You have just made up a totally arbitrary distinction between copyright infringement on works you don't care about (copying Rihanna's songs) and copyright infringement on works you do care about (GPL software).
In both cases, the worse offence of making money off the copyright infringement still only arises because you have infringed on copyright. Plagiarism is nothing to do with it.
"The scariest aspect of this story may be the fact that an entire lab was constructed for John McAfee's research purposes."
Um, no. The scariest aspect is that he is implicated in the murder of someone.
Once someone is absurdly wealthy, entirely selfish and focussed only on his own pleasure, why is it a surprise if he kills someone who gets in the way?
Murder laws are just for the little people, like any other law.
The biggest fallacy of anti-Libertarians is to assume that Libertarianism is an end, when it is merely a means. There is no such thing as a "libertarian money system". The libertarian part is what MEANS are used to decide on said monetary system. In other words, the lack of coercion is what makes it Libertarian, not what materializes as a result.
So you don't care what society actually ends up like, just so long as your perfect libertarian ideals are followed on the way there? That is an interesting reverwsal of the normal model of progress, where you have an agreed-on end in sight but have to be prepared to be flexible about the means of getting there.
Once again, you demonstrate your complete inability to read and respond to what was written.
I am asserting that in no way, shape, or form, is Belize a "libertarian paradise," and any attempt to paint it as such is a foolish bit of sleight of hand that tries to define "libertarianism" as "anything that I think is foolish or want to make fun of."
Perhaps, since you seem to take issue with my statement, you can explain for us just what makes Belize the "libertarian paradise" you imagine it is? I mean, surely you're not just making this shit up as you go - surely you know ALL ABOUT Belize's government & their policies, and can tell us exactly how the Belize model fits exactly what libertarians everywhere are advocating?
The point about Belize is not that it fits in with some theoretical libertarian model of paradise, it's simply that it's the sort of country where if you're a rich cunt you can get away with a lot. And to those of us opposed to libertarian politics that is precisely what a libertarian system would lead to, even more than is the case at present.
Non-libertarians are not opposed to free thinking, or free speech. We just don't think that the economics of "leave everything to the free market" will cause an increase in liberty, fraternity or equality for the vast majority of people.
The fact that taxation also impinges on the absolute freedom of billionaires is something we can live with.
Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like
Only people who know fuck-all about Libertarianism.
It's not a question of what a libertarian paradise should look like, it's what in practice it would look like. Libertarians are free to believe that if government disappeared everything would be perfect, it just doesn't convince the rest of us.
The reason that people always taunt libertarians with "go and live in Somalia then" is because there is no particular reason why a country, in the effective absence of any sort of government, shouldn't end up that way. You might want a society magically balanced between lots of free-spirited entrepreneurs with no one person able to achieve excessive control or power over a market, but in reality you'll just end up with Nineteenth Century capitalism again and hugely wealthy and powerful Robber Barons.
The reason that life isn't a living hell for the majority of people in the West nowadays is precisely because of the ameliorating effects of democratic socialism in requiring shorter working hours, safe working conditions, the right to strike, the abolition of child labouur and so on.
Marx was quite right about how evil pure capitalism is, he just didn't have the benefit of hindsight to see that democratic change was and is possible.
Taxes that do not benefit me are theft. The government exists to serve the people. Taking my money and giving it to someone else, so that it does not benefit me is theft. Taking my money and using it for purposes that do benefit me is OK.
And this is where the essential sociooathy of libertarianism is exposed. As a society, most normal people think it good that the old, poor, ill or otherwise disadvantaged are provided for in some way. We also think it is a good idea to have roads, power grids, clean water and so on available to everyone. Having a justice system and police force is a good idea too, to protect the weak and vulnerable from the strong and ruthless. Giving everyone a good education helps to promote general well being, prosperity and happiness.
And so on.
