Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. eh? I wonder how switzerland has virtually no gun crimes and guns (all types) in every home.
Re:Of course the candidates are in favor!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Tianimen Square. Its funny how you use the prime example, of what ultimatly happens when a defenseless public is pitted against the might of their government, for disarmend and so deliveration of even more people into defenselessnes, with the only resistance left: the density of your bones against tank tracks.
Re:Of course the candidates are in favor!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
you do realize that nobody with out the 'Marxist' prefixe will buy into that 'attacked economically' crap. We usually don't get to make up nonsense concepts that might mean anything and not get called on it.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
you got it backwards: ordinary citizens with guns are a well regulated (in working order) militia (nonprofessional soldiers, irregular force etc.). The constitution thinks the US needs this, so the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. How clearly do you need to have it spelled out?
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
are you crazy? Have you even heard of switzerland? Of the current situation in iraq? of somalia? I'll tell you what a couple of guys can do, btw the basic cold war nato defense doctrine against enemy tank columns : Get 3 guys in a jeep, one drives, one has binoculars, one packs a TOW, RPG, Panzerfaust whatever. Wait at the corner of a forest, with clear sight onto the roads, fire and the tank is toast. Millions of dollars just went up in smoke. If you are good you do this at a bridge and hold up the column for a day or two until they cleared the wreckage.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
I know the last part of your post is not all serious. But it echos in reality nonetheless. Mark Twain wrote in his second europe/holy land book that the pioneers all carried revolvers but this athmosphere induced discipline. He said something like this: 'If you touch your gun without appearant cause, you better use it, too. Otherwise you'll just get shot, almost in an instance'
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
Well regulated my friend, well regulated. Ordered would make it much more appearant what really was meant. As I pointed out in a post above, it is insane to believe that the founding fathers (or any one else for that matter) would suggest a state regulated militia (at which point you can just call it an army and be done with it) should be the last defense of liberty against state tyranny. The writers of the constitution where not stupid, they realized that nobody and no thing is perfect, not even their checks-and-balances. For this case the citizens should be armed to prevent an over-ambishious state.
Concerning the nuclear options, this is very much a state problem. Only a state has use for WMDs at all. Morally posession can't be justified because it is an offensive weapon only. Yes, it acts as deterrent but the mass death it incurs is bound to kill others than the one (or however many) where in fact attacking or threatening you. The loss of innocent life is inevitable when using WMDs, this is why they are unacceptable as defensive weapons.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
the fact that a militia can have a millitary like structure is not to be confused with the militia being an institution (like the Army). Militia merely refers to a body of 'unprofessional soldiers' which at the time equated to citizens with guns. So appearant conflicts in the 2nd suddenly disolve. 'Well-regulated' can not be taken to mean 'controlled by the state' because it explicitly cites uprising against the state as reason for the amendment. Rather I'd think http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regulated number 3: To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
Also, it serves well to inspect the mindset of the writers. Those people basically lived through violent revolt agains their government and it's army. You expect them to recommend the US Army (a state institution itself) as protection against tyranny? No one in their right mind would expect an army to safe guard liberty and surely not the people that just had to fight one which was oppressing them.
Re:One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 1
you are just ignorant. Stability is no merit. Ausschwitz was also stable: thousands killed everyday. The comparison is not far fetched, whatever moore showed you, this is was not the face of pre war iraq. Hussein is a butcher but that wasn't the worst of it. The whole party was a collection of butchers, one more psychopathic than the other. Life was not good in iraq before the war. And it is better now, as Iraqis do admit in a number of polls.
Iraq had WMDs. Iraq was obliged to get rid of them, documenting the process thoroughly, by the post gulf war peace accords of the UN. It didn't document anything. The logical assumption is that Iraq hadn't, in fact, dispossed of them. It's not like Hussein didn't want the world thinking he still had them.
and the great health care is surely the reason why canada was the only country in the west that had a SARS outbreak. Your healt care system sucks 2nd world ass and even europeans like me know this.
before judging others you should clean your own goddamned front porch. England has nothing of her grandeure, charm or culture left. The country has thoroughly degenerated into a bunch of alcoholic brutes kicking each other in the nuts after a soccer game. No book, no film, no music (besides Robbie and the Spice Girls), no painting, no poem has made its way out of this shithole you seem to admire so much. Your government, especially Mr. Blair, was left out to dry by Schröder and Chirac while they get to decide what the union will look like tomorrow. Meanwhile Northern Ireland is still repressed by what little is left of the migthy imperial british fist. Your monarchy is a joke for the rest of the world to laugh at. A doddery old woman as the national symbol and head of state. I won't even get into her dysfunct relatives.
