Maybe they just don't want to be associated with distributing gun plans? I would bet $10,000 that if this was about sex toys, or homoerotic art, that most of those decrying this as "censorship" or "idiotic because you can find those anywhere else on the internet" would be supporting them, because it's their right.
False Premise #3> That a private site choosing not to distribute something they don't want to be associated with is somehow a "prohibition" on that item.
I like how libertarians are all in favor of liberty, until you do something they don't like. Especially because, if this wasn't about guns, but rather, say, sex toys, the libertarians would be supporting their right to decide what content they host unquestionably.
If a libertarian group would dis-invite someone for exercising their rights and liberty, then that group is clearly NOT a libertarian group.
Why do the libertarians on Slashdot always talk about how it's a private business's "right" to decide what they do regarding hiring, selling, discrimination, buying elections, etc, for everything else, but when it comes to something they disagree with, suddenly it's "censorship".
Maybe they just don't want to be associated with printable guns? I would imagine they know full well that you can get 3D model files from places other than their site. They just don't want to be associated with the distribution of those files.
So if I told a Loan Officer "Don't worry, the money I use to murder my wife will not come from this loan," he would have to lend it to me? He couldn't decide that it would be bad PR to lend me money, and show me the door?
Nope. Nobody ever forced those people to get into the banking business.
Nope. They get special powers and privileges by being global financial institutions. If they were willing to give up that power, and take responsibility for EVERY transaction they process, then perhaps it would be ok.
No, it doesn't. The difference between the American and the North Korean is that they won't face consequences *from the government*. If you start reciting some of the monologues about niggers that are found on here, you will likely be beaten up, depending on where you are. That doesn't detract from your freedom of speech.
Here's a question: Let's say that we get a bunch of large linebacker types to surround the area where the funeral is, and keep the WBC fuckheads out. And the WBC tried to force their way in. The linebackers want to keep them out. At what point does the thing turn violent, and who has committed the violence?
I cannot support this line of thinking. Just because you "don't have to attend a funeral" does NOT mean that you should have to be subjected to this bullshit.
If I can contribute to the community in some way, and get free and libre software in return, that seems like a much better deal for everybody.
Not really. While I'm sure those developers would appreciate your work, they can't really eat your contributions. And your contributions can't really shelter them.
Not always possible. There are lots of HOAs out there. And there is a dwindling supply of housing available in non-HOA areas. So what's your solution then, smart ass?
And I still don't give a rat's ass for this idea that a private entity should be entirely free to take away your rights just because you "signed" something.
While many HOAs can be a big bag of soggy dicks, remember, they are made up of people from the neighborhood. That includes you and your neighbors who are fed up with what the local HOA is doing. Considering most people don't want to be involved, if you were to get just some of them to get behind you, you could probably get on the board, and then start influencing stuff.
See, in the example you gave, there isn't an incentive for your calibration lab to be inaccurate. However, in the case of gas stations, there is a huge incentive. Further, there would be the incentive for the gas stations, who would be the ones paying the calibration agency, to put pressure on the calibration agency to certify them, regardless of accuracy.
Not every private entity gives a crap about reputation. Many of the banks, for instance, don't give a crap about their image.
And while a private entity could do the same thing, there are issues with that. For one, how would the private entity enforce their judgements? Second, how would the private entity deal with the idea that the stations would be paying them to do their measurements? Think of the situation with the bond rating agencies. The issuers of the bond would be the ones paying the agency to rate them, and so the agency had an incentive to rate the bonds higher than they really were, or the issuers would go to another agency who would do it. This is basically what happened with the Mortgage backed securities.
I'm sorry, but I can't accept the idea of making sure that a pump is accurate in it's dispensing as "government coercion".
And while there might be ways of achieving it without government, government is usually the only entity big enough, powerful enough, and without the incentive to cheat customers to do this.
Slashdot Mirror
Blah blah blah, I'm going to come up with some bullshit justifying me not paying for stuff by using religion. That will make me look better on /.
And yet, why is it right that you get to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor for free? Are you willing to work for free?
Maybe they just don't want to be associated with distributing gun plans? I would bet $10,000 that if this was about sex toys, or homoerotic art, that most of those decrying this as "censorship" or "idiotic because you can find those anywhere else on the internet" would be supporting them, because it's their right.
