It is wrong to punish people for being successful.
Tax is not punishment for being successful. Tax is not punishment for being successful. Tax is not punishment for being successful.
I can certainly sympathize with the suffering and misery of other successful people. We, successful people, have a very hard time getting by in this world. Just look at the infant mortality rate of successful infants, and the life expectancy rate or quality of living ratings of successful people. Of the quality of healthcare successful children get. Or the amount of time successful parents can spend with successful children. Abysmal. all around.
What an easy time of it, the poor have. Taking all the shitty jobs, we succcessful people would never stoop so low to perform. Cleaning our toilets, picking up our trash, picking our cotton, guarding our office buildings, and going to shitty public schools, where the students are so lazy they use 30 year old textbooks.
The poor should be greatful for the charity of us successful people. If it wasn't for us, then perhaps THEY would be successful.
Why can't the poor just accept the fact that pure unadulterated capitalism is the best substitute for actual morality.
America is still a country where absolutely anyone with a functioning mind can become wealthy if they are honest with themselves, and work hard enough.
America is also still a country where absolutely anyone with the right background, education, political connections and friends can become super-wealthy if they accept and defend the power structure in this system and work to support and defend the status quo and insure the wealthy stay wealthy and the poor shut the fuck up and get back to work, or quit and watch their kids starve. And having rich parents also helps.
Or you can win a lottery.
Because let us be honest with ourselves now. In America being honest with your fellow man, and admitting THE SYSTEM IS NOT FAIR certainly doesn't pay a good dividend on the dollar.
Due dilligence is important, but if this is absent, it's just another case of laziness.
However, as laws are designed to serve the rich, the poor are consequently more likely to be criminals, and if charged more likely to be represented by bad lawyers, and therefore less likely to be able to have wiretap evidence excluded from trial, when the police abuse their wiretapping powers.
This is just plain old fashion fiscal prudence. And completely fair.
If you dont want to pay the government to monitor your communications, then you have the right to remain silent.
And remember... the terrorists wouldn't be so generous.
He (the skiddiot case) may need it, but no one can give him that under current law. So, you observe and wait.
Under current law (in many or most jurisdictions), attempting to commit a crime is also a crime. It may have a less severe punishment than a successful crime but it is a crime none the less.
To run with the analogy, if a cop sees a kid going down a row of cars testing door handles, he won't just run out and arrest him. The cop will wait until the kid comes across an unlocked door, rummages through the car, and takes something. Then the cop will arrest him. The cop waits because until the kid takes something, it's not a clear cut case. Sure, the kid is doing wrong, but the cop doesn't have enough ammo to really get him. Some people might take a "no harm, no foul" attitude.
The "no harm, no foul" attitude is not part of the criminal justice system. All sorts of people are jailed without having actually directly caused harm.
The cop has a duty to arrest someone he sees commiting a crime (even the crime of attempt). Allowing someone to attempt theft and not arresting them but waiting until they actually succeed, would be akin to watching a fight and allowing the fight to continue in the hopes that someone is really hurt badly, so that rather than merely getting a simple assault charge he can nail someone for aggravated assault or perhaps murder.
Unfortunately this is probably the attitude of most cops, and this attitude is misplaced.
Some studies show that that the probability of being caught has as great or greater effect than the severity of punishment on deterrence.
So what if the kid only gets a slap on the wrist? In all probability the person attempting to commit theft will plead guilty, they get a slap on the wrist, perhaps some counseling and know that the next time they try another stunt the punishment will be worse.
Being punished (even in a minor way) may just be the wake up call needed to steer him away from crime.
In all probability a jury would convict someone of attempted theft in such a case or computer hacking.
If I was 12 and got caught doing something dumb like trying to log in as root like that, I'd just counter with the defense that I got the IP address wrong. "Oh, that waas your server? My buddies must have been playing a joke on me...he said that was his machine." I'd most likely get off, and walk away with a feeling that I was untouchable on the net.
Prior to being arrested of course, your computer systems will be seized as evidence, and if the search warrant does turn up all sorts of computer hacking related material on your system, you can be convicted of conspiracy (which is often worse than attempt).
And the pain of losing your computer systems for 12 months or so while the case is in court is quite a sever punishment in and of itself, even if you manage to weasle your way out of it. And certainly is more of a punishment than not being arrested at all.
Dont forget the possible bail conditions which may be imposed while trial is pending.
Cops letting minor criminals off in the hopes of nailing them for something bigger is unjust and a conflict of interest, and abuse of process. It gives the public the impression that cops actually WANT people to commit serious crimes.
The correct attitude for a cop is : I sure hope that fellow does NOT commit a more serious crime. IMHO. I would hate to think cops watched crimes in progress and harboured the hope that more serious crimes would follow.
Such police conduct also defeats the intentions of lawmakers who put those minor crimes on the books.
Cops should do their job, and enforce the law. All laws. Without favoratism. If there is not enough resources to do the job, then lawmakers should allocate more. It should not be the police who unilaterally decide to stop prosecuting minor crimes to save money.
I think it would be better to get minor criminals while they are just minor
You're completely wrong, and clearly don't understand the words you're using for several reasons: first, the phrase 'ad hominem' is an argumentative term and one of the most dangerous logical fallacies. It refers to when you attack the person without addressing the argument, which is meaningless since an argument stands on its own merits, not that of the person giving it. Second, 'ad personum' is not a phrase with similar meaning: ad personum means "on a personal basis" and refers to the method by which you determine whether someone violated a rule. Try looking up things you don't understand before using them in arguments. Third, when I called the poster "contrarian" I was not suggesting that was a flaw in the argument, but rather commenting on the apparent motivations of the person. My disagreement with their stance was based solely on my logical points.
Have you ever heard of the story of the trolls who were planning to eat the hobbits. They argued about how to do it for so long that the sun came up, and the trolls were reified. I am trying to find your argument but it seems to be lost in all the words.
'ad personum' is not a phrase with similar meaning: [as ad hominem]
I didn't say it was. You are generalizing my argument beyond its original scope.
An argument can suffer from both fallacies. And yours did.
