oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
The purpose of the war is not a means to an end, it is the end in itself. the ruling class wages war on its own subjects, and its goal, is not the annihilation of the enemy, but to keep the very structure of its society in tact.
this has nothing to do with the article, but, um, anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. anarchism is against all authority: goverment, capitalist, property, religious, etc. whereas capitalism places authority in the owner of the private property. The corporate heirarchy is much like a totalitarian government.
I don't mean to be an ass, but I find the term "anarchocapitalist" to be oxymoronic. The term "libertarian right" or just "libertarian" seems to be more fitting.
hey, if people start downloading music and the RIAA loses 3 % of it's gross product, who know what will happen to civil society? Oh god, people will be murdering, raping, looting, oh no! What will happen to the law? God, western society will collapse! Oh no! The poor RIAA, if people start downloading more, P. Did won't be able to afford his gold-plated toilets in his mansion... and poor U2... oh booo-hooo! Society as we know it is collapsing! Run! Run for your lives! The attack of the P2P downloaders! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!
My question is... how is the RIAA monitoring P2P networks and users... isn't that an invasion of privacy... it's illegal if the cops do it, it's called entrapment. But, I guess it's alright if the RIAA does it - and since a corporation is a legal entity, I being a person am also a legal entity. Which means if the RIAA can spy on the contents of people's computers, sheesh I guess I can too, and I could sue them if they had, like some photoshopped images I made with the intent to sell.
Ppsh, the RIAA should just listen to more of the group Negativland. They love those guys, anyways. Well, I do. And, I donwload music, but I don't really listen to stuff on the RIAA's teeny-bopper/40-year-old-middle class bitch/moron-generation-x-dipshit playlist, and I listen to stuff by artists that support downloading.
I have the freedom to do whatever I want, the problem is the State interferring and telling me I can't do that, and then sending me to prison. Freedom is not written on pieces of paper, freedom is dictated by what you do. Same with equality. They can pass all the laws they want regulating racial equality, and yet still there'd be racists - pieces of paper and some authority figure signing them do not dictate how people are going to act. And furthermore, the state supposedly has this "social contract" with its subjects - well, did you or I ever sign this? i can't recall. I don't remember signing it.
No, I don't have as much financial assets worth protecting. But I don't care - people, including you and I, deserve to be degraded, not elevated to a platform of respect based on the amount of money they have or what they claim to be. Everyone raises themselves on platforms, and they need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that their professional reputation and financial assets doesn't say shit to what type of person they are, or really matter once you look past the structure's reward system. The only people that really don't deserve to be degraded are the ones helping out in 3rd world countries, or dedicating their lives and financial security to helping other people.
The internet is full of libel and slander - look at totse.com's forums, technically that could be considered as slander and libel. Should we sue them too?
I know what you're saying about how the system structure's of how things are illegal and should be punished accordingly and that you should be complacent with them otherwise you'll do yourself a disfavor. But you shouldn't always be so reactionary in your complacency towards what the law says is right or wrong.
So, basically, you're going to whine and cry to mommy if someone writes something incorrect about you? The internet is full of flames on people and bs - should we prosecute them all too. Oh man, someone wrote something bad about me, I can make money off of this, and I'm a whiny bitch, so I'll so them.
I'd go off on a tangent about why the law shouldn't have any jurisdiction over anything and how the state and corporations are illegitimate institutions, but I won't dance away from the issue.
Seriously, man, if you're willing to sue someone because they said something bad about you on the Internet, that's the first baby-steps towards censorship on the web. Don't act like this will defend freedom, because behind all the bullshit, it will tear away at freedom, at least state-sponsored freedoms.
I happen to find encyclopedia's interesting - I must have a disease or something.
There are some instances in some major encyclopedia's that the article can easily be seen as slanted or propagandish - wars, for instance.
The facts on wikipedia overweigh the slander on it. The slander is usually changed within 5 minutes of it being posted in most cases. I use wiki not only because it's useful and anyone can help make the article better, but because the vast majority of major encyclopedia's don't contain as much information on modern topics as wiki articles do.
I can't wait until the entire internet becomes flooded with ads and companies controlling it. I mean, that must be true freedom right there, letting companies control the internet. Granted that sites will have to be sponsored or buy domain names out of a corporate contract, and those sites will be restricted to say anything negative about that company or its affiliates. And granted that there'll be more spyware created by some companies to send you to their shitty website, which in turn help the anti-spyware companies make more profit by making you constantly on the look-out for spyware. I can't wait. I can't wait until the countries decide that the internet needs to be controlled to.
