Norwegian-born Helleso, who is famous not only for his art, but also for being a strong advocate of keeping digital photography real and speaking out against manipulation or theft of material, denied everything initially.
Seems to be a pattern of those who most want to control information actually being the ones to plagiarize it from others, all while lying about it. Somehow, this isn't really shocking, though.
I actually support a republican "privatization will fix it" argument for the first time in history. I suppose the TSA is just so bad that it eclipses all the other governmental bullshit.
I just really have a hard time imagining that private firms would be worse; they're already rent-a-cops, but as it is they're government rent-a-cops. Any oversight at all, even if it is just the fictitious "free market" oversight, is an improvement over an organization that actively works against any sort of oversight.
MP3 is a perfect example of why we should not decide to use a patented format in the first place. Once you start, it becomes infinitely harder to stop than had you just not used the format to begin with. Hence, people with experience in the matter oppose trying to shift to tightly controlled and patented formats.
Not for those of us who avoid DRM. I'm sorry if you aren't able to reach escape velocity, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to lower themselves to your level.
But Microsoft is integrating a browser deeply into Windows 8? And using that browser to hurt their competition? Sounds like textbook monopolistic practices.
This is far worse than the case with IE was, that they lost; this is Microsoft doing what even the most fanatical Linux user could not assume, and abusing their monopoly to actively attack their competitors. Microsoft can and will be smacked down hard for this. Windows 8 ban in Europe coming soon...
Please tell me. Who would use that headline? "Man publishes app that makes Apple look bad," somehow lacks the editorial ring of "Apple censors app that makes them look bad."
Oh, but the independent, trendy vanguard of the people that is Apple would never attempt to do anything bad! Why, whatever they do has to be good; for, simply their doing it makes it good!
Hark! I hear now many rushing to justify Apple, by quoting other worse companies, or such by ingenious logical methods as to perplex lesser men entirely. Surely, this is simply another reason that Apple is the great organization that it is!
I am complaining about the right being labeled as "terrorists" because some idiot, with no real party affiliation or backing, drives a car into an abortion clinic.
And therefore simply acted out the ideology of those Republican candidates, standing up on stage at debates, spewing hate of every color: against gays, against Muslims, against atheists, against Mexicans, and so on. The difference between the right-wing nuts and the left-wing nuts (and every side has theirs) is that those on the right are simply following to the logical conclusion the political values that the whole side seems to hold. You cannot go around saying that gay marriage is a sin, that abortion is murder, that atheists are heathens, and then shrug and say "not us" when people begin killing in your name. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
If anyone on the left dislikes you, or even hates you, it is likely because of the above hate rhetoric. You reap what you sow. So, in that vein, I'd like you to point out how exactly liberals have a systematic form of bigotry against nearly everyone like the Tea Party does. But you won't, because you can't. That systematic ideology of hate is exactly why someone carbombing an abortion clinic is different than some idiots making vague claims at a rally. And really, if you were honest with yourself, you would know that Republicans have been using violent rhetoric at rallies for just as long. Again, why is it OK when you do it, and such a great sin when anyone else does?
You call one idiot killing a Sikh proof that right wingers are terrorists
Mistaking a Sikh for a Muslim, which I suppose is alright to hate (because they hate us for our freedoms, right?) is not simply a random occurrence. It is a symptom of a bigoted world view. No, the right does not have a monopoly on it, but they damn sure have made it the party line in the last 10 years.
but completely disregard an left winger killing a peaceful abortion protester
I guess you feel no need to cite your extraordinary statements, as I have cited my not so extraordinary statements repeatedly. I think it is only fair that I preemptively ask for some solid proof that this person was actually a left winger and not a secret-right-winger, like you seem to believe everyone killing gays is actually doing it to make the right look bad.
See, when you label one entire group something for the acts of a few that may or may not be in that particular group, yet completely ignore or excuse the exact same or worse acts by larger groups of individuals that truly do belong to another group... that makes you a shill.
Only if you abuse the English language to support your baseless argument. Please give me one definition of "shill" which could possibly apply to someone who is, A) not being paid, B) not a member of any organization involved (that's right, I'm an independent), C) an extension of the past two, doing it on their on time. I suppose ideally, it shouldn't be able to be applied to you as well, because then that would be a double standard. So go ahead. Find me one. Until you do, you're a liar, and everyone here knows it.