Third, when I called the poster "contrarian" I was not suggesting that was a flaw in the argument, but rather commenting on the apparent motivations of the person.
So now you are arguing that in fact, what you were doing was making an irrelevant personal remark rather than actually attacking the argument? What logical fallacy is more "dangerous"?
Moreover he did give an argument in support of his contention. compassion.
Try looking up things you don't understand before using them in arguments.
Before I rely on any of your points in any future argument I will certainly "try" looking them up. However, I don't suspect I'll find them. They make no sense.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your points, since I don't feel any of them are anything but repetition of your claim that revenge is automatically bad.
I claimed no such thing. You are incredible.
I will however mention that you again misuse a few terms:
No I don't.
"prima facae" means "on first glance" or "without analysis",
That is how I used it.
...and refers to problems with a hypothesis (or claim) that are apparent without any discussion. In other words, they're points that can be made immediately, without argumentation, from the initial claim.
You seem to be arguing that Prima facae means, "at no glance" or "without logic". It doesn't. It simply is a threshold of proof which precludes any analysis which would require a weighing of evidence.
Your literal translation although fine, still leaves your explanation wrong.
To say that "The act of revenge is moral in a general case" is prima facae wrong because "on first glance" and without a "weighing" of any facts pertinant to a specific case, and accepting all the arguments, which are not self contradictory or irrelevant or logically false, one will conclude the act is wrong.
Prima Facae does not mean universally true. Just because I say revenge is prima facae wrong, it does not mean that I am claiming that in particular cases after a full analysis, on a second (or third or 10th) glance, revenge can not ultimately be proven to be good.
I believe revenge will not be proven to be good, however I argue that the onus is not on me to prove this.
In the way you use it, following two argumentative steps, its innapropriate.
Without weighing any of the specific considerations, one can prove revenge is prima facae wrong. If that can be done (and it was), the onus would be on the proponent to argue for it. Not the other way aroun
What you're doing here is just being contrarian. Its always been agreed by philosophers that revenge was as potentially valid a reason for punishment as rehabilitation or protection.
Just out of curiousity. Which philophers argue that revenge is a valid reason for punishment? I would argue against those philosophers as I will argue now against you.
You simply assume that revenge is an invalid reason, without providing any argument thereof. Worse, you call it 'absurd' to believe in vengeance, almost definately creating an ad hominem argument since you [again] haven't provided an argument.
Dismissing an argument by simply labeling it ad hominem then name-calling the arguer as being "simply contrarian" is an ad hominem argument itself, and far worse, it is ad personum.
The fact that revenge is absurd is easy to establish. And obvious to anyone with any sense or intelligence beyond the preschool level. No. It is "you" who are simply being contrarian. You are arguing a position that you could not possibly believe in.
Furthermore, you are using argumentum ad vericundiam by deferring to the authority of the 'philosophers'. Philosophers you do not even bother to identify. Philosophers which obviously do not exist, unless they are as contrarian and senseless as you. Your reliance on the authority of these so called philosophers isn't going to fool anyone.
You want a valid reason for vengeance? One is that it can be preventative, i.e. a deterrant. Obviously it cannot be in one-hundred-percent of the cases, but thats why most justice systems are hybrids [of two or three of the purposes for punishment].
But "deterrence" is already one of the stated purposes for punishment. Therefore courts are free to apply whatever remedy will accomplish deterrence. This may include causing reasonable harm to the convict, that can be justified by the benefit of the deterrence.
Because the court is already free to achieve as much deterrance as it deems to be justified, the kind of revenge you must be advocating, is the kind of revenge that actually does not provide deterrence.
Want another reason? Vengeance is capitalist: it suggests that there is a value to all things, i.e. goods and services including people and property, and that you are responsible for making retribution to the value you take from someone: if you take their hand, you deserve to pay the price you unfairly exacted from them.
Clearly you must agree therefore that revenge has no place in a socially just society, as capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with justice.
But even though you agree that revenge is not appropriate in a just society, your argument does not favour revenge in a capitalist society.
The victim gets nothing of any worth of the revenge. No capital. Furthermore, your premise that a principle of capitalism is 'making retribution to the value you take from someone' is utter nonsense. The principle of capitalism is making MORE than the value you take from someone, or in the alternative paying less. Buy low... sell high. No capitalist would invest money in an enterprise, if their only hope was to get exactly the same amount of money in return. They could just hang on to their money and make the same return.
No. It is CRIME which is capitalist. And it is CRIME that you are advocating when you advocate revenge.
No one suggests that it makes everything 'even' or 'square', but rather helps appease the pain of loss for your victim[s].
only if your victims are sadists or cruel.
However, when you are on the topic of appeasing the urges of the cruel and the sadistic: couldn't giving the victims a 'free pass' to commit murder and mayhem also appease such urges? Why is it better to inflict unjustified harm on the criminal, rather than on the innocent? That is.. if appeasement (rather than actual justice) is your only argument in favour of revenge.
It is equally obvious that the blame lies with all of you: If you did't commit terrorism, then no-one would have had to pass the PATRIOT act.
You've already got yourself into enough shit with 9/11. And now with the 3/11 you are still at it. Why don't you pirates, I mean terrorists ever learn?
If you keep on with this terrorism I mean piracy, then the RIAA, I mean the "coalition" of the willing will have to Shock and Awe the rest of your civil liberties faster than you can say "Movie Rights", in order to protect your (our) freedom.
Don't let it (youself) go any further.
Freedom (global trade) is Gods gift to mankind (corporate america). And God wants America (the Republican Party) to bring Freedom (God's Gift) to the world (international corporations).
God Bless America. I mean God bless corporate America. Ahh shucks. God Bless Corporations. Screw the rest of you. Nothing but a bunch of good for nothing thieves, crybabies, treehuggers, filesharers, and future criminals.
Presumably you could "virtually" own IP. But the real IP doesn't follow.
In fact, you can not in any meaningful sense OWN virtual property, because you are REAL. Only virtual characters can possibly own virtual things, and only real people may own real things.
(Corporations being considered people by act of a legal fiction.)
