As for the Second Amendment, most people don't think Iraq's armed forces stands a chance against the US. Do you think your "well-regulated militia" really stands a chance if the US Armed Forces can be turned on its citizens?
I'd bet that armed private citizens could defeat the U.S Military. (I was in it) Lots of people were in it, so they know how it works (or doesn't work for that matter). Many would desert. Also, remember Viet Nam.
I agree.... the people are idiots... the thumbs down button is there for a reason... I think I use it way more than I use the thumbs up button because picking a program to record auotmagically gives it a thumbs up. AFAIK there is no automaic thumbs down so you have to tell it. BTW you can even go into the TiVo suggestions section and see what it thinks you would like before it every records it and give thumbs down to stuff you know you don't like.
So I have been on the side of napster. I believe that it ultimately benifits musicians. I believe that the the way giant record labels current do business is a detriment to musicians.
Right now I have guests from Denmark staying with me. They tell me that there is a large balck market for CD sales in Denmark. I guess the cost of an internet connection is very high there and in other parts of Europe as well. (Thats socialism for you). So napster use is not as wide spread. But the people who do use it burn CDs and sell them for around $5. Compared to the $15 to $20 the CD would cost in a retail store, my danish friends tell me that many people buy the burned CD's.
Now I don't know what sales in denmark are but I do know that black market CD sales have to hurt legitimate CD sales. Maybe the record companies should lower their prices, but even if they did they wouldn't be able to compete.
This gives me a little pause and another perspective to look at the situation. I don't think it will change my mind though.
The government went after M$ because they give away a free browser with their OS (among other things). Now look at the movie industry. Granted they are more than one company, but they control the process from making the movie all the way down to what kind af hardware you can watch it on. If I wanted to invent a new media or a different format I could do it, but what good what it do me? Even if it were 10x better than DVD, I wouldn't be able to get any movies published in that media unless I made them myself or sold the rights to the Industry on their terms. I think this is way more out of line than the M$ thing, but it will never get the same scrutiny.
It's not enough to just spend their money there by legitimately helping the economy, rich people must be made to feel guilty. It's not fair that they have more than others and they must have gotten it by being evil. Poor people are good and rich people are bad.... oh wait a minute never mind.
No doubt there are things to learn in college. But to say that college is the only place to learn them is stupid. To say college is the best place to learn them is too general. I couldn't afford to go to college after high-school. I went into the Army... I hated it but I learned some important things there too. I could have learned them in other ways. To say that a college diploma will get you farther than a person without one is not accurate. It is not the diploma that gets a person any where. People become susccessful because they make the most of opportunities when they are presented with them. A diploma may not always offer you better opportunities. I want to go back to college eventually but right now I have other things to do.
One problem with going to college at a young age is the lack of expierience. Some professors are full of shit. Without enough life expierience some people might be misled or confused but these shitheads. After all students are there to learn from the teachers. Younger students might not think to challenge what their teachers are saying. It takes expierience to build an acurate model of reality. IMHO a university is not the best place gather data about reality in order to build that model. In fact I believe that many students come out of universities with wholly warped ideas about the world and it takes them lots of pain and time to reconfigure their models, as it were.
I am an objectivist. For the most part you give a good description. I do want to point out a major inacuaccy though.
Objectivists, however, denounce charitable giving as immoral
This is completely wrong. Objectivist denounce true sacrafice and altruism as immoral. Helping people when it is in your interest to help them is a good thing. Giving to a charity that truely helps people learn to take care of themselves is beneficial to every one. Giveing $5.00 to a drunk bum is hurting both you and the bum.
This is not quite right... script kiddies are not a force of nature. being exploited is not the same as being negligent.
By maintaining a seriously leaky box, Bert ought to be liable to Charlie on the same principles as the owner of the reservoir in Rylands v. Fletcher was, save that we're applying that principle to the net rather than the real world; and
to reverse your analogy.... the devious water waited until the reservoir maintianer went to sleep and purposely sought out the plaintiffs property and destroyed it of its own free will.
Al is liable for the whole sorry mess as he ought to have made the system more secure to start with.
What about the script kiddies.... you don't mention their liability at all??? They are the ones who should pay.
Al should be liable if he sold bert a product that was supposed to be secure... It's up to bert the consumer to understand what he needs (a secure box) and then take appropriate acctions to obtain it. (learn it himself or pay someone who knows it already)
The majority of blame lies on the on the ppl commiting the act. With only slight blame to rest on bert and none on Al (unless he was contracted to provide security specificly)
What about digital books? Just because it's available online doesn't mean that online reading will be the prefered choice for consumption. Hand held "digital" books are already available today, and if the LofC made all of their books available online you would be able to d-load a book and take it to the coffee shop or anywhere else. You could check out books from the library at home and not have to worry about returning them. This guy is a complete bonehead and not a very creative liar!! I bet the real reason he doesn't want to digitize the LofC's books has to do with money.