There are many more important things than some rrich cock's ability to spend all his money on buying new yachts if he feels like it. Society as a whole trumps the individual, or else you should just admit you have no interest in deomocracy.
In fact, anarchocapitalists expect that entrepeneurs competing to provide arbitration and security services could provide such services at a higher quality and at lower prices than a government monopoly can - just as entrepeneurs excel at providing other economic goods.
The rest of just don't see why being forced to do something by an employee of a for-profit organisation is an improvement over being forced to do something by an employee of a democratically elected government.
If by that you mean Anarcho-Capitalist, you should go outside and hang yourself from a tree. There is no legitimate crossover between the philosophical ideas of Anarchism and those of Capitalism. They are two different things that libertarians try to yoke together to make their beliefs sound more radical and less based on pure economic and ethical selfishness by grafting on the Anarcho- part.
If you want a society where brute economic power reigns through the imaginary "free market" then just have the guts to say so. You want a return to Nineteenth Century Capitalism? Just fucking admit it. Don't try to pretend you've got some bold, noble liberty-based alternative to the present, clearly imperfect system.
Taxes and regulation needn't be anti-libertarian, so long as they're being freely agreed upon by individuals.
The reason that you have to impose taxes, laws and regulations is precisely because people won't freely agree on them as individuals.
If Bill Gates or one of the partners in Goldman Sachs decide that paying the same flat amount of tax as one of their cleaners is sufficient, how are you going to get any more tax off them except by threatening them with jail (or as libertarians always say, death at the barrel of a gun) if they don't obey the tax laws and pay what everyone else has decided is fair?
They roam the continent looking for their anarchist utopia
In an anarchist utopia, you wouldn't have obscenely rich people who could build their own little kingdom.
The word you're looking for is "libertarian".
"Fiscal uncertainty" isn't going to dissuade anyone from making a buck if it can be made.
Uh, that's the point, uncertainty means there is significant doubt that a buck can be made. I thought you would realize this.
There's always some uncertainty in life. People who are good at making money will make money regardless. In Weimar Republic Germany some people ended up doing OK.
It's not money-driven entrepreneurs who suffer during economic recessions and depressions and hyper-inflations, it's the poor (non) working people.
The majority of Americans used to work in agriculture. When agriculture became more efficient and these jobs disappeared, was the consequence massive unemployment? Of course not.
Brilliant. So as long as there's another Industrial Revolution, everything's OK?
Good friend of mine had $30 M lined up to start production on light aircraft. Given the tax the rich election, thats not happening. I cant blame the investor, but its 80 jobs that didnt happen due to economic (un)certainty.
Oh well, he'll just have to spend it on hookers and blow instead.
We do not have a left wing in US. We have a moderate-right wing and a far-far-right wing.
That's a common belief but false. On many issues, US Democrats are as left wing as many European social democratic parties.
But European social democratic parties are not left wing, except by US standards. Communist and socialist and (theoretically) anarchist parties are left wing.
There seem to be two kinds of men: sexual abusers and those who admire them and give them cover.
wtf? No wonder you posted anonymously.
I think slashdot should trace where he posted from and get the relevant local law enforcement involved. He's just confessed in public to being a child rapist.
The BBC could have covered themselves against the charge of a cover up by doing some basic investigative journalism (like the Guardian did) and realising that this witness was wrong, as he had been mistakenly informed that the man he identified was in fact someone else..
Slashdot Mirror
I often have epiphanies while in the shower
Well, that's one way of putting it.
(oh god please don't take this the wrong way)
You have got to be kidding.
Although if they want something written this century, they're SOL...
Yeah, and Amazon didn't throw in a free pony either, the bastards.
You have just made up a totally arbitrary distinction between copyright infringement on works you don't care about (copying Rihanna's songs) and copyright infringement on works you do care about (GPL software).
In both cases, the worse offence of making money off the copyright infringement still only arises because you have infringed on copyright. Plagiarism is nothing to do with it.
