I think you may be missing the point. The only thing that is arbitrary and unecessary about it is the fact that they are offering to sell them to Americans in the first place.
I will be purchasing one for my son for Christmas, and I find it absolutely brilliant that I will be purchasing one for an impoverished child in the third-world as well. Is that not the entire gist behind the "Christmas Season?" Or is it simply crass materialism?
The only thing that I would like to see is a way to sort of "follow" the XO that is purchased, maybe learn about the child it goes to and have the chance for my son to communicate with him or her.
Quite succinctly put. Specifically with regard to music, I find major fault with those who seem so up in arms about artists losing money due to p2p or torrent sites. Being a musician, I understand quite well that true artists do not create their music for money. Those who do are not musicians, they are simply business people hijacking an art form for personal profit. If we did away with copyright, and instituted a system such as the one you have mentioned, music would not disappear. Rather, as an art form it would become confined to those who love it for what it is.
Creating music is not a chore. It is something done out of necessity, more often than not. I liken it to an addiction, complete with withdrawal symptoms if neglected. In short, if a system like yours was implemented, music would not cease to exist. On the contrary, the trash would be weeded out and we would all be better off for it.
anarchists fail to see society as "one big family."
On the contrary, only a small portion of those who identify themselves as anarchists would have us all acting out applied Ethical Egoism. You may be thinking of the Anarcho-capitalists and such. The more traditional anarchists understand for the most part that without societal cohesion, any attempt at a classless, rulerless world would be utterly pointless and be usurped almost immediately. Bakunin and the Collectivist anarchists are a good example of this, as are Anarcho-communists, Anarcho-syndicalists, et cetera.
I apologize for the pedantry, by the way. As for the gist of your post, I would tend to agree.
If we are going to use that logic as justification for the invasion of a sovereign nation, then perhaps the United States should have been invaded and occupied numerable times over the past century or so. The CIA, you see, has this nasty habit of staging coups and assassinating leaders of other nations. Some are despots, others are democratically elected by the people of that nation but are not beholden to US interests. In fact, this kind of thing has caused a few people over in the Middle East to become rather pissed off. Certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black if there ever was one.
No, I understand what libertarianism is. I simply find it best, when it comes to the "American" form of libertarianism at least, to dissect it somewhat in order to lay out exactly what is wrong with it.
The real meaning of "libertarianism" is entirely dependent upon what your definition of "freedom" is. With right-libertarianism, this is seen to be unregulated freedom in an economic sense. From what I have noticed, when it comes to the social aspect, right-libertarians differ somewhat. Some have conservative stances (anti-abortion, et cetera), while others do not, such as opposing the "drug war."
With most left-libertarians, and specifically libertarian socialists, economic "freedom" is defined differently. The abolishment of capitalist private property, direct control by the people over the means of production, and a decentralized form of loose-knit government are seen as the only ways to ensure that everyone keeps their freedoms. Total economic deregulation is seen as paving the way to re-enslavement under the rule of those who take advantage of it to accumulate power.
The point is that, purely in my opinion, mind you, the social aspect of libertarianism is a good thing. There really is no muddy water there. Where it gets blurry is in the economic side of things, with different types of libertarians holding different views on what exactly "economic freedom" entails. This is where I tend to seek to seperate the two, because while the social side is most definitely compatible with leftist ideology, the economic side is sort of a toss up.
Very well said. "Socialism" is a four letter word over here, due to rampant propaganda and misinformation. The notion that socialism is simply a method of allocating resources which is of the people, by the people, and for the people, as opposed to being for sole benefit of the rich and their profit as in capitalism, is lost on the great majority, who believe that it can be equated with totalitarianism, extremely bloated government, and the extermination of individuality. I cannot count the times in which acquaintances have asked, "Why are you a totalitarian? Nazi Germany was totalitarian!" or somesuch ignorance.
As for libertarianism, it appears to have been co-opted by the right-wing here in America. There is social libertarianism, espoused by, among others, libertarian socialists such as yourself. It stresses social equality and tolerance of everyone, regardless of race, sex, creed, sexual-orientation, et cetera. It values the person as an individual, and emphasises personal freedom inasmuch as others' same freedoms are not infringed upon. I am a social libertarian, because I oppose anyone attempting to tell me what I need to do in my personal life.
