No, I would not force liberty on anyone. As we have seen in Vietnam and Iraq, freedom must be earned by a people, not forced into their hands. You know how it is; no sandwich tastes better than the one you made yourself.
But, I'm not sure how "force" is involved. Were Google to live by a proper ethical code, it would not be "forcing" anything on anyone except the option to access it.
In truth, then, the only "force" involved here is, of course, the Chinese government, which forces its citizens to live under a fascist-communist state that jails, tortures, blackmails, censors, and executes them.
Yes, the Saudi relationship is worthy of equal scorn. And that's why I say it is too late.
However, the "7 percent" figure is false. See Reason 23 at http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm"According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, total foreign investment in the United States in 2003 was $10,515 billion dollars. This means that even if the figure that Unger "heard" about Saudis having $860 billion is correct, then the Saudis would only have about 8 percent of total foreign investment in the United States. Unless you believe that almost all American assets are owned by foreigners, then it cannot possibly be true that Saudis "own seven percent of America.""
Yeah, and I'm not obligated to try to save a drowning man at the beach, or to hold the door open for an old woman, or to rush after a guy who dropped his wallet, or to do anything inconvenient to a ruthless motive of profit and time management. That doesn't mean I shouldn't do it.
A company aiding and abetting a totalitarian government in limiting its peoples' free speech is not going to fall under "oh, we just have a difference of opinion!" Some things in life are not relative. Individual freedom is an indispensable value. It isn't just a preference from a salad bar like ranch dressing over Russian. It means something, dammit. Oppression isn't "just another way to structure a society," it's oppression. No company that does business with a totalitarian government should be allowed to do business in America. But we've let it happen, and it's too late. Our principles are rotting. In a decade, or maybe sooner, we're all going to regret having let American businesses coddle China, and letting them become addicted to an immoral revenue stream. For now, at least, all we can do is enjoy the cheap shirts.
I am sure that the Iraqis who Mr. Hussein murdered and tortured, and their families, and the children made orphans by his wanton destrcution, the non-Muslims that the Taliban forced to wear yellow stars a la Nazi Germany, the women raped and murdered for exposing their face in pubilc or for a crime their brother allegedly committed, the Buddhists who witnessed millenia old statues razed to the ground by Muslim fanatics, and the millions of people whose souls were oppressed and and whose mouths were sown shut by edict, whose bodies were disfigured for life, would be glad to see that you, comfortable affuent man sitting in a pillowed computer chair, think that what happened to them wasn't "vile and evil," and that the word "liberate" should be put in sarcastic quotes because it doesn't apply here.
Tell me again why America should care what you think?
America was founded by disgruntled people sick and tired of being abused and spied on by European monarchs and tyrants. While the American tradition of rights and privacy continued, Europe's monarchies continued to abuse their citizens. When the monarchies fell, they were not replaced by democracy, but swiftly usurped by another generation of murderous despots: Mussolini, Napoleon, Hitler, Tito, Franco, and an innumerable variety of smaller royals, juntas, and antidemocratic goverments in practically every country you can name.
Today, this fine European fascist tradition continues as an unelected European Union bureaucracy encroaches on individual freedoms all over the continent, stagnating and destroying Europe's economy with subsidies and entitlements (Hey, Americans whining about the Bush economy: Europe's unemployment is twice as bad!), and, as you can see, showing a complete disregard for citizens' privacy rights with a mendacity that American's libertarian tradition would never tolerate.
So you should reconsider your claims, as history does not validate them.
That's great, except Hitler WAS NOT democratically elected, so your entire post is based on a fallacy.
Elaboration: Hitler's party NEVER gained control of the Reichstag democratically. The only way they ever passed the law to give Hitler full power was with the help of other parties. After this, the Reichstag was just a rubber stamp for Hitler, all made up of unelected Nazis.
Elaboration: Hitler ran for president in 1932....and LOST, to Hindenberg. Twice, in fact, because the first loss Hindenberg only got 49.6 percent (in a field of four) and the Constitution required the winner to get 50.
Elaboration: Hitler became Chancellor by Hindenberg's appointment in January 1933, even as his party had lost seats in the last election.
Elaboration: Only after becoming Chancellor and using his power to suppress all opposition did Hitler ever win an "election," which was not a real election, since there were no opposing candidates, but a "referendum" on Hitler, and which was not a real "referendum" because the Gestapo were watching voters in wide open balloting areas.
I am aware it may be too late in the game in this thread for anyone to notice this, but truths must be fought for, and particularly we must fight that pernicious myth that Hitler was democratically elected that is being spread around nowadays.
The music industry is not dumb enough to believe that a simple class will cause a drop in downloading. I believe the motivation here is to take away a child's ability to plead ignorance on the minutiae of the copyright laws, so the record industry can better sue them.
We all have heard of that little girl whose family was forced to pay thousands of dollars because she downloaded a few harmless songs. Now, the record industry aims to take away the "kids don't know better" loophole, and wash their hands of responsibilty. "Hey, you broke the law. It says so right here and here, in the packet we gave you. Now we're going to make your family pay thousands of dollars for your little error."
It makes sense to me. You get a five minute time out for kicking your brother, and your parents lose a weeks salary for you downloading a three minute pop song.
Does anyone imagine how guilty and horrible that little girl must feel, for costing her family so much money? Apparently not the record industry. She is to be only another wide eyed lamb sacrificed upon the altar of cold money.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I would not force liberty on anyone. As we have seen in Vietnam and Iraq, freedom must be earned by a people, not forced into their hands. You know how it is; no sandwich tastes better than the one you made yourself.