"The Right" is a label in itself. I'm proving that the label of "terrorist" that you so loosely apply is not correct. If you want to label groups based on their actions, you must apply the same label to all groups that perform those same actions. You won't. That's why you are labeled a shill. The left won't, that's why they are labeled propagandists.
You are the one here making baseless claims, with no evidence at all, repeated ignoring factual evidence quoted to you, butchering the meaning of words, and slandering people, for the sake of your political party. What is it that makes me a shill and you not? How ironic, someone complaining about a double standard, while they fail to see that they themselves are at best j
I am somewhat inclined to agree. I don't think outright abolishing corporations is necessarily a good idea, but they have far too many powers and protections. They need held to far higher standards than individuals, and their owners and directors need to be held legally responsible for all the actions of the corporation, not just a tiny fraction of them. That said, abolishing corporations would probably just make life more complicated and not solve the underlying issue, that money = power. Democracy cannot exist if money buys votes.
All that proves is that both systems exploit the small guy pretty equally. If you have to argue over which is less damaging, the battle is already lost.
The answer here is to simply get rid of patents and move on. Contrary to popular belief, patents are there to protect financial investment, nothing more. Ideas are cheap and rightly so. Investments on the other hand come from those with money, intending to exploit more. Patents arose in Britain as a way to grant government power to corporations on a temporary (or nor so temporary, as in the East India Company) in exchange for the government not having to pay. The system actually worked fairly well for colonization and trade. It is not, however, working particularly well when it comes to invention.
The problem is that cost of investment has gone down immensely from when patent law was written, and the legal complexity required to fight/defend patents has rocketed. No longer is a particularly large investment needed to set up production.
And even if it was, as we can see today, all patents do (when working as well as anyone hopes) is ensure a pittance payment to the inventor - often so small it doesn't compare to even a single percent of the actual profit. Few private inventors ever attain the investment to build their own businesses, and so, like copyright, the ownership of ideas ends up in the hands of the already rich and powerful.
What everyone needs to start asking is if this is worth it for what it is giving back. Is the ability to own an idea worth the nearly insignificant gains we are getting?
Simply entrenching the model that is already, more or less, standard, might be the most prudent course of action. Abolish patents, and let corporations employ those who can actually create ideas. Similarly, allow other corporations to usurp them, should they do better. The first to market always has an advantage, especially with modern speed of production and distribution. This alone makes patents obsolete.
It is my opinion that those who propose changes to a system, while failing to look at if the system is even worth having, cannot be taken seriously. There are many ways in which the government should be involved in the economy, but selling ideas to the wealthy is not one of them.
Sorry, but you have to hold both sides to the same standard. If not, you are just a leftist shill spreading propaganda.
Funny how you spend several dozen paragraphs across far more posts than any democrat or liberal I see here complaining about the right being labeled, and then finish it off by calling someone you disagree with a shill. Bravo: you perfectly illustrate the irony and double standard I was talking about. It's alright for the right, but god forbid if the left complains!
Sorry, but I've conservatives do not own the patent on bigotry. I've met more bigoted Democrats in my time than Republicans. Although, it's primarily because Democrats can get away with it.
Really? Citation needed.
See how that works? I suppose the difference is that I am referring to actualcasesofobviouslyright-wingterrorism. Hell, I could pad this sentence out with more words all day, but I think my point is made.
Of course, I am sure these acts are all perpetrated by democrats who happen to share the same phobias and hatred that republicans have adopted as their political platform. I'm sure of it. Right? Because if even a few were conservatives acting out their hate rhetoric, that would be a lot worse than getting coffee spilled on you by some crazy guy, I think you can agree.
So I should be punished for the actions of people over a century ago? Should we jail German children for the Holocaust? Oh, and I should also mention that Lincoln was a Republican. George Wallace was a Democrat. Given that, why are you NOT a Republican. Why is that Democrats believe themselves victimized for the slightest resistance after centuries of victimization of all those around them?
Please notice, I said nothing about Republicans or Democrats. I said, very clearly, the right. The parties changed places in the early half of the century because of the growing conservatism in the Republican party. But then, of course, you know this; you are just willfully ignorant to make a point.
