Texas isn't the first state to allow blind hunting. Michigan has been doing this for quite some time, basically the same rules, except the blind guy needs a laser scope so the sighted companion can be sure where he's pointing. Incidentally, David Sedaris did a great comedy bit about this, and pointed out that Michigan was even crazier than Texas. Not any more.
Two things need to be noted in light of your statements. First, individual rights need not be either explicitly stated or implied:
Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, the founders understood that they could never hope to make a complete list of all basic rights. The intention was to enumerate several specific and important rights so they could not be questioned. The fact that they believed that the right to keep and bear arms fell into this category of essentially important rights is telling. However, it is important to remember that just because a particular right is not specified in the constitution does not mean it is not a right.
Second, the government is permitted only to engage in activities specifically prescribed to it:
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What are those prescribed duties?
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereo
The obvious question: why? You make a blanket assertion that the rights of some are to be subjugated to the "good" of others. You fail to (1)identify who's good you refer to (for the children, I assume), (2)exactly what constitutes the good for that group and why, (3)why the good of that group should trump the inalienable rights of everyone else, and (4)exactly how you expect this restriction to achieve this goal.
Ron Paul has written an extensive collection of editorials and essays which can be found at his archive at lewrockwell.com. He's the one politician I actually respect, and typically reasons and expresses his viewpoints extremely well. The above link includes articles covering everything from technology, to economics, to freedom. Highly recommended reading.
Federal money... What a joke. The federal government steals money from the population, either via taxation or inflation (see: Federal Reserve). I'm not particularly impressed with an organization that's so very generous with money it stole from myself and others.
Governments don't do nice things for people. Governments force some people to pay to do nice things for other people, whether they want to (or can afford to) or not. Socialism is slavery. Slavery is BAD.
Let's clarify this now: a tax-funded (read: theft-funded) broadband setup is not the free market at work. The only way a tax-funded system is comparable to the free market is if all taxed individuals consent. Tax just one person to pay for a service they don't want, need, or use, take money from just one person without their consent, and you're talking about statism, not the free market. The free market does not involve taxation, the free market relies on voluntary consent. This is not the free market versus statism, this is statism versus statism. On the one hand you have the political state working for ISPs to inhibit competition, and on the other hand you have more localized political states robbing citizens. The free market never enters the picture.
Codec packs are for suckers, I think most people should know that by now. Even when everything in them is legit, you end up with a dozen codecs for a given format, which you don't need, and are bound to create problems. Besides which, you want to be sure you're using the best codecs for a given format, which is harder when you have a dozen to chose from. You should always install individual codecs for a specific format. Go to this page for a list of all common formats and specific codecs to use for each of them (they also make a bitchin' media player, and, no, I do not work for them). I followed this guide to install codecs on my system, and I have yet to run into a video format I can't play.
Actually, I have run into one "format" I can't play, and that's Vodei. Another problem with codecs is jerks like this. The video and audio are already encoded, but they add an additional useless layer so you have to buy the vodei "codec" to play a movie, even though you may already have the proper codecs to actually decode the video data. So just a brief PSA, don't buy vodei or download movies that use it, it's a scam
In short, do it yourself and you'll do it correctly, stay away from codec packs.
Oh, that's rich. Really funny. Who needs criminal convictions and constitutional law when you could just classify the guy as an "unlawful enemy combatant" and lock him up with no charges and no recourse? The first amendment? You're living in a fantasy land of yesteryear my friend.
HDCP is only necessary to play back in full resolution if the Image Constraint Token is used. If the ICT isn't used, it will play at full resolution through even analog outputs. So it stands to reason that if the ICT isn't used, you don't need HDCP-compliant video cards and monitors to play back at full resolution. IIRC, Sony and some other major movie studios pledged not to use the ICT initially, after the consumer outcry that resulted from the initial disclosure of the ICT and its effects, which means that at least the first few years worth of movies should play back at full res without HDCP.
Not quite what they were after, but...
on
Tibet's Mesh
·
· Score: 2, Funny
with 46 percent doing their own computer trouble-shooting.
Based on personal experience, I can't imagine this is accurate. I seriously doubt that 46 percent of women or men do their own computer troubleshooting and repair. I can honestly say that most of the people I know own computers, and far less than 46 percent are anywhere near capable or knowledgable of even basic troubleshooting and repair tasks. I expect many/.ers have had a similar experience. The average computer user doesn't even know how to update their drivers. Hell, the average user doesn't even know what a driver is.