If you are small government, pro liberty type republican, as your previous post suggests, you would really want to vote for the guy that dodged the draft. What is honorable about being a government slave? Honor for me means maintaining ones freedom. The amount of honor is equal to the size of the adversary threatening that freedom. It doesn't get biggern than defying the us government.
except that castro isn't elected at all. He basically owns cuba, so much for communism. And if castro and his gang of 'more equals' are so good at communicating and keeping in touch with the 'proletariat' how come you never see people risking their lifes trying to cross over from florida in fruit baskets?
I never thought I would see someone defending an obviously corrupt and repressive regime in my lifetime. Well, never say never as they say.
only a socialist can be so lax with words and at the same time point out myriad detail errors when it concerns their favorite model for society. Firstly, every 'communist' leader must, as Marx himself says, at some point or other have been a socialist. Communsism can't be achieved without a socialist transition period. To your comment:
You haven't got a clue what colonisation and imperalism implies. Talk to people in india if they were 'influenced' by the britons or plainly ruled by them. If you don't see a difference, I'm just sorry for you. But please, name some areas of 'influence' and tell me how the conditions there equate to the concept of 'colonies'. Yeah, Irak was libertated, or what else would you call the bringing of freedom to an oppressed people and allowing them to hold elections and appoint a souvereign government?
Where they succeeded, they were enlisted as 'states' (unless you think all states joined the USA 'willingly'?), where they didn't, they were thrown out
Oh please, the only example would be texas which was stolen from the mexicans. This is clearly not what you had in mind when calling the 'modern' united states imperalistic.
BTW, hitler and mussolini were a prime example of facism, not socialism (though he called his party national-socialism).
Whatever. I realize this is socalism sacred cow: Hitler wasn't one of us. Yes, Hitlers Germany had as an attribute 'facist' which only means: Instead of pretenting that the people work for the good of the people ('common good'), which just ends up as the people working for the good of the ruling elite, we go straightly there and equate the states good with the 'common good' and so requiring from everyone to sacrifice all that is asked for the state. If you don't believe me, read up on the socio economic teachings inside the NSDAP and writs by NSDAP members. DAP btw stands for German Workers Party. What scares the lefties is this: Nazi germany was the most efficient and by a standard most sucessful implementation of socialism yet. Instead of being slowed down by having to maintain a nice, humain facade, the nazis fought their opponents with open violence on the streets and gained influence by all out popularism in elections. They broke alliances, had no respect for life whatsoever and promised 'the people' an epoche of unequaled peace and prosperity. They were in the purest form: hungry for power, opportunistic, millitant and manipulative. This is what it takes to make people completely surrender their lifes into collectivism.
Some points from the NSDAP party program that are clearly socialistic, the rest (which is not quoted) is mostly the nationalistic agenda:
7. Wir fordern, daß sich der Staat verpflichtet, in erster Linie für die Erwerbs- und Lebensmöglichkeit der Bürger zu sorgen. Wenn es nicht möglich ist, die Gesamtbevölkerung des Staates zu ernähren, so sind die Angehörigen fremden Nationen (Nicht-Staatsbürger) aus dem Reiche auszuweisen.
We demand that the state be required to formost care for the income [and life-possibility] of its citizens. If it is not possible to feed all inhabitants of the state, foreigners shall be expelled from the 'Reich'.
10. Erste Pflicht jeden Staatsbürgers muß sein, geistig oder körperlich zu schaffen. Die Tätigkeit des Einzelnen darf nicht gegen die Interessen der Allgemeinheit verstoßen, sondern muß im Rahmen des gesamten und zum Nutzen aller erfolgen.
The duty of every citizen must be to work, with the mind or with the body. The activities of the indiviual must not go contrary to the interest of the public but must be pursued within the whole and to the benefit of all.