I can't wait until our entire lives, on the internet and in the physical, are just one big advertisement. I just can't wait. Human beings are meant to advertise and make a profit, don't you know? Knowledge, reproduction, physical self, pshhh... you need to make money and use every medium possible to advertise.
If he doesn't like it, he can change it. It's not like Wikipedia is the ultimate source of intellectual knowledge... it's a free encyclopedia that serves as a help as an intellectual forum. Who cares about what the law says about the libel and shit? Stop being little bitches that are like "well the law says this, so i should do it" - question it, you morons. They're going to start censoring the internet if more and more of you are complacent with the powers to be. Wikipedia is awesome, as it is flawed as well, which serves its purpose of being a free encyclopedia. If he doesn't like it, then he should stop being a whiny bitch and change the damn thing, and if he can't do that and must use a libel law, then hell, I'll support people vandalizing his page.
Why doesn't the government tell us what we can and can't watch?
I've made a Schedule system for video games, also known as illicit substances.
Schedule I: for Adult games. Includes games with no proven or acceptable use and a high corruption potential - authorized research only.
Schedule II: Includes Mature-rated video games with a high potential for corruption in kids but with currently accepted medical use in mental stimulation.
Schedule III: Includes Teen-rated games with a high potential for use and possible corruption in children.
There are a lot of web sites that are taken down routinely, a few of them have been politically-motivated (ie. raisethefist.com was taken down for a while and Sherman Austin arrested and detained.
However, on the issue of the French riots, I agree that raping and destroying your own community's property is bad, I agree with them.
And as for rights, of course the US/Europe/France is going to view them as illegal - no government wants something that takes away some of their power. Personally though, I could care less what the government and a company tells me I can or cannot do, rights aren't given out because of a piece of paper. Where there is authority, there is no freedom.
I agree that the institutions are lying if they are censoring students and claiming to care about education. But picking up and leaving is not that easy, especially if you're under 18, and that doesn't have really anything to do with intelligence levels of the person in question. That's a typical argument used in the defense of the status quo and/or capitalism is that people can take their business elsewhere or work somewhere else.... Looks good on paper, isn't that applicable in real life (not to say it's impossible, but in many circumstances, it's not as easy as our rulers would have you believe).
Slashdot Mirror
oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.
The purpose of the war is not a means to an end, it is the end in itself. the ruling class wages war on its own subjects, and its goal, is not the annihilation of the enemy, but to keep the very structure of its society in tact.
- a libertarian socialist named George Orwell
this has nothing to do with the article, but, um, anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. anarchism is against all authority: goverment, capitalist, property, religious, etc. whereas capitalism places authority in the owner of the private property. The corporate heirarchy is much like a totalitarian government. I don't mean to be an ass, but I find the term "anarchocapitalist" to be oxymoronic. The term "libertarian right" or just "libertarian" seems to be more fitting.
hey, if people start downloading music and the RIAA loses 3 % of it's gross product, who know what will happen to civil society? Oh god, people will be murdering, raping, looting, oh no! What will happen to the law? God, western society will collapse! Oh no! The poor RIAA, if people start downloading more, P. Did won't be able to afford his gold-plated toilets in his mansion... and poor U2... oh booo-hooo! Society as we know it is collapsing! Run! Run for your lives! The attack of the P2P downloaders! NOOOOOOOO!!!!!
My question is... how is the RIAA monitoring P2P networks and users... isn't that an invasion of privacy... it's illegal if the cops do it, it's called entrapment. But, I guess it's alright if the RIAA does it - and since a corporation is a legal entity, I being a person am also a legal entity. Which means if the RIAA can spy on the contents of people's computers, sheesh I guess I can too, and I could sue them if they had, like some photoshopped images I made with the intent to sell.
Ppsh, the RIAA should just listen to more of the group Negativland. They love those guys, anyways. Well, I do. And, I donwload music, but I don't really listen to stuff on the RIAA's teeny-bopper/40-year-old-middle class bitch/moron-generation-x-dipshit playlist, and I listen to stuff by artists that support downloading.
