a certain way, what's wrong with that?
...Corporations, shareholders, and boards of directors do not have democratic interests....
That is plainly an utterly false. All corporations that I have ever heard of are run by people. Corporations do not vote, only people, including their employees vote. Corporations can only persuade people to vote. The very word corporation comes from corpus which means body. A corporation is a body of real-life voting people, who have some sort of common bond. The right of people to form a common bond group is just as fundamental as the right to speak.
....What SCOTUS got wrong is the idea that spending money = free speech...
Now, that was not the issue. Besides they got that exactly right. Money does equal speech, because without money a real flesh and blood person or a group of such persons cannot speak in the media. It costs money to distribute information, just like it costs money to distribute physical goods. It costs money to distribute political information. So yes, speech definitely equals money. It always has and always will. Therefore, somebody with money will always be able to speak to more people than somebody without. It's really very simple isn't it?
...The power needs to lie with the people, not the organization....
So when people organize themselves together, should they not be allowed to pool their resources and speak with one voice? There's an old saying: United we stand, divided we fall.
What are corporations anyway? Are they not simply groups of people that organize themselves together to do business? Should people, as soon as they organize themselves together as a group not be allowed to speak freely, just as they would if they were individual? Do you know of any corporation, that is not run by flesh and blood people?
....For myself, I find it nigh impossible to justify paying for news....
I agree with that. After all, who wants to pay for news of earthquakes, hurricanes, madness, murder and mayhem? There will always be plenty of free sites online, that can keep people informed of the most important goings-on in the world.
...Why are you so enamored with the rules in a court of law?....
Because courts of law is where evidence, including written depositions are methodically considered. The procedures there are developed by society to determine truth. Since you dispute the truth of the Bible, you should be able to do it by the same esablished methods as used by our legal system. You should be able to defend your version of the truth.
(...If the gospels are used to prove the truth of its statements, then they are technically hearsay...)
In legal terms, the Gospels are written depositions and not hearsay. They are recorded testimonies of eyewitnesses who heard and saw what they wrote about. Hearsay by definition is nothing more than unsubstantiated rumor.
(...that of unavailable witnesses ..)
If you do not have any witnesses or other admissible evidence, such as depositions, that is writings of other eyewitnesses, you have no case.
(...Looks like you are shifting the burden of proof again...)
Yes I am. A court as well as historians will assume the statements in the written documents are true. Since you are saying they are not, it is indeed YOU who has to come up with credible evidence refuting the eyewitnesses. The Dead Sea Scrolls for example are considered authentic, although initially there were some doubts. It of course your right to reject truth. There is nothing that can be done or said against that.
(...I don't often hear disembodied voices...)
I don't either, but that does not make by itself the written depositions of the eyewitnesses untrue. If you are really trying to determine truth, such as you hopefully would if you were on a jury, you would not be allowed to go by your experience, but what is presented to you.
(...I have to wonder where they all got the idea,...)
I am in your company there. I haven't seen anybody rise from the dead either. My lack of experience of someone rising from the dead, doesn't mean it could not have happened to Jesus. Many skeptics and scholars have examined the evidence, as written, trying to refute it. The more I study the Bible, the more I come to the conclusion of its truth and divine authorship.
(...Either retract that statement, or admit the Bible has a flaw...)
A sheep that has wandered willingly and purposefully away from the shepherd is by definition evil. Anyone who will purposefully not humble himself under the rightful rulership of Almighty God is evil. This leaves you out, because presumably you are still willing to submit to truth WHEN you find it.
(...do you really want to live forever?...)
Definitely not under the present conditions of life here on earth. Think about it, death is really a blessing. What if all the evil dictators and other evildoers could not be killed? What if Caligula and Nero and Hitler and such would be alive here forever? I would call that hell on earth.
God promises that eventually there will be a new heaven and a new earth, essentially a new universe. The Bible tells us that this universe will be rolled up like a scroll. (Big Crunch?) If you would read your Bible, you would learn that God is always having humans participate in what he's doing. Personally, since I am an engineer, God may allow me to participate in the design and creation of some aspect of the new universe.
(...And would it still be you?...)
The short answer is yes. But there are a number of answers to that found in the Bible. One of them is in Matthew 17:1-17:9.
(....will you still in any way be the same person?...)
We humans think of eternity or the eternal mostly in terms of time. Your questions echo this. When we transfer from time to eternity, we go into a new dimension, an existence where time is not measured. There are no clocks nor calendars in heaven or hell.
Those who believe God now, will be eternally with him, but those who don't will not be forced to be in the presence of God forever. In eternity, there will be no yesterday and no tomorrow, only a forever present.
