They would have the right to defend themselves if the tablatures were taken from their books and published on the Internet for free. But anybody can just sit down with a guitar and a PC and create a tablature on his own. That's not their concern and they shouldn't claim rights on work that was done by others.
It would be so nice in this case if this were true, but it isn't.
When you create a tab as you describe, you may well have copyright on it, but it is also a derived work, and covered by the copyright on the original, hence the original author(s) or their agent have a claim here.
Good attempt at diverting attention, but GP is quite right with regards to the purpose of copyright and how it should work in this case. You might want to realize that in quite a few older and easier recognized situations, copyright has provisions for educational use.
Would you care to bet that Microsoft will claim AD is an innovation on LDAP?
They may try, but actually making an argument out if it will be difficult. A few minor modifications that add no actual usefullness do not come anywhere close to being an invention (let alone being a patentable invention, but as you mentioned, if their claim is actually valid isn't that important for now).
Okay, what rights does someone have when they don't respect and are actively disrespecting the liberties of others?
Right to life, right to fair treatment.
That they would not give such rights to me really doesn't matter if I believe to be better then them.
Let's adjust this a bit further, say someone is shooting people like just the other week at VT. Does that person have the same "rights" as the burgler? Some people say YES (including me BTW, and you'll see why).
Guess what, I also say 'yes', but I bet we are going to disagree as to what those 'rights' are.
The most basic liberty is the right to life; to live.
Using the logic you've given then nobody has a "right" to take the life of another, ever or under any circumstances.
Yes, there is one circumstance, if the alternative would be being killed by the person whom's life you are taking.
Avoiding death row by a confession is the problem there. The death penalty itself has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I can guarantee you that if people who disrespected rights of others knew that they there was a potential to be killed while they were actively disrepecting liberties of others, there would be a much lower rate of that disrespect.
Oh really?
Violent crime in the USA in the form of armed robbery, murder, rape and all those are so much higher today then they were in the 1800s for example... Oh wait, back then you actually needed to be seriously armed to have a decent chance on surviving a trip between 2 places.
As much as intuition suggests what you say there, time and time again it turns out to be wrong. What is more, there is a very strong correlation between acting as you suggest and higher crime rates.
You can see that this basic idea still exists today, in the most primitive ways among the "Gangstas" who shoot and kill for the slightest "disrespect". The problem is, that they aren't taught to respect others at all by anyone. This is how women become "ho's" and men become "gangstas". But I digress.
Oh, lets take the gangsta culture as an example of one that promotes personal freedom and justice..
Excuse me, I need a few moments to recover from that one.
Really, all that it results in is more violence due to revenge. This is what bloodfeuds come from.
Proportional response is nothing more than Political Correctness, and doesn't address the real problem. Therefore Burglary and Murder are two different responses, and yet even people actively murdering are handled with kit gloves.
If proportionality was actually used, burglary and murder would get 2 different responses.
What proportionality also does is making that a double murder gets a stronger response then a single murder. This makes it less likely that a crime goes unpunnished.
Actually, this is wrong in so many ways. This is the CURRENT legal system for sure, not one based upon mutual respect of personal liberty. The current system doesn't respect personal liberty at all, and it doesn't support individuals from defending their personal liberties.
And I happen to believe it is right, and the 'whatever means' is wrong in so many ways.
You see, this is why such rules are arbitrary. They are based upon belief and assumptions.
The basis for personal liberties is mutual respect, not law. No amount of laws can protect liberty, it has to be based upon mutual respect.
Using proportional means to defend your property still means you can defend your property, but it also means that you have to respect certain basic rights of the person who is breaking into your house. This is a strange concept for most who never really researched why laws exist as they do because it is counter intuitive. It is however fundamental to creating a society that is fair to its members.
Proportionality is also important for dealing with crime because it makes sure that you can respond more strongly on a more severe crime.
It is also indeed the basis of current laws (however badly implemented) and there exists a huge body of literature as to why this is. If you study a bit of world history and not limit yourself to the USA, you would have known that this concept is relatively new, and turned out to be a huge advancement in providing justice and fairness.
Actually, I have relatives that are in Europe, and I have relatives scattered across the USA. The trend here in the US, especially in the dense left and right coasts to try and move more towards the Western European model of laws and culture.
Just like people in the countryside in Europe tend a bit more towards your opinion and ideas about this.
Maybe it has a lot to do with what works when you have more then a few people per square mile.
Again, no amount of law is going to protect liberty.
I'm pretty sure the 1st amandment on the USA constitution protects liberty, as does the 4th, so what you just said is not true.
And in my view of things, the government isn't going to protect liberty, because personal liberty is contrary to government power.
There is an inherent conflict between government power and personal liberty, but they do not contradict eachother directly.
No government power means that personal liberty directly depends on having the biggest gun, which means that for virtually all people, less personal liberty then they have now.
Too much government power limits personal liberty to a similar point where few people have personal liberties and most don't.
So, there is an optimum for government power where you can maximize the personal liberty of the largest number of people, and it is somewhere in between no government power and a lot of government power.
This is why it makes a lot of sense to argue the size and powers of a government, but arguing that they are inherently bad is nonsense.
Shooting a burgler isn't arbitrary. It is the resultant reaction of a properly maintained set of rights. I have the right to stop anyone violating MY rights by whatever means I see fit. Because I have the "right" to shoot a burgler doesn't necessarily mean I have to, but then again, it is my choice.
You have the right to use proportional means to stop a burgler, not 'whatever means you see fit'.
As a matter of fact, I believe you only have the right to use proportional means, you believe you can use whatever means you see fit, and again it is clear that your 'rule' is arbitrary. Not because you didn't think about it, but because others who also thought about it at least as well but using somewhat different assumptions, come to different conclusions.
There are those that think that any action by a private citizen such as even CONFRONTING a burgler should be illegal, that the POLICE should handle all such matters.
I don't, but that doesn't mean I believe I can use 'whatever means'
However, the fact remains that this society (Western Democracies in general) frown upon a private citizen from taking action to stop a violation of someone's right to privacy, including brandishing (not actually using) a weapon.
You may want to realize that ideas about this are really really really different between the USA and for example most of continental Europe. For that reason alone your statement above fails to make sense to me.
What is however true is that in most places, when you end up using violence against a burglar for example, you will be put on trial to see if what you did was justified. Maybe you are confused a bit by this? It nowhere indicates that such a society frowns on taking action, it can however indicate that a society does not take lightly the use of violence and wants to investigate and see if someone crossed the line of what is acceptable.
You see, under NORMAL circumstances brandishing a weapon is an act against another's right to be secure, but that doesn't play with the burgler situation from above, in which case the violation was on the part of the burgler.
If we continue the burgler line above, if I brandish (not use) a weapon, and the burgler flees empty handed, then my rights have been restored, and I cannot pursuit the aborted thief, just to shoot him later. It isn't arbitrary, it is very consistant.
You see, I do completely agree with your reasoning here, but I do also know people who don't, and who can bring up a completely consistant and well considered argument as to why they don't agree. Hence this is still arbitrary.
Lastly, I take it that you are not from the USA, or if so, you are playing to the foreign audience.
I am not, I believe I mentioned that somewhere, but if not, sorry, it is somewhat relevant to the discussion to know indeed.
It is at this point, I would like to state that most city dwellers have no idea what most of America is like.
While I am not from the USA, I have lived and worked there (Austin, TX).
The so-called "fly over states" are mostly empty space, and the population centers are along the east and west coast (for the most part).
And I could as easily say that most who live in the countryside have no idea what citylife is about.
Matter of fact is, a substantial part of the people (the majority even) lives in cities, so your use of 'most' might be correct with regards to space, but not to people.
