I understand your desire to be a responsible citizen in the world and to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. I can understand the arguments against going into Iraq (no WMD's, lies, lies, lies, etc). BUT, to say that we should not have done anything about Afghanistan is pure pacifism.
There are times when nothing except for force will change things for a people. Think back to the Revolutionary War. We wouldn't have stood a chance against Britain if it weren't for France's intervention. Britain and France would not have stood a chance against Germany in either world wars without our intervention.
Pacifists, like you, assume the people are inherently good, and left to their own devices they will act as such. I wish that were the case, but people are assholes. Everyone once in a while you have to punch an asshole in the face to get him to leave you alone.
I'm a rabidly pro-free-market libertarian. There are two options for paying for clean-up of pollution. One is to charge the company, who will turn around and charge the consumers with higher prices. The second option is to make the taxpayers pay for it. In my mind taxpayers = consumers and so there is no real difference.
By the way, liberatarian != hates the environment. Liberatarian == hates the government.
If you're a geek and not getting laid, then listen closely because you should be.
1. Popular culture lies. Dumb, muscle bound meat heads and frat-boys don't get the girl. 2. The feature in men that women are most attracted to: intelligence. 3. Studies show that intelligent men, over the course of their life, get to have more sex, more regularly than those who are less intelligent.
If your a geek and don't think you can get a girl, you're wrong. All those popped-collared frat boys want you to think you aren't going to be successful because, if the truth got out, THEY would never get laid. So instead of trying, you sit home and play WoW.
If you don't believe me consider this (proposed by a evolutionary biologist): women are beautiful, men are ugly. Agreed? OK. Therefore, men must be choosing mates based on looks (that's why women get more beautiful every generation) and women must be choosing mates based on other features (intelligence).
give Google their own private version of copyright law.
Have you even read the settlement? There is nothing in it that is even close to what you are talking about. The agreement is a completely non-exclusive. Microsoft is free to strike the same deal with the book publishers if they CHOSE to. What it boils down to is Microsoft doesn't want to spend the money and do the work to redigitize the world's book (yes I know about their half assed effort). So instead of being a competitor they are trying to either 1) shut down the Google effort using politics or 2) make Google share the fruits of their labor with everyone.
There is nothing that stops any other company from doing the same thing.
No idea why people are so keen on protecting Google
Why are you so keen on protecting Microsoft? Unlike Microsoft, Google's software makes most of our lives much better every single day.
Very well said. It didn't take a genius to see that the WMD talk in the run up the war was just propaganda. Anyone who fell for the propaganda as the true reason for the war is exactly as stupid as GWB wanted them to be.
I tried to find a paper I read in the 90's, but can't find it online anymore. It was written by 4 Chinese generals as basically they're version of "A Project for a New American Century". It laid out exactly how China should compete with and conquer the United States in the long term. Most notably it stressed asymmetric warfare on all fronts.
As I see China buying up our economy, restricting our access to necessary resources, propping up anti-America regimes in Venezuala, Iran, Sudan..... I can't help but think that the paper has been implemented and the war has already started. The Chinese leadership is much, much smarter than the American populace.
Yes true. But most of Russia is quickly turning Chinese. It is simply a matter of time before China becomes the largest country in the world by population AND size.
Not that I agree with the original poster, but China is not a colony. They aren't a puppet state. They chose their own government and market system. Who else is responsible for China except the Chinese?
China has a horrible standard of living because it squandered its economic resources for most of the 20th century and is only now opening up its markets to free trade. But, free trade carries benefits and risks. China seems to think it can take the benefits of the free market while the rest of the world assumes the risk.
Very well said. But, you used the words "idiotic treehuggers" and Slashdot only tolerates free speech from the left.
I think more effective would be to force China (I'll explain how in one second) to: - Allow their currency to float on the free market. - Disallow any state owned or state subsidized company from doing business in the United States or with American companies. - Open up all resources to free trade, including rare earth metals - Meet FDA guidelines for safety on all products exported to the US
How can we force China to do anything when we owe them a trillion dollars? Well, it works both ways. If China doesn't play by the rules of the free market we should inflate away that trillion dollar debt so that they lose the entire investment.