(...
....The burden is on you to show that he did....
No, if this were tried in a court of law, the burden of proof would be on you. This is also true of historians when they find ancient documents. The presumption is truth of the document, not falsehood. It is contingent upon the one who has reasons to believe that the document is false, to come forth with good reasons for such an assertion.
(....How do you know he wasn't on drugs?....)
What evidence can you bring forth that this is so? Were those that were with him on drugs also? Did the drugs make him blind? If you think that the apostle Paul's experience on the Damascus road did not happen as related in Scripture, you would have to bring forth evidence against it.
(....They have, however, heard of the Beatles....)
Only in cultures where this kind of music is appreciated. Also, they are contemporary to our times, not someone who was on earth 2000 years ago. Name someone from that time who is as well known to as many people as Jesus Christ or the apostle Paul.
(...How do you know they weren't all under the influence of something similar?...)
Again, under the universal assumption of truth by both courts and historians, you as the opposition would have to provide evidence of this. What evidence other than your conjecture can you give for this assertion?
(....Yet the Bible calls them evil....)
I think the biblical definition of evil and yours are different. What, in your estimation is the essence of evil?
(...Dying sucks. We don't like the idea that we won't be here anymore...)
Yes, it does in a big way, especially for those who have no hope of eternal life.
John 11:25 Jesus said to her, I am the Resurrection and the Life! He who believes in Me, though he die, yet he shall live.
My body, just like yours will die, but my real self, my spirit lives forever. According to the promises in the Bible, I will get a new body that transcends space and time, no longer subject to some of the laws of physics that the one I live in now is constrained by. God, through the apostle Paul gives us a little insight.
1Corinthians 15:35 But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?"
You can read the answer to this question in the rest of this chapter.
(....who plays the role of a father in our lives?...)
That is true, but what is your explanation? Why do people, especially little girls cling to a loving father? Christians are people who call their God "Father". The Jewish religious leader were extremely upset when Jesus called God his father.
(... Here's an analysis of why you believe....)
I looked at it, but it does not explain missionary experience. Muslims for example, severely persecute anyone who turns from their faith to Christ. This is true where the vast majority is against very few Christians. People of every ethnic group have responded to the Christian message even though the majority of their culture group were against them.
(...This explains why, when you look out into the beauty of the Universe, you see God all around you ....)
So when you look out into the beauty of the universe what do you see? Where did the laws that control the beauty comes from? Is there a person behind the universe or is it all impersonal, such as time and chance? Is there a purpose and meaning to it all? Only a person can appreciate beauty. Who or what appreciated beauty in the universe before people existed? Was there no beauty in the universe before people could appreciate it? The very word "Universe" means "one word" as spoken by God, recorded in the first sentence of the Bible. David my friend, you can't get away from God. He is with you and around you and loves you very much.
(...reasons why we, as a species, are drawn to religion...)
The essence of religion is worship. Why is it that humans are the ONLY species on this whole planet that is drawn to worship something external to ourselves? If the chemical explanations were correct, then
...Which one, if I may ask?...
Charles Schulz the creator of "Peanuts"
(....How do you know Paul got it from God?...)
How do you know he did not? Both the courts and historians generally ascribe truthfulness to witnesses and documents.
It is always up to the opposition to prove witnesses and documents to be false. You know the innocent until proven guilty thing. I don't have to prove that the statements in the Bible are true. Historians and the courts are on my side in that they assume truth. You, as the opposition has to prove falsehood. Saying that it doesn't make sense is not good enough. It is true, that generally people don't rise from the dead, but you have to prove that Jesus in particular did not.
(....we know about Nero....)
People may name their dogs Nero, but their sons have biblical names such as David, Peter, James, Joseph had many many more. You, and some other well-educated people like you know about Nero, but millions of others all around the world have never heard of him. They have however heard of David and how he killed Goliath. They also have heard about Jesus and Paul.
(...Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was anything other than dementia?....)
If it was, then Paul was not the only one hallucinating.
Act 9:7 And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, indeed hearing a voice but seeing no one.
(....I doubt you would seriously claim that they are all evil....)
Of course they are not evil, but lost, like sheep in the wilderness. It is instructive that the Bible, both in the Old and New Testament compares people to sheep needing a shepherd. Your namesake in the Bible was a shepherd who knew what sheep are like. Jesus calls himself the good Shepherd.
This comparison of humans to the dumbest domestic animal we know of is not much to my liking either, but if you look at the sweep of human history, there is definitely something to that.
The stubborn persistence of religion, including atheism, speaks of the deep human need for significance and purpose. What would you call the curiously enduring belief of almost all of humanity in a dimension of existence beyond the here and now? Why do so many people WANT to believe in something or someone outside of themselves?
