If the law is simply a convenient consensus of society and not a statement of eternal absolute truth and justice, then why not ignore it and pursue one's own antisocial interests whenever possible? We've already established that westerners are individualistic and don't value social consensus as such.
Do you now see how relativism, when combined with individualism, eventually produces crime? I just want you to understand how critical the fiction of moral law is to the welfare of western society.
"Natural rights" are an expression of absolute, universal moral truth; no western intellectual would ever consider them relative or specific to any particular place and time. Whether or not such a thing really exists, popular faith in purported moral law builds consensus and social harmony. A society of nihilists would, on the other hand, be ungovernable; thus, by questioning the legitimacy of moral law, you are participating in the destruction of western society.
So, seriously, try to be more sensitive to the role objective moral truth plays in my culture. It may be too late, though---perhaps the Asian model of valuing social consensus for its own sake will soon rule the world.
You have ideas about what may be asked of your neighbor; likewise, American political culture is trying to figure out what it may rightfully (according to its own standards and logic) ask of America's neighbors. It may eventually come to agree with the views you have expressed, or perhaps in time it will arrive at some other conclusion.
The mod points were magnetically attracted by the post's powerful truth field.
Progressive-liberalist-materialist-hedonist idolatry (also known as "modern society") is a ruinous life philosophy; it is truly a devastating mental illness to accept its values.
If the idea that "imposing American ideology on other nations is desirable and Google should serve this cause" is a part of American culture, as I think it is, then by your own logic it is unreasonable for you to attempt to impose upon Americans your alien ideological position that asserts the contrary. And anyway, you need to embrace mainstream American politics so that you do not offend anyone and can therefore prosper in business.
On the other hand, perhaps it might sometimes be good for us to challenge, rather than accept, social standards and practices?
It is plainly possible to construct a logical system of propositions under which the proposition "Internet regulation is unjust" may be said to be "true" or, on the other hand, "false," by and according to the specific logic of the specific system. One trivial system is the single proposition "'Internet regulation is unjust' is a true statement."
Certainly, such systems of reasoning may be proposed or adopted by various people and organizations---by supranational bodies such as the United Nations, philosophers of government, political pundits, or simply by thoughtful individuals.
I would have expected to find a few vestigal "lol w1ndoze sux" outbursts here and there.
Anyway, my pet gripe with the software industry is this. Computer languages are powerful but they demand too much abstract logical reasoning to ever be a user interface for the common man. GUI widgets, on the other hand, are easily understood but also very inflexible. A synthesis of the abstract and the concrete would therefore seem to be a pressing issue in computer science; the advent of such a hybrid user interface (or many such domain-specific interfaces) would revolutionize human-computer interaction.
So how is it that, while huge efforts are applied every day to improving computer languages and GUIs, few people seem interested in taking the next step? You'd expect it to be a hot research topic.
Their aim is not to prevent the most determined and persistent people from circumventing Internet regulation; indeed, this aim cannot be realized without locking down Internet traffic more completely, though, contrary to popular opinion, that could be done easily and at little cost.
In fact, a few harried intellectuals are harmless and will not set into motion a "color revolution." Widespread anti-government sentiment, on the other hand, will inevitably do just that. Your standard of effectiveness is irrelevant; Internet regulation is but one small part of the propaganda effort that orchestrates political thought and thereby sustains the party's rule.
The price of unskilled labor is more like thirty cents per hour; when adjusted for purchasing power parity---many goods and services cost less in Shenzhen than in Chicago---this equates to fourteen dollars per day.
Nearly three billion people live (and die, as often happens) on less than two dollars per day of equivalent income.
(a) Makes you more likely to be noticed by passers-by.
(b) Makes you seem safe, friendly, and inviting.
(c) Informs people that you are open for business (tomorrow morning, anyway.)
Turning your lights off would, conversely:
(a) Make your less likely to be noticed.
(b) Make you seem dangerous and perhaps best avoided, like a dark alley.
(c) Admit doubt as to whether you are really in business.
At the best schools one may find the best thinkers, to be sure. But thinking is not virtue, and it is only on virtue that political policies, like socialism, can be legitimately founded. You would not support socialism because artists considered it profound or because mathematicians marvelled at its logic. On the contrary, you would rather endorse it because it is good and desirable, right and admirable, inspiring and just.
Is it? Who should one ask to find out? Surely, the most virtuous and morally exemplary people would know best. Are universities in fact shining beacons of righteousness as well as intellectual and artistic centers? Many people think that they fall far short of this sought-after ideal, and hence have little authority to lead.
Is theirs not a reasonable position to take? That is, should we not perhaps seek the true "best and brightest" in some other place?
For one thing, aliphatic hydrocarbons may be made as well as mined, and thus their potential supply is limited only by the ingenuity of our chemists. File "sustainability" under "Marxism" and open your eyes.
I have read Atlas Shrugged and I consider it to be a convincing attack on the ethos that you wrongly attribute to me. "No surveillance" and "no crime" are mutually competitive political demands. Balancing them is an example of a personal utility-optimization problem no different from that encountered by any child in a candy store. How these demands are rightly met in practice, by force or otherwise, is not my concern here.
The statistic is from RAINN's web site. Are you contending that the suppression of rape is not an important matter of social policy? At what point do you think we may legitimately be indifferent to human suffering and unwilling to make personal sacrifices? As I see it, to install cameras in bedrooms or to mount robotic guns on street corners are policies that can and should be considered in the fight against the monstrous evil of violent crime.
