No, the government. The return is not immediate, but that does not mean it's not there.
Re:You don't understand freedom
on
Swedish Pirate Demo
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Of course there's a common good. Values are subjective, so everyone doesn't always agree on what it is, but it's still their. People don't agree on capitol punishment or abortion because their values and their definitions of what those things entail differ. But everyone can agree that murder is wrong. Outlawing murder is for the common good.
Joe has agreed to give Bill senior free hamburgers in exchange for a promise that when Joe becomes a senior he too will get free hamburgers. Joe knows this. It's called a social contract.
Internet, as a source of information, is more important then washing machines. Maybe when they get the free internet up to everyones standards they will try use the taxes to give everyone a washing machine. But this is what they're doing first.
And the Gorbachev quote is out of place. Sweeden has the basic necessities of life; there's no comparison.
You do realize that he's arguing in favor of a free internet connection.... and that you're trolling someone that agree's with you?
Re:You don't understand freedom
on
Swedish Pirate Demo
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
You could say the same thing about everything else taxes are used for. How many people out their would opt out of paying their social security if they could? How many pay taxes that help upkeep the roads when they don't actually own a car? How many people have never needed a cop or been to court yet still pay for them via taxes?? The point here is that these things are for the common good. Even if you don't directly use these things, they still benifit your life. A free internet connection would obviosly be for the common good, the argument is whether that good justifies the cost of putting the system in place.
How do you know they aren't as enamored?? I've met muslim women who like the way they're treated. I don't agree with it, but if your going to claim that the entire women muslim population dislikes their beliefs then you've got to provide some proof.
Your missing the point. Even when cases are completely and totally baseless the plaintiff can still force a trail so the defendant still has to pay for lawyers and court costs. That shit gets expensive. If I have more money to burn then you do, and I don't like you. All I have to do is drag shit out till you can't afford your lawyer anymore.
The analogy does not hold. A parents job often includes protecting a child from himself (drugs, peer pressure, etc). The government is NOT supposed to protect someone from themselves. Governments serve the people, parents don't "serve" their children, at least not in the same respects. The government will need to invade people privacy from time to time, thats what search warrents and the like are for. But they shouldn't be allowed to do it in secret. And there should be definit limits to that power. You have to draw the line somewhere. The patriot act goes well past where I would draw it, indeed where I think most americans would draw it.
The fact is that you can sue someone without even a hint of a valid reason. And if they can't afford the court costs, too bad they're fucked. That's an obviosly flawed system.
There's a guy in Montanna named Jack Ass, he sued MTV for defaming his good character. He wants 10 million.
A woman in West Virginia got 2 million for injuring her back while opening a pickle jar.
How about the lawsuits against fast food companies for making people fat?
A volenteer little league baseball coach was sued by the catchers father because the team didn't qualify for a tournament in Florida.
A high school pitcher is suing Louisville Slugger because he was hit in the head when....... ....... wait for it... ....... The batter hit the ball!! God forbid we design something that makes the sport fucking possible!
Your right, I was completely wrong to assume that those lawsuits were frivolous....
Well, there's no way to insure this from being 100% in favor of who's just because you don't know who's just to a 100% certainty. Every law is going to work against someone somehow. Maybe you could cap it when there's such a huge difference between the funding of the parties. I don't really know honestly. I just know that people sue way to fucking easly in this country.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the government. The return is not immediate, but that does not mean it's not there.
Of course there's a common good. Values are subjective, so everyone doesn't always agree on what it is, but it's still their. People don't agree on capitol punishment or abortion because their values and their definitions of what those things entail differ. But everyone can agree that murder is wrong. Outlawing murder is for the common good.
Joe has agreed to give Bill senior free hamburgers in exchange for a promise that when Joe becomes a senior he too will get free hamburgers. Joe knows this. It's called a social contract.
And the Gorbachev quote is out of place. Sweeden has the basic necessities of life; there's no comparison.
Because calling it servitude is retarded.
You do realize that he's arguing in favor of a free internet connection.... and that you're trolling someone that agree's with you?
You could say the same thing about everything else taxes are used for. How many people out their would opt out of paying their social security if they could? How many pay taxes that help upkeep the roads when they don't actually own a car? How many people have never needed a cop or been to court yet still pay for them via taxes?? The point here is that these things are for the common good. Even if you don't directly use these things, they still benifit your life. A free internet connection would obviosly be for the common good, the argument is whether that good justifies the cost of putting the system in place.
How do you know they aren't as enamored?? I've met muslim women who like the way they're treated. I don't agree with it, but if your going to claim that the entire women muslim population dislikes their beliefs then you've got to provide some proof.
No it's not. The world being either round or flat is a fact that can be tested. Morals are not facts, they're beliefs.
As for you laying the burden of proof squarely on his shoulders, that's kinda a cop-out.
I don't think there should be drug laws.
We obviosly don't agree on this issue, but I gotta say I definitly respect the fact that you form a rational argument without religious dogma.
Your missing the point. Even when cases are completely and totally baseless the plaintiff can still force a trail so the defendant still has to pay for lawyers and court costs. That shit gets expensive. If I have more money to burn then you do, and I don't like you. All I have to do is drag shit out till you can't afford your lawyer anymore.
"In times of war" only applies to the military, not civilians.
I thought it was required by congress that bills must be read in full before the vote?
Well, not great. But if he acknowledges that it's being abused then at least he's marginally better.
Says who?
Can't take away what's not there to begin with.
I don't think so.
The analogy does not hold. A parents job often includes protecting a child from himself (drugs, peer pressure, etc). The government is NOT supposed to protect someone from themselves. Governments serve the people, parents don't "serve" their children, at least not in the same respects. The government will need to invade people privacy from time to time, thats what search warrents and the like are for. But they shouldn't be allowed to do it in secret. And there should be definit limits to that power. You have to draw the line somewhere. The patriot act goes well past where I would draw it, indeed where I think most americans would draw it.
The fact is that you can sue someone without even a hint of a valid reason. And if they can't afford the court costs, too bad they're fucked. That's an obviosly flawed system.
A woman in West Virginia got 2 million for injuring her back while opening a pickle jar.
How about the lawsuits against fast food companies for making people fat?
A volenteer little league baseball coach was sued by the catchers father because the team didn't qualify for a tournament in Florida.
A high school pitcher is suing Louisville Slugger because he was hit in the head when.......
.......
wait for it...
.......
The batter hit the ball!! God forbid we design something that makes the sport fucking possible!
Your right, I was completely wrong to assume that those lawsuits were frivolous....
Well, there's no way to insure this from being 100% in favor of who's just because you don't know who's just to a 100% certainty. Every law is going to work against someone somehow. Maybe you could cap it when there's such a huge difference between the funding of the parties. I don't really know honestly. I just know that people sue way to fucking easly in this country.
I think the loser should pay only if the loser initiated the lawsuit.
Yep, that's exactly right. Otherwise everything would be a monopoly owned by the first guy who thought of it.
So whats it gonna take to put some people in jail? That can't possible be legal.