Besides, who conducts a survey comparing the preferences of men and women with a sample set of one group (men, in this case) half the size of the other. While I am by no means a statistician, it seems to me that you would use equaly sized data samples, or at least weight the sample sizes based on the percentage of the population as a whole. Based on my luck recently, I'm quite certain there are not twice as many women as men in this country.
This seems a pretty wild assumtion, as we're talking about a trio of 12 year olds, and a 20 ft tree. I don't know if you've ever trimmed a large tree before, but unless these kids were all weilding chainsaws, or had been at it for a week, there is no way they were stripping all the branches from the tree.
Everyone must hear this news!
on
Futurama Returns
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Perhaps I'll breed some kind of albino shouting gorilla...
But, OK, Bush had is way on the war thing, but just let him try issuing a letter of marque and reprisal and a betcha Congress will hit him upside the head with a check and a balance.
Now that's just crazy talk. No one is going to tell him what a letter of marque and reprisal is.
Again, *your* moral norms may define murder as unacceptable, but that does not make it universal or natural (large number of people in this country share this norm, of course, but not all, and in some parts of the world it's no big deal)
If you consider murder to be morally acceptable, humanity would quickly cease to exist. We would simply destroy each other as a species. Kant addressed the concept of universality of moral law with his categorical imperative. If a rule is applied universally as a system of morality, and that rule involves the harm and murder of others, its practitioners will not only weed themselves out of the gene pool rather quickly, those practicing more rational systems of morality will speed the process along by defending themselves with force as necessary. A system that simply destroys its practitioners is useless. The basic arguement in favor of any system of morality is that it is supposed to benefit its practitioners. In that sense, because we live in a rational universe of cause and effect, there must be a system of morality which serves this purpose better than all others. The debate over which, if any, of man's systems meets that qualification is a book itself, so I will avoid that here.It follows logically that a proper system of morality is that system which actually, in the real world is most conducive to the prosperity of its practitioners. This is what I mean by "natural rights". In the natural world, all species strive to prosper as best as they can. Therefore, natural rights are those which are necessary for humanity's prosperity. Either you own yourself, or some other entity owns you. As no human is demonstrably omniscient, it follows that no single human is capable of knowing what is best for all other people. Further, since no human is omniscient, they have no certain way of evaluating the specific capabilities of another human, their strengths and weaknesses, much less control their desires (again, we're talking actual, true to life people as they are, not a stylized vision of man), and thus it is impossible for one man to command the life of another in order for him to maximize his potential. Further, since no one man has these capabilities, there is no reason any group of humans with similar limitations is capable of doing these things either. Therefore, it is only reasonable to conclude that any system of morality that is to be most conducive to humanity's prosperity must rest on the moral imperative of man as a self-owning being.
To the religious who believe in an afterlife of some kind, and their religion requires (as many do) that they sacrifice mortal comforts and their more prurient natural urges in order to achieve that afterlife, they may believe that it is in their best interests to sacrifice a good and prosperous life on Earth for a better afterlife, as their beliefs may dictate. Which is all very well and good, but if their beliefs (or the beliefs of the non-religious, for that matter) dictate the harm or destruction of my person or property, knowing (or quickly discovering) that the system of morality on which my response will rest is different from theirs, then they will have voluntarily chosen to interact with my system of morality, and I will defend myself according to that system, with force if necessary. Whether or not they recognize my right to defend myself is immaterial from my standpoint, and whether or not I recognize their "right" to attack me is also immaterial from their standpoint.
My point was what I said after that - if you choose this option you will end up dead.
The point I wanted to make was that you would not necessarily end up dead. As only one person, yes, certainly, it would be impossible to fend off the might of the state while living anything like a normal and productive life. However, a sufficiently large group of armed, like-minded people who wished to passively resist the mandates of the state until such time as the state chose to use force against them has a chance of succeeding. History (including recent) is hardly without precedent of a motivated resistance holding off a well-armed force with superior numbers.
The only right one country ever needed to invade another: because it can. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm just saying that's how it is. Sure, you can try to change it, which brings us to the next question...
