It amuses me to see people counterargument the fact that this is a blatant abuse by the government of the freedoms that people enjoy in the west, by pointing out how much worse some people have it in other parts of the world. It simply doesn't make sense.
How is it less a restriction of freedom, because other countries even have LESS freedom? that's like saying you get more hungry, but some are even hungrier then you...So what? Does that fill your stomac? Does it invalidates that you are hungry? No. Neither is getting less freedom any better by noting that others have even less. It doesn't contracdict the issue, and it does nothing to change it. We are not becoming more free because other countries are even less free.
The fact that so many people actually accept the bull that the state says in this regard, is proof of a more fundamental truth about human nature: the fact that, ultimately, for most ppl, freedom isn't the most important, it is security. Contrary to what a great leader once said, most hoi palloi are all to happy to exchange their freedoms for a gain in security, or even an impression of improved security. People want to feel safe, and most don't care all that much about other things, compared to that. They don't care that people get imprisoned without due process, because they are bad ppl and evil terrorists, which should be locked up indefinately - for their (the citizens) protection, of course. they don't care about all the draconian laws that restrict their freedom, because it is portrayed (and seen) as a necessary way to protect themselves.
A best example is a post I read about the iraqi people. Even though it was presented as a counterargument, in fact the poster gave a prime example of the kind of human nature I just described. He claimed iraqi's were getting far more freedom now then under Sadam. Well, yes. But the irony is, more and more people think the period they experience now is far worse then under sadam. In some area's, even to the point that they would rather have him back. Because, for all the atrocities he did (and a lot of people hated and feared him for it), their was one thing the populace recognise that they have completely lost, and that is security and stability. Humans abhor chaos, one could say.
I doubt many in the US will have ever seen all those documentaries that actually show how the populace yearns the order that was present under sadam, even if he was a ruthless dictator. Among the populace, they care a lot less about all the so called freedom they have gained, and a lot more about stability and security. what good does it do that you have the right to protest, if you have no job, no income, bombs explode every day, and you can get shot when making the use of the right to protest?
That's the deeper truth of human nature: by and large, freedom is a a far second or third in the list of most important things. That's why people don't care about freedoms getting trampled, as long as the impression exists it's improving safety and security.
It's the legal version of 'schock and awe'. It has come up numerous times in history, it still is today, and it will come up in the future. The idea that there is only one thing better then a harsh penalty, it is an even more harsh penality, is misplaced.
As with many things in society, there is some barrier/level at which 'getting tougher' doesn't do any good, just as there is a barrier of taxes people will endure, after which (if augmented beyond that point) people will search more to avoid it at any costs, instead of paying more (to the detriment of the government which sometimes seem to think more tax equals more income).
Anyway, the idea that giving disproportionate sentences will somehow act as a deterent for others really isn't substantiated by anything. The same argument is made about the death penalty in the USA, also without a shred of evidence it actually helps one iota (but with the major drawback that you run the posibility of killing innocent people).
In ancient china, there once was an emperor who had the same idea, and he took it to the full extreme: anyone convicted of a crime would be beheaded, together with his whole family in the 4th degree. Such draconian measures would surely avoid any crime, because anyone commiting a crime would know dozens of his kin would be killed, right?
Wrong.
As far as historians can tell, crime was commited as frequently before and after then during that period. Not really surprising, since crime-statistics show that, even in comparison, there are slightly fewer crimes in europe *without* death penalty, then in the USA.
I dislike the 'give them as much as you can' policy in the legal arena. It's nothing more then thinly disguised revenge and a feeling of holier-then-thee. It's portrayed as an effective measure to 'scare off' others, while the fact of the matter is, that there is no shred of evidence it has any positive influence at all - meanwhile ignoring the human drama one can cause. It's nothing more then a biased opinion, really; very useful for political slogans and becomming popular with the masses, but nothing else. I dispise this mentality of giving disproportionate sentences 'just to show/scare them'.
Apart from the fact it doesn't, I don't really care for the shock effect; I prefer a state where one is wise enough to sentence someone according to the gravity of his crime. And as much that I hate spam and think those spammer should be brought before court, no sane person can actually claim sending spam is SUCH a huge unforging crime that it deserves 9 years of prison, while phiscally attacking and robbing a person gets much less.
If one would act in proportion, one would give huge fines, and/or moderate jailsentences, depending on recedivism or not. But if you have such absurd disproportionate measures, it's an indication that you have a legal system that is sick and screwed, not healthy and normal. People that think this is all OK, should perhaps convert and live their lives according to the rigid interpretations of the shariat.
I agree that copyrights and patents are not the same, though they show familiarities. It's both about intangibles, they are both placed under 'intellectual property' and they are both being lobbied hard for by megacorps to extend their limit to the infinite, thereby making a mockery of the term 'limited', as I am sure you can agree, since you seem a reasonable dude.
But copyrights are bareable and have some validity of their own, because it's true you have made the product and thus you deserve something for it. Patents for intangible creations should be abolished, IMHO, because they do more harm then good, and don't have the same validity. If I thought of something fully independently, but another thought about it a second earlier, I'm supposed to give him money till the end of times? I don't think so. It strikes me rather as unfair. And patents have a huge amount of more speaking aginst it, as I've demonstrated in my former posts.
So, yes, the level of damage resulting of copyrights is less, but it is still there, nevertheless. So it still need a balance. It is still a monoply, with all the resulting drawbacks I described. It is not even hypothetical, but a real issue, that thousands of works are slowly degrading into dust and will be lost forever for society, in essence because copyrights forbid even those that want to save it for the public for nothing, can not copy them.
All those thoughts, ideas and knowledge are wasted for society, because of copyrights, and the longer the term will become, the more this will happen. This too, I call damage to society.
I fail to see what is flamebaiting it is to say that TCP can go on for another 50 years, without problem.
Exactly the same kind of post a bit below gets 'insightful'.
It is simply true. Yes, there are some little drawbacks with TCP, but in the whole article, they do not give a compelling reason to switch, let alone why one would *have* to. I mean, RTFA: TCP is at 1-3% and the most efficient would be a throughput with 3-5% (loss)...but so what? It's not optimal, but does it anywhere claims TCP is doomed because it's not optimal in certain area's?
There are myriads of things that aren't optimal on the Net, it doesn't mean they have been here for years and will be for years to come, nor that it is a necessity to switch, if the only thing lacking is that it's not optimally suited.
here is the story, before it gets slashdotted
on
Replacing TCP?
·
· Score: 1, Redundant
better replacement of TCP. TCP's legacy design carries a number of inefficiencies, the most prominent of which is its inability to utilize most modern links' bandwidth. This problem stems from the fact that TCP calculates the congestion of the channel based on its round-trip time. The round-trim time, however, reflects not only the congestion level, but also the physical length of the connection. This is precisely why TCP is inherently unable to reach optimal speeds on long high-bandwidth connections.