Today, she can not get a checking account....She is being punished without a trial
The expieriences of your g/f are unfortunate. However banks are not morally obligated to provide service to any one and should be free to associate with whom ever they want selectively.
There is a huge difference between Employers and The Government!!
For starters you enter into a contract with your employeer by choice. If you want privacy in your workplace, then negotioate that into your contract. If they won't agree to it then they must not want what you have bad enough or they can find it some where else.
The difference between the govt and your employeer is: you get to choose who you work for and even if you work at all were as its against the law NOT to fill out your census forms. You have no choice in the matter. (I threw mine away...one samll act of civil disobiedence, but now I am a criminal. Does that make me evil?)
They may in fact have a higher standard of living, but this does not change the fact that they are slaves, albeit well cared for slaves. This is why people are trying to leave. For that matter we here in America are slaves (tax slaves). To define slavery: A slave is one who is prevented from choosing how one disposes of the fruits of one's own labor. There are no degrees of slavery, one is either a slave or one is not, however there are different types. The method of prevention determines the type. Now ask your self do you have a choice whether or not to pay taxes? Let me answer for you NO! If you don't pay you will be imprisoned. Then you'll get a taste chattel slavery. The point I think the other person was trying to make is that a government is not supposed to provide a standard of living, it is supposed to protect us from slavery. The Cuban government does the opposite.
The greatest power of the government is to punish criminals. In order for the government to become more powerfull it need only to manufacture more criminals. Anti-gun laws, anti-drug laws, smog laws, insurance laws, and this kind of thing are all there to give the government more power over the people. But of course they will tell you that it is "to protect our children." Today I engage in the lawful activity of bowling, tomorow the government outlaws bowling. The next day I'm arrested at the bowling alley. Am I a bad person? I'm with you hielo, but we need to be the ones to make the people wake up. How can we accomplish this without coming off like wierdo nutball extremists?
The problem is that these =people= don't just have a few extra powers... they have powers that they can exercise with little fear of being held responsible for their actions... It may only be one person who decides to take an action but once taken, that person has an enormous shield that even usually prevents their identy being revealed. It is big brother that the individual bureaucrat hides behind.
I think I have to agree with this... while the whole "tread-bearings" system would probably be easier to implement, I don't believe that it can ever adequately "fool" one's senses. However if the person's wears a suit that can measure even slight movements and give feedback (probably through some type of shape memory alloy) then "fooling" the senses could be accomplished by having the entire system moving. When the person is (virtually) standing still there would be zero acceleration. When the person moves a slight change in the acceleration would be percieved by the person as movement. The hard part moving in a straight line. The next best thing would be moving in a circle. My first idea would be a slightly tilted centrifuge. Next Idea would be to do it in space. Oh well we'll have to wait for the rocket scientist to get their butts in gear and make space travel cheap. Now that I've wandered completely off topic go ahead flame away.
Why do you think that the officials we would get in a small government would be less corrupt than the ones we have now?
I don't think they would be lees corrupt people. But if they didn't have the ability to make laws (corrupt or not) then it wouldn't matter. People are not perfect. The government is made of people. Therefore it should be extremely limited in its powers inoreder to prevent it's imperfections from imposing on the rights of individuals.
Agencies that do environmental protection, trade protections, scientific research, etc. are there because we need them, and these were not or could not be fulfilled any other way.
I strongly disagree with you on that point. I think that the problems that those types of agencies "deal with" would be better solved if left to the people to solve via civil discourse.
The government may do alot of "good" but that "good" is being accomplished by slavery.
What are you talking about???? If only the people/companies who used the roads paid for them directly through tolls or gas tax or whatever, people who never used the roads would still end up paying for them indirectly in the cost of the products they buy, because the people selling the products incorporate the tax into the price of their product. So a person who is taxed, and does not use the roads, yet buys products from people who do, would be paying twice. That is wrong.
Because of the nature of government it will always either 1)seriously infringe on the rights of some one or 2)inadequately provide the last three services you mentioned. National Defense and Justice (both civil and criminal) are the only two functions a government should attempt.
I think you are missing the point. Today I'm not a criminal. But if tomorow the government passes a law restricting the rights I have today I have to decide whether or not I will be a criminal. The government will turn me into a criminal if I decide that my rights are more important than the obeying the law. Once the government turns me into a criminal over one right it gives them the opportunity to stomp on all the rest.
If furbies are outlawed, only outlaws will have furbies. Because the government turned them into outlaws.
