Make no mistake, we in the United States are heading down this same path. We might have this freedom now but it could be taken away with a simple majority vote. For anyone who thinks otherwise, we've actually already been down there and back, with a little thing called the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Is entertainment a necessary good and/or service in your mind?
The people who make these laws control all the necessities of life, water, security, etc. This makes it relatively easy for them to stay in power, and as a result they can make whatever laws they want. This is inevitably what follows from a complete lack of real accountability.
Is this 'group of thieves' (who produces and sells entertainment, that apparently you believe is a necessity) morally worse than people who infringe upon their rights? Is this infringement done in the name of good in your mind?
The point is that two years incarceration is not a just punishment for illegaly downloading a few songs. A just punishment in my mind would be at most twice the cost of what was stolen. And it's debatable whether or not these goods really are stolen, since exclusive use of this 'property' was granted by a coercive government in the first place.
What is just about taking the results of someone's hard labor and giving them nothing in return for it?
Nowhere did I say this is just, this is an unfounded conclusion. My point is that as a result of thier monopoly on justice, the lawmakers can devise whatever punishment they want for the slightest infractions of their unjust laws. The punishment simply does not fit the crime.
This is undoubtedly a sad day for justice and liberty in Germany. It's the kind of abuse we generally get when one group of thieves becomes the sole provider of necessary goods and services to the people.
I appreciate your apology, and I am not trying to be a dink. I'm just trying to make a point that war is wrong, and those who support the State in any form support all the atrocities that come with it. I know that WWII is the most popular war aside from the revolutionary war, but I am still against it on principle. I believe the only justification to use force against another is if you are attacked. Which is not the case in any US war except the revolution. All the others are an excuse to grab more power for those in charge and enrich their large financial backers. I respect those who disagree, but there's no need for namecalling.
Have you lived somewhere without police, that would justify that counterintuitive (to me) statement?
No, but all the places that exist now have police. I've watched a lot of cops, and from what I've seen, the only unrest caused on the streets is from them harassing (mostly) innocent, non-violent people.
Have you read histories of cities and countries in revolution (temporary anarchy) and studied the data from such times and places to be able to support that belief? The examples that I've seen suggest that when there is no government the streets are very dangerous indeed.c
That's not temporary anarchy, more like temporary chaos caused by people being fed up with their orrupt government. There would be no reason for them to revolt to begin with if they weren't being oppressed by the State.
Actually I don't recall them defending Pearl Harbor very well either. And I hardly believe it was really a surprise. Not only that, but they provoked Japan into attacing us with the embargo. Also, I don't think even Hitler would have been crazy enough to attack us on our own soil.
Think of the hassles you would get on the street then.
I still think the streets would be a lot safer without the government. If you really want the streets to be safe then consider legalizing drugs, thus removing the severe black markets that encourage gang warfare.
My local government does a pretty good job of collecting the garbage, suppying me with water and sewers, providing fire protection and police services, and maintaining the roads. I'd hate to think how much it would cost me to build my own interstate to my own airport.
I wouldn't be surprised if your short list actually did fall within 10% of expenditures (not sure of the exact figures). If the government were ever able to force itself to such drastic confinement we wouldn't have nearly so many problems as there are today. But, given all the history of their past expansions of power I seriously doubt that would ever be possible.
Yes, we'd be better off living in a place where everybody* voluntarily gave the government money for its programs such as defense, police, and courts.
Do you honestly think the government does a decent job at these tasks? They really excelled at defending us on 9/11. The corrupt police regularly harass people on the streets who've done nothing wrong (just watch cops) and our court system is a real hoot.
surely there would be at least.001% who would do it, right?
That's exactly the point. People wouldn't voluntarily give their hard earned cash to an organization that wastes 90% of it and sucks horribly at even the basic things it's supposed to provide. Not to mention one that regularly spends it murdering foreigners and supporting brutal right wing dictatorships in latin america.
Good luck trying to hold the government liable for anything it does. It is precisely this lack of market accountability that makes them so inefficient at everything they do.
Interesting article, thanks for the link. The Supreme Court was also a lame duck when FDR pushed his social security legislation through. They wanted to declare it unconstitutional but FDR threatened to pack the court with his his supporters, so they capitulated and gave him free reign.
Have you read Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States"? Not very libertarian, but I still thorougly enjoyed it. His main theorey is that America's Government was actually designed from the beginning to be controlled by the leading wealthy interests and keep poor people down perpetually.
