I don't think the primary motivation for massive surveillance and such things is fear. In my opinion it is about control and power. Being able to silence any opposition before it gets organized and knowing in advance which groups dissent is growing gives you the power to stay in control longer. Fear is only used to gain acceptance of the public: think of the terrorists etc
A fine theory that is contradicted by facts. The US doesn't engaged in organized government suppression or oppression of organized political groups* that participate lawfully in the ordinary political process. Long ago communists were under scrutiny since they advocated the overthrow of the government, engaged in subversion, and took orders form Moscow. I expect you might understand there to be some problems with that. The complaints about how the "Occupy" movement was treated ignore their lawless behavior, including riots, trespassing, and destruction of property. The "Occupy" camps were havens of crime and many assaults and rapes were committed in them. They had little engagement with the actual political process.
There are few societies that would sit idly while terrorists kill their citizens by the thousands. I don't believe that any European nation would do that.
* The IRS tax agency has admitted to engaging in that behavior, but so far it appears to be misconduct on the part of high level supporters of the President rather than official government policy.
Not so much, no. Apparently there is some history you aren't acquainted with. As used in contemporary America, liberal politics are associated with "progressive" politics. Fascism was also aligned with progressivism.
In his brilliant new book Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg (a colleague of mine) demonstrates how the opposite is the case, that fascism was a movement of the left and that liberal heroes like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were products of what Goldberg calls “the fascist moment” in America early in the 20th century....
Benito Mussolini was a socialist and earned the title “Il Duce” as the leader of the socialists in Italy. When he founded the fascist party, its program called for implementing a minimum wage, expropriating property from landowners, repealing titles of nobility, creating state-run secular schools and imposing a progressive tax rate. Mussolini took socialism and turned it in a more populist and militaristic direction, but remained a modernizing, secular man of the left....
On the other hand, the progressive movement of the early 20th century looked to Mussolini as an inspiration and shared intellectual roots with European fascism, including an appreciation of the “top-down socialism” of Otto von Bismarck. Goldberg eviscerates Woodrow Wilson as the closest we have ever had to a fascist president. Wilson and his supporters welcomed World War I as an opportunity to expand the state, instituting “war socialism” and a far-reaching crackdown on dissent.
FDR picked up where Wilson left off. The crisis of the Great Depression was the occasion for reviving “war socialism.” The man who ran the National Recovery Administration was an open admirer of Mussolini, and the alphabet soup of New Deal agencies had their roots in World War I and the classic fascist impulse to mobilize society and put it on a war footing.
I would love to know which gas / propane / electric company bought this rule....
I expect it is the environmentalists. President Obama has been clear about his direction and priorities for some time. I you get run over (Obamacare, EPA regs in the pipe).... well... too bad.
... for example China has dragged more people above the poverty line than the rest of the world combined in the last 40yrs, (coincidently 14yrs less than my age). China did that with a centrally planned economy. Of course they also put themselves in that the position of wide spread famine in the first place, ironically using the very same "system" of a centrally planning following a series of 5yr plans.
The main enabler for Chinese economic grow over the last 40 years was the free market reforms of 34 years ago. Prior to that they had a crippled, stagnant economy. It was only through moving away from Marxist - Leninist - Maoist economics towards a form of state capitalism that they were able to develop into an economic powerhouse.
Prior to the initiation of economic reforms and trade liberalization 34 years ago, China maintained policies that kept the economy very poor, stagnant, centrally controlled, vastly inefficient, and relatively isolated from the global economy. Since opening up to foreign trade and investment and implementing free market reforms in 1979, China has been among the world’s fastest-growing economies, with real annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaging nearly 10% through 2012. -- China’s Economic Rise (.pdf)
--------
The opening line of Karl Mark's book..."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". A succinct, compassionate, and efficient "prime directive" for any "we the people" if you ask me.
Communism may sound beautiful in theory, but in practice it has been pretty much a bloody train wreck of ruin and oppression wherever it's been tried. The Chinese finally decided to move away from it and their economy prospered. The Soviets stuck with it and the Soviet Union disintegrated.
Chinese communism managed to kill about 60,000,000 of the 100,000,000 million people killed by communism in the last century. The vast majority of the Chinese deaths were prior to their economic reforms.
Quite so, they will be free from liberty, free from plenty, free from democracy, free from justice. It will be just like pretty much every other communist country.
To get to communism we need to free the workers and put the capitalists under the workers dictatorship.
Communist "workers" dictatorships have been a bloody mess resulting in poverty and oppression pretty much everywhere they've been in power. Communism killed 100,000,000 people in the last century.
In the US, the last group that seriously pursued that goal had a similar plan in mind. You may want to pay special attention to the very bottom section of the page under "Additional links."
Perhaps you mean well, or perhaps this is simply your preferred troll, but if you are serious, you should look into this book: The Black Book of Communism - Review
So, they are recruiting experts in a community that almost exclusively supports Snowden and despises the NSA's various mass-spying-on-civilians programs?
They appear to be recruiting from places other than Slashdot.