Conservatives murder Sikhs for wearing turbans and firebomb abortion clinics, not to mention the age old racial violence and the violence against gays and atheists, and the best you can find against the left is an egging, a bunch of people with picket signs making claims, someone having coffee spilled on them, and the drunken asshat Etheridge?
Why is it the right always believes themselves victimized for the slightest resistance after centuries of victimization of all those around them?
Once the label of "terrorist" is applied so carelessly, you are now in a world where anyone can be considered a terrorist. Once that happens, you're only a baby step away from suspending their civil liberties at will. As long as you get the childish satisfaction of making someone look bad because you disagree with them it'll all be worth it, right?
Why do I get that feeling you sit perfectly quietly as the right wing labels civil rights activists as terrorists, liberals as socialists, atheists as heathens, and women who get abortions as murderers?
People like you may like to ignore it, but the right has brought on being labeled by their own labeling of everything they disagree with, since the colonization of North America. The Tea Party and their supporters advocate terrorizing those they disagree with, and mass scale slander against those they dislike, yet there are always plenty to defend when those people- when those terrorists- are called what they are. Tell me why is that.
Why can the right go unscathed in labeling huge swaths of people as "unamerican" and worse for centuries, and yet it is the liberals who are constantly attacked for calling a tiny group managing to control national politics through propaganda and force terrorists? How many times are Republicans called terrorists on total - and how many times is Obama alone called a socialist?
I'll tell you why I think it is. Because just like fiscal conservatism, just like rhetoric about personal rights, and just like patriotism, political correctness is a tool that fascists learned artful use of. They obey it exactly when it suits them, and decry it whenever it does not.
You betray your own biases too obviously, and yet already many here in comments have jumped upon your bandwagon to defend the indefensible. How easily people are taken in by appeals to their own values, even when the goal of the appeal is against their own interests.
You might want to look up Italy in the mid 20s to 40s. Their right wing also thought a government by mafia was a better answer, and in that aim, attained much greater success than the Tea Party ever will.
Copyright should not exist at all 10 years is too long for what should be 0 years. Copyright has clearly failed to do what it was originally intended to do - that is, end the patron system. Copyright only solidified it more and turned "art" into a business. Now we have massive, multinational corporations suing both consumers and artists not affiliated with them into submission. All for what? Art was and will be produced without copyright. It always has. It always will be. Copyright is an immoral institution that needs abolished, and people need to wake up to that fact. The Romantics are spinning so fast in their graves, we could solve our energy problems just by sticking Victor Hugo's casket in a generator.
Let me quote a video which I think makes my point better than I have; it isn't directly related, but it is very easy to see how the problem relates to the illusion of power a lot of people in the west have. David Mitchell on Consensus.
Let me start by pointing out that "nationalization of certain industries" goes against one of the basic principles of freedom (One that was actually acknowledged as such by the U.N.) - the right ownership of private property.
Owning a "business" (a government created entity, btw) as a property right is a very American idea. You'll find it is lacked across most of Europe. Further, you jump from "nationalization of certain industries" to "nationalization of industry." I said the first, not the second, so the rest of your straw man is invalid... as I said nothing about that. I find it comical you suggest that "nationalization of certain industries" leads to mass murder, though. Perfect narrow-minded American stance, and a perfect example of the mind of delusions democracy tends to cause people to hold against their own interests.
The reason I took the time to point this out is simple: You *assume* that your views are moderate and that are shared by 99% of the western world working class, while in-fact, you'd be amazed at how many people will consider these views to be radical and dangerous - and I'm not talking extremely wealthy people who "rather maintain the current order".
Where do I do that? If you want to make a vague, wide reaching statement about me personally, pony up proof, and do it right away. I said nothing about what exactly should be done. The point of my post was that the majority probably do not agree with me, but that the current system isn't that different fundamentally from all those of the past. Note I did not say worse, but rather 'not very different.' Democracy gives people the power to change things, but also misleads them into thinking that things change without their direct action. Hence democracy is more stable, but not necessarily more just.
man-kind's worst totalitarian regimes (e.g. Nazi Germany, Lenin/Stalin's USSR) started by the nationalization of industry [...] I could only wonder how you view WWII and/or the cold war. (though I can easily guess).