If a virtual character virtually owned a virtual copyright to the song "HELP" by the Beatles, you would own nothing, and the virtual character would not have the right to make a REAL copy of the song "HELP" including playing the song in a way that REAL people could hear it with their ears. Perhaps they have the right to cause "Bozo Performs the song "HELP"" to be displayed on the screen. But that depend on the mechanics of the game, rather than real world IP, since no real copy of the song is being used.
And moreover... the PLAYER doesn't own anything. It is the virtual Character which has virtual ownership.
I would argue that anyone who SOLD a +10 bastard sword (or whatever) for $100 has commited REAL WORLD fraud, in that they misrepresented themselves as actually OWNING a +10 bastard sword which they had any kind of authority to sell. They never OWNED a +10 bastard sword, and could not possibly sell one.
If you paid $100 for me to transfer an item "in game" from my Character to your character, then you got what you paid for. The Act of tranferance is all the $100 paid for. The bottom line is that the sword could melt before your very eyes if the DM/game administrators thought it would make a good plot hook. And if you didn't know that, you are a dweeb who should not be playing role-playing games. (or you should go read the rules).
I am a Dungeon Master (in tabletop RPGs) and the items listed in my PC's equipment lists certainly do not belong to the players in a virtual or real sense. They belong to the PCs (in a virtual sense).
I simply allow my players to PLAY (that is access) those characters. Ultimately it really boils down to this. The PLAYERS own no rights, virtual or otherwise in the game world.
Whatever "virtually" happens in the game is NOT REAL it is make belief. If a player doesn't like that his character died, I sympathize. Was that person harmed in the real world? absolutely NOT.
Any Court which ruled otherwise has no f*cking clue, what make belief is, and is a *serious* threat to freedom of expression.
Such a court is equally likely to rule that Player-killing in virtual land, is murder.
Well, certainly Slim Fast executives should decide what "images" they want to buy from people.
"it excerised its freedom of speech by not allowing that image to be showcased on its dime. "
I agree with you that Whoopi has no big cause for complaint. She is selling an image. Her argument was that this is not a new image for her. This has always been her image. Slim Fast got what it payed for.
I only disagree with you on whether what slim fast did - stop paying Whoopi money- (which is not wrong in this case) is technically a free speech issue. I say it is a property rights issue.
I think if Slim Fast publically spoke out and said Whoopi is wrong or Whoopi is a fool, then *that* would be a free speech issue.
However this event does raise a valid (to me) issue to light.
Very many employers do actually believe their employees free speech rights to be waved either while on the job. Employers demonstrate this whenever they have policies to the effect of "no personal phone calls".. "all email is monitered".."please submit a urine sample for drug testing" etc.
In any event it is too late.
We all know that Slim Fast considers the President's name to derive from a part of the female anatomy. Whoopi told us so. And Slim Fast payed her to tell us. Everyone who uses Slim Fast agrees.
I am quite certain that firing an employee or terminating a contract is NOT an exercise of First Ammendment rights.
I for one will make sure to purchase whatever product Whoopi decides to endorse in the future just to spite Slim Fast. What a bunch of twits.
There are still lots of fat democrats who would buy Slim Fast, even if they kept Whoopi on the payroll.
The moral: your rights are dictated by your employer, you are not a free person, you are property, "owned" by your employer, and you will do and say what you are told, both on and off the job.
"what bt hsould do is report the customers who access specific flagged sites and let the authorities investigate the customers intent (check their names against a known offenders list)."
because accepted wisdom says that if you are on the "list" then your intent is criminal, but if you are not on the list, then your intentions are pure
Perhaps what you should do is let the authorities put cameras and microphones in your home. That way if you ever do anything wrong, they can check you against their list to figure out your intent.
Better to be on the safe sife. Who knows what kind of mischief you will get into if you are allowed to have such unfettered freedom and privacy. Why should the authorities trust you? Everyone knows that statistically speaking the probability is that only reason you are not on the "list" (assuming that you aren't) is because you simply haven't been caught yet.
Obviously you've been listening to too many Christmas songs, about a certain jolly old elf from the north pole because it is clear you have the authorities confused with Santa Claus and His list.
Neither, BT, nor the authorities, have any business speculating what the "intentions" of its customers are, until those customers commit a bona fide criminal offence. And at that point BT still has no busniess speculating, because BT is not a branch of the Justice arm of the state, and BT is not a victim or damaged in any way.
And if BT did decide to invade the privacy rights of its customers and turn over the logs to police without any kind of judicial oversight. What should the police do?
Charge someone with attempting to view material which that person can never see. If you can't even see it, how could it be proven that you knew what it, that you did not access, was?
Once as a society we are spending so much money on law enforcement that police have enough free time to engage in speculative law enforcement (rather than prosecuting and investigating bona fide crimes with actual witnesses and actual complainants) then we are not living in a free and democratic society but a police state.
"So unless YOU are gonna get OFF YOUR ASS, and do something other than POST on slashdot about how you hate the RIAA then STFU and STOP COMPLAINING."
Perhaps you should follow your own advice.
Unless you are going to do something about the complainers then STFU yourself and STOP COMPLAINING about the fact that other people are complaining.
Complaining is "doing something". It may not be doing much, but it is better than doing nothing.
Not everyone has the means, motivitation or bravery to take direct political action but taking the time to complain is a lot better than just standing by as a silent witness to something you disapprove of.
I said: Democracy depends on having a powerful government.
You said: I don't agree with this at all. In fact I believe that the opposite is true--democracy depends on having a gov't weak enough that those elected cannot make themselves perpetual rulers.
my reply: If government is so weak that it is not able to enforce democratic decisions arrived at democratically, then the "term" democracy is rather pointless. We (you and I) can create a new government any time. We can have free elections, and implement the most democratic system devised by science. However, it wont matter because our new government will have no power to actually enforce those decisions upon its constituents.
That is what I meant by saying democracy depends on a strong government. If the "people" vote to criminalize poluting the atmosphere, but the government responsible for enforcing that democratic decision lacks the funds/manpower/authority to enforce that decision. We can not say that democracy exists. It may serve the polluters very well that government is weak. But it really doesn't accomplish the goals of democracy if government can't accomplish the "will of the people".
As for your point that "democracy depends on having a gov't weak enough that those elected cannot make themselves perpetual rulers."