What a fucked up notion.... The virtue of a small government is it's lack of power and therefore it's lack of the tendency to become corrupt. If the government didn't have the ability to make laws then the lobbyist could not lobby for laws to suit their agendas. As for comparing our government to others thats also a bad arguement. Just because other governments are worse than our doesn't mean we should be satisfied with the crap our government decides to foist on us. If in fact the U.S. is the best system when compared to the rest that still doesn't mean it is accepable. When it ceases to be the governments job to "take care" of the people and it's only function is to literally protect us from invasion, and act as mediator when disputes arise between individuals, then I can be satisfied with the government. Anything else is slavery.
I'm with you on that one, also vote on any initiative that removes an existing law. Vote NO on any new law. I don't know if we CAN vote the government away, but it is still worth a try.
Slashdot Mirror
I like the heavens above page, but that is probably gonna be for the older knids of the group or maybe some supervised activity.
http://www.heavens-above.com
I'd bet that armed private citizens could defeat the U.S Military. (I was in it) Lots of people were in it, so they know how it works (or doesn't work for that matter). Many would desert. Also, remember Viet Nam.
I agree.... the people are idiots... the thumbs down button is there for a reason... I think I use it way more than I use the thumbs up button because picking a program to record auotmagically gives it a thumbs up. AFAIK there is no automaic thumbs down so you have to tell it. BTW you can even go into the TiVo suggestions section and see what it thinks you would like before it every records it and give thumbs down to stuff you know you don't like.
So I have been on the side of napster. I believe that it ultimately benifits musicians. I believe that the the way giant record labels current do business is a detriment to musicians.
Right now I have guests from Denmark staying with me. They tell me that there is a large balck market for CD sales in Denmark. I guess the cost of an internet connection is very high there and in other parts of Europe as well. (Thats socialism for you). So napster use is not as wide spread. But the people who do use it burn CDs and sell them for around $5. Compared to the $15 to $20 the CD would cost in a retail store, my danish friends tell me that many people buy the burned CD's.
Now I don't know what sales in denmark are but I do know that black market CD sales have to hurt legitimate CD sales. Maybe the record companies should lower their prices, but even if they did they wouldn't be able to compete.
This gives me a little pause and another perspective to look at the situation. I don't think it will change my mind though.
The government went after M$ because they give away a free browser with their OS (among other things). Now look at the movie industry. Granted they are more than one company, but they control the process from making the movie all the way down to what kind af hardware you can watch it on. If I wanted to invent a new media or a different format I could do it, but what good what it do me? Even if it were 10x better than DVD, I wouldn't be able to get any movies published in that media unless I made them myself or sold the rights to the Industry on their terms. I think this is way more out of line than the M$ thing, but it will never get the same scrutiny.
It's not enough to just spend their money there by legitimately helping the economy, rich people must be made to feel guilty. It's not fair that they have more than others and they must have gotten it by being evil. Poor people are good and rich people are bad.... oh wait a minute never mind.
Easy.... not enough$$$$
I couldn't afford college so I guess that makes me stupid.
One problem with going to college at a young age is the lack of expierience. Some professors are full of shit. Without enough life expierience some people might be misled or confused but these shitheads. After all students are there to learn from the teachers. Younger students might not think to challenge what their teachers are saying. It takes expierience to build an acurate model of reality. IMHO a university is not the best place gather data about reality in order to build that model. In fact I believe that many students come out of universities with wholly warped ideas about the world and it takes them lots of pain and time to reconfigure their models, as it were.
I am an objectivist.
For the most part you give a good description.
I do want to point out a major inacuaccy though.
Objectivists, however, denounce charitable giving as immoral
This is completely wrong. Objectivist denounce true sacrafice and altruism as immoral.
Helping people when it is in your interest to help them is a good thing. Giving to a charity that truely helps people learn to take care of themselves is beneficial to every one. Giveing $5.00 to a drunk bum is hurting both you and the bum.
This is not quite right...
script kiddies are not a force of nature.
being exploited is not the same as being negligent.
By maintaining a seriously leaky box, Bert ought to be liable to Charlie on the same principles as the owner of the reservoir in Rylands v. Fletcher was, save that we're applying that principle to the net rather than the real world; and
to reverse your analogy.... the devious water waited until the reservoir maintianer went to sleep and purposely sought out the plaintiffs property and destroyed it of its own free will.
Al is liable for the whole sorry mess as he ought to have made the system more secure to start with.
What about the script kiddies.... you don't mention their liability at all??? They are the ones who should pay.
Al should be liable if he sold bert a product that was supposed to be secure... It's up to bert the consumer to understand what he needs (a secure box) and then take appropriate acctions to obtain it. (learn it himself or pay someone who knows it already)
The majority of blame lies on the on the ppl commiting the act. With only slight blame to rest on bert and none on Al (unless he was contracted to provide security specificly)
The expieriences of your g/f are unfortunate. However banks are not morally obligated to provide service to any one and should be free to associate with whom ever they want selectively.