A secondary, but just as impairing, property of TCP is its inability to tolerate even small amounts (1% - 3%) of packet loss. This additionally forces TCP to work at safe and relatively low transmission speeds with under 1% loss rates. Nevertheless, our extended real-life measurements show that highest throughput is generally achieved at speeds with anywhere between 3% and 5% loss.
The Solution By using our core coding technology we were able to design a reliable Internet transmission protocol which can circumvent both of the fore-mentioned deficiencies of TCP, while still remaining TCP-friendly. By using encoded, rather than plain, transmission we are able to send at speeds with any packet loss level. Rateless coding is used in conjunction with our Universal Congestion Control algorithm, which allows Rateless Internet to remain friendly to TCP and other congestion-aware protocols.
Universal Congestion Control is an algorithm for transmission speed control. It is based on a simple and clean idea. Speed is varied in a wave-like fashion. The top of the wave achieves near-optimal throughput, while the bottom is low enough to let coexisting protocols like TCP smoothly receive a fair share of bandwidth. The time lengths of the peaks and troughs can be adjusted parametrically to achieve customized levels of fairness between Rateless Internet and TCP.
The Rateless Internet transport is now available through our Rateless Socket product in the form of a C/C++ socket library. Rateless Internet is ideal for Internet-based applications, running on the network edges, that require high bandwidth in a heterogenous environment. It was specifically built with peer-to-peer and live multimedia content delivery applications in mind.
As I have said; if you do not acknowledge that it is beneficial (as a whole) to society when copyrights and patents become free, and you only accept economic/capitalistic reasonings for the individual, then you will have trouble to see why any limitation is imposed.
In that respect, I think we have a diametrically oposing viewpoint of it. And, contrary to what you claim, currently, most countries have NO unlimited copyrightlaw. The reason they do not have such laws, is that they DO see that it's about balancing the right of the creator with the good for society.
What you propose is actually "Common law copyright", where the author (or heirs) gets perpetual benefits. It worth noting that this idea is not accepted (exept in special circumstances) by the courts in most countries, and I quote:
"Common law copyright is the legal doctrine that contends that copyright is a natural right and creators have the same inherent right to it as they would tangible property. The doctrine has been repudiated by the courts in the United Kingdom (Donaldson v. Beckett) and the United States (Wheaton v. Peters)."
Now, how comes the state and the courts do not agree with the vision of perpetual rights for copyrights and patents? Because they realise, unlike yourself, that copyrights and patents cover the rights of intangible creations, and thus are not the same as the rights for tangible objects, like houses and land. And furthermore, they acknowledged the public interest in these matters, and that it is beneficial for society that it is not perpetual.
If they only agreed with the economic value it brings for the creator, they would have made everything ad infintum a long time ago. They did NOT intend to do so, as is obvious by the original 14 years limit, even when people already lived longer then that in that time. And they still don't give perpetual rights to it now. And that is not because they haven't got a grasp of the concept 'property'. The only reason why they make a difference between copyrights and patents and tangible property, is because it *does* differ, and society has a higher stake in it.
It isn't even all that difficult to see why the concept of everlasting copyrights&patents are devastating in the long run. Imagine that it would have existed since the beginning of time, then you, even today, might have to pay someone if you used fire, or the wheel. Fact is, most of the inventions and works done today are based on earlier works; if all things were covered by perpetual rights, it would become totally impossible to make any invention (more so the further in the future you go), without breaking one right or another, and getting sued.
Also, copyrights and patents create monopolies. They simply do; it gives the exclusive right to the one that has done it, or comes up with it (first). As we can all agree (I hope), monopolies are not good for society as a whole, only for those that own the monopoly (and even then only financially speaking). If monopolies are bad, then perpetual monopolies are perpetually bad.
But are they bad? I fail to recall any instance in where a monopoly was actually a good thing, inovative wise and also towards the public. Monopolies, IMHO, create lazyness, not incentives for further research - which is why it is paramount that copyrights and the lot are limited in time. They create artificial high prices, which not all of the populace can afford. They often hold back and limit other ideas or improvements, unless they have full control of it. In short: it sucks.
So, yes, it does harm society. It's not about 6 cents, it's about giving back to society your ideas and thoughts, which didn't form out of the thin air. It's about making sure that someday, people will be able to use and improve upon your work, in all freedom. I can't imagine anything worse then a med.company having eternal rights on its medicines; in one stroke, you would destroy all generic medicines and people would have to pay whatever price they asked, untill the end of
Originally (in 1790), the US copyright term was 14 years after publication, with an option for another 14 years.
Clearly you do not know what you are talking about. Your argumentation is factual false (even in europe the original copyrightlaws didn't incorporate a 75 year term), and you are wrong in your rationalisation, because people in the 18th century already lived much longer then 28 years. It had nothing to do with how long they expected inventors to live.
With all your elaborate argumentation, you fail to acknowledge that the law originally strived for a balance between stimulating invention by giving a compensation for a limited time, and the interest of society as a whole, when it becomes public.
The goal was always to stimulate new invention for a limited time (I believe it says so almost to the letter, at least in USA law), not to provide a life long pocket-filling. In fact, it could be argued that unlimited copy&patent rights actually hamper the creation of new inventions today, thereby perverting the actual reason why copyrightlaw was founded in the first place (which aren't the reasons you gave, thus).
If you do not recognise the benefits it brings to a society when a work/invention becomes free, and instead only accept as valid the (never-ending) profits it brings to the one that has invented something, then I guess you have troubles understanding the use of any limitation in this respect.
It is strange to see that the usual RIAA-adepts/trolls/etc. do not come with the same defence they always do to explain to the uneducated, rebellious/.-crowd the unfairness of not being able to have what 'rightfully' belongs to them. Almost no post is now saying: "Copy-infringement is theft!" or "If you don't want to pay for it, don't buy it", etc.
I have the distinct feeling that this would have happend if the story was told in the USA or europe, instead of Russia. The fact it's in a country where the people are simply and obviously to poor to pay the exorbitant prices one asks for DVDs and certainly CDs, makes it the more obvious that they ARE in fact ridiculously high priced.
It's one thing to portray yourself as the victim being robbed, causing the musicians to starve to death when you actually have a chance of cleaning out that much money out of the pockets of people. But it's another thing when people are so poor you have no chance in hell to EVER get that kind of money from them, be it with slogans or threats. In those situations, where the whole debate is brought back to its basics, it becomes clear who are the actual thieves.
"The only way they "encourage creativity" is by allowing folks like me to profit from our endeavors."
Yes, but only for a limited time. It is NOT meant to be a life-long paycheck; it's meant to be a stimulus for you to make other creative works.
That the 'limited' is paramount to it, has been made clear more then once. Alas, current laws, lobbied by the big corps, have abused and made that provision hollow, converting the original wise law to something to stuff your pockets with indefinately, instead of giving it to the public, so the whole of society can benefit from it.
