The nice thing would have been if some government had funded him.
First of all, "government" can't fund anything because government doesn't generate its own revenue through voluntary means. What government can do is FORCE people to hand over THEIR savings to support the project.
I'm a Gentoo user, and I'm all for voluntary support of free software, but I'll be damned if you or anyone else is going to make that decision for me against my will. I make my own decisions on which software projects I support, and I resent the fact that you would steal that god-given right from me. I don't care who you are -- approach me peacefully, and I will respect you. Approach me through force, and I will resent you, no matter what your cause.
Keep free software voluntary, the way it should be. It's a shame that this guy couldn't make a living at it, but again, that doesn't give you the slightest right to force your beliefs on me.
And when you go to reinstall windows, it's as easy as unplugging the linux disk and moving your windows disk to the primary channel (as if the linux disk never existed). Clean and straightforward, much easier than messing around with partitions.
In other words, the market was more of a level playing field before government got involved. No surprise there.
Without government and it's unique "right" to initiate force contaminating free trade, business must rely exclusively on voluntary association (otherwise they are criminals).
What gives your private business the right to a profit
Free will, something that is apparently brushed aside by statists like yourself, in the name of whatever special interest of the week you'd like to force upon others via government.
Of course, I don't support this latest attempt to centralize power in federal government either. I agree that the power to force wireless upon the people should be reserved to the states, but that doesn't mean that I believe it's neccessary, let alone moral to do so. Free will is infinitely more important than your arbitrary special interests.
It's not going to solve any of the problems that we have had in the past.
That's the whole point. The power elite don't want to solve problems -- they want to create problems. Imagine a peaceful world where everybody gets along. A society of real freedom. How would the power elite possibly benefit from that? If everybody got along without being ruled, there would be no justification for a ruler. If there are no crises, there are no justifications for expansion of government power.
When there are no existing problems, what can a government do to sustain that growth it so desires? It can create new problems which, naturally, need solving.
One classic example is drug prohibition. Before prohibition took hold, there were no Al Capones, no bloods or crips, no drive-by shootings. Sure, people did drugs back then, or drank alcohol, but while it was all legal, there was no business opportunity for organized crime. When prohibition created the black market, opening the doors for organized crime, causing the murder rates to skyrocket, guess what happened? Government stepped up to answer the call for more government. Now, over 50 years later, we're all suspects. Many of our god-given freedoms have been stolen in the name of drug prohibition. We are forced to pay billions per year to fund our own oppression, all in the name of solving a problem that wasn't.
The catch is that we already have laws to deal with trespassing and unauthorized acces, and this latest added complexity is just another way to expand the size and scope of government.
Re:Tinfoil Hat Jokes aside
on
Tinfoil Hat House
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
A misdemeanor charge isn't what's needed, a visit from a social worker probably is.
How about just leaving them the hell alone and minding your own god damn business? Am I the only one here who respects freedom more than arbitrary "social standards" imposed by some central planning agency?
And the answer is: This organization is defined by its unique ability to initiate force as a means to an end, while anybody else who does so is a criminal.
(In other words, the government and the people are not, have never been, and could never possibly be one and the same.)
Is there really anything wrong with a government electing to support its own economy and keep the tax money it collects and spends within its borders?
Yes, it's an assult on my god-given right to associate voluntarily with my fellow man. Don't like the fact that I value my natural right to freedom more than your collectivist ideals? Good, deal with it. There are many more like me, and in case you didn't realize, we view people like you as the oppressors.
As a matter of fact, most would consider it the responsible way for a government to behave.
Way to push your agenda by stating your personal opinion like it's some kind of statistical fact.
However, the benefits to the power elite (more power, wealth, and control over others) obviously dwarf the consequences, let alone the ideals of freedom and peaceful association between individuals.
More likely, the power elite realizes that drug prohibition provides crime (much of it violent), and with more crime comes the need for (drum roll please) even more government.
possession of marijuana. it's a non-violent crime.
It's not a crime at all, according to human nature. Drug use, drug possession, drug buying and selling -- like 99% of existing "crimes", these things are only crimes because government says so. Not because human beings evolved to instinctively understand them as crimes. They can argue until the end of time that drugs are evil, and I wouldn't necessarily debate that, but the simple truth is that drug prohibition is simply a violation of arbitrary social standards, not an actual crime against another actual human being (an actual initiation of force).
The idea that people have the right and responsibility to mostly regulate their own local affairs as they see fit
Ha, as if the guy who wants to relax peacefully in his own home with a glass of wine is the one who chose this form of oppression for himself. Self-regulation my ass. We're talking one group of individuals stealing god-given freedoms from another group of individuals. People gaining at other people's expense. That's what 99% of government is all about. You can spin it any way you like, but you can't change the core principle of government which is pure force. Everything that government does for you comes ONLY at the expense of people who don't want it but are forced to obey regardless of their beliefs.