"But that begs the questions, how many firms can realistically defend themselves against an adversary like China, RBN or nation state?"
No, it prompts or suggests the fucking question.
"The scariest aspect of this story may be the fact that an entire lab was constructed for John McAfee's research purposes."
Um, no. The scariest aspect is that he is implicated in the murder of someone.
Once someone is absurdly wealthy, entirely selfish and focussed only on his own pleasure, why is it a surprise if he kills someone who gets in the way?
Murder laws are just for the little people, like any other law.
The biggest fallacy of anti-Libertarians is to assume that Libertarianism is an end, when it is merely a means. There is no such thing as a "libertarian money system". The libertarian part is what MEANS are used to decide on said monetary system. In other words, the lack of coercion is what makes it Libertarian, not what materializes as a result.
So you don't care what society actually ends up like, just so long as your perfect libertarian ideals are followed on the way there? That is an interesting reverwsal of the normal model of progress, where you have an agreed-on end in sight but have to be prepared to be flexible about the means of getting there.
Once again, you demonstrate your complete inability to read and respond to what was written.
I am asserting that in no way, shape, or form, is Belize a "libertarian paradise," and any attempt to paint it as such is a foolish bit of sleight of hand that tries to define "libertarianism" as "anything that I think is foolish or want to make fun of."
Perhaps, since you seem to take issue with my statement, you can explain for us just what makes Belize the "libertarian paradise" you imagine it is? I mean, surely you're not just making this shit up as you go - surely you know ALL ABOUT Belize's government & their policies, and can tell us exactly how the Belize model fits exactly what libertarians everywhere are advocating?
The point about Belize is not that it fits in with some theoretical libertarian model of paradise, it's simply that it's the sort of country where if you're a rich cunt you can get away with a lot. And to those of us opposed to libertarian politics that is precisely what a libertarian system would lead to, even more than is the case at present.
Freedom is so horrible.
Non-libertarians are not opposed to free thinking, or free speech. We just don't think that the economics of "leave everything to the free market" will cause an increase in liberty, fraternity or equality for the vast majority of people.
The fact that taxation also impinges on the absolute freedom of billionaires is something we can live with.
Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like
Only people who know fuck-all about Libertarianism.
It's not a question of what a libertarian paradise should look like, it's what in practice it would look like. Libertarians are free to believe that if government disappeared everything would be perfect, it just doesn't convince the rest of us.
The reason that people always taunt libertarians with "go and live in Somalia then" is because there is no particular reason why a country, in the effective absence of any sort of government, shouldn't end up that way. You might want a society magically balanced between lots of free-spirited entrepreneurs with no one person able to achieve excessive control or power over a market, but in reality you'll just end up with Nineteenth Century capitalism again and hugely wealthy and powerful Robber Barons.
The reason that life isn't a living hell for the majority of people in the West nowadays is precisely because of the ameliorating effects of democratic socialism in requiring shorter working hours, safe working conditions, the right to strike, the abolition of child labouur and so on.
Marx was quite right about how evil pure capitalism is, he just didn't have the benefit of hindsight to see that democratic change was and is possible.
Taxes that do not benefit me are theft. The government exists to serve the people. Taking my money and giving it to someone else, so that it does not benefit me is theft. Taking my money and using it for purposes that do benefit me is OK.
And this is where the essential sociooathy of libertarianism is exposed. As a society, most normal people think it good that the old, poor, ill or otherwise disadvantaged are provided for in some way. We also think it is a good idea to have roads, power grids, clean water and so on available to everyone. Having a justice system and police force is a good idea too, to protect the weak and vulnerable from the strong and ruthless. Giving everyone a good education helps to promote general well being, prosperity and happiness.
And so on.
There are many more important things than some rrich cock's ability to spend all his money on buying new yachts if he feels like it. Society as a whole trumps the individual, or else you should just admit you have no interest in deomocracy.