The other side, however, is economic libertarianism, where the same underlying concept is applied economically. The overwhelming majority of those who call themselves libertarian in America are in truth economically libertarian and socially conservative. Economic libertarianism does not work, simply because it provides no regulation to ensure that the system remains a fair one. Rather, it almost appears to be designed to facilitate the emergence of a tiny power elite, and the exploitation of the masses. To get an idea of what these policies would result in, one can examine the United States near the turn of the 19th century. Private armies, company towns, scabs and the murder of striking workers, child labor, et cetera.
You are further correct in that capitalism does not work, particularly in the long term. I find it quite ironic, actually, that most right-libertarians and other vehement capitalists place such an emphasis on "efficiency" when, as you say, the system is quite far from efficient. Thirty-thousand dying per day due to starvation when there exists much more than enough food to go around is not my idea of an efficient system; but then, perhaps what is meant is that the system is efficient for them, without a thought given to those who starve. Further, capitalism as currently practiced is quite unsustainable. There will come a time when we have used up what the earth has to offer, and harmed it irreparably. It is the fallacy of unlimited growth. We will collectively find that there is, indeed, a limit; hopefully it will not be too late when we do.
I also find it amusing, evidently as you do, how George Orwell's "1984" is so consistently utilized in an effort to show "the horrors of socialism." Orwell himself was a democratic socialist. So, before passing any judgement, one should make it a point to read more of his work, particularly "Homage to Catalonia," which chronicles his time spent fighting with the socialists and anarchists on the front lines of the Spanish Civil War. Regarding "1984" specifically, it can be seen that it is an analogy of the USSR. "Big Brother" is based on Joseph Stalin, and Emmanuel Goldstein, the resistance leader, is quite obviously modeled after Leon Trotsky.
By the way, thank you for your post. I originally clicked through to the comments with some trepidation, as the overwhelming "slashbot" viewpoint seems to be a right-libertarian one. It is always refreshing for me to see that there exist others, whether in the United States or no, who possess more or less my same views on subjects such as this one.
As an aside, while typing my reply, I noticed the quote at the bottom of the page and thought that it seemed somewhat applicable:
"Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards."
-- Aldous Huxley
Are we overlooking the fact that this is a "high-priced consultant" group, and "Joe Average" is, well, your average Joe? Oh, wait, I'm sorry. I forget sometimes that our government already considers corporations to be legal people. Why should this situation be any different, right?
Corporate power controls the government. As such, it is corporate power which needs to be neutralized first and foremost. Anything else is hacking at the branches of the tree. An absolutely perfect example is the democratic party's majority in congress. What changed when the balance shifted? There has been nothing but empty posturing going on since November of last year, because democrats, just as republicans, are beholden to corporate interests above all else. It is why the government began tilting at windmills in Iraq in the first place.
Until the corporate oligarchy that pulls the strings of our "elected representatives" is overthrown, we will all be subject to this. The whole system, and the "lesser of two evils" mentality that it breeds, is a kind of chicken-or-egg situation. We need to stop trying to find out "which came first," so to speak, and instead concentrate on killing the chicken that laid the damn thing.
Why would any sane person want to restrict education (or health care for that matter) to those wealthy enough to afford it?
It is class war, and it's just as alive today as it was in the 1800s, though some try their best to pretend that it isn't. The skyrocketing costs of tuition to even public universities like my own are certainly not scaling up with the rate of inflation. The lower-mid and middle classes are disappearing because of this kind of thing, and have been for a while now. The "petite bourgeoisie" of old is becoming part of what was traditionally the proletariat.
As for restricting things such as education and health care to those who are wealthy enough to afford them, that is the end result of privatisation. Makes sense (to the capitalists, at least) when you are talking about a television set, but it becomes an abomination when it is applied to water or something else that is a necessity for survival. As far as I am concerned, education is one of those things. Everyone should have the right to further education. They may choose not to take advantage of that right, but it should be there nonetheless.
Of course, if all people were to receive a continuous education, along with the ability to utilize it, instead of being too wrapped up with staying alive, then we might one day collectively decide that there is no reason for a "power elite" to exist in the first place.
Which is one of the main reasons that I proudly participate in it. Maybe one day, instead of people whining and bitching because they have to watch more advertisements before they can put their brain to sleep with a mindless television show once again, everyone will decide not to waste their lives watching other people's (mostly imaginary) lives. Maybe then we can all whine and bitch about the hungry and the poor, or something else that is actually important.
I've already smashed my TV. It isn't exactly the hardest thing to do, but unfortunately, I believe that a TV-less world is up there with world peace in terms of practicability. Until that point, I suppose I will just continue to feel sorry for those of you who fill up the majority of your time upon this earth by sitting on a couch, looking at a television.