There is a huge difference between Employers and The Government!!
For starters you enter into a contract with your employeer by choice. If you want privacy in your workplace, then negotioate that into your contract. If they won't agree to it then they must not want what you have bad enough or they can find it some where else.
The difference between the govt and your employeer is: you get to choose who you work for and even if you work at all were as its against the law NOT to fill out your census forms. You have no choice in the matter. (I threw mine away...one samll act of civil disobiedence, but now I am a criminal. Does that make me evil?)
They may in fact have a higher standard of living, but this does not change the fact that they are slaves, albeit well cared for slaves. This is why people are trying to leave. For that matter we here in America are slaves (tax slaves). To define slavery: A slave is one who is prevented from choosing how one disposes of the fruits of one's own labor. There are no degrees of slavery, one is either a slave or one is not, however there are different types. The method of prevention determines the type. Now ask your self do you have a choice whether or not to pay taxes? Let me answer for you NO! If you don't pay you will be imprisoned. Then you'll get a taste chattel slavery. The point I think the other person was trying to make is that a government is not supposed to provide a standard of living, it is supposed to protect us from slavery. The Cuban government does the opposite.
The greatest power of the government is to punish criminals. In order for the government to become more powerfull it need only to manufacture more criminals. Anti-gun laws, anti-drug laws, smog laws, insurance laws, and this kind of thing are all there to give the government more power over the people. But of course they will tell you that it is "to protect our children."
Today I engage in the lawful activity of bowling, tomorow the government outlaws bowling. The next day I'm arrested at the bowling alley. Am I a bad person? I'm with you hielo, but we need to be the ones to make the people wake up. How can we accomplish this without coming off like wierdo nutball extremists?
The problem is that these =people= don't just have a few extra powers... they have powers that they can exercise with little fear of being held responsible for their actions... It may only be one person who decides to take an action but once taken, that person has an enormous shield that even usually prevents their identy being revealed. It is big brother that the individual bureaucrat hides behind.
I think I have to agree with this... while the whole "tread-bearings" system would probably be easier to implement, I don't believe that it can ever adequately "fool" one's senses. However if the person's wears a suit that can measure even slight movements and give feedback (probably through some type of shape memory alloy) then "fooling" the senses could be accomplished by having the entire system moving. When the person is (virtually) standing still there would be zero acceleration. When the person moves a slight change in the acceleration would be percieved by the person as movement. The hard part moving in a straight line. The next best thing would be moving in a circle. My first idea would be a slightly tilted centrifuge. Next Idea would be to do it in space. Oh well we'll have to wait for the rocket scientist to get their butts in gear and make space travel cheap. Now that I've wandered completely off topic go ahead flame away.
You can even see this with BLANK zip-100 disks
I don't think they would be lees corrupt people. But if they didn't have the ability to make laws (corrupt or not) then it wouldn't matter. People are not perfect. The government is made of people. Therefore it should be extremely limited in its powers inoreder to prevent it's imperfections from imposing on the rights of individuals.
Agencies that do environmental protection, trade protections, scientific research, etc. are there because we need them, and these were not or could not be fulfilled any other way.
I strongly disagree with you on that point. I think that the problems that those types of agencies "deal with" would be better solved if left to the people to solve via civil discourse.
The government may do alot of "good" but that "good" is being accomplished by slavery.
What are you talking about???? If only the people/companies who used the roads paid for them directly through tolls or gas tax or whatever, people who never used the roads would still end up paying for them indirectly in the cost of the products they buy, because the people selling the products incorporate the tax into the price of their product. So a person who is taxed, and does not use the roads, yet buys products from people who do, would be paying twice. That is wrong.
Because of the nature of government it will always either 1)seriously infringe on the rights of some one or 2)inadequately provide the last three services you mentioned. National Defense and Justice (both civil and criminal) are the only two functions a government should attempt.
If furbies are outlawed, only outlaws will have furbies. Because the government turned them into outlaws.
Crime cannot be stopped by punishing law abiding citezens for the expected behavior of criminals.
What a fucked up notion.... The virtue of a small government is it's lack of power and therefore it's lack of the tendency to become corrupt. If the government didn't have the ability to make laws then the lobbyist could not lobby for laws to suit their agendas.
As for comparing our government to others thats also a bad arguement. Just because other governments are worse than our doesn't mean we should be satisfied with the crap our government decides to foist on us. If in fact the U.S. is the best system when compared to the rest that still doesn't mean it is accepable.
When it ceases to be the governments job to "take care" of the people and it's only function is to literally protect us from invasion, and act as mediator when disputes arise between individuals, then I can be satisfied with the government. Anything else is slavery.
I'm with you on that one, also vote on any initiative that removes an existing law. Vote NO on any new law. I don't know if we CAN vote the government away, but it is still worth a try.