Agreed. But the power of the Government has restricted my ability to deal with people inflicting me with their actions. When people are arrested for doing the "right thing" (Shooting a bugler) while those who are doing "the wrong thing" are rewarded (suing a mall because you fell through a skylight) there is something seriously wrong. The fact that EITHER of these happens, even ONCE is a sign that society is screwed.
Lets just for a moment realize that that may be true in the USA, but it isn't in most of the world.
Not to mention that many people do not agree that shooting a burgler is the right thing to do (and many do agree of course).
No it doesn't. You are thinking too linearly. Power is only Power when exercised. If I have guns, and cars and all sorts of stuff in my house, it doesn't mean I'm corrupt or powerful. It is only when I use those items against others that it matters. Power isn't in the form of inanimate objects. Power is related to the force of will.
And whatever limits you put on that is still arbitrary.
In your book it is ok to shoot and kill a burgler on your property, in my book it is ok to chase them off, and to defend yourself from someone attacking you, but using deadly force against a burgler is not (and don't come with the 'but he threatened me' because that I already dealt with (yes, when directly threatened, you can quite defend yourself even with deadly force), or 'he is a potential threat' since there is an easy to find correlation between violent behavior from burglars and them expecting violence when caught.
There are no Arbitrary rules in my world. Arbitrary rules are nothing more than rules without thought, or unenforceable, or only enforced when convenient. The last kind is the worst kind.
As I just showed, there are arbitrary rules in your world.
Arbitrary rules are those rules where it is upto the arbiter (you in this case) to decide the line. Not recognizing them as such just increases the risk on enforcement when it is convenient.
You made the arguement when you said that my gun and TK's car have nothing in common, which is a gross fallacy. They have much in common, but the most important isn't what they are, it is both are inanimate objects, incapable of acting by themselves.
The problem is not the objects but how their owners/users deal with them.
While both are objects and can be used in exercising of power, the power that corrupted one (TK), hasn't affect another(me), namely because there were other aspects of "power" that simply haven't been accounted for.
Observe your fellow humans a bit and you will quite see how their 'power' corrupts them and how the resulting behavior afffects you. This does not come from the actual killing that both objects can do, but from that both can be used to threaten.
That you can counter that with your own power doesn't change this, it at best negates it.
The fact is, if I drove off the bridge in my car with a young lady and she died, I sure the hell couldn't have been elected to the Senate, even once. In fact, I'm sure I'd have been thrown in jail for it.
The point is, I don't have "much" power, and it hasn't corrupted me. I doubt you have "much" power either, and I'm sure that it hasn't corrupted you. Restrict the power of ALL people, and there is less chance of corruption, which I'm sure you will agree with.
But restricting the power of all people results in arbitrary rules about what power everyone can have, and that is something that we are simply not ever going to agree on, and even if we did, without some form of coercion you are not going to get everyone to comply and not try to grab as much power as they can get.
Well, we have a dilemma then don't we. Everything has a cause and effect going back for eternity, so that there is no way to get people to leave each other alone (leave me alone and I'll leave you alone-rule). In the case of Iraq insurgents (Many, if not most, not actually from Iraq), they'll say that we messed with them first, to which we'll reply that Saddam invaded Kuwait and on and on backwards. Same with any other "conflict"
And this means what? that we shouldn't look at the causes and effects and just assume things that sound nice or logical at first glance?
And there is nothing wrong with government power as long as it doesn't become an end unto itself, as it currently is. We do need some level of societal governance, to the extent that it must exist, it should be limited.
I think that you and I agree on this concept, but not on what it means in practise.
Also, I rather believe the trick is in having measures to limit that government power because it has a natural tendency to grow.
At some point, we must defeat all those that oppose the governance of the people, by the people.
For the people bu the people.. hmmm, I heard that one before.. I believe it turned into 'by the elite for the elite' wherever they tried to implement it.
The group doesn't have the right to restrict personal freedom for the sake of the group
The group does however have every right to demand that you give up certain freedoms in order to be a member of the group.
Not really. The result of improper use of a gun and the improper use of Ted Kennedy's car is the same. Saying one is bad (guns) while the other is okay (cars) is a gross fallacy. Both are inanimate objects incapable of acting by themselves. So the responsibility for the results goes to those behind each.
You see, I never argued that guns are inherently bad or such, I argued that the power of your own gun corrupts. Yes, the power of your own big fast car corrupts as well, it doesn't change anything because the argument is that this has nothing to do with groups, nothing to do with parties, and everything with things that give you a certain amount of extra power having the potential of corrupting you.
I don't know where you got the idea that I ever made that kind of argument, and if you really misread my original statement as making that argument then you really need to do something about your reading skills or your anger level or both.
Into reading my own mind? sure. You should try it with yours as well..
Which is harder to stop, the corruption of one, or the corruption of an organized many? See Drug Cartels for example. You cut off one head, and many more replace it. See Iraq, you kill Zarkawi and three more take his place.
Drug cartels, insurgants in Iraq, they exist due to the lack of government power. You really believe that when you remove that power that all will be fine? I suggest looking at some other examples of places where central government collapsed and see how well they did..
As you can see, true power comes from "groups" who want to take from everyone else, not the one guy with a gun. BTW, I own two, and I've never used them to increase my power. I know this is a hard concept to explain, but I usually explain it this way. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my two guns have. Who has more power? Who should have more power?
Since this is not an exclusive choice between cars and guns, your comment is pretty non-sensical.
Regardless, the point was that not all power comes from groups, rather, usually it doesn't come from a group at all.
By the way, how often does it happen that someone kills a group of people with a car on purpose? How often does this happen with guns?
And no, I am not arguing to forbid all guns, I am pointing at a problem with your argument, specifically, it is simplistic and not at all related to this thing called reality.
True corruption is defined by people who think the rules don't apply to themselves. Paris Hilton? Congress, Al Gore (big eco sucking house).
Well, last time I checked, Paris Hilton and Al Gore aren't 'groups of people' yet..
Indeed it does. You voting for Libertarian, where each of us is responsible for ourselves, or are you going to vote for another party that thinks it knows what is best for everyone else and use the power of the government to dictate those ideals????
No, first of all because I'm not american, second, because I don't think their idea works in todays world. I happen to live somewhere where no single party can dictate policy at any time, seems to work a bit better to curb the corruption that power comes with.
In case of libertarians, they don't have a working solution simply because the power of your own gun also corrupts. The only way to deal with it is knowing that it happens and put a halt to it before it gets out of hand.
As far as I can tell, Libertarians are the only ones promoting the idea that each of us has the power and authority to be self reliant and self responsible. Greens, Peace n Freedom, Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Communists etc all think THEIR way is the best, and will codify those beliefs into law. In a word, they all are "elitists" in one way or another.
Ah, and there is no level of 'the libertarian way is best' in your post at all...
But I did serve very proudly in the fisrt Gulf War and in Bosnia.
And I believe you are right to be proud of that.
Bush senior was a good commander in chief, and he (and his advisors) forsaw the kind of situation we see in Iraq now, which from what I understand to be one of the reasons why Saddam wasn't removed from power back then while it seemed feasable from a military point of view.
It's kindof funny in a sad way. I am not an American (I'm Dutch for the reccord), but I'm proud to have lived in the USA during the presidency of Bush senior (and incidentely also in Texas while Bush jr was governor there, a job which he did well I think). That said, I let any rights I had to live and work in the USA expire in 2003 without a thought. I hope to be back there for a visit at least at some point, but thats going to be some time (that is, it won't be untill the USA again guarantees me and every other person the human rights they signed upto regardless of whom I might or might not be)
I'm going to assume you mean the collective 'you' and not me personally.
