That's a much better use of your time than casting a ballot.
There's no chance that your ballot is going to affect the result, and even if it did, the candidates will do pretty much the same things. They like to pretend they're different, and they insist on the differences during the campaign, but they're really not.
Even if you believe each vote matters, then consider abstention matters as well. It shows you're not naive enough to believe in the political process, it shows you believe problems are solved through voluntary cooperation and not political force. Staying home is the most moral vote you can cast.
"You dirty bastard, I know you just cheated on your wife, you should be ashamed. Pay me $100 or she'll know everything"
Cheating is very common, and fear will alter the judgment of the average person (It can't be a spam, how would they *know* I just cheated...). I bet lots of person would pay.
I don't consider blackmail a crime per se, but that would still be quite a disgusting practice.
This is a common fallacy. There is no need to "create jobs", there's plenty to do on this planet.
The situations that supposedly "create jobs" are really about increase in the demand for labor which merely divert productive effort from one task to another. Following this fallacy, burning Montreal is good because it would create tons of jobs and stimulate the economy. In fact what would happen is that instead of having people work on new things, to improve out standard on living, their would be people working on fixing the new problem introduced.
Well, as a voter, I'm a stockholder in my country.
Bad, bad analogy. When someone becomes a stockholder, he buys a share and enter a business contract specifying how the company's assets are divided, how decisions are taken, etc.
A government on the other hand merely proclaims that it owns a jurisdiction over a given territory and forces its decision down your throat.
The main issue is not how the government uses your money, but how it got from your pocket to their hands.
Switching to Linux might save some money but that's irrelevant, the money will be wasted somewhere else anyway.
Great, I can kill you, torture you, rape you, and steal all your belongings (not necessarily in that order). Ethics is all relative right... you can't blame me, it's just a cultural difference you understand.
Chavez has demonstrated many times that he does not recognize individual rights, thus he can't consistently argue that his email should be distributed, nor could he argue for example that he shouldn't be stolen from.
When is comes to risk, American society tolerates tens of thousands of drunk-driving deaths, gives millions in federal tobacco subsidies, and is oblivious about near-epidemics such as heart disease, obesity, and diabetes. With all that, it is doubtful that the myriad horror stories Zero Day Threat details will persuade Congress or the other players to do anything to curtail the problem with identity theft and internet fraud.
Why is that ? This article deals with fraud, fraud can be settled in court. A court system is not always been linked to a government.
A much better idea by the first poster, an organization certifying sushi would be much better, and the cost would be on sushi eaters rather than on tax payers.
Obviously the US government does govern the United States. What I am saying is that it has no right to do so. Who then has the right to govern ? No one. Who should ? No one either. As you figured, I am an anarchist.
People is a collectivist abstraction; government of the people by the people for the people doesn't mean anything. There are only individuals, and many of them do not consent to be governed.
I do agree that the constitution highlights many basic human rights, but many people are confuse about that. While the constitution should merely be a reminder of human right, many people seem to think it defines them.
You are right in pointing out the examples of the doorknob. However, mentioning that law enforcers don't give a damn about consent is puzzling in a discussion about right. Are you suggesting might make right ?
Well I have no sympathy for Mr Cheney but on that matter he is right. What he wanted to do however was criminal, thus there is no need to say he is breaking the constitution to condemn him.
It is a piece of paper signed by a bunch of people, no more.
As far as I know, the founding father did not own the US, they had no authority in imposing their jurisdiction on the existing landowners. They were just quite successful in expanding the power of their little mafia, and arguably some of them had good intentions, but that's about it.
The constitution does not define right and wrong. On rare occasions it does limit the criminal activities of the government, so its sometimes useful, but overall it does far more harm by giving the dangerous illusion that the government is somehow legitimate.
Actually I think anyone has the right to look through an open window and yes, this means having the right to place a video camera as well. There's no ethical difference between recording with meat or electronics. There is no such thing as a "right" to privacy, but most fortunately, there is a right to close the curtains.
As for the GPS tracking device, as soon as the car enters private property, this becomes trespassing and should at least require a warrant.
Slashdot Mirror
Stay home, write open source software.
That's a much better use of your time than casting a ballot.
There's no chance that your ballot is going to affect the result, and even if it did, the candidates will do pretty much the same things. They like to pretend they're different, and they insist on the differences during the campaign, but they're really not.
Even if you believe each vote matters, then consider abstention matters as well. It shows you're not naive enough to believe in the political process, it shows you believe problems are solved through voluntary cooperation and not political force. Staying home is the most moral vote you can cast.
