I value humans more because I am a human. Generally, if an organism holds value on life, it is on the life of others of it's species. That is nature, and how God/evolution intended/developed it to be. The only species I can think of that equates the life of one of its own with another species is the dog, and they were bred to do so for thousands of years.
Either evolution made humans superior than animals and inclined to eat them, and with an abhorrence towards killing our own kind, or God did. Either way, it is nature. I wouldn't want to eat a dolphin, dog, or ape but I have no problem with eating a cow. They were created/evolved for us to eat.
There are some diseases that cannot be cured yet. Less things are cures, but it is not cures being replaced by long term treatments. It is disease and deaths that are being replaced.
An organ donor chooses to donate his organs if he dies and they are usable. He is not killed. I do agree that if a stem cell would otherwise be discarded it is okay to use it for research, but using it to directly cure a patient is a slippery slope.
Nature intends for certain species of animals to kill each other for food. Either you view this as the facilitation of natural selection and the cycle of life, God's plan, or both. Humans have been created as/evolved into a species where killing each other is abhorred, as it is among other intelligent creatures.
Most people agree that destroying another person to further one's own life is wrong. The argument is as to whether a fetus is a person. I, personally, do not believe that it is safe to assume that a fetus is not.
People who believe that this trial is killing an innocent human being, whether out of religious or secular beliefs, should attempt to stop this no matter the scientific advances.
The intrinsic right you're referring to is the right to do whatever you want without infringing upon others' rights, and have full rights over any property you acquire without infringing upon anyone else's property rights. Capitalism and the free market have driven most innovation.
It is possible to provide water for oneself in most areas. There are several systems for filtering water collected in gutters. The same is somewhat true of electricity, although that is more expensive to implement.
I don't think there will be the clear dichotomy like you suggested. First you said that only businesses would be able to afford internet access. That will never happen, because ISPs would lose a lot of money. They will price it as high as they can while still selling to the optimum amount of people. Which means it will have to be priced so that most people can afford it.
And you said with certainty that in Europe with socialized internet service provision, ideas would be exchanged freely, versus the U.S. system. ISPs do not want to suppress free speech, they have no business motive. In many cases, governments do want to suppress free speech, and have.
There are other problems with socialized internet service provision. How do you decide to upgrade the infrastructure? Democratic voting is completely unfair, unless everyone pays the same amount in taxes. Representative democracy will end up working similarly, with people voting for candidates who will spend others' money. At a local level, it might work okay, but there are always going to be political issues. Improve the product, or steal less of people's money? With a free market, and competition (There is competition in internet service provision), the products will end up at an optimum balance between quality and cost. And I do not mean arbitrary "Hey it's 3 Terabits per second instead of 2, most of the cost won't be on me, I'll vote for it" quality. I mean real "This is really worth the money so I'll pay more for this other carrier with it" quality.
I think the internet will face far greater improvement from cheap to set up wireless services charging far lower prices than conventional wired services.
As far as covering rural areas, I think IP over power lines looks interesting and inexpensive for that, and I suspect ISPs will begin capitalizing on it.
In capitalism, success is achieving what one wants to achieve, and (free) cooperation is as important as competition. People's lives are not supposed to be dedicated to furthering capitalism.
The iMac would be far cheaper. This laptop costs $2600 - $3100. The 20 inch iMac costs $1700 - ~$2500, and is probably a lot more more powerful. The 20 inch model only weighs a few pounds more than this. It doesn't have a battery at all, though.
Highways could be and are built by private entities, but you seem to be forgetting that one of the main reasons for the Interstate Highway System was defense. I'm not against public roads but they should be run and payed for by local governments if possible.
Most federal spending is not necessary. I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe the budget for medicare and social security is over 1 trillion dollars. I believe that the people of the United States could spend that money and secure their own medical care and investments far better.
People are expected to pay for their home. If you can't afford a house, rent a home. If you can't afford that, find someone else in a similar situation and pool your money. Don't force others to pay for it. If you want to help people get homes, do so, freely.
If the trains can make money, then private enterprise will build them. Otherwise, use cars, or other transportation you can buy for yourself. If they are so much less efficient considering gas prices etc. then trains will make money.
Most of NASA should be left to private enterprise. If the rewards are so great, then some of those greedy capitalists will be sure to invest. It costs a lot to get into space now, but that's partially because there is no incentive to find better ways. With guaranteed money taken from taxpayers, there's little reason to do a good job.
If you want to help people in other countries, then help them, they'll surely appreciate your support, financial or otherwise. But should you be forced to, especially considering that since the government is doing it, politics and corruption will get in the way of helping people?
Homeland security is necessary, and it freedom of association doesn't apply. If you are going to protect a nation, you have to protect all of it. If someone chooses not to pay for it, you can't not protect them while protecting everyone nearby. And private security agencies powerful enough to protect this country could do anything they wanted to it.
Slashdot Mirror
I value humans more because I am a human. Generally, if an organism holds value on life, it is on the life of others of it's species. That is nature, and how God/evolution intended/developed it to be. The only species I can think of that equates the life of one of its own with another species is the dog, and they were bred to do so for thousands of years.
I believe that is wrong, and that those people have a right to their lives.
A person in a temporary coma may not have a recognition of self at the time. Is it okay to kill them?
