Libertarian capitalists generally fail to realize that property is an invention that we use to help support such primary rights, not a primary right in and of itself; and that much of the property that they place such importance on is an artifical creation of the state, thus making "anarcho-" or "libertarian" capitalism a contradiction in terms.
No, libertarians think that property ownership is a primary, natural right and not an invention of the state. You may think they're idiots, which is fine, but you can't use your opinion to make something a contradiction. That's like saying "I don't believe that God exists, so a 'theistic person' is an oxymoron". It doesn't work that way.
But I would really like to know what the primary rights you mentioned are if property ownership is secondary.
On private property: "How many liberals do you honestly think would answer "yes" to the latter two?"
Well, none. On the other hand, many liberal think that people other than the owner can have a very large say in how your property is used. The Supreme Court (USA) decided that if someone might pay more in property taxes to a city than you do, you can be forced to sell to them, and this was fairly straight 5-4 liberal vs conservative opinion. And let's not get into the whole "stakeholder" idea. Most people on the left aren't against owning property, it's the "private" part that some of them want to dilute.
"Private property should be allowed in all cases."... How many liberals do you honestly think would answer "yes" to the latter two?
If they were honest, all of them. Even conservatives would. Find me one person that says privately owned nuclear weapons should be legal without restriction. This is where a lot of my moderate friends have a point - most liberal people say you have a right to play music (but no so loud that it keeps the neighbors up), the right to drive (but not too fast), the right to smoke (but not in a hospital), the right to generate and sell power (within pollution guidelines) and the right to abortion (at all times). Why should abortion be so different?
Criminalize does not mean "ban entirely".
Yes, but saying that I want to "criminalize driving" because I want drunk driving banned is kind of inflammatory and takes away from the discussion.
The people who oppose Roe v. Wade on legalistic grounds seem to be the fringe radicals way outside the mainstream.... just seems to want teenage mothers from killing "unborn" children.
Well, I am outside the mainstream, but not the way you describe. I do think that abortion should be legal in almost every case (meaning under restrictions similar to every other human activity), but I want it strongly supported by well-reasoned legal arguments, not BS.
More importantly, if you make the law "flexible" so you can bend it the way you want, even with good intentions, what do you do when someone else bends it in a different way that you don't want? If you're willing to cheat in order to win, you give up the right to cry foul when someone else does it.
More to the point, ID is wrong because it is not a valid scientific theory.
Probably should have said "ID should not be taught in science class, because". Less dogmatic that way.
Wow, that's one of the stupidest things I've read in awhile,...
You don't read slashdot much, do you? Also, you're being a jerk.
The Big Bang is not falsifiable either, yet it is considered science.
That's just funny. Everything appears to be moving away from everything else (red shift), so let's make up a hypothesis about the universe being much smaller a long time ago. So let's test it. If it was smaller back then, it was also hotter (energy in less space) and hot stuff gives off radiation, and adding in the expantion of the universe (part of the theory) this radiation should be microwaves at this point. So let's take a look... Holy cosmic microwave background radiation, Batman! (From the article) "This radiation, as well as the red shift, are regarded as the best available evidence of the Big Bang (BB) theory."
This is exactly the same as evolution, but with a different starting point (perfection rather than primordial ooze). The process of evolution is the same in both cases. Even standard evolution describes how creatures gain and lose things in order to adapt - bacteria will gain the abilty to survive antibiotics when in a human population (to survive modern medicine), and then lose it again (to gain efficiency) when in the wild again.
Yet evolutionists would have me believe that a TCP stack evolved given enough time.. huh where is the trail of partially working code.
People do this all of the time. Mathematical formulas, electronic curcuits, computer programs and even consumer products have all been produced by simulating evolution. The results are often suprising, even to the people who created the simulation.
Common sense says that the gradual decrease in information will be orders of magnitude greater than any increase, and the replication of the decreasing order will overwhelm the increase.
Increasing order is only an occational side effect of adapting to the environment. Also, the vast majority of creatures in the wild don't successfully reproduce, so 99.99% of the variation in a species can be very detrimental, but will disappear quite quickly.