I wholeheartedly agree with you; I was focusing more upon how we let it get to the point that it has. We, as a whole, let our vigilance lapse long ago; otherwise, we would have enacted a multitude of necessary changes. You are right in that it generally does not matter who you vote for, or indeed whether you vote or abstain. The plurality voting system does an absolutely horrible job of representing everyone in a populous nation. Of course, full representation happens to be one of the main tenets of representative democracy.
The first thing that we need to do, in my view, is relegate plurality voting to the dustbin of history, and institute a system of proportional representation. Everyone would have an infinitely greater chance of finding either a candidate or party (depending upon the version of PR used) that holds beliefs similar to their own. This has the potential to do away with the brunt of voter apathy, and would also result in more change, due to the multitude of views being expressed. Ironically, one of the main arguments against PR is that ballots would be "too complicated." This has been found to be untrue, and I recommend reading up on the history of proportional representation in the United States to see why.
Another issue, which I see as allowing unrivaled corruption just as you do, is lobbyists. We need to completely abolish corporate lobbying. Along with this, two things need to be done. Real campaign finance reform. I stand behind banning any and all donations, and financing campaigns purely from public funds, with a (very low) cap. Of course candidates running independently would need a certain number or percentage of constituents behind them in order to benefit from this. With PR in place, however, it would not be so much of an issue as it is now. Also, we need to do something about corporations having our public "servants" in their back pockets. I propose setting a required timeframe, both before and after being elected to hold office, in which it is not possible to hold high managerial positions within a corporation. Say ten years or so. Some may say that this is unfair, but hell. What is more unfair? Someone not being able to be a CEO and receive a salary of millions for ten years, or the collective fucking of 300 million people? At least those running for office can choose whether or not to do so.
Yet another staple of the current system that needs to go is "career politicians." Quite frankly, it is disgusting that this has been allowed for so long within a supposedly democratic country. Relatively short term limits need to be set for every elected official, and there needs to be a requirement that one may only serve in a particular branch of government once. If a truly corrupt asshat somehow makes it into office, and for some reason we cannot get rid of him or her, the saving grace will be that term limit. The office of president comes to mind. Imagine if Bush was able to be reelected perpetually. Zany antics would ensue, of that I am certain.
Of course, all of this is just for starters, and it is very questionable as to whether half of it could even be instituted, considering how far gone we are already. Whether evolutionary or revolutionary, though, the fact remains that it does need to happen. As for me, I'm not holding out any sort of hope. I am currently planning to finish college, put in some time with the Peace Corps (or an alternative of some sort), and then get the hell out of the country. I will pursue my graduate degrees elsewhere. Unless something goes drastically right within the next four years or so, my views and those of this country (if I may anthropomorphize it) are diametrically opposed to one another.
That is the weakness of representative democracy. The people must be "eternally vigilant," just as Thomas Jefferson warned. As soon as the people become apathetic, and no longer care to be involved in the process, the process itself is then open to be usurped by the so-called "representatives." It really is not difficult to understand. So why is it being allowed to happen? Personally, I believe the answer lies in "Panem et Circenses."
On the contrary, Mussolini defined it rather well. He actually wrote the entry on fascism for the "Encyclopaedia Italiana" in 1932. Others have used it widely and innappropriately since then, but that doesn't change its true meaning. Here's a small excerpt from Mussolini's entry that gives some context:
... fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society...
The entire entry, titled "What is Fascism?", is available online in a myriad of places. It is somewhat lengthy, but I suggest reading it in its entirety.
As for this situation, and the GP's label, I would say that it fits rather nicely Mussolini's definition.
Your reason list sucks. Cut and paste works perfectly fine without a keyboard in Konsole. The other items on your list are simply personal preferences. XTerm may be better for you than Konsole or whatever else, but that certainly doesn't mean that it is better for me, or anyone else for that matter. Use what you want to. The point is that there is no reason to be "holier-than-thou" about it. Hell, I use Eterm for the most part, simply because I can customize it easily. However, I realize that other people might prefer another console. And it is just a console.
Unusual definition you've got there for "the means of production."
Socialism is not "taking other people's stuff." It is not about taking your jacket and giving it to someone else, or redistributing your jacket equally amongst everyone. That is rubbish. Socialism is about taking the factory that was used to make your jacket, and turning it over to the people, to be controlled in a democratic fashion, rather than having it belong to private interests (ie corporations) to be used for their own profit. This nonsense about no one having private property in a socialist world is nothing but propaganda. There are two types of private property: There is private property in the sense of the individual: your jacket. There is also private property in the sense of a legal entity like a corporation: the factory that produced your jacket.