Are you serious? You just in your last post called me an anarchist, now you're calling me a fascist and/or communist? How did I go from one extreme to the other in two posts? Don't you feel that's a bit suspect on your part? Bit of advice: if you want to mindlessly attack people, at least pick one and stick with it; otherwise you make your black and white view of the world obvious to everyone.
In a dictatorship, suppressing people only begets more anger. It might temporarily put it down, but it doesn't change the underlying emotions.
Democracy gives an illusion of power to people who have none. How many times have you been advised to write your congress person if you have a problem? Illusions of power beget apathy. As long as the situation does not become too horrible (and indeed, few dictatorships survive such situations), and as long as the choices are fairly limited, democracy ends up functioning surprisingly similar to all those other worse forms of government tried before. Except, democracy, as it creates apathy, is that much less likely to improve.
You claim to be "content with things as they are," but if you look around you, can you not see the massive injustices everywhere? What you take for granted as normal today, might very well be looked at in the future as serfdom or divine right are now. Yet, you're happy, and don't really care to improve. There is no questioning if the system; the system is good, you think. I have say in the system, so it must be good. Yet many have put forwards ways to improve society, and yet very few have been tried. Even the ones that work end up being ignored. Why is that?
This is the problem. You faithfully believe things are good, because you see democracy, and believe in a collective approval of how things are. You are allowed (in your Free Speech Zone) to protest torture, or the cutting of programs, or changes to taxes in whichever direction you might be concerned, and so you rarely do those things. The collective of people will get what they want, by voting in the rich and already powerful, to supposedly do the people's bidding. That is the thesis of the United States government as it stands today.
That is why there is no fundamental difference in dictatorships and democracy. A dictatorship is the lowest form of government; it rules by force alone. Then you have monarchy, which justifies force with religion. Then you have democracy, which justifies it with arguments and speeches. None of them are that different on a basic level. All have similar social strata, chains of command, and often enough, leaders. That you are so willing to believe that simply having a democracy automatically makes you better, is exactly my problem with democracy.
I think what a wise man asks is - if democracy is better than all other forms of governments; to whom?
Interesting. I am a supporter of public services, welfare (to an extent, one far more comprehensive than we have in the US), nationalization of certain industries, etc.. Being for personal freedom as well makes me an anarchist? If what I just listed are aspects of anarchy, things have changed a lot. Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions that anyone criticizing your precious country is some kind of radical.
My point, though, is less about any specific change; in fact, you can be on opposite ends of the political spectrum and realize the same problem. Western democracies are extremely good at keeping intact the old aristocratic systems, while managing to convince the general public that they actually have a say. Both sides in the US play upon the psychology of the people, while both have the same root goal of making sure they are the ones in charge. Who has more power in the US - lawyers, lobbyists, the rich, or common people? I suspect only the most deluded would choose the last. No matter your politics, it is rather obvious that voting is more a system of rubber-stamping than actual government. You will never get anywhere in politics without money, and you'll never get money without money.
The fact that massive political divisions exist, while nothing really ever changes, is a good example of why I say democracy is a distraction. It doesn't matter what grand shows you put on, or what ideals the government is founded on: sooner or later, the old systems creep back in. I'm not sure if this can be fixed, or if it is just human nature, but ignoring it solves no problems. Democracy is the most ingenious invention ever for keeping people in check.
Playing global sports, "my country is better than yours! mine is freer than yours!" only leads to wars and hate, not solutions, when everything in the end is so similar.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems to be a pattern of those who most want to control information actually being the ones to plagiarize it from others, all while lying about it. Somehow, this isn't really shocking, though.
Put a switch on the case.
Jut because it is a jumper now, doesn't mean it needs to stay that way.
I actually support a republican "privatization will fix it" argument for the first time in history. I suppose the TSA is just so bad that it eclipses all the other governmental bullshit.
I just really have a hard time imagining that private firms would be worse; they're already rent-a-cops, but as it is they're government rent-a-cops. Any oversight at all, even if it is just the fictitious "free market" oversight, is an improvement over an organization that actively works against any sort of oversight.
MP3 is a perfect example of why we should not decide to use a patented format in the first place. Once you start, it becomes infinitely harder to stop than had you just not used the format to begin with. Hence, people with experience in the matter oppose trying to shift to tightly controlled and patented formats.