Back to your main idea: Ockam's Razor favors natural theories over natural+supernatural ones, but let's give it a shot. If your idea is correct, there should be human (or superhuman) fossils mixed in everywhere, but there don't seem to be. Plus, why don't bacteria (which reproduce very quickly), "devolve" even faster than people do, and disintigrate to the point that they can barely survive?
How much easier would it be to influence people's votes if those people have no education?
Yes, instead let's have politicians choose what material they'll be forced to learn! That will allow them to think independently!/sarcasm
Where do you get educated workers for your business if poor people have nowhere to go to get educated?
You could train them. Internships are quite common, other places will pay part (or even all of) your educational expences if it would directly help with the job you're doing (or are going to be doing).
Mostly, we are confused. A lot of your post doesn't fit with what we (people who believe in evolution) have studied. I mean, even if it turns out you're correct, what if someone in a physics class said "heavier objects fall faster", or in an economics class said "minimum wage doesn't cause unemployment", without a strong and convincing argument? It's hard to avoid the frustrated "what an idiot". You just need to work on your approach.:)
Knees are weird, most animals have their ankle near the middle of their leg, and walk in their toes. Dogs sometimes have a "spur" by their "knee", but if you look at their skeleton, it's a toe, right where it should be in relation to the other bones.
Few things in biology have absolutely no use at all, but the appendix is still pointless. People live just as long and just as healthy with or without it, so why put it in? I'm sure a similar argument could be made of whale leg bones. And why on earth would they be so similar to leg bones if they exist to support reproductive organs?
Why does truth and fact matter to you anyway?
I really don't even begin to know how to respond to this. The fact that you would ask this is staggering. Do you really think that athiests don't care about what goes on in the world around them? Can you see why this is like asking a Hindu "If you don't believe in the Lord our God, why do you care about your children?"? We're all human, so we're all curious and empathetic. I don't know how you could live long enough to pick up a language and not notice our common humanity. [Now I'm starting to be insulting, sorry.:(]
So here's a (rather long) question for you, in the same spirit as the question you asked. Imagine finding out that most of the people (adults included) in your life really, honestly, believe in Santa Claus, that the only reason they (and everyone else they know) never get gifts at Christmas is that they weren't good enough that year, that he and his elves live (incoporially) at the North Pole, that people who don't believe in him have no reason to behave properly, and that no evidence against this belief will sway them in the slightest. How would you react? And do you see how this is exactly the position athiests feel that they are in?
questions like "are you available" aren't funny at all: it is degrading.
No, they aren't. He obviously isn't serious (posting AC), and even if he wasn't, how could this possibly be "degrading"?
If you read my post, I just giving some helpful tips.
No, you were deliberately insulting someone for making a joke.
The only reason I can think of for your first post is that you think women have to be coddled and protected form any form of male sexual or romantic expression, even the most mild and tenative. That kind of view implys that women are too weak to handle the fact that they are attractive and/or that men's emotions are bad in some way the precludes their expression in civil society. Either way, you are being sexist.
Sure. Cause women don't talk about "tight butts", "great chests", "muscular legs", "nice abs", "strong arms" or anything else like that./sarcasm I just think men have several centuries of catching up to do in the "sexy clothes" department.
On the other hand, you have a point about men's sexuality being treated as evil.
Usually when one group can choose from any available option, and another group can choose from some options, the group with less choice is the one that is being repressed. Since women can wear clothes that used to be reserved for men, but not the reverse, this would suggest that men are opressed.
I offer the above only in a half-serious way, but think about it. Any woman in a western country can wear a skirt, dress, pants or jeans, an noone really cares. On the other hand, any man that wears one of the first two options will be seen as tremendously odd. So, for a man, being President, CEO, a banker or a billionaire doesn't make a difference, you still don't have as many options for what to wear as the average housewife does.
Exactly! I'm for birth control, abortion, infanticide and murder. So everyone who disagrees with me has been brainwashed. QED
\sarcasm
I may be pro-choice, but there isn't a logical conflict in the GP's statement. Also, you are not only wrong, but a jerk for mocking his views without even trying to understand him.