I mean those in the US army at this moment, and definitely not you personally.
The real trick in this statement is knowing who's friend or foe. Then knowing when to defend. Too early, you look like a bully, to late and you are looked upon as weak. The same would be said for the type of retaliation.
The fear to be seen as weak is part of the problem here.
It is not weak to be carefull, neither is it weak to not retaliate. Actions (military or otherwise) serve a purpose, and should be judged on if they have a decent enough chance of accomplishing what is required, not on if it makes you look strong.
Not to mention, being able to dismiss provocations as irrelevant (at least to the outside world) shows a lot more strength then responding to any possible provocation with full force.
Somehow 'if we play nice, they will too' just doesn't work (on all sides).
This is true, but is no excuse for invading a place that had no means to directly harm the USA, especially not since the previous and better justified invasion of Afghanistan still hasn't been brought to a decent conclusion.
The trick is to be nice with everyone except for those who are never going to be nice with you.
On top of that, much of the history of Europe suggests that the only way to permanently solve a (violent) conflict is when both sides are in the end better off as a result of the solution. This is very clearly demonstrated by Germany's collapse onto itself after world war 1 being one of the major factors that contributed to world war 2, whereas the problem seems pretty well solved now.
As long as people are relatively content with their living conditions, they see little reason to follow extremist viewpoints and to support violent action against perceived enemies.
I'm sure you won't believe me, but there is some good being done in Iraq.
I do believe that, and I hold individual soldiers responsible for it, because what good happens isn't a consequence of the policy of the USA government, it is more despite that policy.
Simple problem is that the Bush administration failed to put much thought (if any) into what to do in Iraq once Saddam was removed from power. Not having had a clear plan for dealing with the initial chaos and collapse is a mistake that has been pointed out beforehand by many people, including some high ranked people in the US army and military experts. The USA should never have gone there without such a plan and the resources for executing it (which includes many more soldiers, but also people who can do proper police and law enforcement work, aid workers, civil engineers and so on.
Large changes like this do not happen overnight. Look how many years it took for the Berlin wall to fall.
From the moment the East Germans realized that the state could not do much against them as soon as their masses got big enough, not very long.
But you are right. Changes don't happen overnight, but that is no reason why Iraq still has to be stabilized, which is simply a basic requirement for doing any rebuilding without a very high risk of what you just built being destroyed real soon.
There are no neutral sides.
Stating that doesn't make it true. You may not want to recognize someone's neutrality, but that is something different.
You must pick one or provide a better alternative.
If someone can provide an alternative does not at all matter for the validity of critisism. There is no point in looking for alternatives when the ones who have to decide on executing them do not recognize there is a problem to be solved first.
And even then there _will_ be a cost to it since someone(people) are going to strongly disagree with you.
That is true, but that just means you will have to look at the arguments of others, and see if they make a good argument or not, and ignore their argument based on that.
Making a good argument does not depend on you agreeing with it, it depends on the reasoning and circumstances that the argument is based on.
And indeed, I do realize that when in the line of fire, you simply have no time to think about such things, and I don't blame anyone for not doing so at those moments, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't think about it at all.
If you join the army because you believe in fighting for Freedom and democracy, then you simply have the duty to question if what you do now does in fact serve those things, and if not draw your conclusion from it. I can't judge your situation and such, but I can say that if you joined after the Iraq invasion, you have either fallen for your administration's lies, or possibly you just went for the money. You are however not involved in an operation which has much of a chance to bring either longterm freedom or demo
Yeah, letting you kid know of the badness that is out there to be had by having sex earlier than is "good" (arbitrary, I know) is not being a bad parent.
The issue here however is that the danger is not in when but how they have sex, or specifically, if they use proper protection or not. If in that case an age based argument is used then yes, you are being a bad parent.
My daughter is only 4 and so I have some time till I need to worry directly about such things, but even so, I've tried to instill a sense of openness in her such that any punishment is always less (and obviously so) if she comes to me rather than me catching her or finding out later. Hopefully this openness will extend to sex, though obviously I can not count on it, thus a solid education about the possible pitfalls will be part of her upbringing.
Sounds all pretty healthy, but keep in mind that by the time sex becomes an issue, you are also dealing with a person who is on her way to being independent, so you might not get much of a say in it. Thats of course why being open and discussing the dangers (as well as the nice things) of sex is a good idea.
Enemy of my enemy is my friend. Stalin was a brutal dictator, and we knew it even during WWII. In fact, there is rumor that Paton (I think it was him) wanted to invade SU because he knew what Stalin was. But we didn't because the country was weary enough from the last war. We got 50 years of "Cold War" instead.
Yes, and on top of that, quite a few of the people who worked with Hitler were found very usefull in that cold war.
The point is that the USA supports those who come in handy for the USA's economic and political goals. This has nothing whatsoever to do with fighting for freedom or democracy, and more often then not, it works against both.
The next case I'm going to use is the Shaw of Iran, which was an "ally" in the ME. Carter thought he was a rogue and dictator and refused to support him any longer, and he was overthrown in a Jihadist revolution we are still dealing with today. In fact the current president of Iran was one of the ring leaders of that revolution.
And for all I can tell, Carter was right, and the fact that the Islamic revolution turned against the USA also is exactly because the USA was seen as those who had kept the shaw in power and supported the oppression that it brought.
EVERYTHING has consequences. Hindsight is always better than foresight.
Absolutely, but that doesn't change that some consequences are easily forseen, and some follow such a clear pattern that you can learn from example and not repeat the same mistakes.
The biggest problem we have as a country is not who we are,
Absolutely. As a people you are as human as all the others on this planet, making mistakes? sure. inherently evil? not unless all of us are (which I happen to not believe)
it is that we have LOST SIGHT of the ideals we need to strive for.
And that while they are being repeated on an almost daily basis...
This is something both the (D) and the (R) parties have lost, since all they can see is power.
Power corrupts, no news there.
This is why a system that results in static political parties is doomed in the end.
First you argue: Want my respect?? Respect me for who I am.
then you argue: -10..... 0..... +10
Everyone starts out at 0, what they do to me and others moves them up or down the scale. I meet someone, and what they do starts the dial moving up or down the scale. It is a Log scale so 10 is harder to reach than 9, etc and -10 is harder to reach than -9.
So, you start with everyone at 0, others start with you at 0.
You say you start with 0 respect for them, now if they follow the same line, they start with 0 respect for you. If they wait for you to respect them first and you wait for them to respect them first, then nothing happens.
I find it really hard to believe that you cannot follow that simple bit of logic.
Everyone is "equal" and created that way. what they do with it, raises or lowers their score. I'm not trusting my life to just anyone, neither will I trust someone who has earned a minus score with much of anything. People earn and lose respect, based on what they do, and their attitudes.
That sounds about correct.
I suppose you put everyone at +10 at the start, huh?
'Some respect' is not 'utra extremely utterly highly respected'. Can't you read or what?
US laws -- and constitutional rights -- apply to US citizens.
Small and often forgotten detail.. they apply to every person within the borders of the USA (and possibly to everyone within all territories controlled by the USA). Citizenship only comes into play when explicitly stated by the law (ie, voting is limited to citizens, but free speech is for all, just as due process)
The GP makes a good point. The Brits were wrong to try to have the colonies pay taxes without then getting some say in things, just as the USA is wrong to try to force its laws on others without giving those others a say in things. That you have to fend for your own rights is true, but that doesn't change the fact that the USA is wrong in this and is not acting as a beneign superpower at all. For the later, those in charge of the USA, and ultimately, those who put them in charge, are responsible, not the people or leaders of other countries.
The argument you make is like saying 'its your own responsibility to defend yourself from my abuse'. Sure, but it is your responsibility to not be abusive to begin with.
