Back in the olden days, I had to hook up my computer to the 13" b&w tv set at night after everyone went to bed to get online @300baud and type my term papers.
"Greed" can't impact others. Greed is an implication and/or a motive. Motives without actions impact self only.
An action may impact others. But an action motivated by greed has the same impact on others as the same action motivated by love or unmotated at all, by accident.
So in other words you don't believe that there is any such thing as morality or ethics?
Interesting that you quote CS Lewis, I'm not sure he would have agreed with you.
Some can be crazy libertarian gun and gold nuts like the Swiss.
I don't think that Switzerland is the gun-lovers nirvana a lot of Americans assume.
Adult males have to keep an official military weapon at home (but aren't permitted to keep military ammunition) so this gives a high headline figure for gun "ownership".
Other firearm and ammunition purchases are quite heavily regulated, at least by US standards.
Taking what you euphemistically call "state money" but which is really a citizen's tax money and handing it out to people that citizen hates flies in the face of freedom of association.
Well my taxes also pay for rapists and murderers to be kept in prison, and other people's kids to be educated, and strangers to be given medical care and all sorts of other things that I wouldn't necessarily choose to do if I had a choice.
Civilization isn't just a series of computer games.
If we had only state funded candidates, what would happen when someone like Donald Trump wanted to run for President? Would we give him tax payer money to spew his misinformed and occasionally hateful opinions? What about someone from the KKK? Would we give that person money? And if not, who decides who is allowed to run and who is not?
You would need to have the equivalent of the deposit/endorsement system for parliamentary candidates in the UK, i.e. you need X number of signatures and pay Y amount to stand. (This isn't a great deal, just enough to stop complete idiots and timewasters).
As long as your views weren't actually illegal, you would be free to say whatever you wanted. So, you could call for an end to immigration, but not for all people with dark skin to be rounded up and tortured to death on live TV (or whatever).
The founders did not think democracy was a good thing, properly understanding it to be equivalent to mob rule.
The founders were well aware that some people are better than others, and also that financially healthy people had the time to study history and politics in a serious manner.
That would be logical as long as you don't try and pretend the US is a shining example of, um, democracy, in which case why bother with all that voting shit?
Yes, but the point is that things have moved on since the Eighteenth Century. You no longer need to be a wealthy male to vote, so why should you need to be one to get elected?
You imply that people who vote for Trump are stupid.
Maybe people are just sadistic (like myself) and want to see Trump win simply for the fact that if he does, it will become a watershed moment in American politics. An awakening, rebirth, whatever you want to call it. If Trump wins, we lose four years so that we can improve society in perpetuity. It's a small sacrifice.
OK, so clearly at least one of the two major parties works well for you.
Don't pretend that they work for all voters or that it is anything wrong with voting for another alternative or that those who do are to blame when your favorite party doesn't win.
Democracies work by a sufficient majority being persuaded to vote for someone, not on all voters agreeing. There is nothing wrong with voting for what you believe in, but in reality if more than two thirds of the people vote for one or other of two parties, no one else is going to win on a first past the post system.
The obvious answer is not to have a first past the post system, it is something which currently disfigures UK politics, for instance.
Most criminals we catch are pretty stupid. That's why we catch 'em. I haven't seen any statistics on what fraction of crimes are solved and how that potentially correlates to number of criminals or number of uncaught criminals.
Most civilised countries publish statistics on the number of unsolved crimes. For serious offences like murder it is generally quite low. Amateur criminals tend to be stupid and highly likely to get caught.
Professional criminals are dealing with things like drug or people smuggling, prostitution and protection racketeering, which don't generally result in a reported crime in the first place. High profile crimes like armed bank robberies are a pretty stupid thing to do nowadays, the police are forced to put a lot of effort into solving them one way or another.
One reason that countries are starting to include things like drug sales and prostitution in their GDP figures is to get at least some idea of the scale of illegal economic activity, although it's never going to be very accurate.
I'd be tempted to say that 'binary choices' are just the way the majority of people think, with the two choices being polar opposites of each other or very close to being such. Of course I'm basing this on my experiences over, say, the last 10 years or so having discussions with people over the Internet, and not in face-to-face conversation, so that might not be an accurate representation of 'most people'.
Binary choices are certainly how people argue on forums like slashdot. The problem with internet discussions is that you don't have any real pressure to be reasonable or accommodating. It's much easier (and more fun) being extreme and winding your opponent up.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems you are equivocating being Vegan (and maybe even vegetarian) to being Left/Liberal?
I've not heard that before..associating what one eats and dietary choices to being Left or Right?
Wasn't Hitler a vegetarian, or is that some urban myth?
Back in the olden days, I had to hook up my computer to the 13" b&w tv set at night after everyone went to bed to get online @300baud and type my term papers.
Why would you need to be online to type an essay?
Which is why God invented the terms "retention" and "snagging list".
In related comedy news, Swedish chefs do not actually go around saying "bork bork bork".
Am I the only one who thinks it's cheating to get frist post by actually submitting the fucking article?
A puppy is a real reason to stop, or swerve, only if you can do so safely.
You should always be driving safely, which is to say defensively. Riding a motorcycle for a while soon knocks this habit into you.
In what way have cosmologists solved Fermi's Paradox?