11. Abschaffung des arbeits- und mühelosen Einkommens.
[We demand] the abolishment of the work and toil free income [read: income from capital ie. interest
13. Wir fordern die Verstaatlichung aller (bisher) bereits vergesellschaftete
Unlike all european powers, the united states never had colonies, a vital precursor to imperalism. You should get the fuck real and realize that the problems of this world do not stem from american companies or even the military, but solely from idealist demagogues that, over millions of dead bodies, try to errect their special version of paradise, be that an islamic theocracy or socialism: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolinie, Francesco, Pol Pot, Che Guevara/Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Hussein, Kim Il Sung and Mao are just a few examples. Not to mentions the long list of middle east mullas and the countless african socialist dictators. But hey, at least the 'resources' in africa are not in the hands of the evil multinationals but in the hands of the native people (even if they are few).
The difference between revenge and justice is that revenge is carried out by man possesed by actual circumstances instead of inmutable, unpersonal and as objective as possible law and without strict regimes to ensure that whoever is blamed is guilty. Also revenge is unproportional.
Justice, in my opinion (and not just mine), requires two things: restoration and deterence. The two must not be considered to be one. If someone steals a car and crashes it to pulp, don't you think it is fair to make him restore the car to the victim (restoration) and also punish him for the unlawful (and immoral if I might add) act of theft with whatever penalty theft carries? If you dismiss restoration the victim is unduly neglected. The victim could never recoup losses incured by a criminal. If you dismiss deterence (punishment) you basically encourage the criminally incurring of damages to others for personal enrichment since there is always the chance that the perpetrator can get away with this. Punishment servers to heighten the risk a criminal would take, in his view. In other words, stealing 50000$ euros with a 50% chance of having to give it back is far more appealing than a 50% chance of having to give it back AND serving jail time.
The court system in germany is most unfair, I life here so I would know. The utmost consideration is always given to the criminal, his/her harsh background, psychological problems as well as possible causes for not being 'guilt-able' as a judical term here would be translated. If you ever want to murder someone here, make sure you do it in the most inhumain way possible and don't limit yourself to just one person. Make sure it appears as if you didn't have any reason for going on the rampage other than that your mother wouldn't let you play with your poo. Instead of receiving a life sentence in prison (which is 15 years, whatever) with an aditional public security lock-away, you'll just go to a therapy institution where you will be allowed to take lots of walks outside with only an insecure youth supervising you. In your room (it would still be locked, I hope), which you have for yourself, you can watch TV or play some games on the playstation. After a couple of years, the psychiatrist will proclaim that you are healed and you can go.
Of course all is different when you screw over the state, business criminality it is called. Or commit other victimless crimes like dealing drugs. You won't be met with any mercy whatsoever and together with thugs, thieves and child molesters you'll have a nice time in the jail shower.
Your logic is flawed. Not preventing someones death is not equal to causing someones death.
The simplest reason is that property ownership is premised on the assumption that people have certain needs, and to deprive them of what they need is wrong. A secondary, and perhaps accidental, effect of property ownership is the ability for people to have all that they need as well as things they do not need; in essence, luxuries. It is not unrealistic to assign a higher moral value to basic needs than to luxuries. Under such a system it would indeed be right, and indeed a duty, to take from one's luxury for another's need.
The justification of property ownership rest on three moral pillars and one ulitarian:
Self ownership: my body and my mind belong to me and serve, foremost, any use I want to put them to. As such, the fruit of my labour (results of using my body) or my thought (results of using my mind) also belong to me and serve the purpose I intend for them. If others where to command the result of my labour or the result of my thinking, I would not own either my labour or my mind and so I wouldn't own my body or my mind: slavery. As a note: Working for a wage can never count as slavery as long as the contract was entered free from coercion. Whereas coercion is considered an action that violates my right of self ownership. Coercion by circumstance, as socialist will use the word, is meaningless according to the principle of self ownership.
Physical exclusivness: Where I stand, no one else can stand, where I farm, no one else can farm, where I live, no one else can live (appartment).
Original appropriation: A natural ressource or property must be found, recognized and made fit for consumption. All these involve the activities of body and mind, in one word labour. The first person to ever farm anywhere ownes the plot of land because he has mixed his labour with nature and thus principle 1 applies. This is the rational for the Lockean homesteading rule.