And if the pregnancy really is the woman's body and/or property, then on what basis can we hold the man responsible for what the woman chooses to do or not do with it?
It's interesting that your principle of responsibility only applies one way. That men should not be held responsible for engaging in a sexual act, but women should be.
No, you're the one advocating unequal responsibility. She can "walk out" by getting an abortion, but he has no similar right. Sheldon is correct in that you want to immunize her from burden, but have no qualms with forcing them on him.
I don't mean to be rude, but that's textbook hypocrisy there.
If you take the stance that it is not part of her body, then it is depending on her property, and what she does to her property is tough for the fetus.
Following that line of thought, child support and neglect laws should be overturned as well. A 1 year old (or an 8 year old for that matter) requires a whole host of support, both in labor and material, how is that different than a fetus, once we assume it is not part of her body? If we can't force a woman to use her body to support a person before birth, how can we force her to feed one after birth? Or pay for someone else to do so?
I have a right to force trespassers off of my property, with physical force if necessary. However, if I have someone fly with me (I'm a pilot) I can't exert this right halfway through the trip and just throw them out of the door. Even if they're a stowaway, I can't do something lethal to them, when I can just wait until I've landed to kick them off.
It seems that if a woman can cut up a fetus solely because it uses her body, he boyfriend can refuse child support solely because it's his money, and I can throw her off my plane 10,000 feet over the Atlantic solely because she is using my plane. This would have to apply even if she wanted to get pregnant, even if he wanted a kid, and even if I invited her to go with me.
I am a strong supporter of property rights, and I do think abortion should be unrestricted (in the early part of the pregnancy), and I do think child support law needs to be reformed. But if you focus on a womans right to control her body, and completely ignore the fetus's confilicting right to its body, then your argument needs something else, like "a fetus has different rights" or "it isn't a person".
Sorry for the long post and my bluntness, but it's hard to say "I agree with your position, but you argument is terrible" in a polite way and still make your position clear.
If environmentalists would just buy the old-growth forest, they could accomplish their goal and do so without interfering with other people's livelihood. But that's not the accepted solution - it's easier to just find someone who owns part of that forest and try to change the law to make them do what you want them to do.
The fact that this solution is almost entirely ignored in favor of legislation makes these advocates look like "the government will save us" extremists even when they aren't.
You've obviously used a Mac a lot. I'm sorry, but no one else would think that.
The user is trying to say "give me the disk (I want to keep it)", and moving something to the trash means "throw this away (I don't want it)". These are opposites!
From a UI perspective, ejecting is more closely related to printing (the user gets a physical object). So should I drag documents to the trash to print them?
More to the point, why treat disks (root directories) and folders (subdirectories) so differently? They should be the same from the user's perspective.
-Yndrd1984
P.S. If I drag a hard drive to the trash, does it eject? That would be impressive.:)
But your post uses exactly the same apocalyptic thinking that the original poster was mocking:
100 of those studies say the structure will catastrophically collapse, likely killing 99% of the people inside
Sounds scary! But that isn't what any of the studies suggest. None of them say 99% of cell phone users will get cancer. Your middle paragraph sounds much more reasonable:
even if it turns out there's no fire, all you did was... make other sensible precautions against fire anyway -- no biggie
I would support efforts to look into things further, but if a good chunk of the studies can't find any effect at all, the risk is probably rather small. We know for a fact that sunlight (UV) causes cancer, and the biggest risk for my demographic is automobile accidents, but if I use sunscreen when I'm outside all day and wear my seatbelt, I won't worry too much. Taking the same attitude toward cell phones, until I hear that there's a provable effect or that thousands of New Yorkers are getting brain cancer, I don't think my 10 minutes a week of cell phone use warrents any more worry than the other two risks.
I think most libertarians would say that the government should not have any influence over the economy, so there would not be any reason to bribe the government in the first place. Plus, lots of people make self-serving demands - "AARP will say you're against old people if you don't..." or "if you vote for gay marriage, we will 'suggest' that you're an athest to our congregation" and we manage to get by. Is this really that different?
