By your example, you would be forced not to be able to buy a product from someone who doesn't like your skin colour. In this example, you would be made to do something (i.e. leave the shop without making your purchase) with no way out of the situation.
To make a point:
By your example, you would be forced not to be able to buy a product from someone who wants more than you're willing to pay. In this example, you would be made to do something (i.e. leave the shop without making your purchase) with no way out of the situation.
I'm not saying I agree with the other poster, but your argument is just changing the definition of "force" in order to make it look like there's a contradiction where there isn't one. You can't say "(by your definition)" and then go and use a different one. By their definition, when somone doesn't want to sell something, that's not force, it's a choice - when you make them sell it, that's force, you're taking away their choice.
What would be fair would be if everyone was given an equal share of all scarce resources when they were born and anyone who used a resource exclusively for themselves would have to pay rent to everyone else in the world.
Ah, utopianism! If only I could make everyone in the world act the way I want them to, things would be so wonderful!
And I would like to reject your offer. On the other hand, there are several million people that would gladly sell themselves into some kind of slavery, given the right compensation and guarentees. Tell a sub-Saharan African man that you'll fly his family to your (first world) country, get all of them citizenship and support them for life, pay for the kids college and supply drugs so that AIDS kills him in ten years rather than two - and all he has to do is follow your instructions twelve hours a day as long as he lives. A lot of people in situations like that would jump at the chance, even if you were allowed to beat them unconscious once a week, and I wouldn't blame them - it's better than watching AIDS and petty wars kill your children, and knowing the few who survive will have nothing to look forward to but the same, sad life you had.
I guess I just don't see it as nonsense: civil strife and monoculture are bad, but I don't planting non-GMOs will overthrow warlords or prevent giant fields of the same crop from being planted.
As for tithing and paying for the right to work: First, GMO are (or should be) just an option, and more options are usually a good thing. Second most things work that way, you pay for gas to get to work, buy equipment for your small business, or pay property taxes on your farm, right?
As for cash and the global economic system, that's more anti-capitalist than anti-GMO, so I'll save that for a different thread.:)
American gun owners store their guns in extremely dumb places
Can't argue with that.
Many of them also carry their gun around on their body, loaded. This is strictly forbidden where I live and for a good reason. Easy access to guns lead to more gun use.
But that's not the whole story. In the US, as far as we can tell, concealed carry laws have caused a small, but very definite, decrease in violent crime in every state that has passed them. Your example shows that people who have easy access to guns are more likely to use them, but doesn't say anything about what happens when other people have access. FBI statistics (in the "Why Carry?" section) conclude "Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense.", and I haven't found a counterpoint to that.
Over there, it's "part of my freedom, dangnabbit!".
Well, it is! Under the US Constitution, bearing arms is mixed with free speech, freedom of religion and the right to a trial. You might find it odd, but think how anti-Nazi laws or "no head scarves in school" rules in Europe might look to an American.
With all the talk about cancer, he seems to want to manufacture tracers for PET scans (like fluorine 18), which have short half lives, so hospitals have to have fresh batches every day. If that's true, he's making stuff that's so safe that it is specifically made to be injected into people and needs to be manufactured locally. I really don't see too much risk.
Last cyclotron I saw... was in a room with massive concrete walls and a powered concrete door for a reason.
Different reactions require different amounts of power and have different side effects, just like oil refineries and kitchen stoves are both chemical reactors, but otherwise have little in common. High schoolers are building weaker ones. Heck, your CRT TV's a particle accelerator, too.
On the other hand, a little caution isn't a bad thing.:)
Anarcho-socialism (which is essentially a mainstream school of anarchism)
Yes, but it's a type of anarchism, not socialism proper, as you point out. That's not to say that the choice of names is bad, it's just that the word "socialism" (like "anarchism") covers a huge variety of viewpoints that you have to be careful. The other day I was talking to a Marx-quoting "libertarian", which was confusing until I realized he meant "libertarian socialist". "Freedom means almost no private property" and "freedom means you can own almost anything" are nearly opposites.
Thing is, as long as you abolish private property... you effectively get socialism.