Thank you. That's one of the most brilliant things I've ever read.
You should probably get out more, intellectually.
"Greed" can't impact others. Greed is an implication and/or a motive. Motives without actions impact self only.
An action may impact others. But an action motivated by greed has the same impact on others as the same action motivated by love or unmotated at all, by accident.
So in other words you don't believe that there is any such thing as morality or ethics?
Interesting that you quote CS Lewis, I'm not sure he would have agreed with you.
You can have a more-or-less free market system which still outlaws excessive profit taking, just as you can outlaw cartels or monopolies.
Some can be crazy libertarian gun and gold nuts like the Swiss.
I don't think that Switzerland is the gun-lovers nirvana a lot of Americans assume.
Adult males have to keep an official military weapon at home (but aren't permitted to keep military ammunition) so this gives a high headline figure for gun "ownership".
Other firearm and ammunition purchases are quite heavily regulated, at least by US standards.
America has a particular hatred for mercenaries
Maybe if they're on American soil. I don't remember you having had any particular problem with Blackwater and the rest in Iraq.
Taking what you euphemistically call "state money" but which is really a citizen's tax money and handing it out to people that citizen hates flies in the face of freedom of association.
Well my taxes also pay for rapists and murderers to be kept in prison, and other people's kids to be educated, and strangers to be given medical care and all sorts of other things that I wouldn't necessarily choose to do if I had a choice.
Civilization isn't just a series of computer games.
If we had only state funded candidates, what would happen when someone like Donald Trump wanted to run for President? Would we give him tax payer money to spew his misinformed and occasionally hateful opinions? What about someone from the KKK? Would we give that person money? And if not, who decides who is allowed to run and who is not?
You would need to have the equivalent of the deposit/endorsement system for parliamentary candidates in the UK, i.e. you need X number of signatures and pay Y amount to stand. (This isn't a great deal, just enough to stop complete idiots and timewasters).
As long as your views weren't actually illegal, you would be free to say whatever you wanted. So, you could call for an end to immigration, but not for all people with dark skin to be rounded up and tortured to death on live TV (or whatever).
The founders did not think democracy was a good thing, properly understanding it to be equivalent to mob rule.
The founders were well aware that some people are better than others, and also that financially healthy people had the time to study history and politics in a serious manner.
That would be logical as long as you don't try and pretend the US is a shining example of, um, democracy, in which case why bother with all that voting shit?
Yes, but the point is that things have moved on since the Eighteenth Century. You no longer need to be a wealthy male to vote, so why should you need to be one to get elected?
If it is not for nerds, then who is it for? Certainly nerds are the only people that will potentially vote for Lessig?
It's only nerds who will even have heard of Lessig.
You imply that people who vote for Trump are stupid.
Maybe people are just sadistic (like myself) and want to see Trump win simply for the fact that if he does, it will become a watershed moment in American politics. An awakening, rebirth, whatever you want to call it. If Trump wins, we lose four years so that we can improve society in perpetuity. It's a small sacrifice.
You sound like a German voting in 1933.
OK, so clearly at least one of the two major parties works well for you. Don't pretend that they work for all voters or that it is anything wrong with voting for another alternative or that those who do are to blame when your favorite party doesn't win.
Democracies work by a sufficient majority being persuaded to vote for someone, not on all voters agreeing. There is nothing wrong with voting for what you believe in, but in reality if more than two thirds of the people vote for one or other of two parties, no one else is going to win on a first past the post system.
The obvious answer is not to have a first past the post system, it is something which currently disfigures UK politics, for instance.
Like him or hate him, Trump has shifted the national debate on several issues in his brief involvement in the campaign
Mexicans and toupes.
Finally, he was very much against the Iraq war and regularly speaks at length about the extent to which it has been a major debacle for the US.
I think by this stage even George W Bush claims he was against the Iraq war.
You're not allowed to criticise anything to do with Space on slashdot. (Except NASA, because government).
Wow, the 'word on the street' from an AC. I'm really convinced.
Most criminals we catch are pretty stupid. That's why we catch 'em. I haven't seen any statistics on what fraction of crimes are solved and how that potentially correlates to number of criminals or number of uncaught criminals.
Most civilised countries publish statistics on the number of unsolved crimes. For serious offences like murder it is generally quite low. Amateur criminals tend to be stupid and highly likely to get caught.
Professional criminals are dealing with things like drug or people smuggling, prostitution and protection racketeering, which don't generally result in a reported crime in the first place. High profile crimes like armed bank robberies are a pretty stupid thing to do nowadays, the police are forced to put a lot of effort into solving them one way or another.
One reason that countries are starting to include things like drug sales and prostitution in their GDP figures is to get at least some idea of the scale of illegal economic activity, although it's never going to be very accurate.
I'd be tempted to say that 'binary choices' are just the way the majority of people think, with the two choices being polar opposites of each other or very close to being such. Of course I'm basing this on my experiences over, say, the last 10 years or so having discussions with people over the Internet, and not in face-to-face conversation, so that might not be an accurate representation of 'most people'.
Binary choices are certainly how people argue on forums like slashdot. The problem with internet discussions is that you don't have any real pressure to be reasonable or accommodating. It's much easier (and more fun) being extreme and winding your opponent up.
You Nazi.