Second, IMHO, voting is just a way to keep people from getting completely screwed by the government, not a panacea for the common man. At least in my country, it's more like "one person, one small chance of affecting who gets elected, and that chance is based on how homogeneous the state you live in is (and usually it's a forgone conclusion)".
More to the point, what exactly is the line between "do what I say or the jobs get it" and "if other countries have a better environment for my business, I'm likely to move there"?
Lastly, it's easy to criticize when you aren't offering any ideas of your own (other than "they're in cloud cuckoo land"). So what would you suggest as an alternative?
Slashdot Mirror
No, libertarians think that property ownership is a primary, natural right and not an invention of the state. You may think they're idiots, which is fine, but you can't use your opinion to make something a contradiction. That's like saying "I don't believe that God exists, so a 'theistic person' is an oxymoron". It doesn't work that way.
But I would really like to know what the primary rights you mentioned are if property ownership is secondary.
Well, none. On the other hand, many liberal think that people other than the owner can have a very large say in how your property is used. The Supreme Court (USA) decided that if someone might pay more in property taxes to a city than you do, you can be forced to sell to them, and this was fairly straight 5-4 liberal vs conservative opinion. And let's not get into the whole "stakeholder" idea. Most people on the left aren't against owning property, it's the "private" part that some of them want to dilute.
"Private property should be allowed in all cases." ... How many liberals do you honestly think would answer "yes" to the latter two?
If they were honest, all of them. Even conservatives would. Find me one person that says privately owned nuclear weapons should be legal without restriction. This is where a lot of my moderate friends have a point - most liberal people say you have a right to play music (but no so loud that it keeps the neighbors up), the right to drive (but not too fast), the right to smoke (but not in a hospital), the right to generate and sell power (within pollution guidelines) and the right to abortion (at all times). Why should abortion be so different?
Criminalize does not mean "ban entirely".
Yes, but saying that I want to "criminalize driving" because I want drunk driving banned is kind of inflammatory and takes away from the discussion.
The people who oppose Roe v. Wade on legalistic grounds seem to be the fringe radicals way outside the mainstream. ... just seems to want teenage mothers from killing "unborn" children.
Well, I am outside the mainstream, but not the way you describe. I do think that abortion should be legal in almost every case (meaning under restrictions similar to every other human activity), but I want it strongly supported by well-reasoned legal arguments, not BS.
More importantly, if you make the law "flexible" so you can bend it the way you want, even with good intentions, what do you do when someone else bends it in a different way that you don't want? If you're willing to cheat in order to win, you give up the right to cry foul when someone else does it.
Probably should have said "ID should not be taught in science class, because". Less dogmatic that way.
Wow, that's one of the stupidest things I've read in awhile, ...
You don't read slashdot much, do you? Also, you're being a jerk.
The Big Bang is not falsifiable either, yet it is considered science.
That's just funny. Everything appears to be moving away from everything else (red shift), so let's make up a hypothesis about the universe being much smaller a long time ago. So let's test it. If it was smaller back then, it was also hotter (energy in less space) and hot stuff gives off radiation, and adding in the expantion of the universe (part of the theory) this radiation should be microwaves at this point. So let's take a look ... Holy cosmic microwave background radiation, Batman! (From the article) "This radiation, as well as the red shift, are regarded as the best available evidence of the Big Bang (BB) theory."
How is that not an attempt at falsification?
Yet evolutionists would have me believe that a TCP stack evolved given enough time.. huh where is the trail of partially working code.
People do this all of the time. Mathematical formulas, electronic curcuits, computer programs and even consumer products have all been produced by simulating evolution. The results are often suprising, even to the people who created the simulation.
Common sense says that the gradual decrease in information will be orders of magnitude greater than any increase, and the replication of the decreasing order will overwhelm the increase.
Increasing order is only an occational side effect of adapting to the environment. Also, the vast majority of creatures in the wild don't successfully reproduce, so 99.99% of the variation in a species can be very detrimental, but will disappear quite quickly.