Your point is well made. And exactly how "weak" is that? What happens when some private interest other than the government accomplished the necessary strength to make itself perpetual ruler?
Would you agree that the government must be strong enough to prevent anyone from making him/herself the perpetual ruler?
And if a government must be strong enough to protect its citizens from a private concern becoming perpetual ruler, would that not by definition mean the government itself must be perpetual ruler?
If there is never a "Ruler" to begin with, then there can never be a "ruler" to perpetuate. The problem does not come from government being powerful. The problem I believe is from government bestowing too much power and too much authority and too much faith in 1 person, or even 1 personally connected group of individuals.
I would like to know of a single example of a "weak" democratic government which has succeeded?
Perhaps true. However, canadian/US citizens don't require passports to travel between USA/Canada.
This is just the first step to justifying biometric measurements on drivers licenses, and other forms of government ID.
afterall, what is the point of having biometrics on the Canadian passport, if an enemy combatant can simply use a fake drivers license and a fake birth certificate to enter the "homeland".
Or, use the age old ploy of simply using legal documentation obtained properly or even fraudulently. Not every enemy combatant is an illegal alien, and not every person with legal documentation told the complete truth on their immigration application.
I said 'democratic' governments can be overthrown.
I can't help it if America only just barely has democracy. It is (still) a far cry better than the alternative (being pushed for by GWB and company).
I don't remember the word for it... a government run by the wealthy.
ohh... I remember. "corporation."
I agree with your statement.
"Anyone who has power will typically do anything in their power to hold onto it. "
This is why it is absolutely necessary to make sure no single person, organization, or branch of government achieves excessive power.
Of course there is a very strong incentive for any group which has gained power in a democracy to supress democratic processes within society in order to retain power. This happens on an ongoing basis. And it must be resisted and opposed at every turn.
If the government is strong (and democratic), this can be done without violence. If the government is weak (or non-democratic), how else could it possibly be done?
Democracy is a threat to the accumulation of excessive power in a single group because by its very definition democracy is founded on distributed power amongst all people. A strong Democracy is the best protection against the dangers of too much power accumulated amongst too few people.
If 90% the power is controlled by 1% of the population, it makes no difference what the people actually want.
Some (or many?) republicans would argue that the government should own as little as it can possibly own, and no more. This would appear to be just enough capital to operate an underpaid but rather large police force to put dissidants, draft dodgers and the occasional actual criminal in privately owned and operated (for profit) jails.
The idea that all government is implicitly totalitarian seems to justify this. But while governments officials may be tempted to abuse their power, CEO's are expected to (as long as it benefits shareholders).
A contract can not be entered into when 1 party is under duress or threat. And when an employer tries to argue that minimum wage (for example) is immoral because it costs jobs, that employer is blind to the fact that no one would willingly work for such a low wage, except that the alternative was death from starvation or jail. The "contract" was not consentual. It is slavery.
capitalism is great. As long as the power and capital is spread around rather than highly concentrated.
I applaud Bobby Fischer for playing Chess in the former Republic of Yugoslavia.
Instead of focusing on the absolute size of "government", the focus should be on the relative concentration of power within the population. (be that via oppressive government or oppressive corporate private ownership).
If 90% of all capital is controlled by 1% of the population, is it better for the other 99% that the ruling 1% consists of private ownership, instead of "public officials"? Ultimately 1% of the people are making all the important decisions either way. The other 99% get screwed.
Big Business is as bad, or worse than Big Government. Both are bad, but at least a democratic government recognizes some basic fundamental human rights, and is typically based on some kind of system of morality. And a democratic government can be overthrown morally (without killing anyone), if the government fails to carry out the wishes of its people.
Reckless Tax cuts, and programs which benefit the already rich, do nothing but further concentrate power in the hands of a few elite "businessmen" and further disenfranchize the majority of the population. Tax cuts and programs directed to consumers more or less evenly benefit the economy just as much as tax cuts for a few large corporations. However tax cuts and programs for the poor and middle class (who basically do not accumulate any particular power or wealth) do not increase the concentration of power in the hands of a small minority of people, but diversify power, and give the population as a whole a stake in the economic process.
Hard core conservatives really seem to want to bring back the good old days of feudalism, or perhaps a better system. Feudalism without even a pretext of human morality (such as honour, justice or religion), but rather only "corporate morality".
Leaving issues such as abortion of gay marriage aside (because they have nothing to do with economics).
Democracy depends on having a powerful government. What difference does it make if we have free elections and democracy if the government is so powerless and debt ridden it is completely incapable of affecting any change.
I have seen my fair share of government screw ups and waste. But at least in that case the harm hit all citizens more or less equally (and all citizens in part shared the blame for looking the other way instead of demanding the government to be more transparent and responsible to the public). And more often than not. Government screw ups, really are screw ups (mistakes). And in the cases where they are actually full out crimes, they were almost always associated with corporate motives, rather than a desire of the government itself to do something bad.
But the victims of corporate screw ups are generally harmed far more severely, and corporations commit the bad deed almost always as a direct result of its mandate to maximize profits by any means necessary. The victims are generally out of luck with no recourse, as the perpetrators of the crime have declared bankruptcy.
Democratic Governments accept liability for things without the necessity for proof of absolute wrong doing. I.e. in disaster relief, or relief of victims of disease outbreaks, etc.
Corporations are not obligated to assist victims of anything in any way.
GWB seems to be interested in having a small but symbolic american government, totally and completely in debt and utterly beholden to a small number of multinational corporations or oligopolies (to which the government will owe trillians upon trillians of dollars). Sure the government will be small. But the the national debt will be huge. And you can never possibly pay it off, and after you die, then its debt will shift to your children. And if you dont have kids. That is ok too. Your share of the debt will shift to every other surviving american citizen.
But even worse. GWB and republicans, seem to be willing to use military force, or the threat of mility force to force every other government in the entire world to enter into the same kind of relationship with the big business.
Slashdot Mirror
As the old saying goes.
We lose a little on each sale, but make up for it in volume.
It is wrong to punish people for being successful.
Tax is not punishment for being successful.