In a nutshell, socialists simply want economic as well as political democracy.
So, all of those people who perform the jobs that no one else wants to do, they're all deadbeats, right? The waitress at that restaurant you frequent, she's a deadbeat also, I suppose. The stock clerks and cashiers at your grocery store should be thankful that they even have jobs, correct? The senior citizens who are forced to take up a McJob to survive because Social Security doesn't cover half of their monthly expenses, they should take a moment every day to express their thanks to the gods of capitalism that they are even breathing right now. Those vets with PTSD who can't seem to hold down a job, they're just ungrateful leeches.
There's just no excuse to not pay their bills before the due dates. None whatsoever. They should be happy to be exploited, damnit. Fucking deadbeats.
I was not "whining." I make it a point to respond to any post that references communism or socialism as totalitarian with a bit of education. I also find it hard to believe that you are a communist if you "don't buy the state-capitalism cop-out." It isn't a cop-out. It is exactly what the Soviet bloc was. True communism is democratic, with the means of production directly in the hands of the workers. In state-capitalism, the government acts like one giant business, using the workers to create surplus value which is then appropriated by the bureaucracy for its own benefit, instead of being distributed equally among the people. The traditional role of the capitalists is simply taken over by the state.
I am not trolling for "converts." Rather, I am just letting people know the truth of the matter. I have no other agenda, and I do not care at all if I am irritating some. In my opinion, it was the perfect context for a quick correction and explanation. What better time could there be than when the fallacious interpretation is staring everyone in the face?
Democracy, people! I'll never buy another communist laptop from DELL.
You do realize that communism is an economic system and not a governmental one? Coincidentally, however, if communistic ideals are applied to a political system, you end up with democracy.
Further, communism can be thought of as economic democracy. It can only be properly practiced in a politically democratic environment. If the means of production are supposedly in the hands of the workers, but in reality are in the hands of a totalitarian regime (ie "the state"), it is not communism. It is state-capitalism.
It never ceases to amaze me how brainwashed everyone in the US is when it comes to this type of thing. Use common sense: correlation != causation. I'm sorry for being off topic, and I realize that the OP was just trying to be funny, but this happens to be one of my pet peeves, and it drives me fucking insane.
You are mistaken. The only way that Open Source will die is if this type of thing doesn't happen. People like Harald are doing their best to uphold Open Source, as well as Free Software. If you want to allow corporations to fuck everyone else over and take without giving back, then you should really be looking at one of the BSD licenses.
"Holy shit, someone's actually enforcing GPL v2! Open Source is going to die!" is, excuse my language, but fucking retarded. Find something else to blow up about. I hear the sky is falling.
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment pointing out that the tactics used resemble those of a "terrorist" organization. You should really take your own advice, and try not to get your panties in a bunch, especially when you misunderstand something so obvious.
For being a member of a tech website, you are certainly acting like a cluser. It really is quite simple to turn off the politics section. It isn't rocket surgery.
But you knew that, didn't you?
I am, unlike you, actually quite interested in the corruption of this government and our supposed "civil servants." Feel free to bury your head in the sand of ignorance, but don't drag me down with you.
If those kids weren't browsing the web, they would more than likely be sitting in front of a television like zombies, being force-fed what to think. You may have a valid concern regarding computers in classrooms, though I believe that they can be a very good thing as long as they are implemented properly, but kids browsing the internet after school instead of laying on the couch, watching some fucking reality TV show is a good thing. Passive entertainment is nothing but a problem, as far as I am concerned.
what many would claim to be absolute truth based only on
There are no absolutes in science. What we have is the best model so far, based on observable evidence. The model will continue to change, and parts of it will be modified, thrown out, and refined. That is how the scientific method works.
"Creationism" or any religion-based "theory," and I use that word very loosely, are not built upon observable evidence over time. Creationism is not based in fact, and it is not continuously refined and retested. There is a reason why people refer to religion as "faith."
Please try not to view those of us who accept evolution as doing so upon faith. It is simply the best model that we have at the moment. If the model changes, based on new, factual evidence, and it can be retested with the same results, then our understanding of evolution will change right along with it.
I don't know about you, but I like my explanations of the things around me to be based on fact, not largely fictitious prose written two-thousand years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you may be missing the point. The only thing that is arbitrary and unecessary about it is the fact that they are offering to sell them to Americans in the first place.