Either evolution made humans superior than animals and inclined to eat them, and with an abhorrence towards killing our own kind, or God did. Either way, it is nature. I wouldn't want to eat a dolphin, dog, or ape but I have no problem with eating a cow. They were created/evolved for us to eat.
So if there is someone more useful to society than you, it is okay for him to kill you if he needs to do so to continue living?
Viral infections are extremely hard to cure, and far easier to vaccinate against. So logic dictates that a vaccine will be developed first.
There are some diseases that cannot be cured yet. Less things are cures, but it is not cures being replaced by long term treatments. It is disease and deaths that are being replaced.
The life of a human being is not equitable with a cow, vegetable, or bacterium.
An organ donor chooses to donate his organs if he dies and they are usable. He is not killed. I do agree that if a stem cell would otherwise be discarded it is okay to use it for research, but using it to directly cure a patient is a slippery slope.
There is a difference between choosing to save a developed person rather than a fetus, and choosing to kill a fetus to save a developed person.
Nature intends for certain species of animals to kill each other for food. Either you view this as the facilitation of natural selection and the cycle of life, God's plan, or both. Humans have been created as/evolved into a species where killing each other is abhorred, as it is among other intelligent creatures.
Most people agree that destroying another person to further one's own life is wrong. The argument is as to whether a fetus is a person. I, personally, do not believe that it is safe to assume that a fetus is not.
People who believe that this trial is killing an innocent human being, whether out of religious or secular beliefs, should attempt to stop this no matter the scientific advances.
The intrinsic right you're referring to is the right to do whatever you want without infringing upon others' rights, and have full rights over any property you acquire without infringing upon anyone else's property rights. Capitalism and the free market have driven most innovation.
Throw it out of the plane? Then it will be even harder to find.
If something is not too bad, it is okay. That's semantics, not an opinion.
It is possible to provide water for oneself in most areas. There are several systems for filtering water collected in gutters. The same is somewhat true of electricity, although that is more expensive to implement.
When is the last time you saw a new DSL provider *other* than the phone company?
Earthlink? Speakeasy?
Insightful? This is a completely unsubstantiated claim.
I don't think there will be the clear dichotomy like you suggested. First you said that only businesses would be able to afford internet access. That will never happen, because ISPs would lose a lot of money. They will price it as high as they can while still selling to the optimum amount of people. Which means it will have to be priced so that most people can afford it.
And you said with certainty that in Europe with socialized internet service provision, ideas would be exchanged freely, versus the U.S. system. ISPs do not want to suppress free speech, they have no business motive. In many cases, governments do want to suppress free speech, and have.
There are other problems with socialized internet service provision. How do you decide to upgrade the infrastructure? Democratic voting is completely unfair, unless everyone pays the same amount in taxes. Representative democracy will end up working similarly, with people voting for candidates who will spend others' money. At a local level, it might work okay, but there are always going to be political issues. Improve the product, or steal less of people's money? With a free market, and competition (There is competition in internet service provision), the products will end up at an optimum balance between quality and cost. And I do not mean arbitrary "Hey it's 3 Terabits per second instead of 2, most of the cost won't be on me, I'll vote for it" quality. I mean real "This is really worth the money so I'll pay more for this other carrier with it" quality.
I think the internet will face far greater improvement from cheap to set up wireless services charging far lower prices than conventional wired services.
As far as covering rural areas, I think IP over power lines looks interesting and inexpensive for that, and I suspect ISPs will begin capitalizing on it.
In capitalism, success is achieving what one wants to achieve, and (free) cooperation is as important as competition. People's lives are not supposed to be dedicated to furthering capitalism.
That would eject the elevator.
I have an Microsoft vacuum cleaner, and it certainly doesn't suck.
The iMac would be far cheaper. This laptop costs $2600 - $3100. The 20 inch iMac costs $1700 - ~$2500, and is probably a lot more more powerful. The 20 inch model only weighs a few pounds more than this. It doesn't have a battery at all, though.
The Oxford American Dictionary definition of "ad hominem" is:
(of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
Then it should be moderated "funny", not insightful.
Highways could be and are built by private entities, but you seem to be forgetting that one of the main reasons for the Interstate Highway System was defense. I'm not against public roads but they should be run and payed for by local governments if possible. Most federal spending is not necessary. I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe the budget for medicare and social security is over 1 trillion dollars. I believe that the people of the United States could spend that money and secure their own medical care and investments far better. People are expected to pay for their home. If you can't afford a house, rent a home. If you can't afford that, find someone else in a similar situation and pool your money. Don't force others to pay for it. If you want to help people get homes, do so, freely. If the trains can make money, then private enterprise will build them. Otherwise, use cars, or other transportation you can buy for yourself. If they are so much less efficient considering gas prices etc. then trains will make money. Most of NASA should be left to private enterprise. If the rewards are so great, then some of those greedy capitalists will be sure to invest. It costs a lot to get into space now, but that's partially because there is no incentive to find better ways. With guaranteed money taken from taxpayers, there's little reason to do a good job. If you want to help people in other countries, then help them, they'll surely appreciate your support, financial or otherwise. But should you be forced to, especially considering that since the government is doing it, politics and corruption will get in the way of helping people? Homeland security is necessary, and it freedom of association doesn't apply. If you are going to protect a nation, you have to protect all of it. If someone chooses not to pay for it, you can't not protect them while protecting everyone nearby. And private security agencies powerful enough to protect this country could do anything they wanted to it.