That's the theory. On the other hand, every lawless place I know of has the mafia, gangs or warlords. I guss I'd call this anarcho-feudalism (to coin a phrase).
Science is not a free market, quakery and religious cults are.
As far as I can tell, all of your objections to science being like a free market apply at lest as well to the other two categories.
What I was objecting to was:
disagreement is only valuable until you find the right answer, after that people should accept it.
I am actually against "the free market of ideas".
If you'll allow me to restate my position:
In science, we never have "the right answer", we only have well-tested guesses, and because of that, we never get to a point where disagreement isn't valuable. This disagreement is most useful when people are free to use any competing idea they can find, and this pool is sometimes call the "free market of ideas". Without that vast sea of inginuity to fuel the debate, progress in many areas, science especially, is impossible, even if most of the ideas in that pool are trash.
How can individual farming magically be much more efficient than capital-intensive organised farming? This is simply impossible, the invisible hands can't perform miracles.
The short answer is that it harnesses people's economic selfishness. People will almost always put more effort into getting something for themselves (or someone they care about) than for someone they don't know. An analogy (kind of in reverse, though) would be paying your own way vs using a company account. You tend to be more careful with your money (and other stuff) than other people's.
By no means the reduction in hunger was caused by allowing private farms.
The first parts of Chinese economic reform involved implementing the contract responsibility system in agriculture, by which farmers were able to retain surplus over individual plots of land rather than farming for the collective - farmers could sell their surplus crops on the open market.
The second phase of reform occurred in the 1980s and was aimed at creating market institutions and converting the economy from an administratively driven command economy to a price driven market economy.
Chinese economic reform, unlike perestroika, has been an economic success, generating over two decades of rapid economic growth. The standard of living of most Chinese has improved markedly since 1978.
You're right about one thing, I don't know much about Russian economic policy or their situation, so I'll stick with what I know, and that's China. In any case, the "Comparison to Perestroika" section probably is worth a look.
I'd like to share your optimism. And if more people thought like you, the world would be a better place. Well, let's hope for the best.
Thanks, and same to you. I think we've both learned a bit from each other. And on slashdot no less! Who'd have thought?
So if someone with a political perspective that differs from yours points out some facts that make your argument look sketchy, the appropriate response is to make fun of their political views and call them names?
The social model means that the state...
The economic model with state-controlled...
Socialism is also a government model...
State intervention is part of the definition of socialism. Even though this attitude toward P2P achieves (or tries to achieve) many of the goals, it does not require any state intervention, so it's not really socialism.
all about how the captialists (RIAA) are exploiting the workers (artists)
Marx!
That is the fallacy of most revolutions, the average man has rarely come to power. More often than not, he has simply paved the way for another master to take the same place.
Average Joe doesn't treat our planet with the same respect, why should he be treated equally? Being treated differently doesn't mean unfairly.
Average Joe doesn't behave the way I want him to, so why should he be treated as an equal? Being treated differently doesn't mean unfairly, as long as I get to choose who gets what treatment.
If you don't respect Joe, why should he respect you? Why do you get to set the rules about who deserves equal treatment?
Let's see: I use about 15 gal/week * 52 weeks = 780 gal/year - let's make it 1000 - so I'd need up to 1/10 of an acre.
Since it takes about an acre of farmland to feed a person, this seems quite reasonable. Even better, algae can be grown in the desert using seawater, so land and water that is useless for most other purposes can be used for biodiesel.
I was mocking your elitism, not your views on pollution/global warming.
You believe "the average Joe" is too stupid to be treated as an equal, so you feel that it's acceptable to lie to him in order to get him to do what you think is right. Even when this condecending attitude produces the results you want, it infantilizes the rest of mankind and sets a terrible precedent.
... it's something that Joe can get his head around.
Ideally we'd not have to fib to Joe, but... the facts were just not getting through to him.
Brilliant, my noble friend! For a peasant, lying is the most vulgar of sins, but for those with staggering intellects, venerable wisdom and pure morals, such as we two have, small mistruths, in order facilitate the guidance lesser men, are to be lauded. In the end, they will all thank us for our deception and bestow upon us the glory that we truly deserve.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, I took a bath last week!
fuckin
In my dreams!
nerds should be out of harms way for another 18 months once this gem hits the newsgroups.