Back to your main idea: Ockam's Razor favors natural theories over natural+supernatural ones, but let's give it a shot. If your idea is correct, there should be human (or superhuman) fossils mixed in everywhere, but there don't seem to be. Plus, why don't bacteria (which reproduce very quickly), "devolve" even faster than people do, and disintigrate to the point that they can barely survive?
Yes, instead let's have politicians choose what material they'll be forced to learn! That will allow them to think independently! /sarcasm
Where do you get educated workers for your business if poor people have nowhere to go to get educated?
You could train them. Internships are quite common, other places will pay part (or even all of) your educational expences if it would directly help with the job you're doing (or are going to be doing).
Just another perspective on the issue. :)
Thanks! I do. :)
Knees are weird, most animals have their ankle near the middle of their leg, and walk in their toes. Dogs sometimes have a "spur" by their "knee", but if you look at their skeleton, it's a toe, right where it should be in relation to the other bones.
Few things in biology have absolutely no use at all, but the appendix is still pointless. People live just as long and just as healthy with or without it, so why put it in? I'm sure a similar argument could be made of whale leg bones. And why on earth would they be so similar to leg bones if they exist to support reproductive organs?
Why does truth and fact matter to you anyway?
I really don't even begin to know how to respond to this. The fact that you would ask this is staggering. Do you really think that athiests don't care about what goes on in the world around them? Can you see why this is like asking a Hindu "If you don't believe in the Lord our God, why do you care about your children?"? We're all human, so we're all curious and empathetic. I don't know how you could live long enough to pick up a language and not notice our common humanity. [Now I'm starting to be insulting, sorry. :(]
So here's a (rather long) question for you, in the same spirit as the question you asked. Imagine finding out that most of the people (adults included) in your life really, honestly, believe in Santa Claus, that the only reason they (and everyone else they know) never get gifts at Christmas is that they weren't good enough that year, that he and his elves live (incoporially) at the North Pole, that people who don't believe in him have no reason to behave properly, and that no evidence against this belief will sway them in the slightest. How would you react? And do you see how this is exactly the position athiests feel that they are in?
No, they aren't. He obviously isn't serious (posting AC), and even if he wasn't, how could this possibly be "degrading"?
If you read my post, I just giving some helpful tips.
No, you were deliberately insulting someone for making a joke.
The only reason I can think of for your first post is that you think women have to be coddled and protected form any form of male sexual or romantic expression, even the most mild and tenative. That kind of view implys that women are too weak to handle the fact that they are attractive and/or that men's emotions are bad in some way the precludes their expression in civil society. Either way, you are being sexist.
First you chastises the him for being 'not nice', and then you insult him. You're a hypocritical prig.
and get out of the house some. ... treating people nicely and with respect is a Good Thing.
And the self-aggrandizing rant continues. Why not just say "Hi! I think I'm better than you."
On the other hand, you have a point about men's sexuality being treated as evil.
I offer the above only in a half-serious way, but think about it. Any woman in a western country can wear a skirt, dress, pants or jeans, an noone really cares. On the other hand, any man that wears one of the first two options will be seen as tremendously odd. So, for a man, being President, CEO, a banker or a billionaire doesn't make a difference, you still don't have as many options for what to wear as the average housewife does.
\sarcasm
I may be pro-choice, but there isn't a logical conflict in the GP's statement. Also, you are not only wrong, but a jerk for mocking his views without even trying to understand him.
It's interesting that your principle of responsibility only applies one way. That men should not be held responsible for engaging in a sexual act, but women should be.
No, you're the one advocating unequal responsibility. She can "walk out" by getting an abortion, but he has no similar right. Sheldon is correct in that you want to immunize her from burden, but have no qualms with forcing them on him.
I don't mean to be rude, but that's textbook hypocrisy there.
Following that line of thought, child support and neglect laws should be overturned as well. A 1 year old (or an 8 year old for that matter) requires a whole host of support, both in labor and material, how is that different than a fetus, once we assume it is not part of her body? If we can't force a woman to use her body to support a person before birth, how can we force her to feed one after birth? Or pay for someone else to do so?