If a law gets abused and made into a shadow of its real meaning and purpose in that way, I really can't shed a tear when people are breaking it en masse.
Actually, your whole argument stays or falls with the presumption downloading songs is illegal.
It must be noted, that in several jurisdictions (of even western countries), it's not illegal to *download* songs, it is illegal to upload them.
In those cases, your argument is worth nothing, because then, indeed, they can't stop him (as long as he doesn't upload). So actually he may have a point: he might have the right to download it, and no1 can stop him.
You *DO* realise I was talking about Freenet and JVM 1.4.2, I hope?
Even on Freenet you have those that claim there is little to it, especially on windows or on linux but then only without the native BigInt libraries... But then again, that's like saying: "that boat sails fine, if you don't use it with southern winds". Well, maybe, but it still makes more sense to use a boat that has shown no problems, whether using southern winds or not.
Well, some may call the 1.5 as being increasingly bloatware, but, why in some aspects this may be true, I think all by all there are considerable improvements over the former releases, especially 1.4.2.
JVM 1.4.2 (at least some sub-versions) were riddled with bugs, which, for instance, become apparent when people use systems that rely on it in a special way, as with Freenet. It comes as no surprise, that there were numerous reports of some errors on OSX and BSD, as well as on linux, when running JVM 1.4.2. For some time, we had to say "If you experience any difficulties, please try/revert to JVM 1.4.1 or 1.5.x and see if that solves the problem."
It is crazy to recommend reverting, but the main devls of java were unwilling to remedy the bugs in 1.4.2, claiming it was a Freenet-problem, while our devls said it was a JVM problem. Though it must be said some within freenet claim their is little to no problem with it (probably windows-users, or maybe some sub-versions that worked on specific linux-distributions). Anyway, my advice has always been, and will be (certainly in the light of the stable 1.5 release), to NOT use the 1.4.2, especially when using OSX or another 'nix based OS.
And also; be sure to get the JRE, and not the full SDK, unless you plan to develop Java software.
It has all the basic needs without the bells and whistles nobody uses, but, for most the wikiserver is very, very easy to use and to maintain. Contrary to almost all wiki's you don't have to know anything about webservers, php or other programlanguages, nay, not even detailed knowledge of a wiki is required. It just installs and works out of the bow, everything is straightforward, and I would say this wikiserver is what Ford was to the automobile-industry: it brings it into the grasp of everyone interested.
The latest version of Rian, wxwikiserver has all what it takes, unless your requirements are ultra-high, and it's coppled with an astonishing ease-of-use - and for once, this is no exageration. I have tried several others, but this one is truelly the most easy one to install and run.
They aren't political parties, after all. Give to ceasar what belongs to ceasar; give ethics to politicians, and exploitation to companies.
And, if a big corporation set-up office in a country where human rights are trampled on and minorities are exploited what's the problem adhering to those laws, indeed?
After all, companies are driven by different forces, so they can't be hold responsable when they implement child-labour and the like! I mean, if it will enhance their profitability they should go for it; ethical behaviour could damage the company immensely.
And the damage to those children...ah well...profit must come first! It's not the job of the company to respect human life or to care about the people they exploit. (The idea!)
Hurray for capitalism in it's raw form!/snip irony
"How can mixing food with poison yield desireable results?"
EVERYTHING is poisonous, it just depends on the quantity.
Wich is why I said the extremes won't work and are, indeed, poisonous for society. However, any of those political currents in moderate will do fine.
"My 2000 euros are nothing. This is way below the average income..."
2000 euro's is below the average income? I think you would be surprised how many families would have to live from much less then that, every month.
Your general statements about the benefits capitalism brings is to a high degree true, this is why I think capitalism has its merrit, indeed, and on itself, that merrit is greater then a pure socialist system would be (which would be communism). Communism failed miserably, and only die-hard pinko's would claim different. Yet, for all it's benefits, it has some drawbacks too, but it is difficult to make this clear if your premisse is different.
Capitalism is, in a way, based an darwinian principles, a sort economic struggle for life. While this results in economical optimalisation, I do not believe humans should be treated, nor seen as merely economic units. Humans are also social beings, and as such, deserve general basic rights, such as healthcare (IMHO), equal oportumities for education, etc. In systems where you don't have this extended social mechanisms, you see that in these area's, a large portion of the people is off far worse then the relatively small elite who can afford it.
You may say that all those other people are non-working, lazy bums, but I don't believe that, and even if it were true, it would mean people that have no jobs, or even ARE bums, don't deserve proper medical treatement or education, etc.? I'm not of that opinion, sorry.
Your belief that somehow, capitalism, even in its raw form, is self-correcting, is misguided IMHO. While there will always be rich and poor people, and the latter will always have better treatement, and it's quite known that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (I think there was a research done about that) - there IS a difference in the amount of discrepency between the two groups.
Whatever one may say about the shortfallings of the european system, at least here, the divide between rich and poor has been tempered. One may not see that as a good thing, but I think it is. If the discrepancy continues to rise, as in the USA, at some point, it will have it's breakingpoint. If your 'capitalism makes it good for everybody' were true, then that immer more growing divide would not happen. Yes, it makes it better in many area's, but only to a certain extent.
What would happen in a society where 10% are enormously wealthy, and the rest was poor and getting more poor by the day? Do you think such a society would remain stable for long? The ideologies you detest so much, like fascism and communism, had for a large part their succes to thank to the miserable circumstances the people lived in. If allmost all people live reasonably well, and don't feel exploited too much, you don't have a seedingground for such extreme ideologies.
Extremism thrives where there is poverty and discontent.
Your view is skewed and overly-optimistic about the beneficial influence a totally free and unrestricted capitalistic system would have and maintain, at least for the majority of people. You seem to forget that socialism started as a reaction to this raw capitailism, and thus, if people would not feel a certain need and necessecity to temper this system (and according to your rosy picture they shouldn't and wouldn't), it would not have started, nor have remained active for so long.
Also, you keep arguing things that are on itself true, but have little argumental validity in establishing the use of either political system. Take your example of healthcare; even when I would take your argument as being true, it surpasses the fact that, while the health system may be inefficient (and I'm all for making it more efficient), one HAS an adequate health system for everyone (at least in my country). Certainly, private healthcare could be far more effective....for those that can afford it.
A prime example is in the USA, where you mainly have two sorts of healthcare; the private sector, which is very good and eficient and all that, as you say, and the public one, which is total crap, in the USA, because they don't have the health system that we have here in europe. Now, no doubt that the more wealthy can afford the private clinics and are treated very well and efficient there, but to the detriment of those that are not so wealthy. To be poor in the USA, directly threatens ones' ability to recover from sickness, and, unless you think good health is just necessary for the more wealthy, that just stinks.