We seem to be operating on two different definitions of "rights" here. I could walk next door and shoot my neighbor, steal her belongings, and feed her corpse to starving pigs. My ability to do so, however, does not impart a right to do so. Natural rights (such as those outlined in the bill of rights, but no longer respected) stem from the concept of property rights, the most basic of which is the right to one's own life. I do not have the "right" to take the life of another unless they first make an attempt to violate that dearest aspect of my property rights by placing me in mortal danger, and even if they do place me in mortal danger, my right to defend myself with lethal force ends when the mortal threat to my life ends. I was refering to rights in the sense of natural rights, not the ability to engage in an action regardless of its moral bearing.
As to having an option other than the three you listed (first-strike action against the state, voting, or/. bitching), I sure do. Self-defense isn't murder (unless you count a scenario such as a robber shooting his victim when his victim tries to defend himself against robbery, in which case you can make the case that you have a robber commiting murder in the process of defending himself, but as he was the initial agressor, it is still murder, but that quickly becomes a silly semantical debate), so the answer is simple. Stop complying with state mandates (unless of course the state mandate happens by chance to coincide with moral action, in which case you're following the state's orders merely by coincidence, again, a semantical debate), then when the agents of the state comes to force your hand (and they will, the state's final arguement is always a gun and a prison cell), you are within your rights to defend yourself against them, using force ONLY as necessary (i.e., you don't shoot them for giving you a fine, you wait until they attempt to use force to arrest you for not paying it). I don't condone the existence of the state, or its actions, and have no desire to participate in it, and the same can be said for many others. However, I have no more desire to force my way of life onto others than I wish to have theirs forced on me. If others wish to continue following the mandates of the state, so long as they don't attempt to violate my property rights or do me harm, they are free to do so. I have no desire to interfere with state activity unless and until they attempt to interfere with me or my associates.
Yes, I am aware that others have taken this path with limited success, and they have generally been the type of people who are in some way considered socially deviant, even criminals. The Weavers at Ruby Ridge were white separatists (not to be confused with supremecists, they didn't want legally mandated segregation, that's why the moved to the side of a mountain in Idaho. Still ignorant and bigotted, yes, but they didn't try to harm racial minorities or violate their rights, just to get away from them). Koresh at Waco was a fanatical cult leader (the credibility of the child molestation charges is seriously questionable, but if true would have rendered him an actual criminal) who stockpiled weapons (they never threatened to attack anyone, it was always quite clear to everyone but the ATF, based on statements by Koresh and other cult members, that they were for defensive purposes, as they expected the state to come after them eventually). As such, most people now think that anyone who desires to live a life free of the state, and who is willing to use force to defend their right to do so, is a dangerous nutjob, to be dealt with as such. I hardly follow this categorization. I am a student and a computer programmer, I like technology, and while I find camping entertaining, I have no
There are very frightening implications behind the fact that the NSA wiretapping dropped off the public radar (mainstream news and conversation) so quickly. I am not one to quickly don my tinfoil hat, but damn it, it sure does look like the government is inching closer and closer to the point that it will become too good at steering the uninformed majority, and as a member of the informed minority, that is unacceptable to me.
What was more frightening (and entirely predictable) is the fact that the debate quickly turned political rather than criminal. The question should have been how many years various administration and NSA officials would spend in prison. Instead, they engage in a political campaign to garner support for their patently illegal actions, while congressional committees, rather than opening impeachment proceedings, look into ways to legalize the administration's criminal behavior. Anyone who still has faith in democracy take note. When a politician can break the law, violate the consitution, and violate the natural rights of the citizens he/she supposedly protects, and then seek majority approval to avoid consequences, the basic tennants of democracy are exposed as the shams they are. A majority vote does not give the state the right to abridge the freedoms of the minority who oppose such draconian measures, but it doesn't change the fact that the state will attempt to do so.
Hey, they won a Peabody man. I'd put more stock in the Daily Show's reports, fact-checked or not, than, say, Fox News. Sure, they've got their own particularly liberal slant, but at least they're honestly satirical and admit when they don't check their facts.
I'm not one to view the founders as infalible superhumans. I am well aware that many of them operated on a "do as I say, not as I do" policy, and I am also aware that there are inherent problems with the constitution, but I also recognize that it outlines a state that is a damn sight better than what we have now. Of course, it is impossible to restrict corrupt, power-hungry politicians from corrupting the state, but it was a nice effort.