Tax is not punishment for being successful.
Tax is not punishment for being successful.
I can certainly sympathize with the suffering and misery of other successful people. We, successful people, have a very hard time getting by in this world. Just look at the infant mortality rate of successful infants, and the life expectancy rate or quality of living ratings of successful people.
Of the quality of healthcare successful children get. Or the amount of time successful parents can spend with successful children.
Abysmal. all around.
What an easy time of it, the poor have. Taking all the shitty jobs, we succcessful people would never stoop so low to perform. Cleaning our toilets, picking up our trash, picking our cotton, guarding our office buildings, and going to shitty public schools, where the students are so lazy they use 30 year old textbooks.
The poor should be greatful for the charity of us successful people. If it wasn't for us, then perhaps THEY would be successful.
Why can't the poor just accept the fact that pure unadulterated capitalism is the best substitute for actual morality.
America is still a country where absolutely anyone with a functioning mind can become wealthy if they are honest with themselves, and work hard enough.
America is also still a country where absolutely anyone with the right background, education, political connections and friends can become super-wealthy if they accept and defend the power structure in this system and work to support and defend the status quo and insure the wealthy stay wealthy and the poor shut the fuck up and get back to work, or quit and watch their kids starve. And having rich parents also helps.
Or you can win a lottery.
Because let us be honest with ourselves now. In America being honest with your fellow man, and admitting THE SYSTEM IS NOT FAIR certainly doesn't pay a good dividend on the dollar.
Due dilligence is important, but if this is absent, it's just another case of laziness.
Or inferior lifestyle choices.
However, as laws are designed to serve the rich, the poor are consequently more likely to be criminals, and if charged more likely to be represented by bad lawyers, and therefore less likely to be able to have wiretap evidence excluded from trial, when the police abuse their wiretapping powers.
This is just plain old fashion fiscal prudence.
And completely fair.
If you dont want to pay the government to monitor your communications, then you have the right to remain silent.
And remember... the terrorists wouldn't be so generous.
He (the skiddiot case) may need it, but no one can give him that under current law. So, you observe and wait.
Under current law (in many or most jurisdictions), attempting to commit a crime is also a crime. It may have a less severe punishment than a successful crime but it is a crime none the less.
To run with the analogy, if a cop sees a kid going down a row of cars testing door handles, he won't just run out and arrest him. The cop will wait until the kid comes across an unlocked door, rummages through the car, and takes something. Then the cop will arrest him. The cop waits because until the kid takes something, it's not a clear cut case. Sure, the kid is doing wrong, but the cop doesn't have enough ammo to really get him. Some people might take a "no harm, no foul" attitude.
The "no harm, no foul" attitude is not part of the criminal justice system. All sorts of people are jailed without having actually directly caused harm.
The cop has a duty to arrest someone he sees commiting a crime (even the crime of attempt). Allowing someone to attempt theft and not arresting them but waiting until they actually succeed, would be akin to watching a fight and allowing the fight to continue in the hopes that someone is really hurt badly, so that rather than merely getting a simple assault charge he can nail someone for aggravated assault or perhaps murder.
Unfortunately this is probably the attitude of most cops, and this attitude is misplaced.
Some studies show that that the probability of being caught has as great or greater effect than the severity of punishment on deterrence.
So what if the kid only gets a slap on the wrist?
In all probability the person attempting to commit theft will plead guilty, they get a slap on the wrist, perhaps some counseling and know that the next time they try another stunt the punishment will be worse.
Being punished (even in a minor way) may just be the wake up call needed to steer him away from crime.
In all probability a jury would convict someone of attempted theft in such a case or computer hacking.
If I was 12 and got caught doing something dumb like trying to log in as root like that, I'd just counter with the defense that I got the IP address wrong. "Oh, that waas your server? My buddies must have been playing a joke on me...he said that was his machine." I'd most likely get off, and walk away with a feeling that I was untouchable on the net.
Prior to being arrested of course, your computer systems will be seized as evidence, and if the search warrant does turn up all sorts of computer hacking related material on your system, you can be convicted of conspiracy (which is often worse than attempt).
And the pain of losing your computer systems for 12 months or so while the case is in court is quite a sever punishment in and of itself, even if you manage to weasle your way out of it. And certainly is more of a punishment than not being arrested at all.
Dont forget the possible bail conditions which may be imposed while trial is pending.
Cops letting minor criminals off in the hopes of nailing them for something bigger is unjust and a conflict of interest, and abuse of process. It gives the public the impression that cops actually WANT people to commit serious crimes.
The correct attitude for a cop is : I sure hope that fellow does NOT commit a more serious crime.
IMHO. I would hate to think cops watched crimes in progress and harboured the hope that more serious crimes would follow.
Such police conduct also defeats the intentions of lawmakers who put those minor crimes on the books.
Cops should do their job, and enforce the law. All laws. Without favoratism. If there is not enough resources to do the job, then lawmakers should allocate more. It should not be the police who unilaterally decide to stop prosecuting minor crimes to save money.
I think it would be better to get minor criminals while they are just minor
You're completely wrong, and clearly don't understand the words you're using for several reasons: first, the phrase 'ad hominem' is an argumentative term and one of the most dangerous logical fallacies. It refers to when you attack the person without addressing the argument, which is meaningless since an argument stands on its own merits, not that of the person giving it. Second, 'ad personum' is not a phrase with similar meaning: ad personum means "on a personal basis" and refers to the method by which you determine whether someone violated a rule. Try looking up things you don't understand before using them in arguments. Third, when I called the poster "contrarian" I was not suggesting that was a flaw in the argument, but rather commenting on the apparent motivations of the person. My disagreement with their stance was based solely on my logical points.
...and refers to problems with a hypothesis (or
Have you ever heard of the story of the trolls who were planning to eat the hobbits. They argued about how to do it for so long that the sun came up, and the trolls were reified. I am trying to find your argument but it seems to be lost in all the words.
'ad personum' is not a phrase with similar meaning: [as ad hominem]
I didn't say it was. You are generalizing my argument beyond its original scope.
An argument can suffer from both fallacies. And yours did.