The tragity of the commons: As pratchett put it: 'What belongs to all always appears as if it belongs to no one'.
Redistribution of wealth violates the principle of self ownership and can, under no circumstances, be reconciled with a humain society. The extend of redistrubtion in a society is the extend of which it degenerates from civilisation to a gang of brutes trying to grap ever so much more; with no one producing but everyone consuming. Obviously this can not last long. In the end, they will all be equally miserable, but equal non the less.
I do prefer being governed by impersonal law to being governed by whim of persons and circumstances. Kant has never been outmoded, he is as important today as he ever was. He is the frontline against collectivists and there perversion of morals that teach that only unselfish acts (an impossibility!) are 'good'. He puts up the best fight for indiviual freedom and laws that derive from the morals of freedom.
maybe you should just rip off justicias blind folds. you don't seem to see any use in it anyways. I'm not usually of the religios type, but in this case I'll say 'deity, if thou exist, please prevent this ass and the ones like him from ever ever coming to power anywhere'. How can you legally bring about someones poverty. Last time I checked, property rights were pretty well protected against private assailants. And what the fuck has microsoft done in this case? Just because you are a little more affluent in IT than anywhere else doesn't give you the right to determine abitrary standards of security, below which it suddently becomes a matter of negligence. You should inform yourself about the other insecurities in life, like for example, any type of lock. A normal door can be kicked down in an instant, mostly because the law requires it so that law enforcement can enter hassle free. There is no car that can't be stolen, the amount of time required to do it just ranges from 10 to 60 seconds. Smaller locks, for bicycles and such can usually be opened by hitting it with a hammer on the right spot. No one ever claims that the manufactures are at fault when a crook steals your stuff that way, but suddenly, with computers its all different.
I wonder if you'd said the same thing if anyone had created a human virus. No matter how little harm it had done, the outrage would still be deafening.
Anyways, the victim is never to blame. This is the foundation of all western legal systems. Wearing a short skirt makes you not deserving of being raped, leaving your door unlocked doesn't mean others can steal from you and not upgrading to the latest security patch doesn't make it right to infect you with a virus.
When it comes to the damage done, sasser was not a 'cold'. A cold is not a potential security risk, it doesn't turn the infectees into 'zombies' awaiting orders from their teenage lord. And very unlike a cold, sasser doesn't go away on its own. Lets say you have company 'a' with 2000 PCs, all of which could be infected. Now lets say it takes, in mean, half an hour to clean one pc, so the support staff is busy for 1000 man hours while an other 1000 man hours are wasted because the users can't work while their PC is being fixed. The damage is 2000 man hours * $price, without the worm even having to do anything disruptive at all. But it did, it slowed down performance and I guess also stability, decreasing productivity of computer workers which wasn't even factored in. I am aware that the example is not very realistic since all companys probably use firewalls which would prevent infection by sasser. I don't think that matters much though, because not only company man hours should be valued. Private ones count too. And taken the widespreadness of sasser, puny 5 minutes to clean a pc would be enough to add up to huge damage sums.
Damages are not meant as a deterrent. How much money he has shouldn't play any role. The amount should be according to the actual damage done. If this equals 150K$ I don't know, thats for the courts to decide. Additionally to restoring the damage he has done to the victims, there should be a punishment as well. Maybe 2 years in prison, as a deterrent.
hear, hear. A comprehensive prediction of earths climate for a minimal span of 100,900 years. Probably from a person not sure if there is clean underwear left for tomorrow.
And if you find yourself in the position where some *other* socially-backward group has created the distaster, how about respecting what life is left in the area and using a more responsible food source?
You tree hugging hippies piss me off. What is this 'respect' you talk about? Please define it for me. And then, please go on to lecture the other fly eating offenders, like frogs. See if you can engage anyone but a human in discussions that concerns 'ethics' in the treatment of animals. Oh it doesn't work, I guess thats a strong indication that 'respect' and 'ethics' are useless concepts in nature.
can see the Israelis running with this one
Usually its the islamic side in a conflict that calls its opponents 'dogs'. That would be the palestiniens.
Occams razor says you are wrong. Otherwise, can you come up with any predictions from your theory that can not be explained by this universe being the first level of 'simulation', the original computer if you will?