Right! I suggest that the US pull out of every country, and leave the rest of the world to its own devices and NEVER send troops anywhere, ever again, or at least until the rest of the world is killing each others.
Hmm.. just in case you didn't notice, the world is already killing eachother, have been doing that for a couple of tens of thousands of years at least for what we know..
But on a more serious note, maybe it would help to look at why the USA is where it is. Helping others also happens, but a more common reason is the economic interests of the USA.
You forget, the reason why those troops are stationed across the ocean and on foreign soil is that we've already sent 100's of thousands over seas to fight and die in wars against dictators and fascists. Somehow, short sighted people forget about a guy named HITLER, and STALIN, and POL POT. Not to mention the Modern version of them today.
My grandfather has been in one of Hitler's concentration camps, so for me personally, I won't forget him.
I'd like to point out however that the USA considered Stalin an ally against Hitler, and that that same USA actively supported quite a number of (fascist or otherwise) dictators including a certain Saddam.
Quit being so naive. When things go bad, who does the world come running to? Tsunami? Genocide in Darfur, Mid East, Korea........ If it wasn't for the US, there'd be no freakin peace. We do a hell of a lot more "good" than people like yourself are capable of admitting to.
I can't speak for GP, but I have no problem whatsoever admitting to the good things that the USA does. This is also not the problem. The problem is that people like you fail to admit the mistakes the USA makes, and fail to realize the consequences of those mistakes.
No, the USA isn't evil, its people are not evil, but they are human, and as a result do make mistakes. This wouldn't be so bad if they at least started to admit their own mistakes and learn from them.
And what many forget about those who point out the mistakes, it is your friends who do that. Your enemies will abuse your mistakes instead.
What Elitist snobbery! I have no contempt for anyone, only contemptable behavior and attitudes. Want my respect?? Respect me for who I am. It doesn't even matter if I agree with you or not, I'll at least respect who you are, as a person.
So.. in order to get your respect, someone has to respect you first.
Did it ever occur to you that if everyone followed that line of thought, there would never be any respect for anyone?
I'd suggest to have some basic respect for anyone unless they show to not be worth it.
I have to say, this is a somewhat naive point of view.
You mean your own view here right?
If you look through the history of the world, The United States is one of the most benign superpowers ever. Are we as bad as the Romans, British, or even the French when they were colonial powers.
Look! we are better then those who came before us, all hail us!!
Congratulations on learning from hte mistakes of others. Now it is time however to start learning from your own mistakes. That is something all the old colonial powers had to go through as well. Them actually having learned their lesson is why Brits are quite a bit more welcome in say Afghanistan then Americans.
We are not even attempting to be a colonial power like any of those nations.
Using economic warfare does not magically make that the USA isn't playing colonial power.
If you don't like the current administration, fine don't support them, but please don't pretend like they are these horrible outrageous people. They are following the policy and path that several generations of Americans have REQUIRED of them. That is why they were elected.
Which is completely irrelevant for the rest of the world, we didn't elect them, we didn't require their current policy either. They are however trying to force it upon us (non americans), which I find completely unacceptable.
Perhaps some of the countries who are accusing us of being horrible people would feel a little bit better if they didn't outsource all of their defense and government obligations to us over the last 60 years. "We don't like how you are protecting us, so spend your money in the way we see fit." All of these countries were our bestest buddies in the whole wide world when the Russians were breathing down their necks, but like teenagers who have no memory and can't see a minute in front of them, they have completely forgotten.
From this statement alone speaks so much ignorance that I don't know where to start..
But let me keep it simple, please go learn something about this world outside the USA, and about the history of the USA itself.
Yes, the USA has been helpfull quite a few times. They also got their reward for that. The USA also has been less then helpfull at quite a few occations.
I can't even really address the human rights violation part because it is so silly. Are you referring to the dreading things going on at Gitmo? It's awful that we feed people there so they gain the "Gitmo 20" I know. I also can't believe we give them the religious material of their choice and allow them to exercise their religion while they are there. Oh and don't forget the dreaded pink belly technique that we use on them. I could go through the list of names to highlight why were are the angels in this situation (see Nick Berg), but I don't think it would be worth wasting my breath. I'll just end with this simple question:
Instead of answering your question, let me point you at some fundament of US society that you seem to be forgetting about:
Untill found guilty by a court, EVERYONE is presumed innocent. Not only is this one important with regards to US society, it is fundamental for proper justice.
Who would you rater be?
a. an Iraqi/Jordanian/Egyptian freedom fighter captured by the US
b. A US/British/insert nationality here soldier or citizen captured by al queda or other islamic terrorists?
'Them are worse!!!!!' is a strawman and not a proper argument, not to mention that it is simply irrelevant. Your mistakes are mistakes because of not being right. What the rest of the world does or doesn't is simply of no relevance to that whatsoever.
Point made?
If your point was that you have: - no clue about the history of the USA - no clue about the world outside the USA - no clue about what is needed for a functioning system of justice
the problem here is that the new coalition, BCD, is now a party and if it wishes to remain in power, it shall stay that way; it would then be a two party system then. democracy like this seems to lend itself to systems of fewer parties, and if there are many issues we care about the chance of having one of a few (even four) parties matching closely with our beliefs is small.
Looking at most multi-party (as in more then 2) systems, that is not true.
For example, the Netherlands has had its current system (with some minor changes over time) for the last 150 years and the number of parties now is a lot bigger then it was 150 years ago. Lookign around in the rest of Europe, I notice we are not unique in this at all.
The system as it is in the USA tends to lead to 2 major parties, but that in no way means every system does.
The number of years added to the lives of the Brazilians who get this drug at a reduced cost will be subtracted several times over from future AIDS victims who would have otherwise have had better drugs available due to the added research dollars.
There are a few problems with this argument:
1. If Brazil had gotten the drugs for the price they wanted, Merck would still have made a profit, whereas Brazil was not going/able to pay what Merck was asking, so the alternative is no profit, and fewer research dollars.
2. If the pharma companies were not spending money on marketing, their R&D budgets could be doubled.
Also catering to the poor means having to distribute the R&D cost over many more pills, how good you can also sell many more of them, abeit for a much lower price. It nowhere means not being able to make a profit and earn back your R&D.
Yes, because lord knows a bunch of politicians are best folk to decide how much 'profit' a company needs, as opposed to the market (which can be cruel but a whole lot less corruptible than your average socialist wannabe).
That argument would work if the market was actually free. As long as those same politicians are needed to have those nice patents, they also happen to get a say in things.
The number of federal civil cases that end in a verdict by a judge or jury is between two and four percent.
Interesting, but no real surprise. Usually it is a lot cheaper to settle a case then to pursue it to the end even when you know you are likely to win. This is why there is little point in including those cases, and why I argued to ignore them when looking at the statement that 'the law is on the side of the RIAA'. Rather, we should look at those cases that did end in a verdict from a judge.
I think that such cases do not support the idea that the law is on the side of the RIAA in their current attempts to deal with copyright infringement.
Of course initially the law is on their side when they try to pursue copyright infringement, but not when their idea of that is throwing lawsuits at random people, not preparing their cases properly, and generally aiming for people to settle and use that in a propaganda 'war' instead of actually trying to get some kind of compensation from those who cause them actual damage (and lets nto even get into their absurd statements about the damage)
It takes a substantial commitment of time and money to get that far, even though your chances of winning are no better than fifty-fifty. But to lose, is to lose big.
So, the RIAA better be sure they have a really good case. If they don't liek the risks they shouldn't be playing the 'game'.
