two thoughts: leaderless movements are defanged easily. The sight of young men looting stores is the best way to demonstrate that there was no real ideology at play, just an anti-social consumerism. Anger is foolish in politics as it is in sports. The object is to sustain an argument and win at least some elections. Anger focuses on what the other guy does, and leaves the initiative to the other side. Todd Gitlin has written some good material on this aspect of the 60s. Secondly, the corporation is less and the sole problem. Individualism is curbed more effectively by communitarianism and its off-spring paternalism. To change politics and promote individualism, we must end prohibition. Currently idealists promote the idea that government should intrude on the most intimate moments of our lives. We urgently need alternative policies.
A quick glance at Paul Crowley's link "containing directory" shows that Oracle, Adobe and IBM have the same position: no patents use copyrights instead.
Pomme de terre deserves credit for recognizing naughton's contributions and not consigning him to the legal-moral category of dirty pervert. It also reminds us that this man is not out to destroy society, but a man who has predilections that almost any society will guard against. Charlie Chaplin and Roman Polanski are two movie people who actually had sex with young girls. As with drugs the enemy is us. However any society will protect children from being sold for prostitution or force into by homelessness etc. Finally, the question of rape deserves careful consideration. Therefore the defense of privacy is intriguing but insufficient. Those who question the use of deceit and lies by the police are on to something. Here the issue of consensual crime ought to be examined. Instead of simple condemnation, maybe we should listen first and decide later.
Slashdot Mirror
> I am a professor for social psychology at the University of Arizona
And I'm doing this research project on insular, mimetically inbred subcultures...
is Bruce Campbell.
two thoughts: leaderless movements are defanged easily. The sight of young men looting stores is the best way to demonstrate that there was no real ideology at play, just an anti-social consumerism. Anger is foolish in politics as it is in sports. The object is to sustain an argument and win at least some elections. Anger focuses on what the other guy does, and leaves the initiative to the other side. Todd Gitlin has written some good material on this aspect of the 60s. Secondly, the corporation is less and the sole problem. Individualism is curbed more effectively by communitarianism and its off-spring paternalism. To change politics and promote individualism, we must end prohibition. Currently idealists promote the idea that government should intrude on the most intimate moments of our lives. We urgently need alternative policies.
A quick glance at Paul Crowley's link "containing directory" shows that Oracle, Adobe and IBM have the same position: no patents use copyrights instead.
Pomme de terre deserves credit for recognizing naughton's contributions and not consigning him to the legal-moral category of dirty pervert. It also reminds us that this man is not out to destroy society, but a man who has predilections that almost any society will guard against. Charlie Chaplin and Roman Polanski are two movie people who actually had sex with young girls. As with drugs the enemy is us. However any society will protect children from being sold for prostitution or force into by homelessness etc. Finally, the question of rape deserves careful consideration. Therefore the defense of privacy is intriguing but insufficient. Those who question the use of deceit and lies by the police are on to something. Here the issue of consensual crime ought to be examined. Instead of simple condemnation, maybe we should listen first and decide later.