But, I'm not sure how "force" is involved. Were Google to live by a proper ethical code, it would not be "forcing" anything on anyone except the option to access it.
In truth, then, the only "force" involved here is, of course, the Chinese government, which forces its citizens to live under a fascist-communist state that jails, tortures, blackmails, censors, and executes them.
Yes, the Saudi relationship is worthy of equal scorn. And that's why I say it is too late. However, the "7 percent" figure is false. See Reason 23 at http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm"According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, total foreign investment in the United States in 2003 was $10,515 billion dollars. This means that even if the figure that Unger "heard" about Saudis having $860 billion is correct, then the Saudis would only have about 8 percent of total foreign investment in the United States. Unless you believe that almost all American assets are owned by foreigners, then it cannot possibly be true that Saudis "own seven percent of America.""
Yeah, and I'm not obligated to try to save a drowning man at the beach, or to hold the door open for an old woman, or to rush after a guy who dropped his wallet, or to do anything inconvenient to a ruthless motive of profit and time management. That doesn't mean I shouldn't do it.
A company aiding and abetting a totalitarian government in limiting its peoples' free speech is not going to fall under "oh, we just have a difference of opinion!" Some things in life are not relative. Individual freedom is an indispensable value. It isn't just a preference from a salad bar like ranch dressing over Russian. It means something, dammit. Oppression isn't "just another way to structure a society," it's oppression. No company that does business with a totalitarian government should be allowed to do business in America. But we've let it happen, and it's too late. Our principles are rotting. In a decade, or maybe sooner, we're all going to regret having let American businesses coddle China, and letting them become addicted to an immoral revenue stream. For now, at least, all we can do is enjoy the cheap shirts.
0 88/67415647.jpg
In case that didn't convince you, here's a hot naked woman's breast. Agree with me.
http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL487/1395129/3442
I am sure that the Iraqis who Mr. Hussein murdered and tortured, and their families, and the children made orphans by his wanton destrcution, the non-Muslims that the Taliban forced to wear yellow stars a la Nazi Germany, the women raped and murdered for exposing their face in pubilc or for a crime their brother allegedly committed, the Buddhists who witnessed millenia old statues razed to the ground by Muslim fanatics, and the millions of people whose souls were oppressed and and whose mouths were sown shut by edict, whose bodies were disfigured for life, would be glad to see that you, comfortable affuent man sitting in a pillowed computer chair, think that what happened to them wasn't "vile and evil," and that the word "liberate" should be put in sarcastic quotes because it doesn't apply here.
Tell me again why America should care what you think?
America was founded by disgruntled people sick and tired of being abused and spied on by European monarchs and tyrants. While the American tradition of rights and privacy continued, Europe's monarchies continued to abuse their citizens. When the monarchies fell, they were not replaced by democracy, but swiftly usurped by another generation of murderous despots: Mussolini, Napoleon, Hitler, Tito, Franco, and an innumerable variety of smaller royals, juntas, and antidemocratic goverments in practically every country you can name.
Today, this fine European fascist tradition continues as an unelected European Union bureaucracy encroaches on individual freedoms all over the continent, stagnating and destroying Europe's economy with subsidies and entitlements (Hey, Americans whining about the Bush economy: Europe's unemployment is twice as bad!), and, as you can see, showing a complete disregard for citizens' privacy rights with a mendacity that American's libertarian tradition would never tolerate.
So you should reconsider your claims, as history does not validate them.
Mmmm, shreddies.
That's great, except Hitler WAS NOT democratically elected, so your entire post is based on a fallacy.
Elaboration: Hitler's party NEVER gained control of the Reichstag democratically. The only way they ever passed the law to give Hitler full power was with the help of other parties. After this, the Reichstag was just a rubber stamp for Hitler, all made up of unelected Nazis.
Elaboration: Hitler ran for president in 1932....and LOST, to Hindenberg. Twice, in fact, because the first loss Hindenberg only got 49.6 percent (in a field of four) and the Constitution required the winner to get 50.
Elaboration: Hitler became Chancellor by Hindenberg's appointment in January 1933, even as his party had lost seats in the last election.
Elaboration: Only after becoming Chancellor and using his power to suppress all opposition did Hitler ever win an "election," which was not a real election, since there were no opposing candidates, but a "referendum" on Hitler, and which was not a real "referendum" because the Gestapo were watching voters in wide open balloting areas.
I am aware it may be too late in the game in this thread for anyone to notice this, but truths must be fought for, and particularly we must fight that pernicious myth that Hitler was democratically elected that is being spread around nowadays.
The music industry is not dumb enough to believe that a simple class will cause a drop in downloading. I believe the motivation here is to take away a child's ability to plead ignorance on the minutiae of the copyright laws, so the record industry can better sue them.
We all have heard of that little girl whose family was forced to pay thousands of dollars because she downloaded a few harmless songs. Now, the record industry aims to take away the "kids don't know better" loophole, and wash their hands of responsibilty. "Hey, you broke the law. It says so right here and here, in the packet we gave you. Now we're going to make your family pay thousands of dollars for your little error."
It makes sense to me. You get a five minute time out for kicking your brother, and your parents lose a weeks salary for you downloading a three minute pop song.
Does anyone imagine how guilty and horrible that little girl must feel, for costing her family so much money? Apparently not the record industry. She is to be only another wide eyed lamb sacrificed upon the altar of cold money.