Slashdot Mirror
They would have the right to defend themselves if the tablatures were taken from their books and published on the Internet for free. But anybody can just sit down with a guitar and a PC and create a tablature on his own. That's not their concern and they shouldn't claim rights on work that was done by others.
It would be so nice in this case if this were true, but it isn't.
When you create a tab as you describe, you may well have copyright on it, but it is also a derived work, and covered by the copyright on the original, hence the original author(s) or their agent have a claim here.
Good attempt at diverting attention, but GP is quite right with regards to the purpose of copyright and how it should work in this case. You might want to realize that in quite a few older and easier recognized situations, copyright has provisions for educational use.
Would you care to bet that Microsoft will claim AD is an innovation on LDAP?
They may try, but actually making an argument out if it will be difficult. A few minor modifications that add no actual usefullness do not come anywhere close to being an invention (let alone being a patentable invention, but as you mentioned, if their claim is actually valid isn't that important for now).
Okay, what rights does someone have when they don't respect and are actively disrespecting the liberties of others?
Right to life, right to fair treatment.
That they would not give such rights to me really doesn't matter if I believe to be better then them.
Let's adjust this a bit further, say someone is shooting people like just the other week at VT. Does that person have the same "rights" as the burgler? Some people say YES (including me BTW, and you'll see why).
Guess what, I also say 'yes', but I bet we are going to disagree as to what those 'rights' are.
The most basic liberty is the right to life; to live.
Using the logic you've given then nobody has a "right" to take the life of another, ever or under any circumstances.
Yes, there is one circumstance, if the alternative would be being killed by the person whom's life you are taking.
Avoiding death row by a confession is the problem there. The death penalty itself has absolutely nothing to do with it.
I can guarantee you that if people who disrespected rights of others knew that they there was a potential to be killed while they were actively disrepecting liberties of others, there would be a much lower rate of that disrespect.
Oh really?
Violent crime in the USA in the form of armed robbery, murder, rape and all those are so much higher today then they were in the 1800s for example... Oh wait, back then you actually needed to be seriously armed to have a decent chance on surviving a trip between 2 places.
As much as intuition suggests what you say there, time and time again it turns out to be wrong. What is more, there is a very strong correlation between acting as you suggest and higher crime rates.
You can see that this basic idea still exists today, in the most primitive ways among the "Gangstas" who shoot and kill for the slightest "disrespect". The problem is, that they aren't taught to respect others at all by anyone. This is how women become "ho's" and men become "gangstas". But I digress.
Oh, lets take the gangsta culture as an example of one that promotes personal freedom and justice..
Excuse me, I need a few moments to recover from that one.
Really, all that it results in is more violence due to revenge. This is what bloodfeuds come from.
Proportional response is nothing more than Political Correctness, and doesn't address the real problem. Therefore Burglary and Murder are two different responses, and yet even people actively murdering are handled with kit gloves.
If proportionality was actually used, burglary and murder would get 2 different responses.
What proportionality also does is making that a double murder gets a stronger response then a single murder. This makes it less likely that a crime goes unpunnished.
Actually, this is wrong in so many ways. This is the CURRENT legal system for sure, not one based upon mutual respect of personal liberty. The current system doesn't respect personal liberty at all, and it doesn't support individuals from defending their personal liberties.
And I happen to believe it is right, and the 'whatever means' is wrong in so many ways.
You see, this is why such rules are arbitrary. They are based upon belief and assumptions.
The basis for personal liberties is mutual respect, not law. No amount of laws can protect liberty, it has to be based upon mutual respect.
Using proportional means to defend your property still means you can defend your property, but it also means that you have to respect certain basic rights of the person who is breaking into your house. This is a strange concept for most who never really researched why laws exist as they do because it is counter intuitive. It is however fundamental to creating a society that is fair to its members.
Proportionality is also important for dealing with crime because it makes sure that you can respond more strongly on a more severe crime.
It is also indeed the basis of current laws (however badly implemented) and there exists a huge body of literature as to why this is. If you study a bit of world history and not limit yourself to the USA, you would have known that this concept is relatively new, and turned out to be a huge advancement in providing justice and fairness.
Actually, I have relatives that are in Europe, and I have relatives scattered across the USA. The trend here in the US, especially in the dense left and right coasts to try and move more towards the Western European model of laws and culture.
Just like people in the countryside in Europe tend a bit more towards your opinion and ideas about this.
Maybe it has a lot to do with what works when you have more then a few people per square mile.
Again, no amount of law is going to protect liberty.
I'm pretty sure the 1st amandment on the USA constitution protects liberty, as does the 4th, so what you just said is not true.
And in my view of things, the government isn't going to protect liberty, because personal liberty is contrary to government power.
There is an inherent conflict between government power and personal liberty, but they do not contradict eachother directly.
No government power means that personal liberty directly depends on having the biggest gun, which means that for virtually all people, less personal liberty then they have now.
Too much government power limits personal liberty to a similar point where few people have personal liberties and most don't.
So, there is an optimum for government power where you can maximize the personal liberty of the largest number of people, and it is somewhere in between no government power and a lot of government power.
This is why it makes a lot of sense to argue the size and powers of a government, but arguing that they are inherently bad is nonsense.
Shooting a burgler isn't arbitrary. It is the resultant reaction of a properly maintained set of rights. I have the right to stop anyone violating MY rights by whatever means I see fit. Because I have the "right" to shoot a burgler doesn't necessarily mean I have to, but then again, it is my choice.
You have the right to use proportional means to stop a burgler, not 'whatever means you see fit'.
As a matter of fact, I believe you only have the right to use proportional means, you believe you can use whatever means you see fit, and again it is clear that your 'rule' is arbitrary. Not because you didn't think about it, but because others who also thought about it at least as well but using somewhat different assumptions, come to different conclusions.
There are those that think that any action by a private citizen such as even CONFRONTING a burgler should be illegal, that the POLICE should handle all such matters.
I don't, but that doesn't mean I believe I can use 'whatever means'
However, the fact remains that this society (Western Democracies in general) frown upon a private citizen from taking action to stop a violation of someone's right to privacy, including brandishing (not actually using) a weapon.
You may want to realize that ideas about this are really really really different between the USA and for example most of continental Europe. For that reason alone your statement above fails to make sense to me.
What is however true is that in most places, when you end up using violence against a burglar for example, you will be put on trial to see if what you did was justified. Maybe you are confused a bit by this? It nowhere indicates that such a society frowns on taking action, it can however indicate that a society does not take lightly the use of violence and wants to investigate and see if someone crossed the line of what is acceptable.
You see, under NORMAL circumstances brandishing a weapon is an act against another's right to be secure, but that doesn't play with the burgler situation from above, in which case the violation was on the part of the burgler.
If we continue the burgler line above, if I brandish (not use) a weapon, and the burgler flees empty handed, then my rights have been restored, and I cannot pursuit the aborted thief, just to shoot him later. It isn't arbitrary, it is very consistant.
You see, I do completely agree with your reasoning here, but I do also know people who don't, and who can bring up a completely consistant and well considered argument as to why they don't agree. Hence this is still arbitrary.
Lastly, I take it that you are not from the USA, or if so, you are playing to the foreign audience.
I am not, I believe I mentioned that somewhere, but if not, sorry, it is somewhat relevant to the discussion to know indeed.
It is at this point, I would like to state that most city dwellers have no idea what most of America is like.
While I am not from the USA, I have lived and worked there (Austin, TX).
The so-called "fly over states" are mostly empty space, and the population centers are along the east and west coast (for the most part).
And I could as easily say that most who live in the countryside have no idea what citylife is about.
Matter of fact is, a substantial part of the people (the majority even) lives in cities, so your use of 'most' might be correct with regards to space, but not to people.