Well, if you support an aggressive invasion of another country, might I suggest you use your own money and your own life to fight it. I am robbed by the state to support the murder (yes, it is murder to kill someone defending their home and property against a violent invading army, whether the state orders it or not) of tens of thousands of civilians. By what right does the US launch an aggressive military invasion of another country without first being attacked by said country's political state? It cannot claim self-defense, the only legitimate reason for violent action (and no, there is absolutely no evidence linking Iraq and Al-Qaeda, to use the current war as an example).
As for voting for candidates who don't support the war, that's an useless solution. Voting for an anti-war candidate doesn't exclude me from being robbed to support the war, and it doesn't exclude me from the draconian domestic persecution wrought by the state. If my candidate were to lose, my desire (and right) to not be party to murder is in no way represented or fulfilled. If my candidate wins, my interests may have a voice, but I am still forced to support the state's murderous campaigns (a majority vote does NOT give the state the right to abridge my freedoms, but it does anyway). Voting in no way serves to secure my rights and prevent abuses by the state. Politicians are not bound by their campaign promises, the handful of federal officials for whom I can vote are insufficient to make a significant difference, and some of the most powerful positions are appointed, not elected. Who did you vote for for Secretary of Defense? FCC chairman? Chairman of the federal reserve? All positions holding ridiculous amounts of power to influence day-to-day life in this country, all appointed positions. The consitution, the supposed protection against abuses by the state, was discarded long ago (the constition prohibits the state from engagin in activities not specifically granted to it by the constition, and the list of those powers is much shorter than the list of current state activities). Voting doesn't serve to protect your rights, it merely serves to make you comfortably certain it does.
As Einstein so famously (and accurately) stated, one cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Any state with a substantial standing army will have a propensity to USE that standing army. There's money to be made, lots of money. Plus, as history has shown time and time again, people are more willing to surrender their rights to the state in times of war. A large, powerful standing army is a first step to tyrrany. Besides, a massive standing army is not necessary for defensive purposes (such as fending off an invasion), their only purpose is offensive. As long as the US government has access to the strong military you say it should have, it will continue to be used by politicos for political and personal gain.
Slashdot Mirror
Texas isn't the first state to allow blind hunting. Michigan has been doing this for quite some time, basically the same rules, except the blind guy needs a laser scope so the sighted companion can be sure where he's pointing. Incidentally, David Sedaris did a great comedy bit about this, and pointed out that Michigan was even crazier than Texas. Not any more.
Two things need to be noted in light of your statements. First, individual rights need not be either explicitly stated or implied:
Amendment IX - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
In other words, the founders understood that they could never hope to make a complete list of all basic rights. The intention was to enumerate several specific and important rights so they could not be questioned. The fact that they believed that the right to keep and bear arms fell into this category of essentially important rights is telling. However, it is important to remember that just because a particular right is not specified in the constitution does not mean it is not a right.
Second, the government is permitted only to engage in activities specifically prescribed to it:
Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What are those prescribed duties?
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereo
The obvious question: why? You make a blanket assertion that the rights of some are to be subjugated to the "good" of others. You fail to (1)identify who's good you refer to (for the children, I assume), (2)exactly what constitutes the good for that group and why, (3)why the good of that group should trump the inalienable rights of everyone else, and (4)exactly how you expect this restriction to achieve this goal.
Ron Paul has written an extensive collection of editorials and essays which can be found at his archive at lewrockwell.com. He's the one politician I actually respect, and typically reasons and expresses his viewpoints extremely well. The above link includes articles covering everything from technology, to economics, to freedom. Highly recommended reading.
Federal money... What a joke. The federal government steals money from the population, either via taxation or inflation (see: Federal Reserve). I'm not particularly impressed with an organization that's so very generous with money it stole from myself and others.
Governments don't do nice things for people. Governments force some people to pay to do nice things for other people, whether they want to (or can afford to) or not. Socialism is slavery. Slavery is BAD.
Let's clarify this now: a tax-funded (read: theft-funded) broadband setup is not the free market at work. The only way a tax-funded system is comparable to the free market is if all taxed individuals consent. Tax just one person to pay for a service they don't want, need, or use, take money from just one person without their consent, and you're talking about statism, not the free market. The free market does not involve taxation, the free market relies on voluntary consent. This is not the free market versus statism, this is statism versus statism. On the one hand you have the political state working for ISPs to inhibit competition, and on the other hand you have more localized political states robbing citizens. The free market never enters the picture.