I am glad I can remember the world when it was free
I doubt this country has ever really been free, despite the lip service. The liberties here have been continuously eroded since the beginning of the constitution. Still a degree freer than most tyrannies though, to be sure. But even that is rapidly disappearing.
I don't recall Adam Smith having invented Capitalism, or free markets. Capitalism = free markets (investing private capital) by definition. Free markets = no government intervention. If you have issues with this there's not much I can really do.
The contract would simply contain an enforcment agency agreed upon by the parties. A privately operated police or security company would do nicely in this regard.
Capitalism: n An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
I don't see any presupposition of regulation here. Regulation is anti-capitalism (and anti-freedom), pure and simple. Also, freedom of contract is meaningless if you are dependent on a specific organization to validate it. A contract is a voluntary agreement between two or more parties. Why should these parties be forced to depend on the government to enforce it? Why shouldn't they be able to choose another mediation agency if they wanted?
Adam Smith may not have had a problem with that, but that doesn't mean that it is fair or moral.
Bottom line is, this is the weakness in Capitalism. The fact that you can start up a company for the express purpose of screwing hard working or innovative people and companies out of millions in deserved money.
This is not a weakness in Capitalism. It's actually just the opposite. Patents are a government granted monopoly, a direct product of Socialism. People complain about how bad monopolies are, and that we need the government to break them up. Then they go around saying governments should grant exclusive use of ideas to companies who 'invent' them and then wait for someone else to implement. The logic escapes me.
I wonder if the software could be modified to easily uncover the blacked out parts prevelant in many government documents. I suspect they would put up a big stink about this though.
Sweet, how did I know this would turn into another C# vs Java debate...
Anyways, I am a Java developer for a small consulting firm near Cleveland. Every now and then I scan the help wanted ads just to see what people are looking for, and there were several companies wanting.NET and none for Java. On the other hand, I had no problem finding a Java position (in a couple of weeks no less) when I switched employers a few months ago. I also had companies interviewing me for C# positions though it's definitely weaker on my resume, so maybe that says something about the C# demand around here.
I live with the reality that exists or has been demonstrated, rather than with fantasy. We've seen what happens without government. Somalia. Afganistan. The Middle East, before Europe attempted to assert itself.
The countries you cite as examples are in a ruinous condition precicely because of an outcome that huge failures in government produced. This directly contradicts the ideas you are trying to uphold.
With no government, people attempt to take power. It happens in the form of dictatorships, theocracies, 'councils' of those looking to gain, etc.
In a place with no government and no laws, I suspect that it would be mighty difficult for someone to take central control of an infrastructure that didn't exist. Especially if the citizens had guns to protect themselves. Also, for anyone who is able to gain a little power, it would probably be on a much smaller scale than the current USA government.
Anarchy is great, in theory. Unfortunately as soon as you add people to the mix, then you have disagreements, which leads to fights. On a large enough scale you develop factions, which lead to direct conflict, action, and violence. And, you keep getting stuck with some form of organization, which is government.
You will always have people who commit crimes. There is no possible way that a government will ever be able to stop that. The most heinous crimes of theft and mass murder in history have all been commited by governments, inluding the American government. Governments themself are the sole cause of the "direct action, conflict and violence" of which you speak. In a land without the mass concentration of resources that a powerful central government provides, it would hardly be pretty hard to carry out such mass murder and robbery which is currently perpetuated today all over the world.
I'd rather have a potentially just government that actually has laws to protect me from other individuals and from itself, even if it doesn't do the best job of it, than to have no law.
I'd like to see an example of one single government that has ever been just. If there ever has existed one it was surely corrupted pretty quickly. Power corrupts, it is precisely because people have a violent nature that makes it so hard to maintain an incorruptable organization without seroius violations of freedom and liberty.
if he doesn't spend the money it makes us all just a tiny bit richer.
It's more like, if he doesn't spend the money it's that much more the Feds can print without hyperinflating the dollar. Of course, the dollar will probably end in hyperflation anyway, and the chances of the dollar surviving another hundred years are probably almost as slim as this guy surviving.
Maybe if someone didn't like the required classes, an enterprising person could hire someone to work on the boring projects, and spend their time on something more interesting. Like maybe even coding for money or producing an actual product to sell in the marketplace. They could do all this without sacrificing their grades, and still end up graduating, and still learn in the process. After all, a degree is mostly just a piece of paper, and most businesses will probably have a hard time hiring someone who doesn't have one. So you might as well at least go through the motions while still working on what you want. Not that I am advocating cheating in any way, just trying to think of this in a different way.