Agreed. But the power of the Government has restricted my ability to deal with people inflicting me with their actions. When people are arrested for doing the "right thing" (Shooting a bugler) while those who are doing "the wrong thing" are rewarded (suing a mall because you fell through a skylight) there is something seriously wrong. The fact that EITHER of these happens, even ONCE is a sign that society is screwed.
Lets just for a moment realize that that may be true in the USA, but it isn't in most of the world.
Not to mention that many people do not agree that shooting a burgler is the right thing to do (and many do agree of course).
No it doesn't. You are thinking too linearly. Power is only Power when exercised. If I have guns, and cars and all sorts of stuff in my house, it doesn't mean I'm corrupt or powerful. It is only when I use those items against others that it matters. Power isn't in the form of inanimate objects. Power is related to the force of will.
And whatever limits you put on that is still arbitrary.
In your book it is ok to shoot and kill a burgler on your property, in my book it is ok to chase them off, and to defend yourself from someone attacking you, but using deadly force against a burgler is not (and don't come with the 'but he threatened me' because that I already dealt with (yes, when directly threatened, you can quite defend yourself even with deadly force), or 'he is a potential threat' since there is an easy to find correlation between violent behavior from burglars and them expecting violence when caught.
There are no Arbitrary rules in my world. Arbitrary rules are nothing more than rules without thought, or unenforceable, or only enforced when convenient. The last kind is the worst kind.
As I just showed, there are arbitrary rules in your world.
Arbitrary rules are those rules where it is upto the arbiter (you in this case) to decide the line. Not recognizing them as such just increases the risk on enforcement when it is convenient.
You made the arguement when you said that my gun and TK's car have nothing in common, which is a gross fallacy. They have much in common, but the most important isn't what they are, it is both are inanimate objects, incapable of acting by themselves.
The problem is not the objects but how their owners/users deal with them.
While both are objects and can be used in exercising of power, the power that corrupted one (TK), hasn't affect another(me), namely because there were other aspects of "power" that simply haven't been accounted for.
Observe your fellow humans a bit and you will quite see how their 'power' corrupts them and how the resulting behavior afffects you. This does not come from the actual killing that both objects can do, but from that both can be used to threaten.
That you can counter that with your own power doesn't change this, it at best negates it.
The fact is, if I drove off the bridge in my car with a young lady and she died, I sure the hell couldn't have been elected to the Senate, even once. In fact, I'm sure I'd have been thrown in jail for it.
The point is, I don't have "much" power, and it hasn't corrupted me. I doubt you have "much" power either, and I'm sure that it hasn't corrupted you. Restrict the power of ALL people, and there is less chance of corruption, which I'm sure you will agree with.
But restricting the power of all people results in arbitrary rules about what power everyone can have, and that is something that we are simply not ever going to agree on, and even if we did, without some form of coercion you are not going to get everyone to comply and not try to grab as much power as they can get.
Just a few comments..
Well, we have a dilemma then don't we. Everything has a cause and effect going back for eternity, so that there is no way to get people to leave each other alone (leave me alone and I'll leave you alone-rule). In the case of Iraq insurgents (Many, if not most, not actually from Iraq), they'll say that we messed with them first, to which we'll reply that Saddam invaded Kuwait and on and on backwards. Same with any other "conflict"
And this means what? that we shouldn't look at the causes and effects and just assume things that sound nice or logical at first glance?
And there is nothing wrong with government power as long as it doesn't become an end unto itself, as it currently is. We do need some level of societal governance, to the extent that it must exist, it should be limited.
I think that you and I agree on this concept, but not on what it means in practise.
Also, I rather believe the trick is in having measures to limit that government power because it has a natural tendency to grow.
At some point, we must defeat all those that oppose the governance of the people, by the people.
For the people bu the people.. hmmm, I heard that one before.. I believe it turned into 'by the elite for the elite' wherever they tried to implement it.
The group doesn't have the right to restrict personal freedom for the sake of the group
The group does however have every right to demand that you give up certain freedoms in order to be a member of the group.
Not really. The result of improper use of a gun and the improper use of Ted Kennedy's car is the same. Saying one is bad (guns) while the other is okay (cars) is a gross fallacy. Both are inanimate objects incapable of acting by themselves. So the responsibility for the results goes to those behind each.
You see, I never argued that guns are inherently bad or such, I argued that the power of your own gun corrupts. Yes, the power of your own big fast car corrupts as well, it doesn't change anything because the argument is that this has nothing to do with groups, nothing to do with parties, and everything with things that give you a certain amount of extra power having the potential of corrupting you.
I don't know where you got the idea that I ever made that kind of argument, and if you really misread my original statement as making that argument then you really need to do something about your reading skills or your anger level or both.
So, you into mind reading?
Into reading my own mind? sure. You should try it with yours as well..
Which is harder to stop, the corruption of one, or the corruption of an organized many? See Drug Cartels for example. You cut off one head, and many more replace it. See Iraq, you kill Zarkawi and three more take his place.
Drug cartels, insurgants in Iraq, they exist due to the lack of government power. You really believe that when you remove that power that all will be fine? I suggest looking at some other examples of places where central government collapsed and see how well they did..
As you can see, true power comes from "groups" who want to take from everyone else, not the one guy with a gun. BTW, I own two, and I've never used them to increase my power. I know this is a hard concept to explain, but I usually explain it this way. Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my two guns have. Who has more power? Who should have more power?
Since this is not an exclusive choice between cars and guns, your comment is pretty non-sensical.
Regardless, the point was that not all power comes from groups, rather, usually it doesn't come from a group at all.
By the way, how often does it happen that someone kills a group of people with a car on purpose? How often does this happen with guns?
And no, I am not arguing to forbid all guns, I am pointing at a problem with your argument, specifically, it is simplistic and not at all related to this thing called reality.
True corruption is defined by people who think the rules don't apply to themselves. Paris Hilton? Congress, Al Gore (big eco sucking house).
Well, last time I checked, Paris Hilton and Al Gore aren't 'groups of people' yet..
So what is it?
Indeed it does. You voting for Libertarian, where each of us is responsible for ourselves, or are you going to vote for another party that thinks it knows what is best for everyone else and use the power of the government to dictate those ideals????
No, first of all because I'm not american, second, because I don't think their idea works in todays world. I happen to live somewhere where no single party can dictate policy at any time, seems to work a bit better to curb the corruption that power comes with.
In case of libertarians, they don't have a working solution simply because the power of your own gun also corrupts. The only way to deal with it is knowing that it happens and put a halt to it before it gets out of hand.
As far as I can tell, Libertarians are the only ones promoting the idea that each of us has the power and authority to be self reliant and self responsible. Greens, Peace n Freedom, Democrats, Republicans, Socialists, Communists etc all think THEIR way is the best, and will codify those beliefs into law. In a word, they all are "elitists" in one way or another.
Ah, and there is no level of 'the libertarian way is best' in your post at all...
Pot, meet kettle.
Hate to reply twice, but I forgot something.
But I did serve very proudly in the fisrt Gulf War and in Bosnia.
And I believe you are right to be proud of that.
Bush senior was a good commander in chief, and he (and his advisors) forsaw the kind of situation we see in Iraq now, which from what I understand to be one of the reasons why Saddam wasn't removed from power back then while it seemed feasable from a military point of view.
It's kindof funny in a sad way. I am not an American (I'm Dutch for the reccord), but I'm proud to have lived in the USA during the presidency of Bush senior (and incidentely also in Texas while Bush jr was governor there, a job which he did well I think). That said, I let any rights I had to live and work in the USA expire in 2003 without a thought. I hope to be back there for a visit at least at some point, but thats going to be some time (that is, it won't be untill the USA again guarantees me and every other person the human rights they signed upto regardless of whom I might or might not be)
I'm going to assume you mean the collective 'you' and not me personally.