Codec packs are for suckers, I think most people should know that by now. Even when everything in them is legit, you end up with a dozen codecs for a given format, which you don't need, and are bound to create problems. Besides which, you want to be sure you're using the best codecs for a given format, which is harder when you have a dozen to chose from. You should always install individual codecs for a specific format. Go to this page for a list of all common formats and specific codecs to use for each of them (they also make a bitchin' media player, and, no, I do not work for them). I followed this guide to install codecs on my system, and I have yet to run into a video format I can't play.
Actually, I have run into one "format" I can't play, and that's Vodei. Another problem with codecs is jerks like this. The video and audio are already encoded, but they add an additional useless layer so you have to buy the vodei "codec" to play a movie, even though you may already have the proper codecs to actually decode the video data. So just a brief PSA, don't buy vodei or download movies that use it, it's a scam
In short, do it yourself and you'll do it correctly, stay away from codec packs.
Oh, that's rich. Really funny. Who needs criminal convictions and constitutional law when you could just classify the guy as an "unlawful enemy combatant" and lock him up with no charges and no recourse? The first amendment? You're living in a fantasy land of yesteryear my friend.
Someone in Parliment needs to watch V For Vendetta one more time.
HDCP is only necessary to play back in full resolution if the Image Constraint Token is used. If the ICT isn't used, it will play at full resolution through even analog outputs. So it stands to reason that if the ICT isn't used, you don't need HDCP-compliant video cards and monitors to play back at full resolution. IIRC, Sony and some other major movie studios pledged not to use the ICT initially, after the consumer outcry that resulted from the initial disclosure of the ICT and its effects, which means that at least the first few years worth of movies should play back at full res without HDCP.
Finally, free Tibet!
with 46 percent doing their own computer trouble-shooting.
/.ers have had a similar experience. The average computer user doesn't even know how to update their drivers. Hell, the average user doesn't even know what a driver is.
Based on personal experience, I can't imagine this is accurate. I seriously doubt that 46 percent of women or men do their own computer troubleshooting and repair. I can honestly say that most of the people I know own computers, and far less than 46 percent are anywhere near capable or knowledgable of even basic troubleshooting and repair tasks. I expect many
Besides, who conducts a survey comparing the preferences of men and women with a sample set of one group (men, in this case) half the size of the other. While I am by no means a statistician, it seems to me that you would use equaly sized data samples, or at least weight the sample sizes based on the percentage of the population as a whole. Based on my luck recently, I'm quite certain there are not twice as many women as men in this country.
This seems a pretty wild assumtion, as we're talking about a trio of 12 year olds, and a 20 ft tree. I don't know if you've ever trimmed a large tree before, but unless these kids were all weilding chainsaws, or had been at it for a week, there is no way they were stripping all the branches from the tree.
Perhaps I'll breed some kind of albino shouting gorilla...
Okay, so maybe they need a gramar check as well...
Thank god they're putting in an automated spell check for multi-line text boxes. This site should become that much more bearable to read now.
But, OK, Bush had is way on the war thing, but just let him try issuing a letter of marque and reprisal and a betcha Congress will hit him upside the head with a check and a balance.
Now that's just crazy talk. No one is going to tell him what a letter of marque and reprisal is.
Of course there's a major difference. China's economy is on the upswing.
Again, *your* moral norms may define murder as unacceptable, but that does not make it universal or natural (large number of people in this country share this norm, of course, but not all, and in some parts of the world it's no big deal)
If you consider murder to be morally acceptable, humanity would quickly cease to exist. We would simply destroy each other as a species. Kant addressed the concept of universality of moral law with his categorical imperative. If a rule is applied universally as a system of morality, and that rule involves the harm and murder of others, its practitioners will not only weed themselves out of the gene pool rather quickly, those practicing more rational systems of morality will speed the process along by defending themselves with force as necessary. A system that simply destroys its practitioners is useless. The basic arguement in favor of any system of morality is that it is supposed to benefit its practitioners. In that sense, because we live in a rational universe of cause and effect, there must be a system of morality which serves this purpose better than all others. The debate over which, if any, of man's systems meets that qualification is a book itself, so I will avoid that here.It follows logically that a proper system of morality is that system which actually, in the real world is most conducive to the prosperity of its practitioners. This is what I mean by "natural rights". In the natural world, all species strive to prosper as best as they can. Therefore, natural rights are those which are necessary for humanity's prosperity. Either you own yourself, or some other entity owns you. As no human is demonstrably omniscient, it follows that no single human is capable of knowing what is best for all other people. Further, since no human is omniscient, they have no certain way of evaluating the specific capabilities of another human, their strengths and weaknesses, much less control their desires (again, we're talking actual, true to life people as they are, not a stylized vision of man), and thus it is impossible for one man to command the life of another in order for him to maximize his potential. Further, since no one man has these capabilities, there is no reason any group of humans with similar limitations is capable of doing these things either. Therefore, it is only reasonable to conclude that any system of morality that is to be most conducive to humanity's prosperity must rest on the moral imperative of man as a self-owning being.