So if I find a list of the usual talking points "justifying" Snowden's actions, and link to it, does that invalidate them for future discussion? Or is it a matter of each argument on its merits? If something is lawful it doesn't matter if it is on somebody's list or not, does it?
It backfires, and proves just how stupid 20 odd NSA employees can be. The goal was obviously to try to taint Snowden to show that he "broke the law" to get the data he later released.
It's not mutually exclusive, it can be both. Snowden did break the law, and conned some of his fellow workers (20-25) into doing things that got them in trouble, maybe even fired. Normally people here would describe someone acting like Snowden as being a dick. You just like having access to the material that he stole, but you have yet to see the full bill for it. It will take a couple of years to come in, at least.
It really doesn't matter how much you try to deflect the blame here, Snowden is responsible for his actions, just like the people he worked with.
I'm familiar with the sophistry. Communist political parties have ruled many nations with the stated goal of pursuing "true communism." Unfortunately "true communism" always seems to be 10-20 years away, indefinitely, much like the horizon. The theories of communism are based on many mistakes, not the least of which is a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Its pursuit has practically always been a bloody mess which has repeatedly turned countries that were bread baskets for entire regions into lands of want and oppression. If there is any true monument to the folly of man, it is the continued existence of communist parties.
As Chairman Mao noted, a revolution is not a dinner party. If you are calling for a "worker's revolution" I doubt you will be stopping this side of communism. And in practical terms that has proven to be a bloody mess pretty much everywhere it has been tried.
Clearly, disliking an overreaching government that wants nothing but control over it's slaves makes you a socialist now. Because, you know, socialists are totally against those things. Either that or you've been listening to way too much US government propaganda lately and the irony is lost on you.
The post called for a "workers revolution." That is a battle cry of socialism or communism. Your statement that "socialists are totally against those things" must be taken ironically. The history of communist regimes makes that quite clear.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the primary motivation for massive surveillance and such things is fear. In my opinion it is about control and power. Being able to silence any opposition before it gets organized and knowing in advance which groups dissent is growing gives you the power to stay in control longer. Fear is only used to gain acceptance of the public: think of the terrorists etc
A fine theory that is contradicted by facts. The US doesn't engaged in organized government suppression or oppression of organized political groups* that participate lawfully in the ordinary political process. Long ago communists were under scrutiny since they advocated the overthrow of the government, engaged in subversion, and took orders form Moscow. I expect you might understand there to be some problems with that. The complaints about how the "Occupy" movement was treated ignore their lawless behavior, including riots, trespassing, and destruction of property. The "Occupy" camps were havens of crime and many assaults and rapes were committed in them. They had little engagement with the actual political process.
There are few societies that would sit idly while terrorists kill their citizens by the thousands. I don't believe that any European nation would do that.
* The IRS tax agency has admitted to engaging in that behavior, but so far it appears to be misconduct on the part of high level supporters of the President rather than official government policy.
Chomsky? Manufacturing Consent?
I don't think so.
Apparently President Obama speaking is a "troll." I guess that has been sort of proven by the Affordable Care Act.
Be sure to thank President Nixon for the EPA
I would explain it but I don't think the distance between your ears is wide enough to make it worthwhile.
Im sorry if this sucks but sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
Enjoy your Obamacare.
So you have no real solution, only opinions.
So has anyone put together a "best practices" guide for wood stoves + handling of wood?
Shall we assume that you are making a killing selling clean, efficient wood stoves then? Or just tossing out opinions without much to back them up?
"liberal fascists". Utter language abuse.
Not so much, no. Apparently there is some history you aren't acquainted with. As used in contemporary America, liberal politics are associated with "progressive" politics. Fascism was also aligned with progressivism.
Rich Lowry on Liberal Fascism
In his brilliant new book Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg (a colleague of mine) demonstrates how the opposite is the case, that fascism was a movement of the left and that liberal heroes like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt were products of what Goldberg calls “the fascist moment” in America early in the 20th century. ...
Benito Mussolini was a socialist and earned the title “Il Duce” as the leader of the socialists in Italy. When he founded the fascist party, its program called for implementing a minimum wage, expropriating property from landowners, repealing titles of nobility, creating state-run secular schools and imposing a progressive tax rate. Mussolini took socialism and turned it in a more populist and militaristic direction, but remained a modernizing, secular man of the left. ...
On the other hand, the progressive movement of the early 20th century looked to Mussolini as an inspiration and shared intellectual roots with European fascism, including an appreciation of the “top-down socialism” of Otto von Bismarck. Goldberg eviscerates Woodrow Wilson as the closest we have ever had to a fascist president. Wilson and his supporters welcomed World War I as an opportunity to expand the state, instituting “war socialism” and a far-reaching crackdown on dissent.
FDR picked up where Wilson left off. The crisis of the Great Depression was the occasion for reviving “war socialism.” The man who ran the National Recovery Administration was an open admirer of Mussolini, and the alphabet soup of New Deal agencies had their roots in World War I and the classic fascist impulse to mobilize society and put it on a war footing.
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Change
I would love to know which gas / propane / electric company bought this rule....