False Premise #3> That a private site choosing not to distribute something they don't want to be associated with is somehow a "prohibition" on that item.
I like how libertarians are all in favor of liberty, until you do something they don't like. Especially because, if this wasn't about guns, but rather, say, sex toys, the libertarians would be supporting their right to decide what content they host unquestionably.
If a libertarian group would dis-invite someone for exercising their rights and liberty, then that group is clearly NOT a libertarian group.
Why do the libertarians on Slashdot always talk about how it's a private business's "right" to decide what they do regarding hiring, selling, discrimination, buying elections, etc, for everything else, but when it comes to something they disagree with, suddenly it's "censorship".
Maybe they just don't want to be associated with printable guns? I would imagine they know full well that you can get 3D model files from places other than their site. They just don't want to be associated with the distribution of those files.
These comparisons to countries still subject to the English crown, with no speech rights, and barely any other personal rights are patently absurd.
The idea that those countries are any less free than you is what's patently absurd.
I'd rather lose that additional 3 people per 100,000 than lose the ability to kill anyone who breaks into my home.
I'm sorry, but that stance makes you a complete pile of shit.
I don't care what you have in your home, how valuable it is. It is NOT worth a human life to stop someone from taking it.
Health issues. Completely different.
So if I told a Loan Officer "Don't worry, the money I use to murder my wife will not come from this loan," he would have to lend it to me? He couldn't decide that it would be bad PR to lend me money, and show me the door?
Nope. Nobody ever forced those people to get into the banking business.
Nope. They get special powers and privileges by being global financial institutions. If they were willing to give up that power, and take responsibility for EVERY transaction they process, then perhaps it would be ok.
No, it doesn't. The difference between the American and the North Korean is that they won't face consequences *from the government*. If you start reciting some of the monologues about niggers that are found on here, you will likely be beaten up, depending on where you are. That doesn't detract from your freedom of speech.
Here's a question: Let's say that we get a bunch of large linebacker types to surround the area where the funeral is, and keep the WBC fuckheads out. And the WBC tried to force their way in. The linebackers want to keep them out. At what point does the thing turn violent, and who has committed the violence?
I cannot support this line of thinking. Just because you "don't have to attend a funeral" does NOT mean that you should have to be subjected to this bullshit.
If I can contribute to the community in some way, and get free and libre software in return, that seems like a much better deal for everybody.
Not really. While I'm sure those developers would appreciate your work, they can't really eat your contributions. And your contributions can't really shelter them.
In fact, for several things, it simply performs the apt commands to download it from there.
Is paying developers now something to be ashamed of?
Not always possible. There are lots of HOAs out there. And there is a dwindling supply of housing available in non-HOA areas. So what's your solution then, smart ass?
And I still don't give a rat's ass for this idea that a private entity should be entirely free to take away your rights just because you "signed" something.
Why should these people be able to take away his freedoms?
While many HOAs can be a big bag of soggy dicks, remember, they are made up of people from the neighborhood. That includes you and your neighbors who are fed up with what the local HOA is doing. Considering most people don't want to be involved, if you were to get just some of them to get behind you, you could probably get on the board, and then start influencing stuff.
They're also easier to protect from extreme weather, can be used any time of the day without having to store the power...
BZZZZT! WRONG!
You DO have to store the power, in the form of gasoline or other fuel.
See, in the example you gave, there isn't an incentive for your calibration lab to be inaccurate. However, in the case of gas stations, there is a huge incentive. Further, there would be the incentive for the gas stations, who would be the ones paying the calibration agency, to put pressure on the calibration agency to certify them, regardless of accuracy.
Not every private entity gives a crap about reputation. Many of the banks, for instance, don't give a crap about their image.
And while a private entity could do the same thing, there are issues with that. For one, how would the private entity enforce their judgements? Second, how would the private entity deal with the idea that the stations would be paying them to do their measurements? Think of the situation with the bond rating agencies. The issuers of the bond would be the ones paying the agency to rate them, and so the agency had an incentive to rate the bonds higher than they really were, or the issuers would go to another agency who would do it. This is basically what happened with the Mortgage backed securities.
I'm sorry, but I can't accept the idea of making sure that a pump is accurate in it's dispensing as "government coercion".
And while there might be ways of achieving it without government, government is usually the only entity big enough, powerful enough, and without the incentive to cheat customers to do this.