I mean those in the US army at this moment, and definitely not you personally.
The real trick in this statement is knowing who's friend or foe. Then knowing when to defend. Too early, you look like a bully, to late and you are looked upon as weak. The same would be said for the type of retaliation.
The fear to be seen as weak is part of the problem here.
It is not weak to be carefull, neither is it weak to not retaliate. Actions (military or otherwise) serve a purpose, and should be judged on if they have a decent enough chance of accomplishing what is required, not on if it makes you look strong.
Not to mention, being able to dismiss provocations as irrelevant (at least to the outside world) shows a lot more strength then responding to any possible provocation with full force.
Somehow 'if we play nice, they will too' just doesn't work (on all sides).
This is true, but is no excuse for invading a place that had no means to directly harm the USA, especially not since the previous and better justified invasion of Afghanistan still hasn't been brought to a decent conclusion.
The trick is to be nice with everyone except for those who are never going to be nice with you.
On top of that, much of the history of Europe suggests that the only way to permanently solve a (violent) conflict is when both sides are in the end better off as a result of the solution. This is very clearly demonstrated by Germany's collapse onto itself after world war 1 being one of the major factors that contributed to world war 2, whereas the problem seems pretty well solved now.
As long as people are relatively content with their living conditions, they see little reason to follow extremist viewpoints and to support violent action against perceived enemies.
I'm sure you won't believe me, but there is some good being done in Iraq.
I do believe that, and I hold individual soldiers responsible for it, because what good happens isn't a consequence of the policy of the USA government, it is more despite that policy.
Simple problem is that the Bush administration failed to put much thought (if any) into what to do in Iraq once Saddam was removed from power. Not having had a clear plan for dealing with the initial chaos and collapse is a mistake that has been pointed out beforehand by many people, including some high ranked people in the US army and military experts. The USA should never have gone there without such a plan and the resources for executing it (which includes many more soldiers, but also people who can do proper police and law enforcement work, aid workers, civil engineers and so on.
Large changes like this do not happen overnight. Look how many years it took for the Berlin wall to fall.
From the moment the East Germans realized that the state could not do much against them as soon as their masses got big enough, not very long.
But you are right. Changes don't happen overnight, but that is no reason why Iraq still has to be stabilized, which is simply a basic requirement for doing any rebuilding without a very high risk of what you just built being destroyed real soon.
There are no neutral sides.
Stating that doesn't make it true. You may not want to recognize someone's neutrality, but that is something different.
You must pick one or provide a better alternative.
If someone can provide an alternative does not at all matter for the validity of critisism. There is no point in looking for alternatives when the ones who have to decide on executing them do not recognize there is a problem to be solved first.
And even then there _will_ be a cost to it since someone(people) are going to strongly disagree with you.
That is true, but that just means you will have to look at the arguments of others, and see if they make a good argument or not, and ignore their argument based on that.
Making a good argument does not depend on you agreeing with it, it depends on the reasoning and circumstances that the argument is based on.
And indeed, I do realize that when in the line of fire, you simply have no time to think about such things, and I don't blame anyone for not doing so at those moments, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't think about it at all.
If you join the army because you believe in fighting for Freedom and democracy, then you simply have the duty to question if what you do now does in fact serve those things, and if not draw your conclusion from it. I can't judge your situation and such, but I can say that if you joined after the Iraq invasion, you have either fallen for your administration's lies, or possibly you just went for the money. You are however not involved in an operation which has much of a chance to bring either longterm freedom or demo
Yeah, letting you kid know of the badness that is out there to be had by having sex earlier than is "good" (arbitrary, I know) is not being a bad parent.
The issue here however is that the danger is not in when but how they have sex, or specifically, if they use proper protection or not. If in that case an age based argument is used then yes, you are being a bad parent.
My daughter is only 4 and so I have some time till I need to worry directly about such things, but even so, I've tried to instill a sense of openness in her such that any punishment is always less (and obviously so) if she comes to me rather than me catching her or finding out later. Hopefully this openness will extend to sex, though obviously I can not count on it, thus a solid education about the possible pitfalls will be part of her upbringing.
Sounds all pretty healthy, but keep in mind that by the time sex becomes an issue, you are also dealing with a person who is on her way to being independent, so you might not get much of a say in it. Thats of course why being open and discussing the dangers (as well as the nice things) of sex is a good idea.
Enemy of my enemy is my friend. Stalin was a brutal dictator, and we knew it even during WWII. In fact, there is rumor that Paton (I think it was him) wanted to invade SU because he knew what Stalin was. But we didn't because the country was weary enough from the last war. We got 50 years of "Cold War" instead.
Yes, and on top of that, quite a few of the people who worked with Hitler were found very usefull in that cold war.
The point is that the USA supports those who come in handy for the USA's economic and political goals. This has nothing whatsoever to do with fighting for freedom or democracy, and more often then not, it works against both.
The next case I'm going to use is the Shaw of Iran, which was an "ally" in the ME. Carter thought he was a rogue and dictator and refused to support him any longer, and he was overthrown in a Jihadist revolution we are still dealing with today. In fact the current president of Iran was one of the ring leaders of that revolution.
And for all I can tell, Carter was right, and the fact that the Islamic revolution turned against the USA also is exactly because the USA was seen as those who had kept the shaw in power and supported the oppression that it brought.
EVERYTHING has consequences. Hindsight is always better than foresight.
Absolutely, but that doesn't change that some consequences are easily forseen, and some follow such a clear pattern that you can learn from example and not repeat the same mistakes.
The biggest problem we have as a country is not who we are,
Absolutely. As a people you are as human as all the others on this planet, making mistakes? sure. inherently evil? not unless all of us are (which I happen to not believe)
it is that we have LOST SIGHT of the ideals we need to strive for.
And that while they are being repeated on an almost daily basis...
This is something both the (D) and the (R) parties have lost, since all they can see is power.
Power corrupts, no news there.
This is why a system that results in static political parties is doomed in the end.
First you argue:
..... 0 ..... +10
Want my respect?? Respect me for who I am.
then you argue:
-10
Everyone starts out at 0, what they do to me and others moves them up or down the scale. I meet someone, and what they do starts the dial moving up or down the scale. It is a Log scale so 10 is harder to reach than 9, etc and -10 is harder to reach than -9.
So, you start with everyone at 0, others start with you at 0.
You say you start with 0 respect for them, now if they follow the same line, they start with 0 respect for you. If they wait for you to respect them first and you wait for them to respect them first, then nothing happens.
I find it really hard to believe that you cannot follow that simple bit of logic.
Everyone is "equal" and created that way. what they do with it, raises or lowers their score. I'm not trusting my life to just anyone, neither will I trust someone who has earned a minus score with much of anything. People earn and lose respect, based on what they do, and their attitudes.
That sounds about correct.
I suppose you put everyone at +10 at the start, huh?
'Some respect' is not 'utra extremely utterly highly respected'. Can't you read or what?
US laws -- and constitutional rights -- apply to US citizens.
Small and often forgotten detail.. they apply to every person within the borders of the USA (and possibly to everyone within all territories controlled by the USA). Citizenship only comes into play when explicitly stated by the law (ie, voting is limited to citizens, but free speech is for all, just as due process)
The GP makes a good point. The Brits were wrong to try to have the colonies pay taxes without then getting some say in things, just as the USA is wrong to try to force its laws on others without giving those others a say in things. That you have to fend for your own rights is true, but that doesn't change the fact that the USA is wrong in this and is not acting as a beneign superpower at all. For the later, those in charge of the USA, and ultimately, those who put them in charge, are responsible, not the people or leaders of other countries.