I will be purchasing one for my son for Christmas, and I find it absolutely brilliant that I will be purchasing one for an impoverished child in the third-world as well. Is that not the entire gist behind the "Christmas Season?" Or is it simply crass materialism?
The only thing that I would like to see is a way to sort of "follow" the XO that is purchased, maybe learn about the child it goes to and have the chance for my son to communicate with him or her.
Quite succinctly put. Specifically with regard to music, I find major fault with those who seem so up in arms about artists losing money due to p2p or torrent sites. Being a musician, I understand quite well that true artists do not create their music for money. Those who do are not musicians, they are simply business people hijacking an art form for personal profit. If we did away with copyright, and instituted a system such as the one you have mentioned, music would not disappear. Rather, as an art form it would become confined to those who love it for what it is.
Creating music is not a chore. It is something done out of necessity, more often than not. I liken it to an addiction, complete with withdrawal symptoms if neglected. In short, if a system like yours was implemented, music would not cease to exist. On the contrary, the trash would be weeded out and we would all be better off for it.
anarchists fail to see society as "one big family."
On the contrary, only a small portion of those who identify themselves as anarchists would have us all acting out applied Ethical Egoism. You may be thinking of the Anarcho-capitalists and such. The more traditional anarchists understand for the most part that without societal cohesion, any attempt at a classless, rulerless world would be utterly pointless and be usurped almost immediately. Bakunin and the Collectivist anarchists are a good example of this, as are Anarcho-communists, Anarcho-syndicalists, et cetera.
I apologize for the pedantry, by the way. As for the gist of your post, I would tend to agree.
If we are going to use that logic as justification for the invasion of a sovereign nation, then perhaps the United States should have been invaded and occupied numerable times over the past century or so. The CIA, you see, has this nasty habit of staging coups and assassinating leaders of other nations. Some are despots, others are democratically elected by the people of that nation but are not beholden to US interests. In fact, this kind of thing has caused a few people over in the Middle East to become rather pissed off. Certainly a case of the pot calling the kettle black if there ever was one.
No, I understand what libertarianism is. I simply find it best, when it comes to the "American" form of libertarianism at least, to dissect it somewhat in order to lay out exactly what is wrong with it.
The real meaning of "libertarianism" is entirely dependent upon what your definition of "freedom" is. With right-libertarianism, this is seen to be unregulated freedom in an economic sense. From what I have noticed, when it comes to the social aspect, right-libertarians differ somewhat. Some have conservative stances (anti-abortion, et cetera), while others do not, such as opposing the "drug war."
With most left-libertarians, and specifically libertarian socialists, economic "freedom" is defined differently. The abolishment of capitalist private property, direct control by the people over the means of production, and a decentralized form of loose-knit government are seen as the only ways to ensure that everyone keeps their freedoms. Total economic deregulation is seen as paving the way to re-enslavement under the rule of those who take advantage of it to accumulate power.
The point is that, purely in my opinion, mind you, the social aspect of libertarianism is a good thing. There really is no muddy water there. Where it gets blurry is in the economic side of things, with different types of libertarians holding different views on what exactly "economic freedom" entails. This is where I tend to seek to seperate the two, because while the social side is most definitely compatible with leftist ideology, the economic side is sort of a toss up.
Very well said. "Socialism" is a four letter word over here, due to rampant propaganda and misinformation. The notion that socialism is simply a method of allocating resources which is of the people, by the people, and for the people, as opposed to being for sole benefit of the rich and their profit as in capitalism, is lost on the great majority, who believe that it can be equated with totalitarianism, extremely bloated government, and the extermination of individuality. I cannot count the times in which acquaintances have asked, "Why are you a totalitarian? Nazi Germany was totalitarian!" or somesuch ignorance.
As for libertarianism, it appears to have been co-opted by the right-wing here in America. There is social libertarianism, espoused by, among others, libertarian socialists such as yourself. It stresses social equality and tolerance of everyone, regardless of race, sex, creed, sexual-orientation, et cetera. It values the person as an individual, and emphasises personal freedom inasmuch as others' same freedoms are not infringed upon. I am a social libertarian, because I oppose anyone attempting to tell me what I need to do in my personal life.
The other side, however, is economic libertarianism, where the same underlying concept is applied economically. The overwhelming majority of those who call themselves libertarian in America are in truth economically libertarian and socially conservative. Economic libertarianism does not work, simply because it provides no regulation to ensure that the system remains a fair one. Rather, it almost appears to be designed to facilitate the emergence of a tiny power elite, and the exploitation of the masses. To get an idea of what these policies would result in, one can examine the United States near the turn of the 19th century. Private armies, company towns, scabs and the murder of striking workers, child labor, et cetera.