Slashdot Mirror
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. eh? I wonder how switzerland has virtually no gun crimes and guns (all types) in every home.
Tianimen Square. Its funny how you use the prime example, of what ultimatly happens when a defenseless public is pitted against the might of their government, for disarmend and so deliveration of even more people into defenselessnes, with the only resistance left: the density of your bones against tank tracks.
you do realize that nobody with out the 'Marxist' prefixe will buy into that 'attacked economically' crap. We usually don't get to make up nonsense concepts that might mean anything and not get called on it.
you got it backwards: ordinary citizens with guns are a well regulated (in working order) militia (nonprofessional soldiers, irregular force etc.). The constitution thinks the US needs this, so the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. How clearly do you need to have it spelled out?
are you crazy? Have you even heard of switzerland? Of the current situation in iraq? of somalia? I'll tell you what a couple of guys can do, btw the basic cold war nato defense doctrine against enemy tank columns : Get 3 guys in a jeep, one drives, one has binoculars, one packs a TOW, RPG, Panzerfaust whatever. Wait at the corner of a forest, with clear sight onto the roads, fire and the tank is toast. Millions of dollars just went up in smoke. If you are good you do this at a bridge and hold up the column for a day or two until they cleared the wreckage.
I know the last part of your post is not all serious. But it echos in reality nonetheless. Mark Twain wrote in his second europe/holy land book that the pioneers all carried revolvers but this athmosphere induced discipline. He said something like this: 'If you touch your gun without appearant cause, you better use it, too. Otherwise you'll just get shot, almost in an instance'
Well regulated my friend, well regulated. Ordered would make it much more appearant what really was meant. As I pointed out in a post above, it is insane to believe that the founding fathers (or any one else for that matter) would suggest a state regulated militia (at which point you can just call it an army and be done with it) should be the last defense of liberty against state tyranny. The writers of the constitution where not stupid, they realized that nobody and no thing is perfect, not even their checks-and-balances. For this case the citizens should be armed to prevent an over-ambishious state.
Concerning the nuclear options, this is very much a state problem. Only a state has use for WMDs at all. Morally posession can't be justified because it is an offensive weapon only. Yes, it acts as deterrent but the mass death it incurs is bound to kill others than the one (or however many) where in fact attacking or threatening you. The loss of innocent life is inevitable when using WMDs, this is why they are unacceptable as defensive weapons.
the fact that a militia can have a millitary like structure is not to be confused with the militia being an institution (like the Army). Militia merely refers to a body of 'unprofessional soldiers' which at the time equated to citizens with guns. So appearant conflicts in the 2nd suddenly disolve. 'Well-regulated' can not be taken to mean 'controlled by the state' because it explicitly cites uprising against the state as reason for the amendment. Rather I'd think http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=regulated number 3:
To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
Also, it serves well to inspect the mindset of the writers. Those people basically lived through violent revolt agains their government and it's army. You expect them to recommend the US Army (a state institution itself) as protection against tyranny? No one in their right mind would expect an army to safe guard liberty and surely not the people that just had to fight one which was oppressing them.
RPG are quite inexpensive.
you are just ignorant. Stability is no merit. Ausschwitz was also stable: thousands killed everyday. The comparison is not far fetched, whatever moore showed you, this is was not the face of pre war iraq. Hussein is a butcher but that wasn't the worst of it. The whole party was a collection of butchers, one more psychopathic than the other. Life was not good in iraq before the war. And it is better now, as Iraqis do admit in a number of polls.
Iraq had WMDs. Iraq was obliged to get rid of them, documenting the process thoroughly, by the post gulf war peace accords of the UN. It didn't document anything. The logical assumption is that Iraq hadn't, in fact, dispossed of them. It's not like Hussein didn't want the world thinking he still had them.
and the great health care is surely the reason why canada was the only country in the west that had a SARS outbreak. Your healt care system sucks 2nd world ass and even europeans like me know this.
before judging others you should clean your own goddamned front porch. England has nothing of her grandeure, charm or culture left. The country has thoroughly degenerated into a bunch of alcoholic brutes kicking each other in the nuts after a soccer game. No book, no film, no music (besides Robbie and the Spice Girls), no painting, no poem has made its way out of this shithole you seem to admire so much. Your government, especially Mr. Blair, was left out to dry by Schröder and Chirac while they get to decide what the union will look like tomorrow. Meanwhile Northern Ireland is still repressed by what little is left of the migthy imperial british fist. Your monarchy is a joke for the rest of the world to laugh at. A doddery old woman as the national symbol and head of state. I won't even get into her dysfunct relatives.