Get over yourself already
on
Web 3.0
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This rant is no better than someone bragging that they liked such and such a band before it got popular. Then they proceed to complain that the band sold out and no longer writes good music. Oh please!
Slashdot Mirror
Make no mistake, we in the United States are heading down this same path. We might have this freedom now but it could be taken away with a simple majority vote. For anyone who thinks otherwise, we've actually already been down there and back, with a little thing called the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Oh my god, Google did something! This means we just have to make a report on the front page.
The people who make these laws control all the necessities of life, water, security, etc. This makes it relatively easy for them to stay in power, and as a result they can make whatever laws they want. This is inevitably what follows from a complete lack of real accountability.
Is this 'group of thieves' (who produces and sells entertainment, that apparently you believe is a necessity) morally worse than people who infringe upon their rights? Is this infringement done in the name of good in your mind?
The point is that two years incarceration is not a just punishment for illegaly downloading a few songs. A just punishment in my mind would be at most twice the cost of what was stolen. And it's debatable whether or not these goods really are stolen, since exclusive use of this 'property' was granted by a coercive government in the first place.
What is just about taking the results of someone's hard labor and giving them nothing in return for it?
Nowhere did I say this is just, this is an unfounded conclusion. My point is that as a result of thier monopoly on justice, the lawmakers can devise whatever punishment they want for the slightest infractions of their unjust laws. The punishment simply does not fit the crime.
This is undoubtedly a sad day for justice and liberty in Germany. It's the kind of abuse we generally get when one group of thieves becomes the sole provider of necessary goods and services to the people.
I appreciate your apology, and I am not trying to be a dink. I'm just trying to make a point that war is wrong, and those who support the State in any form support all the atrocities that come with it. I know that WWII is the most popular war aside from the revolutionary war, but I am still against it on principle. I believe the only justification to use force against another is if you are attacked. Which is not the case in any US war except the revolution. All the others are an excuse to grab more power for those in charge and enrich their large financial backers. I respect those who disagree, but there's no need for namecalling.
No, but all the places that exist now have police. I've watched a lot of cops, and from what I've seen, the only unrest caused on the streets is from them harassing (mostly) innocent, non-violent people.
Have you read histories of cities and countries in revolution (temporary anarchy) and studied the data from such times and places to be able to support that belief? The examples that I've seen suggest that when there is no government the streets are very dangerous indeed.c
That's not temporary anarchy, more like temporary chaos caused by people being fed up with their orrupt government. There would be no reason for them to revolt to begin with if they weren't being oppressed by the State.
Actually I don't recall them defending Pearl Harbor very well either. And I hardly believe it was really a surprise. Not only that, but they provoked Japan into attacing us with the embargo. Also, I don't think even Hitler would have been crazy enough to attack us on our own soil.
Think of the hassles you would get on the street then.
I still think the streets would be a lot safer without the government. If you really want the streets to be safe then consider legalizing drugs, thus removing the severe black markets that encourage gang warfare.
My local government does a pretty good job of collecting the garbage, suppying me with water and sewers, providing fire protection and police services, and maintaining the roads. I'd hate to think how much it would cost me to build my own interstate to my own airport.
I wouldn't be surprised if your short list actually did fall within 10% of expenditures (not sure of the exact figures). If the government were ever able to force itself to such drastic confinement we wouldn't have nearly so many problems as there are today. But, given all the history of their past expansions of power I seriously doubt that would ever be possible.
Yeah, because the other governments in Africa have done SUCH a great job in human rights and providing for the people. Especially Nigeria.
Do you honestly think the government does a decent job at these tasks? They really excelled at defending us on 9/11. The corrupt police regularly harass people on the streets who've done nothing wrong (just watch cops) and our court system is a real hoot.
surely there would be at least .001% who would do it, right?
That's exactly the point. People wouldn't voluntarily give their hard earned cash to an organization that wastes 90% of it and sucks horribly at even the basic things it's supposed to provide. Not to mention one that regularly spends it murdering foreigners and supporting brutal right wing dictatorships in latin america.
There is no such thing as a fair tax. Taxes are immoral - nothing more than coercive theft at gunpoint.
Linux and Mac related pages have become harder and harder to find.
Good luck trying to hold the government liable for anything it does. It is precisely this lack of market accountability that makes them so inefficient at everything they do.