You are further correct in that capitalism does not work, particularly in the long term. I find it quite ironic, actually, that most right-libertarians and other vehement capitalists place such an emphasis on "efficiency" when, as you say, the system is quite far from efficient. Thirty-thousand dying per day due to starvation when there exists much more than enough food to go around is not my idea of an efficient system; but then, perhaps what is meant is that the system is efficient for them, without a thought given to those who starve. Further, capitalism as currently practiced is quite unsustainable. There will come a time when we have used up what the earth has to offer, and harmed it irreparably. It is the fallacy of unlimited growth. We will collectively find that there is, indeed, a limit; hopefully it will not be too late when we do.
I also find it amusing, evidently as you do, how George Orwell's "1984" is so consistently utilized in an effort to show "the horrors of socialism." Orwell himself was a democratic socialist. So, before passing any judgement, one should make it a point to read more of his work, particularly "Homage to Catalonia," which chronicles his time spent fighting with the socialists and anarchists on the front lines of the Spanish Civil War. Regarding "1984" specifically, it can be seen that it is an analogy of the USSR. "Big Brother" is based on Joseph Stalin, and Emmanuel Goldstein, the resistance leader, is quite obviously modeled after Leon Trotsky.
By the way, thank you for your post. I originally clicked through to the comments with some trepidation, as the overwhelming "slashbot" viewpoint seems to be a right-libertarian one. It is always refreshing for me to see that there exist others, whether in the United States or no, who possess more or less my same views on subjects such as this one.
As an aside, while typing my reply, I noticed the quote at the bottom of the page and thought that it seemed somewhat applicable:
"Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards."
-- Aldous Huxley
Are we overlooking the fact that this is a "high-priced consultant" group, and "Joe Average" is, well, your average Joe? Oh, wait, I'm sorry. I forget sometimes that our government already considers corporations to be legal people. Why should this situation be any different, right?
You are exactly correct.
Corporate power controls the government. As such, it is corporate power which needs to be neutralized first and foremost. Anything else is hacking at the branches of the tree. An absolutely perfect example is the democratic party's majority in congress. What changed when the balance shifted? There has been nothing but empty posturing going on since November of last year, because democrats, just as republicans, are beholden to corporate interests above all else. It is why the government began tilting at windmills in Iraq in the first place.
Until the corporate oligarchy that pulls the strings of our "elected representatives" is overthrown, we will all be subject to this. The whole system, and the "lesser of two evils" mentality that it breeds, is a kind of chicken-or-egg situation. We need to stop trying to find out "which came first," so to speak, and instead concentrate on killing the chicken that laid the damn thing.
Why would any sane person want to restrict education (or health care for that matter) to those wealthy enough to afford it?
It is class war, and it's just as alive today as it was in the 1800s, though some try their best to pretend that it isn't. The skyrocketing costs of tuition to even public universities like my own are certainly not scaling up with the rate of inflation. The lower-mid and middle classes are disappearing because of this kind of thing, and have been for a while now. The "petite bourgeoisie" of old is becoming part of what was traditionally the proletariat.
As for restricting things such as education and health care to those who are wealthy enough to afford them, that is the end result of privatisation. Makes sense (to the capitalists, at least) when you are talking about a television set, but it becomes an abomination when it is applied to water or something else that is a necessity for survival. As far as I am concerned, education is one of those things. Everyone should have the right to further education. They may choose not to take advantage of that right, but it should be there nonetheless.
Of course, if all people were to receive a continuous education, along with the ability to utilize it, instead of being too wrapped up with staying alive, then we might one day collectively decide that there is no reason for a "power elite" to exist in the first place.
Just as soon as your bosses begin to respect FLOSS, we will be sure to return the compliment.
Which is one of the main reasons that I proudly participate in it. Maybe one day, instead of people whining and bitching because they have to watch more advertisements before they can put their brain to sleep with a mindless television show once again, everyone will decide not to waste their lives watching other people's (mostly imaginary) lives. Maybe then we can all whine and bitch about the hungry and the poor, or something else that is actually important.
I've already smashed my TV. It isn't exactly the hardest thing to do, but unfortunately, I believe that a TV-less world is up there with world peace in terms of practicability. Until that point, I suppose I will just continue to feel sorry for those of you who fill up the majority of your time upon this earth by sitting on a couch, looking at a television.