If you are small government, pro liberty type republican, as your previous post suggests, you would really want to vote for the guy that dodged the draft. What is honorable about being a government slave? Honor for me means maintaining ones freedom. The amount of honor is equal to the size of the adversary threatening that freedom. It doesn't get biggern than defying the us government.
except that castro isn't elected at all. He basically owns cuba, so much for communism. And if castro and his gang of 'more equals' are so good at communicating and keeping in touch with the 'proletariat' how come you never see people risking their lifes trying to cross over from florida in fruit baskets?
I never thought I would see someone defending an obviously corrupt and repressive regime in my lifetime. Well, never say never as they say.
only a socialist can be so lax with words and at the same time point out myriad detail errors when it concerns their favorite model for society. Firstly, every 'communist' leader must, as Marx himself says, at some point or other have been a socialist. Communsism can't be achieved without a socialist transition period. To your comment:
You haven't got a clue what colonisation and imperalism implies. Talk to people in india if they were 'influenced' by the britons or plainly ruled by them. If you don't see a difference, I'm just sorry for you. But please, name some areas of 'influence' and tell me how the conditions there equate to the concept of 'colonies'. Yeah, Irak was libertated, or what else would you call the bringing of freedom to an oppressed people and allowing them to hold elections and appoint a souvereign government?
Where they succeeded, they were enlisted as 'states' (unless you think all states joined the USA 'willingly'?), where they didn't, they were thrown out
Oh please, the only example would be texas which was stolen from the mexicans. This is clearly not what you had in mind when calling the 'modern' united states imperalistic.
BTW, hitler and mussolini were a prime example of facism, not socialism (though he called his party national-socialism). Whatever. I realize this is socalism sacred cow: Hitler wasn't one of us. Yes, Hitlers Germany had as an attribute 'facist' which only means: Instead of pretenting that the people work for the good of the people ('common good'), which just ends up as the people working for the good of the ruling elite, we go straightly there and equate the states good with the 'common good' and so requiring from everyone to sacrifice all that is asked for the state. If you don't believe me, read up on the socio economic teachings inside the NSDAP and writs by NSDAP members. DAP btw stands for German Workers Party.
What scares the lefties is this: Nazi germany was the most efficient and by a standard most sucessful implementation of socialism yet. Instead of being slowed down by having to maintain a nice, humain facade, the nazis fought their opponents with open violence on the streets and gained influence by all out popularism in elections. They broke alliances, had no respect for life whatsoever and promised 'the people' an epoche of unequaled peace and prosperity. They were in the purest form: hungry for power, opportunistic, millitant and manipulative. This is what it takes to make people completely surrender their lifes into collectivism.
Some points from the NSDAP party program that are clearly socialistic, the rest (which is not quoted) is mostly the nationalistic agenda:
7. Wir fordern, daß sich der Staat verpflichtet, in erster Linie für die Erwerbs- und Lebensmöglichkeit der Bürger zu sorgen. Wenn es nicht möglich ist, die Gesamtbevölkerung des Staates zu ernähren, so sind die Angehörigen fremden Nationen (Nicht-Staatsbürger) aus dem Reiche auszuweisen.
We demand that the state be required to formost care for the income [and life-possibility] of its citizens. If it is not possible to feed all inhabitants of the state, foreigners shall be expelled from the 'Reich'.
10. Erste Pflicht jeden Staatsbürgers muß sein, geistig oder körperlich zu schaffen. Die Tätigkeit des Einzelnen darf nicht gegen die Interessen der Allgemeinheit verstoßen, sondern muß im Rahmen des gesamten und zum Nutzen aller erfolgen.
The duty of every citizen must be to work, with the mind or with the body. The activities of the indiviual must not go contrary to the interest of the public but must be pursued within the whole and to the benefit of all.