I do not share your viewpoint in how wonderful capitalism is, especially when unbridled and unrestricted. It seems to me that it is rather a self-serving viewpoint. I'm sure in the 19th century, almost all of the rich and wealthy thought the system was wonderfull too, and it was, for THEM. But then again, I'm sure LouisIV thought absolute monarchy was the best way to run a country too.
I, as a liberal, have rather little of such selfserving viewpoints in this regard (I should claim the same things you do, otherwise), but I'm objective enough to see that extremistic viewpoints on either side (raw capitalism / communism) are both recipes for failure.
You're argumentation is sophistic in nature; the fact that life was ameliorating due to medical and other scientific advances, does not diminish in any way what I said: that the form of capitalism in the 19th and early 20th century was an exess that wasn't to the benefit of the majority of people.
All what you describe above as benefits would have been possible too, if capitalism hadn't been so extreme and raw. Fact is, our current situation (in europe, at least) shows this exactly, with the added benefit that now, it counts for a lot more of people, not merely the wealthy and rich. (Or do you think women were 'financially independend' in *poor* workingfamilies?)
You seem to see the world in black and white. I didn't say 'capitalism is bad' (otherwise, I wouldn't vote for lberals;-), nor that it didn't lead to beneficial advances, but I did say that the raw capitalism of the 19th century was far from being optimal, if you regard the wellfare of the majority of people in a country as a goal for optimisation. In that respect, the social laws that tempered that raw capitalistic system and provided a much more equal distribution of wellfare, health, etc. was a good thing, and we mainly have to thank the socialistic movement for it.
So, once again it is shown that both systems have their uses.
You seem to have a rather simplistic interpretation of what constitutes socialism, fascism, communism, etc.
While it is true socialism has broadend and even misued certain terms so it would fit what they needed, this can hardly be called a distinctive feature of socialism. In fact, I think every party and every country in the world (see the examples I gave of the USA) does exactly the same: they use and change terminology and concepts, just to suit their neds, and to make it more palatable for those that might opose. Calling something 'liberating' is a prime example of that. The day that any country will call it "invade and conquer another country" still has to come.
"How can you be so ignorant? How can you even begin to claim that the facism is a variant of capitalism. Thats bullshit."
Indeed, and that was my point. But you don't seem to have any trouble with claiming equal bullshit. The only thing preventing from seeying that, is your own bias against socialism.
I however, can see the benefits as well as the drawbacks of socialism. I find liberalism more suited and practical in an economoic perspective, and for sure 'pinko's' can be damn annoying with their braindead slogans, but that doesn't mean I do not recognise the value they have brought neither. (It just means we should keep them in check).
After all, raw capitalism like it was rampant in the 19th century was far from ideal for most of the people (exept the rich); the inequality and abuse of the ecomoically weaker was grotesk. It was liberalism in it's basic form, and I despise that as much as a state-ruled government under one doctrine, frankly.
I think socialism and liberalism keeps eachother in check (but apart that, I prefer a multi-party system, because with only two choices one limits the abilities of the voter too much).
Actually, if there was a true libertarian party, I would probably vote for them, because currently, I can't find myself fully in any of the current parties, be it liberal, ultra-right-wing, socialists or greens. Liberals are just less bad then most.
"only a socialist can be so lax with words and at the same time point out myriad detail errors when it concerns their favorite model for society. Firstly, every 'communist' leader must, as Marx himself says, at some point or other have been a socialist. Communsism can't be achieved without a socialist transition period. To your comment:"
LOL. Funny how USA-dudes always think that critique on their system, or saying the USA has imperialistic tendancies iveriably makes someone a socialist. "Only a socialist" my ass. Typical smallmindness so people like you can shrug it off without any problems by saying it 'can only come from a pinko'. In reality, YOU don't have a clue about what really constitutes a socialist, liberal, communist or liberal. If you are a USA-citizen, your ignorance on that matter is no surprise and even understandable, if your an european you should KNOW the difference.
Your argumentation that something is socialist (or whatever) because different political and ideological currents have points in common is ridiculous. I guess you are one of those guys that equal the islamic religiousness with islamic fundamentalism, because the ideology of the extremists show similarities and are both based on the Koran.
It's rather funny to be called a socialist (I've been called that many times, especially by USA-dudes) when, in fact, I'm a liberal. But then again, I think the US thinks liberals in europe ARE socialists. They'll be in for a surprise, if they really encounter european socialists.
"You haven't got a clue what colonisation and imperalism implies. Talk to people in india if they were 'influenced' by the britons or plainly ruled by them."
Right, that's why I say the wordchoice changed (by the USA themselves, ofcours- duh), but the ideology that lies behind it has remained the same. Ask Iraquees if they feel ruled by the americans, or merely influenced.
"If you don't see a difference, I'm just sorry for you. But please, name some areas of 'influence' and tell me how the conditions there equate to the concept of 'colonies'. Yeah, Irak was libertated, or what else would you call the bringing of freedom to an oppressed people and allowing them to hold elections and appoint a souvereign government?"
An invasion and occupation of a sovereign state by a foreign armed force.
The fact that the country was ruled by a dictator does not change the above. And apart from that, it's a showcase of hypocrisy: the USA don't seem to be bothered one bit with dealing and actively supporting (and even toppling democratic elected leaders to install dictators that are more favorable to the US), as long as it suits them. Trying to excuse the invasion by claiming the higher moral ground is ludicrous and hypcritical.
"Whatever. I realize this is socalism sacred cow: Hitler wasn't one of us."
Is it? Then why should I care? I'm not a socialist.
Fact is, while Nazism claimed to have socialist roots, they were merely, as you indicate yourself, a populist, nationalistic party using some socialist slogans to become popular, not to implement it. For instance, you conveniently left out that the nazi's forbid unions and seriously reduced a lot of socialistic endeavours...something a true socialistic party, obviously, would not do.
Personnally, I don't give much about socialism as an ideology, but that don't mean I can't recognise that they have done some good too, and that the facts are the facts; and equalling fascism with socialism is ludicrous.
In fact, fascism really has far more similarities with 'corporatisation', whereby big companies have a gigantic influence on politics, instead of the people. In this respect, and following your own reasoning, the capitalistic vision should be equalled with fascism. I, However, am far to reasonable to equate nazism or fascism with being liberal, something you have no problem with aparently, if it is about socialism.
They don't call it colonies anymore, they call it "area's of influence", they don't call it "conquering" but "liberating", they don't have 'strongholds' in other countries anymore, but "bases", etc.
By any other name, a rose would smell as sweet?
And you'd better check up on history; it's not by lack of trying that the USA doesn't have 'colonies'. Where they succeeded, they were enlisted as 'states' (unless you think all states joined the USA 'willingly'?), where they didn't, they were thrown out.
BTW, hitler and mussolini were a prime example of facism, not socialism (though he called his party national-socialism). In fact, all your other examples are communistic in nature, not socialistic.
Slashdot Mirror
You should run for president! :-)
;-)
Or make a book: "How to stop a war in 4 easy steps."