In fact, anarchocapitalists expect that entrepeneurs competing to provide arbitration and security services could provide such services at a higher quality and at lower prices than a government monopoly can - just as entrepeneurs excel at providing other economic goods.
The rest of just don't see why being forced to do something by an employee of a for-profit organisation is an improvement over being forced to do something by an employee of a democratically elected government.
AnaCap
If by that you mean Anarcho-Capitalist, you should go outside and hang yourself from a tree. There is no legitimate crossover between the philosophical ideas of Anarchism and those of Capitalism. They are two different things that libertarians try to yoke together to make their beliefs sound more radical and less based on pure economic and ethical selfishness by grafting on the Anarcho- part.
If you want a society where brute economic power reigns through the imaginary "free market" then just have the guts to say so. You want a return to Nineteenth Century Capitalism? Just fucking admit it. Don't try to pretend you've got some bold, noble liberty-based alternative to the present, clearly imperfect system.
Taxes and regulation needn't be anti-libertarian, so long as they're being freely agreed upon by individuals.
The reason that you have to impose taxes, laws and regulations is precisely because people won't freely agree on them as individuals.
If Bill Gates or one of the partners in Goldman Sachs decide that paying the same flat amount of tax as one of their cleaners is sufficient, how are you going to get any more tax off them except by threatening them with jail (or as libertarians always say, death at the barrel of a gun) if they don't obey the tax laws and pay what everyone else has decided is fair?
Unless you're really claiming that the proposals of the Libertarian party are somehow NOT reflective of the policy aims and goals of Libertarians?
And are you seriously claiming that only people who are members of the Libertarian party are libertarians?
They roam the continent looking for their anarchist utopia
In an anarchist utopia, you wouldn't have obscenely rich people who could build their own little kingdom.
The word you're looking for is "libertarian".
"Fiscal uncertainty" isn't going to dissuade anyone from making a buck if it can be made.
Uh, that's the point, uncertainty means there is significant doubt that a buck can be made. I thought you would realize this.
There's always some uncertainty in life. People who are good at making money will make money regardless. In Weimar Republic Germany some people ended up doing OK.
It's not money-driven entrepreneurs who suffer during economic recessions and depressions and hyper-inflations, it's the poor (non) working people.
The majority of Americans used to work in agriculture. When agriculture became more efficient and these jobs disappeared, was the consequence massive unemployment? Of course not.
Brilliant. So as long as there's another Industrial Revolution, everything's OK?
Sarbanes/Oxley isn't helping any either.
Yeah, fuck it let's go back to the glory days of Enron. What real harm did they ever do anyway?
That's because my typing has actually gotten worse over the last few years (ever since I started college interestingly enough). Also, it's not my job.
That is not a valid excuse on a web forum where you have to preview your posts.
Good friend of mine had $30 M lined up to start production on light aircraft. Given the tax the rich election, thats not happening. I cant blame the investor, but its 80 jobs that didnt happen due to economic (un)certainty.
Oh well, he'll just have to spend it on hookers and blow instead.
countries with hardening socialist governments, like France and the US.
The best thing is, you actually believe that.
We do not have a left wing in US. We have a moderate-right wing and a far-far-right wing.
That's a common belief but false. On many issues, US Democrats are as left wing as many European social democratic parties.
But European social democratic parties are not left wing, except by US standards. Communist and socialist and (theoretically) anarchist parties are left wing.
There seem to be two kinds of men: sexual abusers and those who admire them and give them cover.
wtf? No wonder you posted anonymously.
I think slashdot should trace where he posted from and get the relevant local law enforcement involved. He's just confessed in public to being a child rapist.
The BBC could have covered themselves against the charge of a cover up by doing some basic investigative journalism (like the Guardian did) and realising that this witness was wrong, as he had been mistakenly informed that the man he identified was in fact someone else..
Only if he gets caught.
The ethics of the psychopath.