The argument you make is like saying 'its your own responsibility to defend yourself from my abuse'. Sure, but it is your responsibility to not be abusive to begin with.
Right! I suggest that the US pull out of every country, and leave the rest of the world to its own devices and NEVER send troops anywhere, ever again, or at least until the rest of the world is killing each others.
........ If it wasn't for the US, there'd be no freakin peace. We do a hell of a lot more "good" than people like yourself are capable of admitting to.
Hmm.. just in case you didn't notice, the world is already killing eachother, have been doing that for a couple of tens of thousands of years at least for what we know..
But on a more serious note, maybe it would help to look at why the USA is where it is. Helping others also happens, but a more common reason is the economic interests of the USA.
You forget, the reason why those troops are stationed across the ocean and on foreign soil is that we've already sent 100's of thousands over seas to fight and die in wars against dictators and fascists. Somehow, short sighted people forget about a guy named HITLER, and STALIN, and POL POT. Not to mention the Modern version of them today.
My grandfather has been in one of Hitler's concentration camps, so for me personally, I won't forget him.
I'd like to point out however that the USA considered Stalin an ally against Hitler, and that that same USA actively supported quite a number of (fascist or otherwise) dictators including a certain Saddam.
Quit being so naive. When things go bad, who does the world come running to? Tsunami? Genocide in Darfur, Mid East, Korea
I can't speak for GP, but I have no problem whatsoever admitting to the good things that the USA does. This is also not the problem. The problem is that people like you fail to admit the mistakes the USA makes, and fail to realize the consequences of those mistakes.
No, the USA isn't evil, its people are not evil, but they are human, and as a result do make mistakes. This wouldn't be so bad if they at least started to admit their own mistakes and learn from them.
And what many forget about those who point out the mistakes, it is your friends who do that. Your enemies will abuse your mistakes instead.
What Elitist snobbery! I have no contempt for anyone, only contemptable behavior and attitudes. Want my respect?? Respect me for who I am. It doesn't even matter if I agree with you or not, I'll at least respect who you are, as a person.
So.. in order to get your respect, someone has to respect you first.
Did it ever occur to you that if everyone followed that line of thought, there would never be any respect for anyone?
I'd suggest to have some basic respect for anyone unless they show to not be worth it.
I have to say, this is a somewhat naive point of view.
You mean your own view here right?
If you look through the history of the world, The United States is one of the most benign superpowers ever. Are we as bad as the Romans, British, or even the French when they were colonial powers.
Look! we are better then those who came before us, all hail us!!
Congratulations on learning from hte mistakes of others. Now it is time however to start learning from your own mistakes. That is something all the old colonial powers had to go through as well. Them actually having learned their lesson is why Brits are quite a bit more welcome in say Afghanistan then Americans.
We are not even attempting to be a colonial power like any of those nations.
Using economic warfare does not magically make that the USA isn't playing colonial power.
If you don't like the current administration, fine don't support them, but please don't pretend like they are these horrible outrageous people. They are following the policy and path that several generations of Americans have REQUIRED of them. That is why they were elected.
Which is completely irrelevant for the rest of the world, we didn't elect them, we didn't require their current policy either. They are however trying to force it upon us (non americans), which I find completely unacceptable.
Perhaps some of the countries who are accusing us of being horrible people would feel a little bit better if they didn't outsource all of their defense and government obligations to us over the last 60 years. "We don't like how you are protecting us, so spend your money in the way we see fit." All of these countries were our bestest buddies in the whole wide world when the Russians were breathing down their necks, but like teenagers who have no memory and can't see a minute in front of them, they have completely forgotten.
From this statement alone speaks so much ignorance that I don't know where to start..
But let me keep it simple, please go learn something about this world outside the USA, and about the history of the USA itself.
Yes, the USA has been helpfull quite a few times. They also got their reward for that. The USA also has been less then helpfull at quite a few occations.
I can't even really address the human rights violation part because it is so silly. Are you referring to the dreading things going on at Gitmo? It's awful that we feed people there so they gain the "Gitmo 20" I know. I also can't believe we give them the religious material of their choice and allow them to exercise their religion while they are there. Oh and don't forget the dreaded pink belly technique that we use on them. I could go through the list of names to highlight why were are the angels in this situation (see Nick Berg), but I don't think it would be worth wasting my breath. I'll just end with this simple question:
Instead of answering your question, let me point you at some fundament of US society that you seem to be forgetting about:
Untill found guilty by a court, EVERYONE is presumed innocent. Not only is this one important with regards to US society, it is fundamental for proper justice.
Who would you rater be?
a. an Iraqi/Jordanian/Egyptian freedom fighter captured by the US
b. A US/British/insert nationality here soldier or citizen captured by al queda or other islamic terrorists?
'Them are worse!!!!!' is a strawman and not a proper argument, not to mention that it is simply irrelevant. Your mistakes are mistakes because of not being right. What the rest of the world does or doesn't is simply of no relevance to that whatsoever.
Point made?
If your point was that you have:
- no clue about the history of the USA
- no clue about the world outside the USA
- no clue about what is needed for a functioning system of justice
the problem here is that the new coalition, BCD, is now a party and if it wishes to remain in power, it shall stay that way; it would then be a two party system then. democracy like this seems to lend itself to systems of fewer parties, and if there are many issues we care about the chance of having one of a few (even four) parties matching closely with our beliefs is small.
Looking at most multi-party (as in more then 2) systems, that is not true.
For example, the Netherlands has had its current system (with some minor changes over time) for the last 150 years and the number of parties now is a lot bigger then it was 150 years ago. Lookign around in the rest of Europe, I notice we are not unique in this at all.
The system as it is in the USA tends to lead to 2 major parties, but that in no way means every system does.
The number of years added to the lives of the Brazilians who get this drug at a reduced cost will be subtracted several times over from future AIDS victims who would have otherwise have had better drugs available due to the added research dollars.
There are a few problems with this argument:
1. If Brazil had gotten the drugs for the price they wanted, Merck would still have made a profit, whereas Brazil was not going/able to pay what Merck was asking, so the alternative is no profit, and fewer research dollars.
2. If the pharma companies were not spending money on marketing, their R&D budgets could be doubled.
Also catering to the poor means having to distribute the R&D cost over many more pills, how good you can also sell many more of them, abeit for a much lower price. It nowhere means not being able to make a profit and earn back your R&D.
Yes, because lord knows a bunch of politicians are best folk to decide how much 'profit' a company needs, as opposed to the market (which can be cruel but a whole lot less corruptible than your average socialist wannabe).
That argument would work if the market was actually free. As long as those same politicians are needed to have those nice patents, they also happen to get a say in things.
The number of federal civil cases that end in a verdict by a judge or jury is between two and four percent.
Interesting, but no real surprise. Usually it is a lot cheaper to settle a case then to pursue it to the end even when you know you are likely to win. This is why there is little point in including those cases, and why I argued to ignore them when looking at the statement that 'the law is on the side of the RIAA'. Rather, we should look at those cases that did end in a verdict from a judge.
I think that such cases do not support the idea that the law is on the side of the RIAA in their current attempts to deal with copyright infringement.
Of course initially the law is on their side when they try to pursue copyright infringement, but not when their idea of that is throwing lawsuits at random people, not preparing their cases properly, and generally aiming for people to settle and use that in a propaganda 'war' instead of actually trying to get some kind of compensation from those who cause them actual damage (and lets nto even get into their absurd statements about the damage)
It takes a substantial commitment of time and money to get that far, even though your chances of winning are no better than fifty-fifty. But to lose, is to lose big.
So, the RIAA better be sure they have a really good case. If they don't liek the risks they shouldn't be playing the 'game'.