It amuses me to see people counterargument the fact that this is a blatant abuse by the government of the freedoms that people enjoy in the west, by pointing out how much worse some people have it in other parts of the world. It simply doesn't make sense.
How is it less a restriction of freedom, because other countries even have LESS freedom? that's like saying you get more hungry, but some are even hungrier then you...So what? Does that fill your stomac? Does it invalidates that you are hungry? No. Neither is getting less freedom any better by noting that others have even less. It doesn't contracdict the issue, and it does nothing to change it. We are not becoming more free because other countries are even less free.
The fact that so many people actually accept the bull that the state says in this regard, is proof of a more fundamental truth about human nature: the fact that, ultimately, for most ppl, freedom isn't the most important, it is security. Contrary to what a great leader once said, most hoi palloi are all to happy to exchange their freedoms for a gain in security, or even an impression of improved security. People want to feel safe, and most don't care all that much about other things, compared to that. They don't care that people get imprisoned without due process, because they are bad ppl and evil terrorists, which should be locked up indefinately - for their (the citizens) protection, of course. they don't care about all the draconian laws that restrict their freedom, because it is portrayed (and seen) as a necessary way to protect themselves.
A best example is a post I read about the iraqi people. Even though it was presented as a counterargument, in fact the poster gave a prime example of the kind of human nature I just described. He claimed iraqi's were getting far more freedom now then under Sadam. Well, yes. But the irony is, more and more people think the period they experience now is far worse then under sadam. In some area's, even to the point that they would rather have him back. Because, for all the atrocities he did (and a lot of people hated and feared him for it), their was one thing the populace recognise that they have completely lost, and that is security and stability. Humans abhor chaos, one could say.
I doubt many in the US will have ever seen all those documentaries that actually show how the populace yearns the order that was present under sadam, even if he was a ruthless dictator. Among the populace, they care a lot less about all the so called freedom they have gained, and a lot more about stability and security. what good does it do that you have the right to protest, if you have no job, no income, bombs explode every day, and you can get shot when making the use of the right to protest?
That's the deeper truth of human nature: by and large, freedom is a a far second or third in the list of most important things. That's why people don't care about freedoms getting trampled, as long as the impression exists it's improving safety and security.
As with many things in society, there is some barrier/level at which 'getting tougher' doesn't do any good, just as there is a barrier of taxes people will endure, after which (if augmented beyond that point) people will search more to avoid it at any costs, instead of paying more (to the detriment of the government which sometimes seem to think more tax equals more income).
Anyway, the idea that giving disproportionate sentences will somehow act as a deterent for others really isn't substantiated by anything. The same argument is made about the death penalty in the USA, also without a shred of evidence it actually helps one iota (but with the major drawback that you run the posibility of killing innocent people).
In ancient china, there once was an emperor who had the same idea, and he took it to the full extreme: anyone convicted of a crime would be beheaded, together with his whole family in the 4th degree. Such draconian measures would surely avoid any crime, because anyone commiting a crime would know dozens of his kin would be killed, right?
Wrong.
As far as historians can tell, crime was commited as frequently before and after then during that period. Not really surprising, since crime-statistics show that, even in comparison, there are slightly fewer crimes in europe *without* death penalty, then in the USA.
I dislike the 'give them as much as you can' policy in the legal arena. It's nothing more then thinly disguised revenge and a feeling of holier-then-thee. It's portrayed as an effective measure to 'scare off' others, while the fact of the matter is, that there is no shred of evidence it has any positive influence at all - meanwhile ignoring the human drama one can cause. It's nothing more then a biased opinion, really; very useful for political slogans and becomming popular with the masses, but nothing else. I dispise this mentality of giving disproportionate sentences 'just to show/scare them'.
Apart from the fact it doesn't, I don't really care for the shock effect; I prefer a state where one is wise enough to sentence someone according to the gravity of his crime. And as much that I hate spam and think those spammer should be brought before court, no sane person can actually claim sending spam is SUCH a huge unforging crime that it deserves 9 years of prison, while phiscally attacking and robbing a person gets much less.
If one would act in proportion, one would give huge fines, and/or moderate jailsentences, depending on recedivism or not. But if you have such absurd disproportionate measures, it's an indication that you have a legal system that is sick and screwed, not healthy and normal. People that think this is all OK, should perhaps convert and live their lives according to the rigid interpretations of the shariat.
I agree that copyrights and patents are not the same, though they show familiarities. It's both about intangibles, they are both placed under 'intellectual property' and they are both being lobbied hard for by megacorps to extend their limit to the infinite, thereby making a mockery of the term 'limited', as I am sure you can agree, since you seem a reasonable dude.
But copyrights are bareable and have some validity of their own, because it's true you have made the product and thus you deserve something for it. Patents for intangible creations should be abolished, IMHO, because they do more harm then good, and don't have the same validity. If I thought of something fully independently, but another thought about it a second earlier, I'm supposed to give him money till the end of times? I don't think so. It strikes me rather as unfair. And patents have a huge amount of more speaking aginst it, as I've demonstrated in my former posts.
So, yes, the level of damage resulting of copyrights is less, but it is still there, nevertheless. So it still need a balance. It is still a monoply, with all the resulting drawbacks I described. It is not even hypothetical, but a real issue, that thousands of works are slowly degrading into dust and will be lost forever for society, in essence because copyrights forbid even those that want to save it for the public for nothing, can not copy them.
All those thoughts, ideas and knowledge are wasted for society, because of copyrights, and the longer the term will become, the more this will happen. This too, I call damage to society.
I fail to see what is flamebaiting it is to say that TCP can go on for another 50 years, without problem.
Exactly the same kind of post a bit below gets 'insightful'.
It is simply true. Yes, there are some little drawbacks with TCP, but in the whole article, they do not give a compelling reason to switch, let alone why one would *have* to. I mean, RTFA: TCP is at 1-3% and the most efficient would be a throughput with 3-5% (loss)...but so what? It's not optimal, but does it anywhere claims TCP is doomed because it's not optimal in certain area's?
There are myriads of things that aren't optimal on the Net, it doesn't mean they have been here for years and will be for years to come, nor that it is a necessity to switch, if the only thing lacking is that it's not optimally suited.
better replacement of TCP. TCP's legacy design carries a number of inefficiencies, the most prominent of which is its inability to utilize most modern links' bandwidth. This problem stems from the fact that TCP calculates the congestion of the channel based on its round-trip time. The round-trim time, however, reflects not only the congestion level, but also the physical length of the connection. This is precisely why TCP is inherently unable to reach optimal speeds on long high-bandwidth connections.
A secondary, but just as impairing, property of TCP is its inability to tolerate even small amounts (1% - 3%) of packet loss. This additionally forces TCP to work at safe and relatively low transmission speeds with under 1% loss rates. Nevertheless, our extended real-life measurements show that highest throughput is generally achieved at speeds with anywhere between 3% and 5% loss.