He's angry but that doesn't mean he is completely wrong. China is part of the WTO, it has obligations under international law to be a fair player. China wants all the benefits of capitalism and free trade but without any of the costs.
More effective would be to inflate away the trillion dollars of debt China owns so that investment becomes a huge loss.
You realize that you got a -1 for using the term "loony leftist" not because of the content of your statement. Next time be more careful, censorship does exist on slashdot.
A biologist I studied under in college took yearly trips to the northern Alaska. He worked at the cancer research institute at my university and went to Alaska every year to collect biological samples. Those samples were brought back to the institute and analyzed for any cancer treating properties. Most didn't have an affect but some of the animals from that region did contain compounds that were effective in killing tumor cells.
These yearly trips it was always with a group of biologists. Some biologists where from other universities. But, some of the biologists were from the oil companies. Their job was to travel to the same areas, the areas now proposed for drilling, to certify that there was nothing of biological significance in the desired territory. Which, of course, they dutifully did.
I was making point which was quickly proved: Slashdot is turning into a one-sided liberal minded orgy with no tolerance for opposing opinions.
I used the exact same language as the parent post, but changed the subject from the war to healthcare and viola! One is insightful and one is flamebait.
... fund a manned space program when you are planning to blow all your resources on worthless, unnecessary healthcare?
Why are we cutting back on manned space flight while proposing to spend trillions of dollars on public healthcare? A few billion dollars to ensure the future of our species is being traded in so that every fat-ass, diabetic, smoking drinker can get all the healthcare they "deserve".
The Economist awesome. Thanks for the post. True, the article states that health care is broken, but it does not support public health care, socialized medicine, or anything close to it.
The article you posted says that America's health care system is broken because 1) overconsumption (Americans get too much unnecessary healthcare) and 2) lack of competition in the health care market. Their solution is to 1) reduce the amount of "unnecessary" healthcare that people get and 2) add more free market competition to the system.
And there is the rub. The solution is the exact opposite of what public health care supporters want. They want more health care, not less. They want a public option, not more private options. As far as I can tell, the solutions being proposed would just make things worse.
Don't fool yourself, friend. The people behind the bank bailouts and the people behind socialized healthcare are the same. Both want to line their pockets with taxpayer money and neither have any interest in your general well being.
Take care of your own finances and take care of your own health and don't expect anything from anyone else.
Socialist: Why don't you want public healthcare? Me: I'll pay for my own healthcare. Socialist: What about all the people that can't afford health care? Me: That's not my responsibility. Socialist: Isn't that heartless? Me: Yes. Socialist: But you have more money then they have, isn't it your responsibility to give some of that money to those who don't have any? Me: No. Socialist: The fact that you have money can only be a result of 1) your privileged position or 2) evil deeds. Me: Well, I was born to a family that easily falls below the poverty line, so 1 probably isn't true. And I wouldn't consider writing software evil. Perhaps you feel this way because YOU could not achieve success without 1 or 2? Socialist: No. You are lying. The poor are noble. The rich are evil. The rich get and stay rich by oppressing the poor. Therefore it is the right of the poor to take what they need from the rich. Me: That sounds like robbery. Socialist: No. The poor don't rob the rich. The government passes legislation to tax the rich and then decides who gets the money. Me: Isn't that robbery? Socialist: No, that is socialism. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs. Me: I'm not a socialist. I believe in individual responsibility, personal property, and personal rights. Socialist: So do I! I am protecting the rights of the poor. Me: The right to what? Socialist: The right to healthcare. Unlimited and free access to healthcare for those in need. Me: And you propose paying for it by robbing me? Socialist: It is not robbery, it is progressive taxation. Me: What about my right to personal property? Socialist: The right to healthcare is more important than your right to have personal property. Me: I disagree. Socialist: Its for the the greater good. Besides you will have equal access to healthcare. Me: I already have access to healthcare. Socialist: That's not the point. There are millions of people without healthcare. Me: That's not my problem. Socialist: What if you need more healthcare than you can afford? Me: Then I will probably die. Besides, I can afford more healthcare if you don't rob me first. Socialist: But wouldn't you want someone to help you? Me: Probably, but I wouldn't rob someone to pay my bills. If someone chooses to donate to my cause, I would be eternally grateful, but I wouldn't expect or demand it.