Not for those of us who avoid DRM. I'm sorry if you aren't able to reach escape velocity, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to lower themselves to your level.
But Microsoft is integrating a browser deeply into Windows 8? And using that browser to hurt their competition? Sounds like textbook monopolistic practices.
This is far worse than the case with IE was, that they lost; this is Microsoft doing what even the most fanatical Linux user could not assume, and abusing their monopoly to actively attack their competitors. Microsoft can and will be smacked down hard for this. Windows 8 ban in Europe coming soon...
Please tell me. Who would use that headline? "Man publishes app that makes Apple look bad," somehow lacks the editorial ring of "Apple censors app that makes them look bad."
Oh, but the independent, trendy vanguard of the people that is Apple would never attempt to do anything bad! Why, whatever they do has to be good; for, simply their doing it makes it good!
Hark! I hear now many rushing to justify Apple, by quoting other worse companies, or such by ingenious logical methods as to perplex lesser men entirely. Surely, this is simply another reason that Apple is the great organization that it is!
Maybe they could make all the civilians witches?
And therefore simply acted out the ideology of those Republican candidates, standing up on stage at debates, spewing hate of every color: against gays, against Muslims, against atheists, against Mexicans, and so on. The difference between the right-wing nuts and the left-wing nuts (and every side has theirs) is that those on the right are simply following to the logical conclusion the political values that the whole side seems to hold. You cannot go around saying that gay marriage is a sin, that abortion is murder, that atheists are heathens, and then shrug and say "not us" when people begin killing in your name. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
If anyone on the left dislikes you, or even hates you, it is likely because of the above hate rhetoric. You reap what you sow. So, in that vein, I'd like you to point out how exactly liberals have a systematic form of bigotry against nearly everyone like the Tea Party does. But you won't, because you can't. That systematic ideology of hate is exactly why someone carbombing an abortion clinic is different than some idiots making vague claims at a rally. And really, if you were honest with yourself, you would know that Republicans have been using violent rhetoric at rallies for just as long. Again, why is it OK when you do it, and such a great sin when anyone else does?
Mistaking a Sikh for a Muslim, which I suppose is alright to hate (because they hate us for our freedoms, right?) is not simply a random occurrence. It is a symptom of a bigoted world view. No, the right does not have a monopoly on it, but they damn sure have made it the party line in the last 10 years.
I guess you feel no need to cite your extraordinary statements, as I have cited my not so extraordinary statements repeatedly. I think it is only fair that I preemptively ask for some solid proof that this person was actually a left winger and not a secret-right-winger, like you seem to believe everyone killing gays is actually doing it to make the right look bad.
Only if you abuse the English language to support your baseless argument. Please give me one definition of "shill" which could possibly apply to someone who is, A) not being paid, B) not a member of any organization involved (that's right, I'm an independent), C) an extension of the past two, doing it on their on time. I suppose ideally, it shouldn't be able to be applied to you as well, because then that would be a double standard. So go ahead. Find me one. Until you do, you're a liar, and everyone here knows it.
You are the one here making baseless claims, with no evidence at all, repeated ignoring factual evidence quoted to you, butchering the meaning of words, and slandering people, for the sake of your political party. What is it that makes me a shill and you not? How ironic, someone complaining about a double standard, while they fail to see that they themselves are at best j
I am somewhat inclined to agree. I don't think outright abolishing corporations is necessarily a good idea, but they have far too many powers and protections. They need held to far higher standards than individuals, and their owners and directors need to be held legally responsible for all the actions of the corporation, not just a tiny fraction of them. That said, abolishing corporations would probably just make life more complicated and not solve the underlying issue, that money = power. Democracy cannot exist if money buys votes.
All that proves is that both systems exploit the small guy pretty equally. If you have to argue over which is less damaging, the battle is already lost.
The answer here is to simply get rid of patents and move on. Contrary to popular belief, patents are there to protect financial investment, nothing more. Ideas are cheap and rightly so. Investments on the other hand come from those with money, intending to exploit more. Patents arose in Britain as a way to grant government power to corporations on a temporary (or nor so temporary, as in the East India Company) in exchange for the government not having to pay. The system actually worked fairly well for colonization and trade. It is not, however, working particularly well when it comes to invention.