I wholeheartedly agree with you; I was focusing more upon how we let it get to the point that it has. We, as a whole, let our vigilance lapse long ago; otherwise, we would have enacted a multitude of necessary changes. You are right in that it generally does not matter who you vote for, or indeed whether you vote or abstain. The plurality voting system does an absolutely horrible job of representing everyone in a populous nation. Of course, full representation happens to be one of the main tenets of representative democracy.
The first thing that we need to do, in my view, is relegate plurality voting to the dustbin of history, and institute a system of proportional representation. Everyone would have an infinitely greater chance of finding either a candidate or party (depending upon the version of PR used) that holds beliefs similar to their own. This has the potential to do away with the brunt of voter apathy, and would also result in more change, due to the multitude of views being expressed. Ironically, one of the main arguments against PR is that ballots would be "too complicated." This has been found to be untrue, and I recommend reading up on the history of proportional representation in the United States to see why.
Another issue, which I see as allowing unrivaled corruption just as you do, is lobbyists. We need to completely abolish corporate lobbying. Along with this, two things need to be done. Real campaign finance reform. I stand behind banning any and all donations, and financing campaigns purely from public funds, with a (very low) cap. Of course candidates running independently would need a certain number or percentage of constituents behind them in order to benefit from this. With PR in place, however, it would not be so much of an issue as it is now. Also, we need to do something about corporations having our public "servants" in their back pockets. I propose setting a required timeframe, both before and after being elected to hold office, in which it is not possible to hold high managerial positions within a corporation. Say ten years or so. Some may say that this is unfair, but hell. What is more unfair? Someone not being able to be a CEO and receive a salary of millions for ten years, or the collective fucking of 300 million people? At least those running for office can choose whether or not to do so.
Yet another staple of the current system that needs to go is "career politicians." Quite frankly, it is disgusting that this has been allowed for so long within a supposedly democratic country. Relatively short term limits need to be set for every elected official, and there needs to be a requirement that one may only serve in a particular branch of government once. If a truly corrupt asshat somehow makes it into office, and for some reason we cannot get rid of him or her, the saving grace will be that term limit. The office of president comes to mind. Imagine if Bush was able to be reelected perpetually. Zany antics would ensue, of that I am certain.
Of course, all of this is just for starters, and it is very questionable as to whether half of it could even be instituted, considering how far gone we are already. Whether evolutionary or revolutionary, though, the fact remains that it does need to happen. As for me, I'm not holding out any sort of hope. I am currently planning to finish college, put in some time with the Peace Corps (or an alternative of some sort), and then get the hell out of the country. I will pursue my graduate degrees elsewhere. Unless something goes drastically right within the next four years or so, my views and those of this country (if I may anthropomorphize it) are diametrically opposed to one another.
That is the weakness of representative democracy. The people must be "eternally vigilant," just as Thomas Jefferson warned. As soon as the people become apathetic, and no longer care to be involved in the process, the process itself is then open to be usurped by the so-called "representatives." It really is not difficult to understand. So why is it being allowed to happen? Personally, I believe the answer lies in "Panem et Circenses."
On the contrary, Mussolini defined it rather well. He actually wrote the entry on fascism for the "Encyclopaedia Italiana" in 1932. Others have used it widely and innappropriately since then, but that doesn't change its true meaning. Here's a small excerpt from Mussolini's entry that gives some context:
... fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society ...
The entire entry, titled "What is Fascism?", is available online in a myriad of places. It is somewhat lengthy, but I suggest reading it in its entirety.
As for this situation, and the GP's label, I would say that it fits rather nicely Mussolini's definition.
Your reason list sucks. Cut and paste works perfectly fine without a keyboard in Konsole. The other items on your list are simply personal preferences. XTerm may be better for you than Konsole or whatever else, but that certainly doesn't mean that it is better for me, or anyone else for that matter. Use what you want to. The point is that there is no reason to be "holier-than-thou" about it. Hell, I use Eterm for the most part, simply because I can customize it easily. However, I realize that other people might prefer another console. And it is just a console.
Unusual definition you've got there for "the means of production."
Socialism is not "taking other people's stuff." It is not about taking your jacket and giving it to someone else, or redistributing your jacket equally amongst everyone. That is rubbish. Socialism is about taking the factory that was used to make your jacket, and turning it over to the people, to be controlled in a democratic fashion, rather than having it belong to private interests (ie corporations) to be used for their own profit. This nonsense about no one having private property in a socialist world is nothing but propaganda. There are two types of private property: There is private property in the sense of the individual: your jacket. There is also private property in the sense of a legal entity like a corporation: the factory that produced your jacket.