Third, when I called the poster "contrarian" I was not suggesting that was a flaw in the argument, but rather commenting on the apparent motivations of the person.
So now you are arguing that in fact, what you were doing was making an irrelevant personal remark rather than actually attacking the argument? What logical fallacy is more "dangerous"?
Moreover he did give an argument in support of his contention. compassion.
Try looking up things you don't understand before using them in arguments.
Before I rely on any of your points in any future argument I will certainly "try" looking them up. However, I don't suspect I'll find them. They make no sense.
I'm not going to bother with the rest of your points, since I don't feel any of them are anything but repetition of your claim that revenge is automatically bad.
I claimed no such thing. You are incredible.
I will however mention that you again misuse a few terms:
No I don't.
"prima facae" means "on first glance" or "without analysis",
That is how I used it.
claim) that are apparent without any discussion. In other words, they're points that can be made immediately, without argumentation, from the initial claim.
You seem to be arguing that Prima facae means, "at no glance" or "without logic". It doesn't.
It simply is a threshold of proof which precludes any analysis which would require a weighing of evidence.
Your literal translation although fine, still leaves your explanation wrong.
To say that "The act of revenge is moral in a general case" is prima facae wrong because "on first glance" and without a "weighing" of any facts pertinant to a specific case, and accepting all the arguments, which are not self contradictory or irrelevant or logically false, one will conclude the act is wrong.
Prima Facae does not mean universally true. Just because I say revenge is prima facae wrong, it does not mean that I am claiming that in particular cases after a full analysis, on a second (or third or 10th) glance, revenge can not ultimately be proven to be good.
I believe revenge will not be proven to be good, however I argue that the onus is not on me to prove this.
In the way you use it, following two argumentative steps, its innapropriate.
Without weighing any of the specific considerations, one can prove revenge is prima facae wrong. If that can be done (and it was), the onus would be on the proponent to argue for it. Not the other way aroun
What you're doing here is just being contrarian. Its always been agreed by philosophers that revenge was as potentially valid a reason for punishment as rehabilitation or protection.
Just out of curiousity. Which philophers argue that revenge is a valid reason for punishment? I would argue against those philosophers as I will argue now against you.
You simply assume that revenge is an invalid reason, without providing any argument thereof. Worse, you call it 'absurd' to believe in vengeance, almost definately creating an ad hominem argument since you [again] haven't provided an argument.
Dismissing an argument by simply labeling it ad hominem then name-calling the arguer as being "simply contrarian" is an ad hominem argument itself, and far worse, it is ad personum.
The fact that revenge is absurd is easy to establish. And obvious to anyone with any sense or intelligence beyond the preschool level. No. It is "you" who are simply being contrarian. You are arguing a position that you could not possibly believe in.
Furthermore, you are using argumentum ad vericundiam by deferring to the authority of the 'philosophers'. Philosophers you do not even bother to identify. Philosophers which obviously do not exist, unless they are as contrarian and senseless as you. Your reliance on the authority of these so called philosophers isn't going to fool anyone.
You want a valid reason for vengeance? One is that it can be preventative, i.e. a deterrant. Obviously it cannot be in one-hundred-percent of the cases, but thats why most justice systems are hybrids [of two or three of the purposes for punishment].
But "deterrence" is already one of the stated purposes for punishment. Therefore courts are free to apply whatever remedy will accomplish deterrence. This may include causing reasonable harm to the convict, that can be justified by the benefit of the deterrence.
Because the court is already free to achieve as much deterrance as it deems to be justified, the kind of revenge you must be advocating, is the kind of revenge that actually does not provide deterrence.
Want another reason? Vengeance is capitalist: it suggests that there is a value to all things, i.e. goods and services including people and property, and that you are responsible for making retribution to the value you take from someone: if you take their hand, you deserve to pay the price you unfairly exacted from them.
Clearly you must agree therefore that revenge has no place in a socially just society, as capitalism has absolutely nothing to do with justice.
But even though you agree that revenge is not appropriate in a just society, your argument does not favour revenge in a capitalist society.
The victim gets nothing of any worth of the revenge. No capital. Furthermore, your premise that a principle of capitalism is 'making retribution to the value you take from someone' is utter nonsense. The principle of capitalism is making MORE than the value you take from someone, or in the alternative paying less. Buy low... sell high. No capitalist would invest money in an enterprise, if their only hope was to get exactly the same amount of money in return. They could just hang on to their money and make the same return.
No. It is CRIME which is capitalist. And it is CRIME that you are advocating when you advocate revenge.
No one suggests that it makes everything 'even' or 'square', but rather helps appease the pain of loss for your victim[s].
only if your victims are sadists or cruel.
However, when you are on the topic of appeasing the urges of the cruel and the sadistic: couldn't giving the victims a 'free pass' to commit murder and mayhem also appease such urges? Why is it better to inflict unjustified harm on the criminal, rather than on the innocent? That is.. if appeasement (rather than actual justice) is your only argument in favour of revenge.
It is equally obvious that the blame lies with all of you: If you did't commit terrorism, then no-one would have had to pass the PATRIOT act.
You've already got yourself into enough shit with 9/11. And now with the 3/11 you are still at it. Why don't you pirates, I mean terrorists ever learn?
If you keep on with this terrorism I mean piracy, then the RIAA, I mean the "coalition" of the willing will have to Shock and Awe the rest of your civil liberties faster than you can say "Movie Rights", in order to protect your (our) freedom.
Don't let it (youself) go any further.
Freedom (global trade) is Gods gift to mankind (corporate america). And God wants America (the Republican Party) to bring Freedom (God's Gift) to the world (international corporations).
God Bless America. I mean God bless corporate America. Ahh shucks. God Bless Corporations. Screw the rest of you. Nothing but a bunch of good for nothing thieves, crybabies, treehuggers, filesharers, and future criminals.
Wait.. when YOU hack, or when your character hacks?
Presumably you could "virtually" own IP. But the real IP doesn't follow.
In fact, you can not in any meaningful sense OWN virtual property, because you are REAL. Only virtual characters can possibly own virtual things, and only real people may own real things.
(Corporations being considered people by act of a legal fiction.)