I have no political affiliation. But when people from the "left" speak, this is what I hear:
"My house got foreclosed because the evil bankers tricked me with clever math." "I am overweight because the evil fast food corporations tricked me into eating trans-fats and french fries." "I can't get my diabetes and heart disease treated because the evil medical system and insurance companies are evil." "I can't find a job because the evil illegal immigrants Mexicans took them all." "I can't think for myself because the evil media tricks and scares me into believing whatever they want. When will society give me what it owes me?" "People who have a lot of money got there by being evil."
On the surface I like some of the ideas from the left. I like the environment. I like freedom of choice. But I don't like that the left idealizes the worst elements in our society. Laziness, obesity, and stupidity are treatable conditions and society should not be held hostage by those who lack personal accountability and responsibility.
A charismatic leader with grass roots support, elected by a landslide, purporting to protect the needs of the poor from the greed of the rich turns out to be only interested in power. Thank god that could never happen in the US.
I used to believe the same thing. Until I met identical twins who were raised in the same house under the same conditions and came out completely opposite. One became a respectable member of society and the other became a drug addict and a criminal.
This made me conclude that nature and nurture must not be the only factor in shaping a person, there is also an element of personal choice.
Slashdot Mirror
I understand your desire to be a responsible citizen in the world and to avoid unnecessary bloodshed. I can understand the arguments against going into Iraq (no WMD's, lies, lies, lies, etc). BUT, to say that we should not have done anything about Afghanistan is pure pacifism.
There are times when nothing except for force will change things for a people. Think back to the Revolutionary War. We wouldn't have stood a chance against Britain if it weren't for France's intervention. Britain and France would not have stood a chance against Germany in either world wars without our intervention.
Pacifists, like you, assume the people are inherently good, and left to their own devices they will act as such. I wish that were the case, but people are assholes. Everyone once in a while you have to punch an asshole in the face to get him to leave you alone.
I'm a rabidly pro-free-market libertarian. There are two options for paying for clean-up of pollution. One is to charge the company, who will turn around and charge the consumers with higher prices. The second option is to make the taxpayers pay for it. In my mind taxpayers = consumers and so there is no real difference.
By the way, liberatarian != hates the environment. Liberatarian == hates the government.
If you're a geek and not getting laid, then listen closely because you should be.
1. Popular culture lies. Dumb, muscle bound meat heads and frat-boys don't get the girl.
2. The feature in men that women are most attracted to: intelligence.
3. Studies show that intelligent men, over the course of their life, get to have more sex, more regularly than those who are less intelligent.
If your a geek and don't think you can get a girl, you're wrong. All those popped-collared frat boys want you to think you aren't going to be successful because, if the truth got out, THEY would never get laid. So instead of trying, you sit home and play WoW.
If you don't believe me consider this (proposed by a evolutionary biologist): women are beautiful, men are ugly. Agreed? OK. Therefore, men must be choosing mates based on looks (that's why women get more beautiful every generation) and women must be choosing mates based on other features (intelligence).
give Google their own private version of copyright law.
Have you even read the settlement? There is nothing in it that is even close to what you are talking about. The agreement is a completely non-exclusive. Microsoft is free to strike the same deal with the book publishers if they CHOSE to. What it boils down to is Microsoft doesn't want to spend the money and do the work to redigitize the world's book (yes I know about their half assed effort). So instead of being a competitor they are trying to either 1) shut down the Google effort using politics or 2) make Google share the fruits of their labor with everyone.
There is nothing that stops any other company from doing the same thing.