To the religious who believe in an afterlife of some kind, and their religion requires (as many do) that they sacrifice mortal comforts and their more prurient natural urges in order to achieve that afterlife, they may believe that it is in their best interests to sacrifice a good and prosperous life on Earth for a better afterlife, as their beliefs may dictate. Which is all very well and good, but if their beliefs (or the beliefs of the non-religious, for that matter) dictate the harm or destruction of my person or property, knowing (or quickly discovering) that the system of morality on which my response will rest is different from theirs, then they will have voluntarily chosen to interact with my system of morality, and I will defend myself according to that system, with force if necessary. Whether or not they recognize my right to defend myself is immaterial from my standpoint, and whether or not I recognize their "right" to attack me is also immaterial from their standpoint.
My point was what I said after that - if you choose this option you will end up dead.
The point I wanted to make was that you would not necessarily end up dead. As only one person, yes, certainly, it would be impossible to fend off the might of the state while living anything like a normal and productive life. However, a sufficiently large group of armed, like-minded people who wished to passively resist the mandates of the state until such time as the state chose to use force against them has a chance of succeeding. History (including recent) is hardly without precedent of a motivated resistance holding off a well-armed force with superior numbers.
The only right one country ever needed to invade another: because it can. I'm not saying it's a good thing, I'm just saying that's how it is. Sure, you can try to change it, which brings us to the next question...
/. bitching), I sure do. Self-defense isn't murder (unless you count a scenario such as a robber shooting his victim when his victim tries to defend himself against robbery, in which case you can make the case that you have a robber commiting murder in the process of defending himself, but as he was the initial agressor, it is still murder, but that quickly becomes a silly semantical debate), so the answer is simple. Stop complying with state mandates (unless of course the state mandate happens by chance to coincide with moral action, in which case you're following the state's orders merely by coincidence, again, a semantical debate), then when the agents of the state comes to force your hand (and they will, the state's final arguement is always a gun and a prison cell), you are within your rights to defend yourself against them, using force ONLY as necessary (i.e., you don't shoot them for giving you a fine, you wait until they attempt to use force to arrest you for not paying it). I don't condone the existence of the state, or its actions, and have no desire to participate in it, and the same can be said for many others. However, I have no more desire to force my way of life onto others than I wish to have theirs forced on me. If others wish to continue following the mandates of the state, so long as they don't attempt to violate my property rights or do me harm, they are free to do so. I have no desire to interfere with state activity unless and until they attempt to interfere with me or my associates.
We seem to be operating on two different definitions of "rights" here. I could walk next door and shoot my neighbor, steal her belongings, and feed her corpse to starving pigs. My ability to do so, however, does not impart a right to do so. Natural rights (such as those outlined in the bill of rights, but no longer respected) stem from the concept of property rights, the most basic of which is the right to one's own life. I do not have the "right" to take the life of another unless they first make an attempt to violate that dearest aspect of my property rights by placing me in mortal danger, and even if they do place me in mortal danger, my right to defend myself with lethal force ends when the mortal threat to my life ends. I was refering to rights in the sense of natural rights, not the ability to engage in an action regardless of its moral bearing.