I think a great scam would go like this
"You dirty bastard, I know you just cheated on your wife, you should be ashamed. Pay me $100 or she'll know everything"
Cheating is very common, and fear will alter the judgment of the average person (It can't be a spam, how would they *know* I just cheated...). I bet lots of person would pay.
I don't consider blackmail a crime per se, but that would still be quite a disgusting practice.
This is a common fallacy. There is no need to "create jobs", there's plenty to do on this planet.
The situations that supposedly "create jobs" are really about increase in the demand for labor which merely divert productive effort from one task to another. Following this fallacy, burning Montreal is good because it would create tons of jobs and stimulate the economy. In fact what would happen is that instead of having people work on new things, to improve out standard on living, their would be people working on fixing the new problem introduced.
Bad, bad analogy. When someone becomes a stockholder, he buys a share and enter a business contract specifying how the company's assets are divided, how decisions are taken, etc.
A government on the other hand merely proclaims that it owns a jurisdiction over a given territory and forces its decision down your throat.
The main issue is not how the government uses your money, but how it got from your pocket to their hands.
Switching to Linux might save some money but that's irrelevant, the money will be wasted somewhere else anyway.
Great, I can kill you, torture you, rape you, and steal all your belongings (not necessarily in that order). Ethics is all relative right... you can't blame me, it's just a cultural difference you understand.
Amphetamines make perfect sense, as would caffeine but I highly doubt cannabis would be beneficial.
Chavez has demonstrated many times that he does not recognize individual rights, thus he can't consistently argue that his email should be distributed, nor could he argue for example that he shouldn't be stolen from.
That doesn't mean it was a good investment, you have to quantify costs and benefits.
How do you know?
Is this a book review or a political tract ?
Crap, I ordered a lot of stuff right in that time period and I'm in NYC.
But yeah Newegg ! Tax resistance rocks.
Seems that it should be a government function
Why is that ? This article deals with fraud, fraud can be settled in court. A court system is not always been linked to a government.
A much better idea by the first poster, an organization certifying sushi would be much better, and the cost would be on sushi eaters rather than on tax payers.
Because AMD has a license ?
Sadly he will not be tried for his crimes. With time he might even be held as heroic.
Lincoln and F.D.R did pretty much the same things, including - yes - concentration camps, and yet they are considered national heroes.
Obviously the US government does govern the United States. What I am saying is that it has no right to do so. Who then has the right to govern ? No one. Who should ? No one either. As you figured, I am an anarchist.
If you would like a simple but accurate presentation of these ideas, the simplest way is to look at http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf
And please, I am not trolling, I like to express my point of view when political and ethical questions arise in Slashdot - which is quite often.
Everyone consents to be governed by staying in the country.
You're begging the question by assuming the government has a legitimate jurisdiction over the country.
People is a collectivist abstraction; government of the people by the people for the people doesn't mean anything. There are only individuals, and many of them do not consent to be governed.
So what ? What's so special about them ?
I do agree that the constitution highlights many basic human rights, but many people are confuse about that. While the constitution should merely be a reminder of human right, many people seem to think it defines them.
For one thing, it is the supreme law of the land in the USA
Says who?
You are right in pointing out the examples of the doorknob. However, mentioning that law enforcers don't give a damn about consent is puzzling in a discussion about right. Are you suggesting might make right ?
Well I have no sympathy for Mr Cheney but on that matter he is right. What he wanted to do however was criminal, thus there is no need to say he is breaking the constitution to condemn him.
It is a piece of paper signed by a bunch of people, no more.
As far as I know, the founding father did not own the US, they had no authority in imposing their jurisdiction on the existing landowners. They were just quite successful in expanding the power of their little mafia, and arguably some of them had good intentions, but that's about it.
The constitution does not define right and wrong. On rare occasions it does limit the criminal activities of the government, so its sometimes useful, but overall it does far more harm by giving the dangerous illusion that the government is somehow legitimate.
Is there a place in your mom private diary where something is mentioned about the right to privacy?
How exactly is the constitution more/less relevant?
Actually I think anyone has the right to look through an open window and yes, this means having the right to place a video camera as well. There's no ethical difference between recording with meat or electronics. There is no such thing as a "right" to privacy, but most fortunately, there is a right to close the curtains.
As for the GPS tracking device, as soon as the car enters private property, this becomes trespassing and should at least require a warrant.