I have a right to force trespassers off of my property, with physical force if necessary. However, if I have someone fly with me (I'm a pilot) I can't exert this right halfway through the trip and just throw them out of the door. Even if they're a stowaway, I can't do something lethal to them, when I can just wait until I've landed to kick them off.
It seems that if a woman can cut up a fetus solely because it uses her body, he boyfriend can refuse child support solely because it's his money, and I can throw her off my plane 10,000 feet over the Atlantic solely because she is using my plane. This would have to apply even if she wanted to get pregnant, even if he wanted a kid, and even if I invited her to go with me.
I am a strong supporter of property rights, and I do think abortion should be unrestricted (in the early part of the pregnancy), and I do think child support law needs to be reformed. But if you focus on a womans right to control her body, and completely ignore the fetus's confilicting right to its body, then your argument needs something else, like "a fetus has different rights" or "it isn't a person".
Sorry for the long post and my bluntness, but it's hard to say "I agree with your position, but you argument is terrible" in a polite way and still make your position clear.
Yes.
I gotta go now... :)
-Yndrd1984
(If you mean he destroyed them long before he knew he was going to be invaded (1990s), that's a different issue.)
If you have a cite, please give it to the rest of us. This issue is too important to play games with.
(On the other hand, if you don't have a cite, could you tell me how you know "This is fact."?)
Thank you in advance,
-Yndrd1984
If environmentalists would just buy the old-growth forest, they could accomplish their goal and do so without interfering with other people's livelihood. But that's not the accepted solution - it's easier to just find someone who owns part of that forest and try to change the law to make them do what you want them to do.
The fact that this solution is almost entirely ignored in favor of legislation makes these advocates look like "the government will save us" extremists even when they aren't.
Just trying to make the other POV clear.
-Yndrd1984
The funniest part is where you make fun of him for something he didn't say. Or maybe that's pathetic; tough to tell.
- Yndrd1984
The user is trying to say "give me the disk (I want to keep it)", and moving something to the trash means "throw this away (I don't want it)". These are opposites!
From a UI perspective, ejecting is more closely related to printing (the user gets a physical object). So should I drag documents to the trash to print them?
More to the point, why treat disks (root directories) and folders (subdirectories) so differently? They should be the same from the user's perspective.
-Yndrd1984
P.S. If I drag a hard drive to the trash, does it eject? That would be impressive. :)
-Yndrd1984
Due to youth or general cluelessness, I have yet to find such a method. Could you enlighten me, or at least give me some ideas/places to look?
-Yndrd1984
100 of those studies say the structure will catastrophically collapse, likely killing 99% of the people inside
Sounds scary! But that isn't what any of the studies suggest. None of them say 99% of cell phone users will get cancer. Your middle paragraph sounds much more reasonable:
even if it turns out there's no fire, all you did was ... make other sensible precautions against fire anyway -- no biggie
I would support efforts to look into things further, but if a good chunk of the studies can't find any effect at all, the risk is probably rather small. We know for a fact that sunlight (UV) causes cancer, and the biggest risk for my demographic is automobile accidents, but if I use sunscreen when I'm outside all day and wear my seatbelt, I won't worry too much. Taking the same attitude toward cell phones, until I hear that there's a provable effect or that thousands of New Yorkers are getting brain cancer, I don't think my 10 minutes a week of cell phone use warrents any more worry than the other two risks.
- Yndrd1984
I can only guess that either they thought that being a rude author/philosopher is worse than being a sociopathic murderer/orator...
or they think she might be just a little bit right about something, and the thought of that terrified them.
Then again, who knows?
- Yndrd 1984
Second, IMHO, voting is just a way to keep people from getting completely screwed by the government, not a panacea for the common man. At least in my country, it's more like "one person, one small chance of affecting who gets elected, and that chance is based on how homogeneous the state you live in is (and usually it's a forgone conclusion)".
More to the point, what exactly is the line between "do what I say or the jobs get it" and "if other countries have a better environment for my business, I'm likely to move there"?
Lastly, it's easy to criticize when you aren't offering any ideas of your own (other than "they're in cloud cuckoo land"). So what would you suggest as an alternative?
-Yndrd1984
Yndrd1984