In a nutshell, socialists simply want economic as well as political democracy.
Which is all the more reason to take advantage of any leg up that you can get on them, and even more so, to do it with a clear conscience.
So, all of those people who perform the jobs that no one else wants to do, they're all deadbeats, right? The waitress at that restaurant you frequent, she's a deadbeat also, I suppose. The stock clerks and cashiers at your grocery store should be thankful that they even have jobs, correct? The senior citizens who are forced to take up a McJob to survive because Social Security doesn't cover half of their monthly expenses, they should take a moment every day to express their thanks to the gods of capitalism that they are even breathing right now. Those vets with PTSD who can't seem to hold down a job, they're just ungrateful leeches.
There's just no excuse to not pay their bills before the due dates. None whatsoever. They should be happy to be exploited, damnit. Fucking deadbeats.
I was not "whining." I make it a point to respond to any post that references communism or socialism as totalitarian with a bit of education. I also find it hard to believe that you are a communist if you "don't buy the state-capitalism cop-out." It isn't a cop-out. It is exactly what the Soviet bloc was. True communism is democratic, with the means of production directly in the hands of the workers. In state-capitalism, the government acts like one giant business, using the workers to create surplus value which is then appropriated by the bureaucracy for its own benefit, instead of being distributed equally among the people. The traditional role of the capitalists is simply taken over by the state.
I am not trolling for "converts." Rather, I am just letting people know the truth of the matter. I have no other agenda, and I do not care at all if I am irritating some. In my opinion, it was the perfect context for a quick correction and explanation. What better time could there be than when the fallacious interpretation is staring everyone in the face?
Democracy, people! I'll never buy another communist laptop from DELL.
You do realize that communism is an economic system and not a governmental one? Coincidentally, however, if communistic ideals are applied to a political system, you end up with democracy.
Further, communism can be thought of as economic democracy. It can only be properly practiced in a politically democratic environment. If the means of production are supposedly in the hands of the workers, but in reality are in the hands of a totalitarian regime (ie "the state"), it is not communism. It is state-capitalism.
It never ceases to amaze me how brainwashed everyone in the US is when it comes to this type of thing. Use common sense: correlation != causation. I'm sorry for being off topic, and I realize that the OP was just trying to be funny, but this happens to be one of my pet peeves, and it drives me fucking insane.
You are mistaken. The only way that Open Source will die is if this type of thing doesn't happen. People like Harald are doing their best to uphold Open Source, as well as Free Software. If you want to allow corporations to fuck everyone else over and take without giving back, then you should really be looking at one of the BSD licenses.
"Holy shit, someone's actually enforcing GPL v2! Open Source is going to die!" is, excuse my language, but fucking retarded. Find something else to blow up about. I hear the sky is falling.
It was a tongue-in-cheek comment pointing out that the tactics used resemble those of a "terrorist" organization. You should really take your own advice, and try not to get your panties in a bunch, especially when you misunderstand something so obvious.
For being a member of a tech website, you are certainly acting like a cluser. It really is quite simple to turn off the politics section. It isn't rocket surgery.
But you knew that, didn't you?
I am, unlike you, actually quite interested in the corruption of this government and our supposed "civil servants." Feel free to bury your head in the sand of ignorance, but don't drag me down with you.
(Sorry for feeding the troll)
If those kids weren't browsing the web, they would more than likely be sitting in front of a television like zombies, being force-fed what to think. You may have a valid concern regarding computers in classrooms, though I believe that they can be a very good thing as long as they are implemented properly, but kids browsing the internet after school instead of laying on the couch, watching some fucking reality TV show is a good thing. Passive entertainment is nothing but a problem, as far as I am concerned.
what many would claim to be absolute truth based only on
There are no absolutes in science. What we have is the best model so far, based on observable evidence. The model will continue to change, and parts of it will be modified, thrown out, and refined. That is how the scientific method works.
"Creationism" or any religion-based "theory," and I use that word very loosely, are not built upon observable evidence over time. Creationism is not based in fact, and it is not continuously refined and retested. There is a reason why people refer to religion as "faith."
Please try not to view those of us who accept evolution as doing so upon faith. It is simply the best model that we have at the moment. If the model changes, based on new, factual evidence, and it can be retested with the same results, then our understanding of evolution will change right along with it.
I don't know about you, but I like my explanations of the things around me to be based on fact, not largely fictitious prose written two-thousand years ago.