The Solution
By using our core coding technology we were able to design a reliable Internet transmission protocol which can circumvent both of the fore-mentioned deficiencies of TCP, while still remaining TCP-friendly. By using encoded, rather than plain, transmission we are able to send at speeds with any packet loss level. Rateless coding is used in conjunction with our Universal Congestion Control algorithm, which allows Rateless Internet to remain friendly to TCP and other congestion-aware protocols.
Universal Congestion Control is an algorithm for transmission speed control. It is based on a simple and clean idea. Speed is varied in a wave-like fashion. The top of the wave achieves near-optimal throughput, while the bottom is low enough to let coexisting protocols like TCP smoothly receive a fair share of bandwidth. The time lengths of the peaks and troughs can be adjusted parametrically to achieve customized levels of fairness between Rateless Internet and TCP.
The Rateless Internet transport is now available through our Rateless Socket product in the form of a C/C++ socket library. Rateless Internet is ideal for Internet-based applications, running on the network edges, that require high bandwidth in a heterogenous environment. It was specifically built with peer-to-peer and live multimedia content delivery applications in mind.
TCP may be old, but it can go on for another 50 years wothout any problem.
As I have said; if you do not acknowledge that it is beneficial (as a whole) to society when copyrights and patents become free, and you only accept economic/capitalistic reasonings for the individual, then you will have trouble to see why any limitation is imposed.
In that respect, I think we have a diametrically oposing viewpoint of it. And, contrary to what you claim, currently, most countries have NO unlimited copyrightlaw. The reason they do not have such laws, is that they DO see that it's about balancing the right of the creator with the good for society.
What you propose is actually "Common law copyright", where the author (or heirs) gets perpetual benefits. It worth noting that this idea is not accepted (exept in special circumstances) by the courts in most countries, and I quote:
"Common law copyright is the legal doctrine that contends that copyright is a natural right and creators have the same inherent right to it as they would tangible property. The doctrine has been repudiated by the courts in the United Kingdom (Donaldson v. Beckett) and the United States (Wheaton v. Peters)."
Now, how comes the state and the courts do not agree with the vision of perpetual rights for copyrights and patents? Because they realise, unlike yourself, that copyrights and patents cover the rights of intangible creations, and thus are not the same as the rights for tangible objects, like houses and land. And furthermore, they acknowledged the public interest in these matters, and that it is beneficial for society that it is not perpetual.
If they only agreed with the economic value it brings for the creator, they would have made everything ad infintum a long time ago. They did NOT intend to do so, as is obvious by the original 14 years limit, even when people already lived longer then that in that time. And they still don't give perpetual rights to it now. And that is not because they haven't got a grasp of the concept 'property'. The only reason why they make a difference between copyrights and patents and tangible property, is because it *does* differ, and society has a higher stake in it.
It isn't even all that difficult to see why the concept of everlasting copyrights&patents are devastating in the long run. Imagine that it would have existed since the beginning of time, then you, even today, might have to pay someone if you used fire, or the wheel. Fact is, most of the inventions and works done today are based on earlier works; if all things were covered by perpetual rights, it would become totally impossible to make any invention (more so the further in the future you go), without breaking one right or another, and getting sued.
Also, copyrights and patents create monopolies. They simply do; it gives the exclusive right to the one that has done it, or comes up with it (first). As we can all agree (I hope), monopolies are not good for society as a whole, only for those that own the monopoly (and even then only financially speaking). If monopolies are bad, then perpetual monopolies are perpetually bad.
But are they bad? I fail to recall any instance in where a monopoly was actually a good thing, inovative wise and also towards the public. Monopolies, IMHO, create lazyness, not incentives for further research - which is why it is paramount that copyrights and the lot are limited in time. They create artificial high prices, which not all of the populace can afford. They often hold back and limit other ideas or improvements, unless they have full control of it. In short: it sucks.
So, yes, it does harm society. It's not about 6 cents, it's about giving back to society your ideas and thoughts, which didn't form out of the thin air. It's about making sure that someday, people will be able to use and improve upon your work, in all freedom. I can't imagine anything worse then a med.company having eternal rights on its medicines; in one stroke, you would destroy all generic medicines and people would have to pay whatever price they asked, untill the end of
"Since when?"
;-)
Since its conception.
Originally (in 1790), the US copyright term was 14 years after publication, with an option for another 14 years.
Clearly you do not know what you are talking about. Your argumentation is factual false (even in europe the original copyrightlaws didn't incorporate a 75 year term), and you are wrong in your rationalisation, because people in the 18th century already lived much longer then 28 years. It had nothing to do with how long they expected inventors to live.
With all your elaborate argumentation, you fail to acknowledge that the law originally strived for a balance between stimulating invention by giving a compensation for a limited time, and the interest of society as a whole, when it becomes public.
The goal was always to stimulate new invention for a limited time (I believe it says so almost to the letter, at least in USA law), not to provide a life long pocket-filling. In fact, it could be argued that unlimited copy&patent rights actually hamper the creation of new inventions today, thereby perverting the actual reason why copyrightlaw was founded in the first place (which aren't the reasons you gave, thus).
If you do not recognise the benefits it brings to a society when a work/invention becomes free, and instead only accept as valid the (never-ending) profits it brings to the one that has invented something, then I guess you have troubles understanding the use of any limitation in this respect.
It is strange to see that the usual RIAA-adepts/trolls/etc. do not come with the same defence they always do to explain to the uneducated, rebellious /.-crowd the unfairness of not being able to have what 'rightfully' belongs to them. Almost no post is now saying: "Copy-infringement is theft!" or "If you don't want to pay for it, don't buy it", etc.
I have the distinct feeling that this would have happend if the story was told in the USA or europe, instead of Russia. The fact it's in a country where the people are simply and obviously to poor to pay the exorbitant prices one asks for DVDs and certainly CDs, makes it the more obvious that they ARE in fact ridiculously high priced.
It's one thing to portray yourself as the victim being robbed, causing the musicians to starve to death when you actually have a chance of cleaning out that much money out of the pockets of people. But it's another thing when people are so poor you have no chance in hell to EVER get that kind of money from them, be it with slogans or threats. In those situations, where the whole debate is brought back to its basics, it becomes clear who are the actual thieves.
"The only way they "encourage creativity" is by allowing folks like me to profit from our endeavors."
Yes, but only for a limited time. It is NOT meant to be a life-long paycheck; it's meant to be a stimulus for you to make other creative works.
That the 'limited' is paramount to it, has been made clear more then once. Alas, current laws, lobbied by the big corps, have abused and made that provision hollow, converting the original wise law to something to stuff your pockets with indefinately, instead of giving it to the public, so the whole of society can benefit from it.
If a law gets abused and made into a shadow of its real meaning and purpose in that way, I really can't shed a tear when people are breaking it en masse.