If a virtual character virtually owned a virtual copyright to the song "HELP" by the Beatles, you would own nothing, and the virtual character would not have the right to make a REAL copy of the song "HELP" including playing the song in a way that REAL people could hear it with their ears. Perhaps they have the right to cause "Bozo Performs the song "HELP"" to be displayed on the screen. But that depend on the mechanics of the game, rather than real world IP, since no real copy of the song is being used.
And moreover... the PLAYER doesn't own anything. It is the virtual Character which has virtual ownership.
I would argue that anyone who SOLD a +10 bastard sword (or whatever) for $100 has commited REAL WORLD fraud, in that they misrepresented themselves as actually OWNING a +10 bastard sword which they had any kind of authority to sell. They never OWNED a +10 bastard sword, and could not possibly sell one.
If you paid $100 for me to transfer an item "in game" from my Character to your character, then you got what you paid for. The Act of tranferance is all the $100 paid for. The bottom line is that the sword could melt before your very eyes if the DM/game administrators thought it would make a good plot hook. And if you didn't know that, you are a dweeb who should not be playing role-playing games. (or you should go read the rules).
I am a Dungeon Master (in tabletop RPGs) and the items listed in my PC's equipment lists certainly do not belong to the players in a virtual or real sense. They belong to the PCs (in a virtual sense).
I simply allow my players to PLAY (that is access) those characters. Ultimately it really boils down to this. The PLAYERS own no rights, virtual or otherwise in the game world.
Whatever "virtually" happens in the game is NOT REAL it is make belief. If a player doesn't like that his character died, I sympathize. Was that person harmed in the real world? absolutely NOT.
Any Court which ruled otherwise has no f*cking clue, what make belief is, and is a *serious* threat to freedom of expression.
Such a court is equally likely to rule that Player-killing in virtual land, is murder.
Well, certainly Slim Fast executives should decide what "images" they want to buy from people.
.. "all email is monitered".."please submit a urine sample for drug testing" etc.
"it excerised its freedom of speech by not allowing that image to be showcased on its dime. "
I agree with you that Whoopi has no big cause for complaint. She is selling an image. Her argument was that this is not a new image for her. This has always been her image. Slim Fast got what it payed for.
I only disagree with you on whether what slim fast did - stop paying Whoopi money- (which is not wrong in this case) is technically a free speech issue. I say it is a property rights issue.
I think if Slim Fast publically spoke out and said Whoopi is wrong or Whoopi is a fool, then *that* would be a free speech issue.
However this event does raise a valid (to me) issue to light.
Very many employers do actually believe their employees free speech rights to be waved either while on the job. Employers demonstrate this whenever they have policies to the effect of "no personal phone calls"
In any event it is too late.
We all know that Slim Fast considers the President's name to derive from a part of the female anatomy. Whoopi told us so. And Slim Fast payed her to tell us. Everyone who uses Slim Fast agrees.
I am quite certain that firing an employee or terminating a contract is NOT an exercise of First Ammendment rights.
I for one will make sure to purchase whatever product Whoopi decides to endorse in the future just to spite Slim Fast. What a bunch of twits.
There are still lots of fat democrats who would buy Slim Fast, even if they kept Whoopi on the payroll.
The moral: your rights are dictated by your employer, you are not a free person, you are property, "owned" by your employer, and you will do and say what you are told, both on and off the job.
"what bt hsould do is report the customers who access specific flagged sites and let the authorities investigate the customers intent (check their names against a known offenders list)."
because accepted wisdom says that if you are on the "list" then your intent is criminal, but if you are not on the list, then your intentions are pure
Perhaps what you should do is let the authorities put cameras and microphones in your home. That way if you ever do anything wrong, they can check you against their list to figure out your intent.
Better to be on the safe sife. Who knows what kind of mischief you will get into if you are allowed to have such unfettered freedom and privacy. Why should the authorities trust you? Everyone knows that statistically speaking the probability is that only reason you are not on the "list" (assuming that you aren't) is because you simply haven't been caught yet.
Obviously you've been listening to too many Christmas songs, about a certain jolly old elf from the north pole because it is clear you have the authorities confused with Santa Claus and His list.
Neither, BT, nor the authorities, have any business speculating what the "intentions" of its customers are, until those customers commit a bona fide criminal offence. And at that point BT still has no busniess speculating, because BT is not a branch of the Justice arm of the state, and BT is not a victim or damaged in any way.
And if BT did decide to invade the privacy rights of its customers and turn over the logs to police without any kind of judicial oversight. What should the police do?
Charge someone with attempting to view material which that person can never see. If you can't even see it, how could it be proven that you knew what it, that you did not access, was?
Once as a society we are spending so much money on law enforcement that police have enough free time to engage in speculative law enforcement (rather than prosecuting and investigating bona fide crimes with actual witnesses and actual complainants) then we are not living in a free and democratic society but a police state.
perhaps we already are.
"So unless YOU are gonna get OFF YOUR ASS, and do something other than POST on slashdot about how you hate the RIAA then STFU and STOP COMPLAINING."
Perhaps you should follow your own advice. Unless you are going to do something about the complainers then STFU yourself and STOP COMPLAINING about the fact that other people are complaining.
Complaining is "doing something". It may not be doing much, but it is better than doing nothing.
Not everyone has the means, motivitation or bravery to take direct political action but taking the time to complain is a lot better than just standing by as a silent witness to something you disapprove of.
I said:
Democracy depends on having a powerful government.
You said:
I don't agree with this at all. In fact I believe that the opposite is true--democracy depends on having a gov't weak enough that those elected cannot make themselves perpetual rulers.
my reply:
If government is so weak that it is not able to enforce democratic decisions arrived at democratically, then the "term" democracy is rather pointless. We (you and I) can create a new government any time. We can have free elections, and implement the most democratic system devised by science. However, it wont matter because our new government will have no power to actually enforce those decisions upon its constituents.
That is what I meant by saying democracy depends on a strong government. If the "people" vote to criminalize poluting the atmosphere, but the government responsible for enforcing that democratic decision lacks the funds/manpower/authority to enforce that decision. We can not say that democracy exists. It may serve the polluters very well that government is weak. But it really doesn't accomplish the goals of democracy if government can't accomplish the "will of the people".