11. Abschaffung des arbeits- und mühelosen Einkommens.
[We demand] the abolishment of the work and toil free income [read: income from capital ie. interest
13. Wir fordern die Verstaatlichung aller (bisher) bereits vergesellschaftete
Unlike all european powers, the united states never had colonies, a vital precursor to imperalism. You should get the fuck real and realize that the problems of this world do not stem from american companies or even the military, but solely from idealist demagogues that, over millions of dead bodies, try to errect their special version of paradise, be that an islamic theocracy or socialism: Hitler, Stalin, Mussolinie, Francesco, Pol Pot, Che Guevara/Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Hussein, Kim Il Sung and Mao are just a few examples. Not to mentions the long list of middle east mullas and the countless african socialist dictators. But hey, at least the 'resources' in africa are not in the hands of the evil multinationals but in the hands of the native people (even if they are few).
The difference between revenge and justice is that revenge is carried out by man possesed by actual circumstances instead of inmutable, unpersonal and as objective as possible law and without strict regimes to ensure that whoever is blamed is guilty. Also revenge is unproportional.
Justice, in my opinion (and not just mine), requires two things: restoration and deterence. The two must not be considered to be one. If someone steals a car and crashes it to pulp, don't you think it is fair to make him restore the car to the victim (restoration) and also punish him for the unlawful (and immoral if I might add) act of theft with whatever penalty theft carries? If you dismiss restoration the victim is unduly neglected. The victim could never recoup losses incured by a criminal. If you dismiss deterence (punishment) you basically encourage the criminally incurring of damages to others for personal enrichment since there is always the chance that the perpetrator can get away with this. Punishment servers to heighten the risk a criminal would take, in his view. In other words, stealing 50000$ euros with a 50% chance of having to give it back is far more appealing than a 50% chance of having to give it back AND serving jail time.
The court system in germany is most unfair, I life here so I would know. The utmost consideration is always given to the criminal, his/her harsh background, psychological problems as well as possible causes for not being 'guilt-able' as a judical term here would be translated. If you ever want to murder someone here, make sure you do it in the most inhumain way possible and don't limit yourself to just one person. Make sure it appears as if you didn't have any reason for going on the rampage other than that your mother wouldn't let you play with your poo. Instead of receiving a life sentence in prison (which is 15 years, whatever) with an aditional public security lock-away, you'll just go to a therapy institution where you will be allowed to take lots of walks outside with only an insecure youth supervising you. In your room (it would still be locked, I hope), which you have for yourself, you can watch TV or play some games on the playstation. After a couple of years, the psychiatrist will proclaim that you are healed and you can go.
Of course all is different when you screw over the state, business criminality it is called. Or commit other victimless crimes like dealing drugs. You won't be met with any mercy whatsoever and together with thugs, thieves and child molesters you'll have a nice time in the jail shower.
Your logic is flawed. Not preventing someones death is not equal to causing someones death.
The simplest reason is that property ownership is premised on the assumption that people have certain needs, and to deprive them of what they need is wrong. A secondary, and perhaps accidental, effect of property ownership is the ability for people to have all that they need as well as things they do not need; in essence, luxuries. It is not unrealistic to assign a higher moral value to basic needs than to luxuries. Under such a system it would indeed be right, and indeed a duty, to take from one's luxury for another's need.
The justification of property ownership rest on three moral pillars and one ulitarian:
Self ownership: my body and my mind belong to me and serve, foremost, any use I want to put them to. As such, the fruit of my labour (results of using my body) or my thought (results of using my mind) also belong to me and serve the purpose I intend for them. If others where to command the result of my labour or the result of my thinking, I would not own either my labour or my mind and so I wouldn't own my body or my mind: slavery.
As a note: Working for a wage can never count as slavery as long as the contract was entered free from coercion. Whereas coercion is considered an action that violates my right of self ownership. Coercion by circumstance, as socialist will use the word, is meaningless according to the principle of self ownership.
Physical exclusivness: Where I stand, no one else can stand, where I farm, no one else can farm, where I live, no one else can live (appartment).
Original appropriation: A natural ressource or property must be found, recognized and made fit for consumption. All these involve the activities of body and mind, in one word labour. The first person to ever farm anywhere ownes the plot of land because he has mixed his labour with nature and thus principle 1 applies. This is the rational for the Lockean homesteading rule.