As to having an option other than the three you listed (first-strike action against the state, voting, or
Yes, I am aware that others have taken this path with limited success, and they have generally been the type of people who are in some way considered socially deviant, even criminals. The Weavers at Ruby Ridge were white separatists (not to be confused with supremecists, they didn't want legally mandated segregation, that's why the moved to the side of a mountain in Idaho. Still ignorant and bigotted, yes, but they didn't try to harm racial minorities or violate their rights, just to get away from them). Koresh at Waco was a fanatical cult leader (the credibility of the child molestation charges is seriously questionable, but if true would have rendered him an actual criminal) who stockpiled weapons (they never threatened to attack anyone, it was always quite clear to everyone but the ATF, based on statements by Koresh and other cult members, that they were for defensive purposes, as they expected the state to come after them eventually). As such, most people now think that anyone who desires to live a life free of the state, and who is willing to use force to defend their right to do so, is a dangerous nutjob, to be dealt with as such. I hardly follow this categorization. I am a student and a computer programmer, I like technology, and while I find camping entertaining, I have no
There are very frightening implications behind the fact that the NSA wiretapping dropped off the public radar (mainstream news and conversation) so quickly. I am not one to quickly don my tinfoil hat, but damn it, it sure does look like the government is inching closer and closer to the point that it will become too good at steering the uninformed majority, and as a member of the informed minority, that is unacceptable to me.
What was more frightening (and entirely predictable) is the fact that the debate quickly turned political rather than criminal. The question should have been how many years various administration and NSA officials would spend in prison. Instead, they engage in a political campaign to garner support for their patently illegal actions, while congressional committees, rather than opening impeachment proceedings, look into ways to legalize the administration's criminal behavior. Anyone who still has faith in democracy take note. When a politician can break the law, violate the consitution, and violate the natural rights of the citizens he/she supposedly protects, and then seek majority approval to avoid consequences, the basic tennants of democracy are exposed as the shams they are. A majority vote does not give the state the right to abridge the freedoms of the minority who oppose such draconian measures, but it doesn't change the fact that the state will attempt to do so.
Hey, they won a Peabody man. I'd put more stock in the Daily Show's reports, fact-checked or not, than, say, Fox News. Sure, they've got their own particularly liberal slant, but at least they're honestly satirical and admit when they don't check their facts.
I'm not one to view the founders as infalible superhumans. I am well aware that many of them operated on a "do as I say, not as I do" policy, and I am also aware that there are inherent problems with the constitution, but I also recognize that it outlines a state that is a damn sight better than what we have now. Of course, it is impossible to restrict corrupt, power-hungry politicians from corrupting the state, but it was a nice effort.
Well, if you support an aggressive invasion of another country, might I suggest you use your own money and your own life to fight it. I am robbed by the state to support the murder (yes, it is murder to kill someone defending their home and property against a violent invading army, whether the state orders it or not) of tens of thousands of civilians. By what right does the US launch an aggressive military invasion of another country without first being attacked by said country's political state? It cannot claim self-defense, the only legitimate reason for violent action (and no, there is absolutely no evidence linking Iraq and Al-Qaeda, to use the current war as an example).
As for voting for candidates who don't support the war, that's an useless solution. Voting for an anti-war candidate doesn't exclude me from being robbed to support the war, and it doesn't exclude me from the draconian domestic persecution wrought by the state. If my candidate were to lose, my desire (and right) to not be party to murder is in no way represented or fulfilled. If my candidate wins, my interests may have a voice, but I am still forced to support the state's murderous campaigns (a majority vote does NOT give the state the right to abridge my freedoms, but it does anyway). Voting in no way serves to secure my rights and prevent abuses by the state. Politicians are not bound by their campaign promises, the handful of federal officials for whom I can vote are insufficient to make a significant difference, and some of the most powerful positions are appointed, not elected. Who did you vote for for Secretary of Defense? FCC chairman? Chairman of the federal reserve? All positions holding ridiculous amounts of power to influence day-to-day life in this country, all appointed positions. The consitution, the supposed protection against abuses by the state, was discarded long ago (the constition prohibits the state from engagin in activities not specifically granted to it by the constition, and the list of those powers is much shorter than the list of current state activities). Voting doesn't serve to protect your rights, it merely serves to make you comfortably certain it does.
The US should always have a strong military
As Einstein so famously (and accurately) stated, one cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war. Any state with a substantial standing army will have a propensity to USE that standing army. There's money to be made, lots of money. Plus, as history has shown time and time again, people are more willing to surrender their rights to the state in times of war. A large, powerful standing army is a first step to tyrrany. Besides, a massive standing army is not necessary for defensive purposes (such as fending off an invasion), their only purpose is offensive. As long as the US government has access to the strong military you say it should have, it will continue to be used by politicos for political and personal gain.