I never leave the basement anyway, so HA!
To make a point:
By your example, you would be forced not to be able to buy a product from someone who wants more than you're willing to pay. In this example, you would be made to do something (i.e. leave the shop without making your purchase) with no way out of the situation.
I'm not saying I agree with the other poster, but your argument is just changing the definition of "force" in order to make it look like there's a contradiction where there isn't one. You can't say "(by your definition)" and then go and use a different one. By their definition, when somone doesn't want to sell something, that's not force, it's a choice - when you make them sell it, that's force, you're taking away their choice.
Ah, utopianism! If only I could make everyone in the world act the way I want them to, things would be so wonderful!
And I would like to reject your offer. On the other hand, there are several million people that would gladly sell themselves into some kind of slavery, given the right compensation and guarentees. Tell a sub-Saharan African man that you'll fly his family to your (first world) country, get all of them citizenship and support them for life, pay for the kids college and supply drugs so that AIDS kills him in ten years rather than two - and all he has to do is follow your instructions twelve hours a day as long as he lives. A lot of people in situations like that would jump at the chance, even if you were allowed to beat them unconscious once a week, and I wouldn't blame them - it's better than watching AIDS and petty wars kill your children, and knowing the few who survive will have nothing to look forward to but the same, sad life you had.
As for tithing and paying for the right to work: First, GMO are (or should be) just an option, and more options are usually a good thing. Second most things work that way, you pay for gas to get to work, buy equipment for your small business, or pay property taxes on your farm, right?
As for cash and the global economic system, that's more anti-capitalist than anti-GMO, so I'll save that for a different thread. :)
It knocked some sense into other people. France, in particular, waited until the technology was more mature, and doesn't seem to be having problems.
However, the good news is that the end is in sight--the reactor is scheduled to be decommissioned
or almost as bad:
There have been numerous medical cases which precipitated directly from radioactive fallout, and countless others which have not and cannot be proven.
while other people suggest:
No identifiable injuries due to radiation occurred and "the projected number of excess fatal cancers due to the accident ... is approximately one."
Three mile island was mostly just scary.
Can't argue with that.
Many of them also carry their gun around on their body, loaded. This is strictly forbidden where I live and for a good reason. Easy access to guns lead to more gun use.
But that's not the whole story. In the US, as far as we can tell, concealed carry laws have caused a small, but very definite, decrease in violent crime in every state that has passed them. Your example shows that people who have easy access to guns are more likely to use them, but doesn't say anything about what happens when other people have access. FBI statistics (in the "Why Carry?" section) conclude "Violent crime rates are highest overall in states with laws limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed firearms for self-defense.", and I haven't found a counterpoint to that.
Over there, it's "part of my freedom, dangnabbit!".
Well, it is! Under the US Constitution, bearing arms is mixed with free speech, freedom of religion and the right to a trial. You might find it odd, but think how anti-Nazi laws or "no head scarves in school" rules in Europe might look to an American.
Last cyclotron I saw ... was in a room with massive concrete walls and a powered concrete door for a reason.
Different reactions require different amounts of power and have different side effects, just like oil refineries and kitchen stoves are both chemical reactors, but otherwise have little in common. High schoolers are building weaker ones. Heck, your CRT TV's a particle accelerator, too.
On the other hand, a little caution isn't a bad thing. :)
Nicely done.
Check your facts.
OK.
Anarcho-socialism (which is essentially a mainstream school of anarchism)
Yes, but it's a type of anarchism, not socialism proper, as you point out. That's not to say that the choice of names is bad, it's just that the word "socialism" (like "anarchism") covers a huge variety of viewpoints that you have to be careful. The other day I was talking to a Marx-quoting "libertarian", which was confusing until I realized he meant "libertarian socialist". "Freedom means almost no private property" and "freedom means you can own almost anything" are nearly opposites.
Thing is, as long as you abolish private property ... you effectively get socialism.
That's the theory. On the other hand, every lawless place I know of has the mafia, gangs or warlords. I guss I'd call this anarcho-feudalism (to coin a phrase).