Actually, your whole argument stays or falls with the presumption downloading songs is illegal.
It must be noted, that in several jurisdictions (of even western countries), it's not illegal to *download* songs, it is illegal to upload them.
In those cases, your argument is worth nothing, because then, indeed, they can't stop him (as long as he doesn't upload). So actually he may have a point: he might have the right to download it, and no1 can stop him.
For the specifics I would have to refer you to our main coder Toad, on http://dodo.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/2004 -September/thread.html
Feel free to post a question or comment, there.
You *DO* realise I was talking about Freenet and JVM 1.4.2, I hope?
Even on Freenet you have those that claim there is little to it, especially on windows or on linux but then only without the native BigInt libraries... But then again, that's like saying: "that boat sails fine, if you don't use it with southern winds". Well, maybe, but it still makes more sense to use a boat that has shown no problems, whether using southern winds or not.
Well, some may call the 1.5 as being increasingly bloatware, but, why in some aspects this may be true, I think all by all there are considerable improvements over the former releases, especially 1.4.2.
JVM 1.4.2 (at least some sub-versions) were riddled with bugs, which, for instance, become apparent when people use systems that rely on it in a special way, as with Freenet. It comes as no surprise, that there were numerous reports of some errors on OSX and BSD, as well as on linux, when running JVM 1.4.2. For some time, we had to say "If you experience any difficulties, please try/revert to JVM 1.4.1 or 1.5.x and see if that solves the problem."
It is crazy to recommend reverting, but the main devls of java were unwilling to remedy the bugs in 1.4.2, claiming it was a Freenet-problem, while our devls said it was a JVM problem. Though it must be said some within freenet claim their is little to no problem with it (probably windows-users, or maybe some sub-versions that worked on specific linux-distributions). Anyway, my advice has always been, and will be (certainly in the light of the stable 1.5 release), to NOT use the 1.4.2, especially when using OSX or another 'nix based OS.
And also; be sure to get the JRE, and not the full SDK, unless you plan to develop Java software.
third post!
or something
It has all the basic needs without the bells and whistles nobody uses, but, for most the wikiserver is very, very easy to use and to maintain. Contrary to almost all wiki's you don't have to know anything about webservers, php or other programlanguages, nay, not even detailed knowledge of a wiki is required. It just installs and works out of the bow, everything is straightforward, and I would say this wikiserver is what Ford was to the automobile-industry: it brings it into the grasp of everyone interested.
The latest version of Rian, wxwikiserver has all what it takes, unless your requirements are ultra-high, and it's coppled with an astonishing ease-of-use - and for once, this is no exageration. I have tried several others, but this one is truelly the most easy one to install and run.
They aren't political parties, after all. Give to ceasar what belongs to ceasar; give ethics to politicians, and exploitation to companies.
/snip irony
And, if a big corporation set-up office in a country where human rights are trampled on and minorities are exploited what's the problem adhering to those laws, indeed?
After all, companies are driven by different forces, so they can't be hold responsable when they implement child-labour and the like! I mean, if it will enhance their profitability they should go for it; ethical behaviour could damage the company immensely.
And the damage to those children...ah well...profit must come first! It's not the job of the company to respect human life or to care about the people they exploit. (The idea!)
Hurray for capitalism in it's raw form!
"How can mixing food with poison yield desireable results?"
EVERYTHING is poisonous, it just depends on the quantity.
Wich is why I said the extremes won't work and are, indeed, poisonous for society. However, any of those political currents in moderate will do fine.
"My 2000 euros are nothing. This is way below the average income..."
2000 euro's is below the average income? I think you would be surprised how many families would have to live from much less then that, every month.
Your general statements about the benefits capitalism brings is to a high degree true, this is why I think capitalism has its merrit, indeed, and on itself, that merrit is greater then a pure socialist system would be (which would be communism). Communism failed miserably, and only die-hard pinko's would claim different. Yet, for all it's benefits, it has some drawbacks too, but it is difficult to make this clear if your premisse is different.
Capitalism is, in a way, based an darwinian principles, a sort economic struggle for life. While this results in economical optimalisation, I do not believe humans should be treated, nor seen as merely economic units. Humans are also social beings, and as such, deserve general basic rights, such as healthcare (IMHO), equal oportumities for education, etc. In systems where you don't have this extended social mechanisms, you see that in these area's, a large portion of the people is off far worse then the relatively small elite who can afford it.
You may say that all those other people are non-working, lazy bums, but I don't believe that, and even if it were true, it would mean people that have no jobs, or even ARE bums, don't deserve proper medical treatement or education, etc.? I'm not of that opinion, sorry.
Your belief that somehow, capitalism, even in its raw form, is self-correcting, is misguided IMHO. While there will always be rich and poor people, and the latter will always have better treatement, and it's quite known that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer (I think there was a research done about that) - there IS a difference in the amount of discrepency between the two groups.
Whatever one may say about the shortfallings of the european system, at least here, the divide between rich and poor has been tempered. One may not see that as a good thing, but I think it is. If the discrepancy continues to rise, as in the USA, at some point, it will have it's breakingpoint. If your 'capitalism makes it good for everybody' were true, then that immer more growing divide would not happen. Yes, it makes it better in many area's, but only to a certain extent.
What would happen in a society where 10% are enormously wealthy, and the rest was poor and getting more poor by the day? Do you think such a society would remain stable for long? The ideologies you detest so much, like fascism and communism, had for a large part their succes to thank to the miserable circumstances the people lived in. If allmost all people live reasonably well, and don't feel exploited too much, you don't have a seedingground for such extreme ideologies.
Extremism thrives where there is poverty and discontent.
Your view is skewed and overly-optimistic about the beneficial influence a totally free and unrestricted capitalistic system would have and maintain, at least for the majority of people. You seem to forget that socialism started as a reaction to this raw capitailism, and thus, if people would not feel a certain need and necessecity to temper this system (and according to your rosy picture they shouldn't and wouldn't), it would not have started, nor have remained active for so long.
Also, you keep arguing things that are on itself true, but have little argumental validity in establishing the use of either political system. Take your example of healthcare; even when I would take your argument as being true, it surpasses the fact that, while the health system may be inefficient (and I'm all for making it more efficient), one HAS an adequate health system for everyone (at least in my country). Certainly, private healthcare could be far more effective....for those that can afford it.
A prime example is in the USA, where you mainly have two sorts of healthcare; the private sector, which is very good and eficient and all that, as you say, and the public one, which is total crap, in the USA, because they don't have the health system that we have here in europe. Now, no doubt that the more wealthy can afford the private clinics and are treated very well and efficient there, but to the detriment of those that are not so wealthy. To be poor in the USA, directly threatens ones' ability to recover from sickness, and, unless you think good health is just necessary for the more wealthy, that just stinks.