Have you read Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States"? Not very libertarian, but I still thorougly enjoyed it. His main theorey is that America's Government was actually designed from the beginning to be controlled by the leading wealthy interests and keep poor people down perpetually.
I doubt this country has ever really been free, despite the lip service. The liberties here have been continuously eroded since the beginning of the constitution. Still a degree freer than most tyrannies though, to be sure. But even that is rapidly disappearing.
I don't recall Adam Smith having invented Capitalism, or free markets. Capitalism = free markets (investing private capital) by definition. Free markets = no government intervention. If you have issues with this there's not much I can really do. The contract would simply contain an enforcment agency agreed upon by the parties. A privately operated police or security company would do nicely in this regard.
I don't see any presupposition of regulation here. Regulation is anti-capitalism (and anti-freedom), pure and simple. Also, freedom of contract is meaningless if you are dependent on a specific organization to validate it. A contract is a voluntary agreement between two or more parties. Why should these parties be forced to depend on the government to enforce it? Why shouldn't they be able to choose another mediation agency if they wanted?
Adam Smith may not have had a problem with that, but that doesn't mean that it is fair or moral.
This is not a weakness in Capitalism. It's actually just the opposite. Patents are a government granted monopoly, a direct product of Socialism. People complain about how bad monopolies are, and that we need the government to break them up. Then they go around saying governments should grant exclusive use of ideas to companies who 'invent' them and then wait for someone else to implement. The logic escapes me.
I wonder if the software could be modified to easily uncover the blacked out parts prevelant in many government documents. I suspect they would put up a big stink about this though.
Anyways, I am a Java developer for a small consulting firm near Cleveland. Every now and then I scan the help wanted ads just to see what people are looking for, and there were several companies wanting .NET and none for Java. On the other hand, I had no problem finding a Java position (in a couple of weeks no less) when I switched employers a few months ago. I also had companies interviewing me for C# positions though it's definitely weaker on my resume, so maybe that says something about the C# demand around here.
Slashdot's the only news I need!
The countries you cite as examples are in a ruinous condition precicely because of an outcome that huge failures in government produced. This directly contradicts the ideas you are trying to uphold.
With no government, people attempt to take power. It happens in the form of dictatorships, theocracies, 'councils' of those looking to gain, etc.
In a place with no government and no laws, I suspect that it would be mighty difficult for someone to take central control of an infrastructure that didn't exist. Especially if the citizens had guns to protect themselves. Also, for anyone who is able to gain a little power, it would probably be on a much smaller scale than the current USA government.
Anarchy is great, in theory. Unfortunately as soon as you add people to the mix, then you have disagreements, which leads to fights. On a large enough scale you develop factions, which lead to direct conflict, action, and violence. And, you keep getting stuck with some form of organization, which is government.
You will always have people who commit crimes. There is no possible way that a government will ever be able to stop that. The most heinous crimes of theft and mass murder in history have all been commited by governments, inluding the American government. Governments themself are the sole cause of the "direct action, conflict and violence" of which you speak. In a land without the mass concentration of resources that a powerful central government provides, it would hardly be pretty hard to carry out such mass murder and robbery which is currently perpetuated today all over the world.
I'd rather have a potentially just government that actually has laws to protect me from other individuals and from itself, even if it doesn't do the best job of it, than to have no law.
I'd like to see an example of one single government that has ever been just. If there ever has existed one it was surely corrupted pretty quickly. Power corrupts, it is precisely because people have a violent nature that makes it so hard to maintain an incorruptable organization without seroius violations of freedom and liberty.
Thanks for the link, we've been using Magnolia but might end up trying out Lenya. The site with the list you posted isn't working though.
It's more like, if he doesn't spend the money it's that much more the Feds can print without hyperinflating the dollar. Of course, the dollar will probably end in hyperflation anyway, and the chances of the dollar surviving another hundred years are probably almost as slim as this guy surviving.
Maybe if someone didn't like the required classes, an enterprising person could hire someone to work on the boring projects, and spend their time on something more interesting. Like maybe even coding for money or producing an actual product to sell in the marketplace. They could do all this without sacrificing their grades, and still end up graduating, and still learn in the process. After all, a degree is mostly just a piece of paper, and most businesses will probably have a hard time hiring someone who doesn't have one. So you might as well at least go through the motions while still working on what you want. Not that I am advocating cheating in any way, just trying to think of this in a different way.
This rant is no better than someone bragging that they liked such and such a band before it got popular. Then they proceed to complain that the band sold out and no longer writes good music. Oh please!