As for your point that "democracy depends on having a gov't weak enough that those elected cannot make themselves perpetual rulers."
Your point is well made. And exactly how "weak" is that? What happens when some private interest other than the government accomplished the necessary strength to make itself perpetual ruler?
Would you agree that the government must be strong enough to prevent anyone from making him/herself the perpetual ruler?
And if a government must be strong enough to protect its citizens from a private concern becoming perpetual ruler, would that not by definition mean the government itself must be perpetual ruler?
If there is never a "Ruler" to begin with, then there can never be a "ruler" to perpetuate. The problem does not come from government being powerful. The problem I believe is from government bestowing too much power and too much authority and too much faith in 1 person, or even 1 personally connected group of individuals.
I would like to know of a single example of a "weak" democratic government which has succeeded?
Perhaps true.
However, canadian/US citizens don't require passports to travel between USA/Canada.
This is just the first step to justifying biometric measurements on drivers licenses, and other forms of government ID.
afterall, what is the point of having biometrics on the Canadian passport, if an enemy combatant can simply use a fake drivers license and a fake birth certificate to enter the "homeland".
Or, use the age old ploy of simply using legal documentation obtained properly or even fraudulently. Not every enemy combatant is an illegal alien, and not every person with legal documentation told the complete truth on their immigration application.
I said 'democratic' governments can be overthrown.
.. a government run by the wealthy.
I can't help it if America only just barely has democracy. It is (still) a far cry better than the alternative (being pushed for by GWB and company).
I don't remember the word for it.
ohh... I remember. "corporation."
I agree with your statement.
"Anyone who has power will typically do anything in their power to hold onto it. "
This is why it is absolutely necessary to make sure no single person, organization, or branch of government achieves excessive power.
Of course there is a very strong incentive for any group which has gained power in a democracy to supress democratic processes within society in order to retain power. This happens on an ongoing basis. And it must be resisted and opposed at every turn.
If the government is strong (and democratic), this can be done without violence. If the government is weak (or non-democratic), how else could it possibly be done?
Democracy is a threat to the accumulation of excessive power in a single group because by its very definition democracy is founded on distributed power amongst all people. A strong Democracy is the best protection against the dangers of too much power accumulated amongst too few people.
If 90% the power is controlled by 1% of the population, it makes no difference what the people actually want.
Some (or many?) republicans would argue that the government should own as little as it can possibly own, and no more. This would appear to be just enough capital to operate an underpaid but rather large police force to put dissidants, draft dodgers and the occasional actual criminal in privately owned and operated (for profit) jails.
The idea that all government is implicitly totalitarian seems to justify this. But while governments officials may be tempted to abuse their power, CEO's are expected to (as long as it benefits shareholders).
A contract can not be entered into when 1 party is under duress or threat. And when an employer tries to argue that minimum wage (for example) is immoral because it costs jobs, that employer is blind to the fact that no one would willingly work for such a low wage, except that the alternative was death from starvation or jail. The "contract" was not consentual. It is slavery.
capitalism is great. As long as the power and capital is spread around rather than highly concentrated.
I applaud Bobby Fischer for playing Chess in the former Republic of Yugoslavia.
Instead of focusing on the absolute size of "government", the focus should be on the relative concentration of power within the population.
(be that via oppressive government or oppressive corporate private ownership).
If 90% of all capital is controlled by 1% of the population, is it better for the other 99% that the ruling 1% consists of private ownership, instead of "public officials"? Ultimately 1% of the people are making all the important decisions either way. The other 99% get screwed.
Big Business is as bad, or worse than Big Government. Both are bad, but at least a democratic government recognizes some basic fundamental human rights, and is typically based on some kind of system of morality. And a democratic government can be overthrown morally (without killing anyone), if the government fails to carry out the wishes of its people.
Reckless Tax cuts, and programs which benefit the already rich, do nothing but further concentrate power in the hands of a few elite "businessmen" and further disenfranchize the majority of the population. Tax cuts and programs directed to consumers more or less evenly benefit the economy just as much as tax cuts for a few large corporations. However tax cuts and programs for the poor and middle class (who basically do not accumulate any particular power or wealth) do not increase the concentration of power in the hands of a small minority of people, but diversify power, and give the population as a whole a stake in the economic process.
Hard core conservatives really seem to want to bring back the good old days of feudalism, or perhaps a better system. Feudalism without even a pretext of human morality (such as honour, justice or religion), but rather only "corporate morality".
Leaving issues such as abortion of gay marriage aside (because they have nothing to do with economics).
Democracy depends on having a powerful government.
What difference does it make if we have free elections and democracy if the government is so powerless and debt ridden it is completely incapable of affecting any change.
I have seen my fair share of government screw ups and waste. But at least in that case the harm hit all citizens more or less equally (and all citizens in part shared the blame for looking the other way instead of demanding the government to be more transparent and responsible to the public). And more often than not. Government screw ups, really are screw ups (mistakes). And in the cases where they are actually full out crimes, they were almost always associated with corporate motives, rather than a desire of the government itself to do something bad.
But the victims of corporate screw ups are generally harmed far more severely, and corporations commit the bad deed almost always as a direct result of its mandate to maximize profits by any means necessary. The victims are generally out of luck with no recourse, as the perpetrators of the crime have declared bankruptcy.
Democratic Governments accept liability for things without the necessity for proof of absolute wrong doing. I.e. in disaster relief, or relief of victims of disease outbreaks, etc.
Corporations are not obligated to assist victims of anything in any way.
GWB seems to be interested in having a small but symbolic american government, totally and completely in debt and utterly beholden to a small number of multinational corporations or oligopolies (to which the government will owe trillians upon trillians of dollars). Sure the government will be small. But the the national debt will be huge. And you can never possibly pay it off, and after you die, then its debt will shift to your children. And if you dont have kids. That is ok too. Your share of the debt will shift to every other surviving american citizen.
But even worse. GWB and republicans, seem to be willing to use military force, or the threat of mility force to force every other government in the entire world to enter into the same kind of relationship with the big business.
Is that the American Dream? Apparently it is.