I have the freedom to do whatever I want, the problem is the State interferring and telling me I can't do that, and then sending me to prison. Freedom is not written on pieces of paper, freedom is dictated by what you do. Same with equality. They can pass all the laws they want regulating racial equality, and yet still there'd be racists - pieces of paper and some authority figure signing them do not dictate how people are going to act. And furthermore, the state supposedly has this "social contract" with its subjects - well, did you or I ever sign this? i can't recall. I don't remember signing it. No, I don't have as much financial assets worth protecting. But I don't care - people, including you and I, deserve to be degraded, not elevated to a platform of respect based on the amount of money they have or what they claim to be. Everyone raises themselves on platforms, and they need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that their professional reputation and financial assets doesn't say shit to what type of person they are, or really matter once you look past the structure's reward system. The only people that really don't deserve to be degraded are the ones helping out in 3rd world countries, or dedicating their lives and financial security to helping other people. The internet is full of libel and slander - look at totse.com's forums, technically that could be considered as slander and libel. Should we sue them too? I know what you're saying about how the system structure's of how things are illegal and should be punished accordingly and that you should be complacent with them otherwise you'll do yourself a disfavor. But you shouldn't always be so reactionary in your complacency towards what the law says is right or wrong.
So, basically, you're going to whine and cry to mommy if someone writes something incorrect about you? The internet is full of flames on people and bs - should we prosecute them all too. Oh man, someone wrote something bad about me, I can make money off of this, and I'm a whiny bitch, so I'll so them. I'd go off on a tangent about why the law shouldn't have any jurisdiction over anything and how the state and corporations are illegitimate institutions, but I won't dance away from the issue. Seriously, man, if you're willing to sue someone because they said something bad about you on the Internet, that's the first baby-steps towards censorship on the web. Don't act like this will defend freedom, because behind all the bullshit, it will tear away at freedom, at least state-sponsored freedoms.
I happen to find encyclopedia's interesting - I must have a disease or something. There are some instances in some major encyclopedia's that the article can easily be seen as slanted or propagandish - wars, for instance. The facts on wikipedia overweigh the slander on it. The slander is usually changed within 5 minutes of it being posted in most cases. I use wiki not only because it's useful and anyone can help make the article better, but because the vast majority of major encyclopedia's don't contain as much information on modern topics as wiki articles do.
I can't wait until the entire internet becomes flooded with ads and companies controlling it. I mean, that must be true freedom right there, letting companies control the internet. Granted that sites will have to be sponsored or buy domain names out of a corporate contract, and those sites will be restricted to say anything negative about that company or its affiliates. And granted that there'll be more spyware created by some companies to send you to their shitty website, which in turn help the anti-spyware companies make more profit by making you constantly on the look-out for spyware. I can't wait. I can't wait until the countries decide that the internet needs to be controlled to. I can't wait until our entire lives, on the internet and in the physical, are just one big advertisement. I just can't wait. Human beings are meant to advertise and make a profit, don't you know? Knowledge, reproduction, physical self, pshhh... you need to make money and use every medium possible to advertise.
If he doesn't like it, he can change it. It's not like Wikipedia is the ultimate source of intellectual knowledge... it's a free encyclopedia that serves as a help as an intellectual forum. Who cares about what the law says about the libel and shit? Stop being little bitches that are like "well the law says this, so i should do it" - question it, you morons. They're going to start censoring the internet if more and more of you are complacent with the powers to be. Wikipedia is awesome, as it is flawed as well, which serves its purpose of being a free encyclopedia. If he doesn't like it, then he should stop being a whiny bitch and change the damn thing, and if he can't do that and must use a libel law, then hell, I'll support people vandalizing his page.
Why doesn't the government tell us what we can and can't watch? I've made a Schedule system for video games, also known as illicit substances. Schedule I: for Adult games. Includes games with no proven or acceptable use and a high corruption potential - authorized research only. Schedule II: Includes Mature-rated video games with a high potential for corruption in kids but with currently accepted medical use in mental stimulation. Schedule III: Includes Teen-rated games with a high potential for use and possible corruption in children.
There are a lot of web sites that are taken down routinely, a few of them have been politically-motivated (ie. raisethefist.com was taken down for a while and Sherman Austin arrested and detained.
However, on the issue of the French riots, I agree that raping and destroying your own community's property is bad, I agree with them.
And as for rights, of course the US/Europe/France is going to view them as illegal - no government wants something that takes away some of their power. Personally though, I could care less what the government and a company tells me I can or cannot do, rights aren't given out because of a piece of paper. Where there is authority, there is no freedom.
I agree that the institutions are lying if they are censoring students and claiming to care about education. But picking up and leaving is not that easy, especially if you're under 18, and that doesn't have really anything to do with intelligence levels of the person in question. That's a typical argument used in the defense of the status quo and/or capitalism is that people can take their business elsewhere or work somewhere else.... Looks good on paper, isn't that applicable in real life (not to say it's impossible, but in many circumstances, it's not as easy as our rulers would have you believe).