No idea why people are so keen on protecting Google
Why are you so keen on protecting Microsoft? Unlike Microsoft, Google's software makes most of our lives much better every single day.
Very well said. It didn't take a genius to see that the WMD talk in the run up the war was just propaganda. Anyone who fell for the propaganda as the true reason for the war is exactly as stupid as GWB wanted them to be.
I tried to find a paper I read in the 90's, but can't find it online anymore. It was written by 4 Chinese generals as basically they're version of "A Project for a New American Century". It laid out exactly how China should compete with and conquer the United States in the long term. Most notably it stressed asymmetric warfare on all fronts.
As I see China buying up our economy, restricting our access to necessary resources, propping up anti-America regimes in Venezuala, Iran, Sudan..... I can't help but think that the paper has been implemented and the war has already started. The Chinese leadership is much, much smarter than the American populace.
Yes true. But most of Russia is quickly turning Chinese. It is simply a matter of time before China becomes the largest country in the world by population AND size.
Not that I agree with the original poster, but China is not a colony. They aren't a puppet state. They chose their own government and market system. Who else is responsible for China except the Chinese?
China has a horrible standard of living because it squandered its economic resources for most of the 20th century and is only now opening up its markets to free trade. But, free trade carries benefits and risks. China seems to think it can take the benefits of the free market while the rest of the world assumes the risk.
Very well said. But, you used the words "idiotic treehuggers" and Slashdot only tolerates free speech from the left.
I think more effective would be to force China (I'll explain how in one second) to:
- Allow their currency to float on the free market.
- Disallow any state owned or state subsidized company from doing business in the United States or with American companies.
- Open up all resources to free trade, including rare earth metals
- Meet FDA guidelines for safety on all products exported to the US
How can we force China to do anything when we owe them a trillion dollars? Well, it works both ways. If China doesn't play by the rules of the free market we should inflate away that trillion dollar debt so that they lose the entire investment.
He's angry but that doesn't mean he is completely wrong. China is part of the WTO, it has obligations under international law to be a fair player. China wants all the benefits of capitalism and free trade but without any of the costs.
More effective would be to inflate away the trillion dollars of debt China owns so that investment becomes a huge loss.
You realize that you got a -1 for using the term "loony leftist" not because of the content of your statement. Next time be more careful, censorship does exist on slashdot.
A biologist I studied under in college took yearly trips to the northern Alaska. He worked at the cancer research institute at my university and went to Alaska every year to collect biological samples. Those samples were brought back to the institute and analyzed for any cancer treating properties. Most didn't have an affect but some of the animals from that region did contain compounds that were effective in killing tumor cells.
These yearly trips it was always with a group of biologists. Some biologists where from other universities. But, some of the biologists were from the oil companies. Their job was to travel to the same areas, the areas now proposed for drilling, to certify that there was nothing of biological significance in the desired territory. Which, of course, they dutifully did.
I was making point which was quickly proved: Slashdot is turning into a one-sided liberal minded orgy with no tolerance for opposing opinions.
I used the exact same language as the parent post, but changed the subject from the war to healthcare and viola! One is insightful and one is flamebait.
Either both are insightful or both are flamebait.
That's good. Too bad a smug sense of entitlement and bitter resentment of anyone with different opinions can't pay the bills either.
Heh. Yes I am a dick / asshole / heartless bastard. But, at least I'm not a thief, beggar, or politician. So, =P
... fund a manned space program when you are planning to blow all your resources on worthless, unnecessary healthcare?
Why are we cutting back on manned space flight while proposing to spend trillions of dollars on public healthcare? A few billion dollars to ensure the future of our species is being traded in so that every fat-ass, diabetic, smoking drinker can get all the healthcare they "deserve".
The only true green power is to harvest the misguided, good intentions of environmentalists.
Bullshit. If you didn't want a discussion about healthcare you would have picked something else to analyze.
The Economist awesome. Thanks for the post. True, the article states that health care is broken, but it does not support public health care, socialized medicine, or anything close to it.