The tragity of the commons: As pratchett put it: 'What belongs to all always appears as if it belongs to no one'.
Redistribution of wealth violates the principle of self ownership and can, under no circumstances, be reconciled with a humain society. The extend of redistrubtion in a society is the extend of which it degenerates from civilisation to a gang of brutes trying to grap ever so much more; with no one producing but everyone consuming. Obviously this can not last long. In the end, they will all be equally miserable, but equal non the less.
I do prefer being governed by impersonal law to being governed by whim of persons and circumstances. Kant has never been outmoded, he is as important today as he ever was. He is the frontline against collectivists and there perversion of morals that teach that only unselfish acts (an impossibility!) are 'good'. He puts up the best fight for indiviual freedom and laws that derive from the morals of freedom.
maybe you should just rip off justicias blind folds. you don't seem to see any use in it anyways. I'm not usually of the religios type, but in this case I'll say 'deity, if thou exist, please prevent this ass and the ones like him from ever ever coming to power anywhere'. How can you legally bring about someones poverty. Last time I checked, property rights were pretty well protected against private assailants. And what the fuck has microsoft done in this case? Just because you are a little more affluent in IT than anywhere else doesn't give you the right to determine abitrary standards of security, below which it suddently becomes a matter of negligence. You should inform yourself about the other insecurities in life, like for example, any type of lock. A normal door can be kicked down in an instant, mostly because the law requires it so that law enforcement can enter hassle free. There is no car that can't be stolen, the amount of time required to do it just ranges from 10 to 60 seconds. Smaller locks, for bicycles and such can usually be opened by hitting it with a hammer on the right spot. No one ever claims that the manufactures are at fault when a crook steals your stuff that way, but suddenly, with computers its all different.
I wonder if you'd said the same thing if anyone had created a human virus. No matter how little harm it had done, the outrage would still be deafening.
Anyways, the victim is never to blame. This is the foundation of all western legal systems. Wearing a short skirt makes you not deserving of being raped, leaving your door unlocked doesn't mean others can steal from you and not upgrading to the latest security patch doesn't make it right to infect you with a virus.
When it comes to the damage done, sasser was not a 'cold'. A cold is not a potential security risk, it doesn't turn the infectees into 'zombies' awaiting orders from their teenage lord. And very unlike a cold, sasser doesn't go away on its own. Lets say you have company 'a' with 2000 PCs, all of which could be infected. Now lets say it takes, in mean, half an hour to clean one pc, so the support staff is busy for 1000 man hours while an other 1000 man hours are wasted because the users can't work while their PC is being fixed. The damage is 2000 man hours * $price, without the worm even having to do anything disruptive at all. But it did, it slowed down performance and I guess also stability, decreasing productivity of computer workers which wasn't even factored in. I am aware that the example is not very realistic since all companys probably use firewalls which would prevent infection by sasser. I don't think that matters much though, because not only company man hours should be valued. Private ones count too. And taken the widespreadness of sasser, puny 5 minutes to clean a pc would be enough to add up to huge damage sums.
Damages are not meant as a deterrent. How much money he has shouldn't play any role. The amount should be according to the actual damage done. If this equals 150K$ I don't know, thats for the courts to decide. Additionally to restoring the damage he has done to the victims, there should be a punishment as well. Maybe 2 years in prison, as a deterrent.
hear, hear. A comprehensive prediction of earths climate for a minimal span of 100,900 years. Probably from a person not sure if there is clean underwear left for tomorrow.
And if you find yourself in the position where some *other* socially-backward group has created the distaster, how about respecting what life is left in the area and using a more responsible food source?
You tree hugging hippies piss me off. What is this 'respect' you talk about? Please define it for me. And then, please go on to lecture the other fly eating offenders, like frogs. See if you can engage anyone but a human in discussions that concerns 'ethics' in the treatment of animals. Oh it doesn't work, I guess thats a strong indication that 'respect' and 'ethics' are useless concepts in nature.
can see the Israelis running with this one
Usually its the islamic side in a conflict that calls its opponents 'dogs'. That would be the palestiniens.
Occams razor says you are wrong. Otherwise, can you come up with any predictions from your theory that can not be explained by this universe being the first level of 'simulation', the original computer if you will?