In line with the subject of this thread, people being sheep, also means there will never be complete computer security. Ease of use and security, are like so many things in life, a trade-off. The phenomenal success of social sites like Facebook testify to the fact that many people are more than willing to share some of their most intimate secrets with the world. Most people don't have very many deep dark secrets. That to me is the biggest reason why encryption has not become more common.
...see the padlock, you think, "Oh, I'm safe."...
I guess that could be rephrased: see the padlock, you think, "Oh, I'm safer." Having the padlock their is definitely better than not, don't you think? Nothing, including your life, is absolutely safe in this world.
PS I looked up the link in your sig. That is a rather impressive list of people. At least one of them I know was a Christian.
I am almost positively sure that nobody will know of any of these people 3000 or more years from now. Yet there are millions of people, right now, all over the earth, that are reading the words of this shepherd boy who later became king of Israel, written about 3000 years ago. Even today, you would probably find one or two orders of magnitude more people in this world, in all lands, on all continents, who know about that shepherd boy David, than about most of the people in that video.
If you want to, you can read God's opinion of that otherwise well-done video. The apostle Paul wrote it down for us about 20 centuries ago.
1Corinthians 1:19 - 1Corinthians 1:29
....My publisher wants me to send things to them using FTP. I refused...
Mail (snail) the editor or whoever processes your file a CD with one or more passwords for the encrypted files you would be sending them over plain unencrypted FTP. You might also want to include the decryption software. Even relatively dumb users configure stuff like that out. Alternatively, you could probably give them the password over the telephone with reasonable safety. It's low tech, but it should work pretty well.
...... If one ISP offered raw pipe and another one offered pipe plus "free YouTube" (meaning ISP-subsidized YouTube), would that be so terrible?....
I suppose that would be great if it were truly free. However if that ISP charged more for everybody, then it wouldn't be free would it? Your analogy of public broadcasting stations doesn't really apply, unless access to the Internet were free, as it is for ordinary television and radio broadcasts.
When new technology comes along, those with older technology impacted by the new have to change and adapt. When the automobile came along livery stables became gas stations and blacksmiths went into the automobile service business. Those that did not adapt, went out of business.
Why should it be any different with print media? If people don't buy the dead tree products anymore, they have to go online. Those that get a good audience, will also be able to sell advertising and make a living just like radio and television.
(...If journalism just disappears and all we have left are amateur blogs....)
In some fields, the difference between an amateur and professional is only the fact that professionals earn their living by their activity. Amateurs, so-called, often do a better job doing the same thing. Many amateurs get so good at whatever it is they do, that people are willing to pay for their product or service. That's when we call them professionals. The people that are now called professionals in the media, specifically newspapers, all have to rethink their careers in light of the Internet and other new technologies. The ones that are really good at what they do, will always find customers willing to pay for their output. The mediocre and crummy ones will have to learn some other way to make a living.
.... sort of like how you buy a bundle of "premium" channels from the cable company....
Oh I hope that they never implement your suggestion. I have quit our cable provider, because they charge a flat rate for a bundle of hundreds of channels which I never watch. They refused to sell only the half dozen or so I would watch for a reasonable price. Now you want to extend that same crummy business model to the Internet.
(...Right now, ISPs are competing on raw pipe....)
That is the way it should be. That's how the telephone works. The telephone company doesn't charge extra for me to talk to people who don't have some sort of a special deal with my telephone company. ISPs should not have the remotest connection with the content that travels over their wires. They should be a common carrier, just like the phone company. Long before the Internet, there was only one phone company in a given locality. I just cannot understand why the Internet should be treated any differently. Just as phone companies are regulated as common carriers, so it should be with ISPs.
Large content providers need fat pipes to the Internet. They pay for these to the carriers, the folks who own the wires. Why should the people that own the wires make more or less money, depending on what the bits represent that travel over their wires? In my estimation, bits are bits are bits are bits are bits and there is no way to tell one bit from another.
...I'll just go somewhere else where the news is free"...
News has always been free, especially for big events such as what happened in Haiti. What has been harder to come by is interesting, worthwhile local news. You know, to find out what friends and neighbors are up to? That is the reason we still subscribe to a paper edition of our hometown newspaper. Getting the special ads for local supermarkets is quite useful at times as well. There are also usually coupons for even bigger savings.
I have never, even once, surfed to a big-city newspaper site other than through Google. If the NYT can no longer be accessed this way for free, they will lose a large number of readers. There will always be free access to big important news events. There will also always be plenty of commentary on news and current events, more than I have time to read anyway.