The article you posted says that America's health care system is broken because 1) overconsumption (Americans get too much unnecessary healthcare) and 2) lack of competition in the health care market. Their solution is to 1) reduce the amount of "unnecessary" healthcare that people get and 2) add more free market competition to the system.
And there is the rub. The solution is the exact opposite of what public health care supporters want. They want more health care, not less. They want a public option, not more private options. As far as I can tell, the solutions being proposed would just make things worse.
Don't fool yourself, friend. The people behind the bank bailouts and the people behind socialized healthcare are the same. Both want to line their pockets with taxpayer money and neither have any interest in your general well being.
Take care of your own finances and take care of your own health and don't expect anything from anyone else.
Socialist: Why don't you want public healthcare?
Me: I'll pay for my own healthcare.
Socialist: What about all the people that can't afford health care?
Me: That's not my responsibility.
Socialist: Isn't that heartless?
Me: Yes.
Socialist: But you have more money then they have, isn't it your responsibility to give some of that money to those who don't have any?
Me: No.
Socialist: The fact that you have money can only be a result of 1) your privileged position or 2) evil deeds.
Me: Well, I was born to a family that easily falls below the poverty line, so 1 probably isn't true. And I wouldn't consider writing software evil. Perhaps you feel this way because YOU could not achieve success without 1 or 2?
Socialist: No. You are lying. The poor are noble. The rich are evil. The rich get and stay rich by oppressing the poor. Therefore it is the right of the poor to take what they need from the rich.
Me: That sounds like robbery.
Socialist: No. The poor don't rob the rich. The government passes legislation to tax the rich and then decides who gets the money.
Me: Isn't that robbery?
Socialist: No, that is socialism. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs.
Me: I'm not a socialist. I believe in individual responsibility, personal property, and personal rights.
Socialist: So do I! I am protecting the rights of the poor.
Me: The right to what?
Socialist: The right to healthcare. Unlimited and free access to healthcare for those in need.
Me: And you propose paying for it by robbing me?
Socialist: It is not robbery, it is progressive taxation.
Me: What about my right to personal property?
Socialist: The right to healthcare is more important than your right to have personal property.
Me: I disagree.
Socialist: Its for the the greater good. Besides you will have equal access to healthcare.
Me: I already have access to healthcare.
Socialist: That's not the point. There are millions of people without healthcare.
Me: That's not my problem.
Socialist: What if you need more healthcare than you can afford?
Me: Then I will probably die. Besides, I can afford more healthcare if you don't rob me first.
Socialist: But wouldn't you want someone to help you?
Me: Probably, but I wouldn't rob someone to pay my bills. If someone chooses to donate to my cause, I would be eternally grateful, but I wouldn't expect or demand it.
I have no political affiliation. But when people from the "left" speak, this is what I hear:
"My house got foreclosed because the evil bankers tricked me with clever math."
"I am overweight because the evil fast food corporations tricked me into eating trans-fats and french fries."
"I can't get my diabetes and heart disease treated because the evil medical system and insurance companies are evil."
"I can't find a job because the evil illegal immigrants Mexicans took them all."
"I can't think for myself because the evil media tricks and scares me into believing whatever they want.
When will society give me what it owes me?"
"People who have a lot of money got there by being evil."
On the surface I like some of the ideas from the left. I like the environment. I like freedom of choice. But I don't like that the left idealizes the worst elements in our society. Laziness, obesity, and stupidity are treatable conditions and society should not be held hostage by those who lack personal accountability and responsibility.
You deserve a +5 Insightful.
A charismatic leader with grass roots support, elected by a landslide, purporting to protect the needs of the poor from the greed of the rich turns out to be only interested in power. Thank god that could never happen in the US.
Yes, this sounds good. And I agree with you. But it still sounds a lot like Soma in "Brave New World".
I used to believe the same thing. Until I met identical twins who were raised in the same house under the same conditions and came out completely opposite. One became a respectable member of society and the other became a drug addict and a criminal.
This made me conclude that nature and nurture must not be the only factor in shaping a person, there is also an element of personal choice.