I do not share your viewpoint in how wonderful capitalism is, especially when unbridled and unrestricted. It seems to me that it is rather a self-serving viewpoint. I'm sure in the 19th century, almost all of the rich and wealthy thought the system was wonderfull too, and it was, for THEM. But then again, I'm sure LouisIV thought absolute monarchy was the best way to run a country too.
I, as a liberal, have rather little of such selfserving viewpoints in this regard (I should claim the same things you do, otherwise), but I'm objective enough to see that extremistic viewpoints on either side (raw capitalism / communism) are both recipes for failure.
So, in sum, they are evil greedy bastards? ;-)
You're argumentation is sophistic in nature; the fact that life was ameliorating due to medical and other scientific advances, does not diminish in any way what I said: that the form of capitalism in the 19th and early 20th century was an exess that wasn't to the benefit of the majority of people.
;-), nor that it didn't lead to beneficial advances, but I did say that the raw capitalism of the 19th century was far from being optimal, if you regard the wellfare of the majority of people in a country as a goal for optimisation. In that respect, the social laws that tempered that raw capitalistic system and provided a much more equal distribution of wellfare, health, etc. was a good thing, and we mainly have to thank the socialistic movement for it.
All what you describe above as benefits would have been possible too, if capitalism hadn't been so extreme and raw. Fact is, our current situation (in europe, at least) shows this exactly, with the added benefit that now, it counts for a lot more of people, not merely the wealthy and rich. (Or do you think women were 'financially independend' in *poor* workingfamilies?)
You seem to see the world in black and white. I didn't say 'capitalism is bad' (otherwise, I wouldn't vote for lberals
So, once again it is shown that both systems have their uses.
You seem to have a rather simplistic interpretation of what constitutes socialism, fascism, communism, etc.
While it is true socialism has broadend and even misued certain terms so it would fit what they needed, this can hardly be called a distinctive feature of socialism. In fact, I think every party and every country in the world (see the examples I gave of the USA) does exactly the same: they use and change terminology and concepts, just to suit their neds, and to make it more palatable for those that might opose. Calling something 'liberating' is a prime example of that. The day that any country will call it "invade and conquer another country" still has to come.
"How can you be so ignorant? How can you even begin to claim that the facism is a variant of capitalism. Thats bullshit."
Indeed, and that was my point. But you don't seem to have any trouble with claiming equal bullshit. The only thing preventing from seeying that, is your own bias against socialism.
I however, can see the benefits as well as the drawbacks of socialism. I find liberalism more suited and practical in an economoic perspective, and for sure 'pinko's' can be damn annoying with their braindead slogans, but that doesn't mean I do not recognise the value they have brought neither. (It just means we should keep them in check).
After all, raw capitalism like it was rampant in the 19th century was far from ideal for most of the people (exept the rich); the inequality and abuse of the ecomoically weaker was grotesk. It was liberalism in it's basic form, and I despise that as much as a state-ruled government under one doctrine, frankly.
I think socialism and liberalism keeps eachother in check (but apart that, I prefer a multi-party system, because with only two choices one limits the abilities of the voter too much).
Actually, if there was a true libertarian party, I would probably vote for them, because currently, I can't find myself fully in any of the current parties, be it liberal, ultra-right-wing, socialists or greens. Liberals are just less bad then most.
"only a socialist can be so lax with words and at the same time point out myriad detail errors when it concerns their favorite model for society. Firstly, every 'communist' leader must, as Marx himself says, at some point or other have been a socialist. Communsism can't be achieved without a socialist transition period. To your comment:"
LOL. Funny how USA-dudes always think that critique on their system, or saying the USA has imperialistic tendancies iveriably makes someone a socialist. "Only a socialist" my ass. Typical smallmindness so people like you can shrug it off without any problems by saying it 'can only come from a pinko'. In reality, YOU don't have a clue about what really constitutes a socialist, liberal, communist or liberal. If you are a USA-citizen, your ignorance on that matter is no surprise and even understandable, if your an european you should KNOW the difference.
Your argumentation that something is socialist (or whatever) because different political and ideological currents have points in common is ridiculous. I guess you are one of those guys that equal the islamic religiousness with islamic fundamentalism, because the ideology of the extremists show similarities and are both based on the Koran.
It's rather funny to be called a socialist (I've been called that many times, especially by USA-dudes) when, in fact, I'm a liberal. But then again, I think the US thinks liberals in europe ARE socialists. They'll be in for a surprise, if they really encounter european socialists.
"You haven't got a clue what colonisation and imperalism implies. Talk to people in india if they were 'influenced' by the britons or plainly ruled by them."
Right, that's why I say the wordchoice changed (by the USA themselves, ofcours- duh), but the ideology that lies behind it has remained the same. Ask Iraquees if they feel ruled by the americans, or merely influenced.
"If you don't see a difference, I'm just sorry for you. But please, name some areas of 'influence' and tell me how the conditions there equate to the concept of 'colonies'. Yeah, Irak was libertated, or what else would you call the bringing of freedom to an oppressed people and allowing them to hold elections and appoint a souvereign government?"
An invasion and occupation of a sovereign state by a foreign armed force.
The fact that the country was ruled by a dictator does not change the above. And apart from that, it's a showcase of hypocrisy: the USA don't seem to be bothered one bit with dealing and actively supporting (and even toppling democratic elected leaders to install dictators that are more favorable to the US), as long as it suits them. Trying to excuse the invasion by claiming the higher moral ground is ludicrous and hypcritical.
"Whatever. I realize this is socalism sacred cow: Hitler wasn't one of us."
Is it? Then why should I care? I'm not a socialist.
Fact is, while Nazism claimed to have socialist roots, they were merely, as you indicate yourself, a populist, nationalistic party using some socialist slogans to become popular, not to implement it. For instance, you conveniently left out that the nazi's forbid unions and seriously reduced a lot of socialistic endeavours...something a true socialistic party, obviously, would not do.
Personnally, I don't give much about socialism as an ideology, but that don't mean I can't recognise that they have done some good too, and that the facts are the facts; and equalling fascism with socialism is ludicrous.
In fact, fascism really has far more similarities with 'corporatisation', whereby big companies have a gigantic influence on politics, instead of the people. In this respect, and following your own reasoning, the capitalistic vision should be equalled with fascism. I, However, am far to reasonable to equate nazism or fascism with being liberal, something you have no problem with aparently, if it is about socialism.
They don't call it colonies anymore, they call it "area's of influence", they don't call it "conquering" but "liberating", they don't have 'strongholds' in other countries anymore, but "bases", etc.
By any other name, a rose would smell as sweet?
And you'd better check up on history; it's not by lack of trying that the USA doesn't have 'colonies'. Where they succeeded, they were enlisted as 'states' (unless you think all states joined the USA 'willingly'?), where they didn't, they were thrown out.
BTW, hitler and mussolini were a prime example of facism, not socialism (though he called his party national-socialism). In fact, all your other examples are communistic in nature, not socialistic.