So now you're an arrogant prig! Congratulations!
Science is not a free market, quakery and religious cults are.
As far as I can tell, all of your objections to science being like a free market apply at lest as well to the other two categories.
What I was objecting to was:
disagreement is only valuable until you find the right answer, after that people should accept it.
I am actually against "the free market of ideas".
If you'll allow me to restate my position:
In science, we never have "the right answer", we only have well-tested guesses, and because of that, we never get to a point where disagreement isn't valuable. This disagreement is most useful when people are free to use any competing idea they can find, and this pool is sometimes call the "free market of ideas". Without that vast sea of inginuity to fuel the debate, progress in many areas, science especially, is impossible, even if most of the ideas in that pool are trash.
How can individual farming magically be much more efficient than capital-intensive organised farming? This is simply impossible, the invisible hands can't perform miracles.
The short answer is that it harnesses people's economic selfishness. People will almost always put more effort into getting something for themselves (or someone they care about) than for someone they don't know. An analogy (kind of in reverse, though) would be paying your own way vs using a company account. You tend to be more careful with your money (and other stuff) than other people's.
By no means the reduction in hunger was caused by allowing private farms.
They call it "New Communism" and "Market Communism", but has been characterised by many in the West as a return to capitalism.
You're right about one thing, I don't know much about Russian economic policy or their situation, so I'll stick with what I know, and that's China. In any case, the "Comparison to Perestroika" section probably is worth a look.
I'd like to share your optimism. And if more people thought like you, the world would be a better place. Well, let's hope for the best.
Thanks, and same to you. I think we've both learned a bit from each other. And on slashdot no less! Who'd have thought?
Forget that! If it works that well, rebuild our whole energy infastructure around this.
Statecontrolled production with social-security networks
It doesn't sound that way.
nonsense?
So I'd have to be dead and alive at the same time...
What about Schrödinger's cat?
No! Not the box!
nt
You sound just like the conservatives you mock. :)
Socialism requires the government to be involved. This isn't quite the same.
The economic model with state-controlled...
Socialism is also a government model...
State intervention is part of the definition of socialism. Even though this attitude toward P2P achieves (or tries to achieve) many of the goals, it does not require any state intervention, so it's not really socialism.
all about how the captialists (RIAA) are exploiting the workers (artists)
Marx!
That is the fallacy of most revolutions, the average man has rarely come to power. More often than not, he has simply paved the way for another master to take the same place.
Sad, but true.
Average Joe doesn't behave the way I want him to, so why should he be treated as an equal? Being treated differently doesn't mean unfairly, as long as I get to choose who gets what treatment.
If you don't respect Joe, why should he respect you? Why do you get to set the rules about who deserves equal treatment?
With some additional data:
20 horsepower (average use) * 746 watts/hp = 14920 watts for a car to run all the time - so say an average of 1500 if it's used 10% of the time
Even at 1% solar to fuel efficiency and 33% car efficiency, that's 450 kw or 450 m^2 per car
an acre is about 4047 meters => 9 cars/acre
A different way (I know it's only Wikipedia, but if these numbers are right...):
Let's see: I use about 15 gal/week * 52 weeks = 780 gal/year - let's make it 1000 - so I'd need up to 1/10 of an acre.
Since it takes about an acre of farmland to feed a person, this seems quite reasonable. Even better, algae can be grown in the desert using seawater, so land and water that is useless for most other purposes can be used for biodiesel.
You believe "the average Joe" is too stupid to be treated as an equal, so you feel that it's acceptable to lie to him in order to get him to do what you think is right. Even when this condecending attitude produces the results you want, it infantilizes the rest of mankind and sets a terrible precedent.
Ideally we'd not have to fib to Joe, but ... the facts were just not getting through to him.
Brilliant, my noble friend! For a peasant, lying is the most vulgar of sins, but for those with staggering intellects, venerable wisdom and pure morals, such as we two have, small mistruths, in order facilitate the guidance lesser men, are to be lauded. In the end, they will all thank us for our deception and bestow upon us the glory that we truly deserve.