I expect it is the environmentalists. President Obama has been clear about his direction and priorities for some time. I you get run over (Obamacare, EPA regs in the pipe) .... well... too bad.
Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket
... for example China has dragged more people above the poverty line than the rest of the world combined in the last 40yrs, (coincidently 14yrs less than my age). China did that with a centrally planned economy. Of course they also put themselves in that the position of wide spread famine in the first place, ironically using the very same "system" of a centrally planning following a series of 5yr plans.
The main enabler for Chinese economic grow over the last 40 years was the free market reforms of 34 years ago. Prior to that they had a crippled, stagnant economy. It was only through moving away from Marxist - Leninist - Maoist economics towards a form of state capitalism that they were able to develop into an economic powerhouse.
Prior to the initiation of economic reforms and trade liberalization 34 years ago, China maintained policies that kept the economy very poor, stagnant, centrally controlled, vastly inefficient, and relatively isolated from the global economy. Since opening up to foreign trade and investment and implementing free market reforms in 1979, China has been among the world’s fastest-growing economies, with real annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth averaging nearly 10% through 2012. -- China’s Economic Rise (.pdf)
--------
The opening line of Karl Mark's book..."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". A succinct, compassionate, and efficient "prime directive" for any "we the people" if you ask me.
Communism may sound beautiful in theory, but in practice it has been pretty much a bloody train wreck of ruin and oppression wherever it's been tried. The Chinese finally decided to move away from it and their economy prospered. The Soviets stuck with it and the Soviet Union disintegrated.
Chinese communism managed to kill about 60,000,000 of the 100,000,000 million people killed by communism in the last century. The vast majority of the Chinese deaths were prior to their economic reforms.
Under communism there will be free people.
Quite so, they will be free from liberty, free from plenty, free from democracy, free from justice. It will be just like pretty much every other communist country.
To get to communism we need to free the workers and put the capitalists under the workers dictatorship.
Communist "workers" dictatorships have been a bloody mess resulting in poverty and oppression pretty much everywhere they've been in power. Communism killed 100,000,000 people in the last century.
In the US, the last group that seriously pursued that goal had a similar plan in mind. You may want to pay special attention to the very bottom section of the page under "Additional links."
Perhaps you mean well, or perhaps this is simply your preferred troll, but if you are serious, you should look into this book: The Black Book of Communism - Review
A duplicate? There is a way out.
Fjord seems rather fond of denouncing totalitarianism so it's to be expected.
FTFY
I don't think you really followed the full flow of the discussion. Why don't you start with the first post calling for a "workers revolution."
So, they are recruiting experts in a community that almost exclusively supports Snowden and despises the NSA's various mass-spying-on-civilians programs?
They appear to be recruiting from places other than Slashdot.
So if I find a list of the usual talking points "justifying" Snowden's actions, and link to it, does that invalidate them for future discussion? Or is it a matter of each argument on its merits? If something is lawful it doesn't matter if it is on somebody's list or not, does it?
He also slipped this into his summary: .... Just his standard issue repetition of corrupt authoritarian talking points.
It is in the article. Apparently you don't bother reading them.
It backfires, and proves just how stupid 20 odd NSA employees can be. The goal was obviously to try to taint Snowden to show that he "broke the law" to get the data he later released.
It's not mutually exclusive, it can be both. Snowden did break the law, and conned some of his fellow workers (20-25) into doing things that got them in trouble, maybe even fired. Normally people here would describe someone acting like Snowden as being a dick. You just like having access to the material that he stole, but you have yet to see the full bill for it. It will take a couple of years to come in, at least.
It really doesn't matter how much you try to deflect the blame here, Snowden is responsible for his actions, just like the people he worked with.
I'm familiar with the sophistry. Communist political parties have ruled many nations with the stated goal of pursuing "true communism." Unfortunately "true communism" always seems to be 10-20 years away, indefinitely, much like the horizon. The theories of communism are based on many mistakes, not the least of which is a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Its pursuit has practically always been a bloody mess which has repeatedly turned countries that were bread baskets for entire regions into lands of want and oppression. If there is any true monument to the folly of man, it is the continued existence of communist parties.
The Black Book of Communism
As Chairman Mao noted, a revolution is not a dinner party. If you are calling for a "worker's revolution" I doubt you will be stopping this side of communism. And in practical terms that has proven to be a bloody mess pretty much everywhere it has been tried.
The Black Book of Communism
Clearly, disliking an overreaching government that wants nothing but control over it's slaves makes you a socialist now. Because, you know, socialists are totally against those things. Either that or you've been listening to way too much US government propaganda lately and the irony is lost on you.
The post called for a "workers revolution." That is a battle cry of socialism or communism. Your statement that "socialists are totally against those things" must be taken ironically. The history of communist regimes makes that quite clear.
With apologies to the Bard*: There are more things in heaven and earth, Hatta, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
*The Tragedy of Hamlet: Act 1, Scene 5, by William Shakespeare
Nothing changes his past, and he continues in his ways with new offenses.
Chomsky's Genocidal Denial