Capitalism? Hardly. Capitalism is founded on the principle of voluntary trade. A business model which relies on an initiation of force (IP law for example), is therefore not an example of capitalism. (Would IP be possible under a 100% voluntary scenario? Perhaps to some extent via contractual agreement, but certainly not to the draconian extent which only government, and it's "right" to initiate force, can make possible.)
So what you are referring to is not capitalism. These problems are a result of big government, not voluntary trade.
Doesn't sound very different from the corportate CEO-go-round, does it?
Yes it does, in fact it is the exact opposite of a non-criminal CEO. A non-criminal private business operates on the principle of voluntary association (the second they abandon that principle they become either criminals or arms of government), while government operates on pure force (if government was voluntary it would be private business). That is the simple, universal distinction between private business and government.
Of course, the deeper government is entangled in the market, the more the line between voluntary association and force is blurred.
none of 'em have the balls to stand up for what they believe in
Maybe that's because the powerful elite really don't believe in anything but self-interest?
Newsflash: The people who aspire to hold power over others are those who believe in association by force, not those who believe only in voluntary association.
The irony here is that you seem to be advocating a form of limited government, in order to lower the level of abuse, and that is the core principle of -- drum roll please -- libertarianism!
Back to what you were saying... You repeatedly claim that capitalism is bad because it's exploitable. But at the core, capitalism is nothing but voluntary trade for mutual benefit. When you're talking about corporate fraud, you're talking about force, not voluntary association. When you're talking about corporations buying out government, you're talking about force, not voluntary association. Please, at least realize that force is our common enemy, not free will.
So you are just a troll? I had a feeling you were, considering that you don't advocate force, but at the same time, are apparently strongly opposed to voluntary association (capitalism).
A person who doesn't advocate force, but opposes voluntary association. How cute.
I neither want power (let alone absolute) nor do I want to hand it off to anyone else (sure as hell couldn't trust anyone else).
Then by what logic can you advocate force (centralized government) as your solution?
Let me get this straight. You view wealth as a problem that needs solving. For whatever reason, you consider wealth (financial success) immoral, even when it is acquired through 100% voluntary means. Your solution to this problem is redistribution of wealth. But at the same time, you don't want the power to achieve that yourself (the right to initiate force as a means to an end), nor would you delegate that power to anyone else.
Without some elite group holding the right to initiate force, how exactly do you plan to redistribute wealth? Entirely voluntary and by free will? That's called anarcho-socialism. We're on the same team, buddy!
You see, I am not against helping the poor. I am not against charity. In fact I am very supportive of it. What I am against is the initiation of force. While I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, I have absolutely nothing against anarcho-socialism. Why? Because it is founded on the principle of voluntary association.
Now, one more point. What we have in the US is not capitalism, not by a long shot. What we have is a highly bastardized mix of capitalism AND socialism. Our "capitalism" is corrupt, exploitable, and nowhere near 100% voluntary. Perhaps you should direct your anger at the root of the problem, which is the existence of power?
Are you that blinded by the promises of centralized power that you deny that the initiation of force is immoral and unjust? Wow.
Let me ask you something. Do you support the war? Do you support the killing of thousands of innocents and the destruction of an entire country for the benefit of the powerful elite? Well, guess what? It's your support for big government and centralized power that gave them the ability to build the empire in the first place.
Power corrupts, by definition. That is why I advocate limited government -- not because I am selfish, inconsiderate, or uncaring. In fact, from my perspective, YOU are the selfish, inconsiderate, uncaring individual for advocating a government that grants your wishes at the expense of those who hold other beliefs.
If you choose to submit, then it's not force anymore, is it? Certainly, I can hire a man to hit me over the head with a bat, but then, I choose to enter that interaction voluntarily. If I give my explicit consent, then it's not force.
Government does not operate like this. When a citizen "chooses" to submit to government, he does so not out of free will, but in response to a threat of violence.
You sound like you're trying to imply that something is morally wrong with a company eliminating jobs. Let me explain something to you. The employer-employee relationship is voluntary. Both parties enter the relationship with the understanding that either party may terminate the relationship at any time. Therefore, there is nothing morally wrong with either the employee or the employer terminating the relationship. It may be unfortunate, but it is not morally wrong by any rational means.
What is morally wrong is for a third party (government) to interfere in the relationship by force, robbing the employee and employer of their natural human right to voluntary association. What's also morally wrong is for either party to abandon the voluntary relationship and resort to force.