(I am not particular to crime, anyway: the eradication of absolute poverty, war, and tyranny should also, I think, be at the center of our political activity, rather than our own comfort and well-being.)
Many police tactics can be dodged by a clever criminal, but few are nimble enough to dodge them all. If a policeman suggested going to a criminal's house to arrest him, by your logic you would tell him not to bother, as clearly a smart criminal would have an unknown, secret hideout.
The police handle false information every day; criminals (and, I suppose, even terrorists) love to weave webs of lies. And what are the police for, if not to scare people into submission? (This is how society works: you teach people to hate crime; you make people fear arrest; and you capture and imprison any residual fearless scoundrels.)
Slashdot Mirror
Do you now see how relativism, when combined with individualism, eventually produces crime? I just want you to understand how critical the fiction of moral law is to the welfare of western society.
So, seriously, try to be more sensitive to the role objective moral truth plays in my culture. It may be too late, though---perhaps the Asian model of valuing social consensus for its own sake will soon rule the world.
You have ideas about what may be asked of your neighbor; likewise, American political culture is trying to figure out what it may rightfully (according to its own standards and logic) ask of America's neighbors. It may eventually come to agree with the views you have expressed, or perhaps in time it will arrive at some other conclusion.
Progressive-liberalist-materialist-hedonist idolatry (also known as "modern society") is a ruinous life philosophy; it is truly a devastating mental illness to accept its values.
On the other hand, perhaps it might sometimes be good for us to challenge, rather than accept, social standards and practices?
Koreans make the best movies in the world, no kidding.
"Sensitive information," means "forbidden information."
Certainly, such systems of reasoning may be proposed or adopted by various people and organizations---by supranational bodies such as the United Nations, philosophers of government, political pundits, or simply by thoughtful individuals.
Does this answer your question?
Anyway, my pet gripe with the software industry is this. Computer languages are powerful but they demand too much abstract logical reasoning to ever be a user interface for the common man. GUI widgets, on the other hand, are easily understood but also very inflexible. A synthesis of the abstract and the concrete would therefore seem to be a pressing issue in computer science; the advent of such a hybrid user interface (or many such domain-specific interfaces) would revolutionize human-computer interaction.
So how is it that, while huge efforts are applied every day to improving computer languages and GUIs, few people seem interested in taking the next step? You'd expect it to be a hot research topic.
In fact, a few harried intellectuals are harmless and will not set into motion a "color revolution." Widespread anti-government sentiment, on the other hand, will inevitably do just that. Your standard of effectiveness is irrelevant; Internet regulation is but one small part of the propaganda effort that orchestrates political thought and thereby sustains the party's rule.
I mean, for what perverted reason would one ever install Microsoft Windows?
(If only I were an educated person, I could actually read it.)
Given that Google News already omits banned news sources, thereby casting them down Orwell's memory hole.
Nearly three billion people live (and die, as often happens) on less than two dollars per day of equivalent income.
(a) Makes you more likely to be noticed by passers-by.
(b) Makes you seem safe, friendly, and inviting.
(c) Informs people that you are open for business (tomorrow morning, anyway.)
Turning your lights off would, conversely:
(a) Make your less likely to be noticed.
(b) Make you seem dangerous and perhaps best avoided, like a dark alley.
(c) Admit doubt as to whether you are really in business.
Electricity is cheap, anyway, so what the hell.
Like, they have fits. (cf Socrates; Dostoevsky and Kierkegaard; Byron, Shelly, and Tennyson; Ian Curtis.)
Perhaps you have mistaken me for someone else?
Is it? Who should one ask to find out? Surely, the most virtuous and morally exemplary people would know best. Are universities in fact shining beacons of righteousness as well as intellectual and artistic centers? Many people think that they fall far short of this sought-after ideal, and hence have little authority to lead.
Is theirs not a reasonable position to take? That is, should we not perhaps seek the true "best and brightest" in some other place?
However much is necessary, though, I am hopeful that tomorrow's scientists and engineers will be up to the task.
For one thing, aliphatic hydrocarbons may be made as well as mined, and thus their potential supply is limited only by the ingenuity of our chemists. File "sustainability" under "Marxism" and open your eyes.
I have read Atlas Shrugged and I consider it to be a convincing attack on the ethos that you wrongly attribute to me. "No surveillance" and "no crime" are mutually competitive political demands. Balancing them is an example of a personal utility-optimization problem no different from that encountered by any child in a candy store. How these demands are rightly met in practice, by force or otherwise, is not my concern here.
(I am not particular to crime, anyway: the eradication of absolute poverty, war, and tyranny should also, I think, be at the center of our political activity, rather than our own comfort and well-being.)
Many police tactics can be dodged by a clever criminal, but few are nimble enough to dodge them all. If a policeman suggested going to a criminal's house to arrest him, by your logic you would tell him not to bother, as clearly a smart criminal would have an unknown, secret hideout.
To be sure, a criminal state would implement such surveillance with or without your consent; it would set its own stage.
The police handle false information every day; criminals (and, I suppose, even terrorists) love to weave webs of lies. And what are the police for, if not to scare people into submission? (This is how society works: you teach people to hate crime; you make people fear arrest; and you capture and imprison any residual fearless scoundrels.)