You see, it's not your "intentions" that define morality. It's your mode of interaction: force vs. voluntary association. Who says so? Mother nature. If you want to interact with me voluntarily, I'm all for it. But if you want to interact with me by force, then I'll be damned if I ever respect you, let alone accept your implication that what you're doing is moral and just.
Slashdot Mirror
First of all, "government" can't fund anything because government doesn't generate its own revenue through voluntary means. What government can do is FORCE people to hand over THEIR savings to support the project.
I'm a Gentoo user, and I'm all for voluntary support of free software, but I'll be damned if you or anyone else is going to make that decision for me against my will. I make my own decisions on which software projects I support, and I resent the fact that you would steal that god-given right from me. I don't care who you are -- approach me peacefully, and I will respect you. Approach me through force, and I will resent you, no matter what your cause.
Keep free software voluntary, the way it should be. It's a shame that this guy couldn't make a living at it, but again, that doesn't give you the slightest right to force your beliefs on me.
And when you go to reinstall windows, it's as easy as unplugging the linux disk and moving your windows disk to the primary channel (as if the linux disk never existed). Clean and straightforward, much easier than messing around with partitions.
In other words, the market was more of a level playing field before government got involved. No surprise there.
Without government and it's unique "right" to initiate force contaminating free trade, business must rely exclusively on voluntary association (otherwise they are criminals).
Can't, forgot my wetsuit.
Free will, something that is apparently brushed aside by statists like yourself, in the name of whatever special interest of the week you'd like to force upon others via government.
Of course, I don't support this latest attempt to centralize power in federal government either. I agree that the power to force wireless upon the people should be reserved to the states, but that doesn't mean that I believe it's neccessary, let alone moral to do so. Free will is infinitely more important than your arbitrary special interests.
That's the whole point. The power elite don't want to solve problems -- they want to create problems. Imagine a peaceful world where everybody gets along. A society of real freedom. How would the power elite possibly benefit from that? If everybody got along without being ruled, there would be no justification for a ruler. If there are no crises, there are no justifications for expansion of government power.
When there are no existing problems, what can a government do to sustain that growth it so desires? It can create new problems which, naturally, need solving.
One classic example is drug prohibition. Before prohibition took hold, there were no Al Capones, no bloods or crips, no drive-by shootings. Sure, people did drugs back then, or drank alcohol, but while it was all legal, there was no business opportunity for organized crime. When prohibition created the black market, opening the doors for organized crime, causing the murder rates to skyrocket, guess what happened? Government stepped up to answer the call for more government. Now, over 50 years later, we're all suspects. Many of our god-given freedoms have been stolen in the name of drug prohibition. We are forced to pay billions per year to fund our own oppression, all in the name of solving a problem that wasn't.
Now that's what I call a business plan.
The catch is that we already have laws to deal with trespassing and unauthorized acces, and this latest added complexity is just another way to expand the size and scope of government.
How about just leaving them the hell alone and minding your own god damn business? Am I the only one here who respects freedom more than arbitrary "social standards" imposed by some central planning agency?
With government and its unique "right" to initiate force so deeply entangled in the market, what exactly did you expect?
And the answer is: This organization is defined by its unique ability to initiate force as a means to an end, while anybody else who does so is a criminal.
(In other words, the government and the people are not, have never been, and could never possibly be one and the same.)
I do, but our family doesn't watch television or movies. Problem solved.
Yes, it's an assult on my god-given right to associate voluntarily with my fellow man. Don't like the fact that I value my natural right to freedom more than your collectivist ideals? Good, deal with it. There are many more like me, and in case you didn't realize, we view people like you as the oppressors.
As a matter of fact, most would consider it the responsible way for a government to behave.
Way to push your agenda by stating your personal opinion like it's some kind of statistical fact.
However, the benefits to the power elite (more power, wealth, and control over others) obviously dwarf the consequences, let alone the ideals of freedom and peaceful association between individuals.
More likely, the power elite realizes that drug prohibition provides crime (much of it violent), and with more crime comes the need for (drum roll please) even more government.
It's not a crime at all, according to human nature. Drug use, drug possession, drug buying and selling -- like 99% of existing "crimes", these things are only crimes because government says so. Not because human beings evolved to instinctively understand them as crimes. They can argue until the end of time that drugs are evil, and I wouldn't necessarily debate that, but the simple truth is that drug prohibition is simply a violation of arbitrary social standards, not an actual crime against another actual human being (an actual initiation of force).
Ha, as if the guy who wants to relax peacefully in his own home with a glass of wine is the one who chose this form of oppression for himself. Self-regulation my ass. We're talking one group of individuals stealing god-given freedoms from another group of individuals. People gaining at other people's expense. That's what 99% of government is all about. You can spin it any way you like, but you can't change the core principle of government which is pure force. Everything that government does for you comes ONLY at the expense of people who don't want it but are forced to obey regardless of their beliefs.
Capitalism? Hardly. Capitalism is founded on the principle of voluntary trade. A business model which relies on an initiation of force (IP law for example), is therefore not an example of capitalism. (Would IP be possible under a 100% voluntary scenario? Perhaps to some extent via contractual agreement, but certainly not to the draconian extent which only government, and it's "right" to initiate force, can make possible.)
So what you are referring to is not capitalism. These problems are a result of big government, not voluntary trade.
Doesn't sound very different from the corportate CEO-go-round, does it? Yes it does, in fact it is the exact opposite of a non-criminal CEO. A non-criminal private business operates on the principle of voluntary association (the second they abandon that principle they become either criminals or arms of government), while government operates on pure force (if government was voluntary it would be private business). That is the simple, universal distinction between private business and government. Of course, the deeper government is entangled in the market, the more the line between voluntary association and force is blurred.
none of 'em have the balls to stand up for what they believe in
Maybe that's because the powerful elite really don't believe in anything but self-interest?
Newsflash: The people who aspire to hold power over others are those who believe in association by force, not those who believe only in voluntary association.
You wanted big government, you got big government.
The irony here is that you seem to be advocating a form of limited government, in order to lower the level of abuse, and that is the core principle of -- drum roll please -- libertarianism!
Back to what you were saying... You repeatedly claim that capitalism is bad because it's exploitable. But at the core, capitalism is nothing but voluntary trade for mutual benefit. When you're talking about corporate fraud, you're talking about force, not voluntary association. When you're talking about corporations buying out government, you're talking about force, not voluntary association. Please, at least realize that force is our common enemy, not free will.
So you are just a troll? I had a feeling you were, considering that you don't advocate force, but at the same time, are apparently strongly opposed to voluntary association (capitalism).
A person who doesn't advocate force, but opposes voluntary association. How cute.
Then by what logic can you advocate force (centralized government) as your solution?
Let me get this straight. You view wealth as a problem that needs solving. For whatever reason, you consider wealth (financial success) immoral, even when it is acquired through 100% voluntary means. Your solution to this problem is redistribution of wealth. But at the same time, you don't want the power to achieve that yourself (the right to initiate force as a means to an end), nor would you delegate that power to anyone else.
Without some elite group holding the right to initiate force, how exactly do you plan to redistribute wealth? Entirely voluntary and by free will? That's called anarcho-socialism. We're on the same team, buddy!
You see, I am not against helping the poor. I am not against charity. In fact I am very supportive of it. What I am against is the initiation of force. While I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, I have absolutely nothing against anarcho-socialism. Why? Because it is founded on the principle of voluntary association.
Now, one more point. What we have in the US is not capitalism, not by a long shot. What we have is a highly bastardized mix of capitalism AND socialism. Our "capitalism" is corrupt, exploitable, and nowhere near 100% voluntary. Perhaps you should direct your anger at the root of the problem, which is the existence of power?
Are you that blinded by the promises of centralized power that you deny that the initiation of force is immoral and unjust? Wow.
Let me ask you something. Do you support the war? Do you support the killing of thousands of innocents and the destruction of an entire country for the benefit of the powerful elite? Well, guess what? It's your support for big government and centralized power that gave them the ability to build the empire in the first place.
Power corrupts, by definition. That is why I advocate limited government -- not because I am selfish, inconsiderate, or uncaring. In fact, from my perspective, YOU are the selfish, inconsiderate, uncaring individual for advocating a government that grants your wishes at the expense of those who hold other beliefs.
If you choose to submit, then it's not force anymore, is it? Certainly, I can hire a man to hit me over the head with a bat, but then, I choose to enter that interaction voluntarily. If I give my explicit consent, then it's not force.
Government does not operate like this. When a citizen "chooses" to submit to government, he does so not out of free will, but in response to a threat of violence.
You sound like you're trying to imply that something is morally wrong with a company eliminating jobs. Let me explain something to you. The employer-employee relationship is voluntary. Both parties enter the relationship with the understanding that either party may terminate the relationship at any time. Therefore, there is nothing morally wrong with either the employee or the employer terminating the relationship. It may be unfortunate, but it is not morally wrong by any rational means.
What is morally wrong is for a third party (government) to interfere in the relationship by force, robbing the employee and employer of their natural human right to voluntary association. What's also morally wrong is for either party to abandon the voluntary relationship and resort to force.
You see, it's not your "intentions" that define morality. It's your mode of interaction: force vs. voluntary association. Who says so? Mother nature. If you want to interact with me voluntarily, I'm all for it. But if you want to interact with me by force, then I'll be damned if I ever respect you, let alone accept your implication that what you're doing is moral and just.