The problem is that cost of investment has gone down immensely from when patent law was written, and the legal complexity required to fight/defend patents has rocketed. No longer is a particularly large investment needed to set up production.
And even if it was, as we can see today, all patents do (when working as well as anyone hopes) is ensure a pittance payment to the inventor - often so small it doesn't compare to even a single percent of the actual profit. Few private inventors ever attain the investment to build their own businesses, and so, like copyright, the ownership of ideas ends up in the hands of the already rich and powerful.
What everyone needs to start asking is if this is worth it for what it is giving back. Is the ability to own an idea worth the nearly insignificant gains we are getting?
Simply entrenching the model that is already, more or less, standard, might be the most prudent course of action. Abolish patents, and let corporations employ those who can actually create ideas. Similarly, allow other corporations to usurp them, should they do better. The first to market always has an advantage, especially with modern speed of production and distribution. This alone makes patents obsolete.
It is my opinion that those who propose changes to a system, while failing to look at if the system is even worth having, cannot be taken seriously. There are many ways in which the government should be involved in the economy, but selling ideas to the wealthy is not one of them.
Funny how you spend several dozen paragraphs across far more posts than any democrat or liberal I see here complaining about the right being labeled, and then finish it off by calling someone you disagree with a shill. Bravo: you perfectly illustrate the irony and double standard I was talking about. It's alright for the right, but god forbid if the left complains!
Really? Citation needed.
See how that works? I suppose the difference is that I am referring to actual cases of obviously right-wing terrorism. Hell, I could pad this sentence out with more words all day, but I think my point is made.
Of course, I am sure these acts are all perpetrated by democrats who happen to share the same phobias and hatred that republicans have adopted as their political platform. I'm sure of it. Right? Because if even a few were conservatives acting out their hate rhetoric, that would be a lot worse than getting coffee spilled on you by some crazy guy, I think you can agree.
Please notice, I said nothing about Republicans or Democrats. I said, very clearly, the right. The parties changed places in the early half of the century because of the growing conservatism in the Republican party. But then, of course, you know this; you are just willfully ignorant to make a point.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.
Conservatives murder Sikhs for wearing turbans and firebomb abortion clinics, not to mention the age old racial violence and the violence against gays and atheists, and the best you can find against the left is an egging, a bunch of people with picket signs making claims, someone having coffee spilled on them, and the drunken asshat Etheridge?
Why is it the right always believes themselves victimized for the slightest resistance after centuries of victimization of all those around them?
All microbes are genetically modified. The process is called natural selection.
Why do I get that feeling you sit perfectly quietly as the right wing labels civil rights activists as terrorists, liberals as socialists, atheists as heathens, and women who get abortions as murderers?
People like you may like to ignore it, but the right has brought on being labeled by their own labeling of everything they disagree with, since the colonization of North America. The Tea Party and their supporters advocate terrorizing those they disagree with, and mass scale slander against those they dislike, yet there are always plenty to defend when those people- when those terrorists- are called what they are. Tell me why is that.
Why can the right go unscathed in labeling huge swaths of people as "unamerican" and worse for centuries, and yet it is the liberals who are constantly attacked for calling a tiny group managing to control national politics through propaganda and force terrorists? How many times are Republicans called terrorists on total - and how many times is Obama alone called a socialist?
I'll tell you why I think it is. Because just like fiscal conservatism, just like rhetoric about personal rights, and just like patriotism, political correctness is a tool that fascists learned artful use of. They obey it exactly when it suits them, and decry it whenever it does not.
You betray your own biases too obviously, and yet already many here in comments have jumped upon your bandwagon to defend the indefensible. How easily people are taken in by appeals to their own values, even when the goal of the appeal is against their own interests.
Same thing that makes creationism better than evolution: conservative magic.
You might want to look up Italy in the mid 20s to 40s. Their right wing also thought a government by mafia was a better answer, and in that aim, attained much greater success than the Tea Party ever will.
Copyright should not exist at all 10 years is too long for what should be 0 years. Copyright has clearly failed to do what it was originally intended to do - that is, end the patron system. Copyright only solidified it more and turned "art" into a business. Now we have massive, multinational corporations suing both consumers and artists not affiliated with them into submission. All for what? Art was and will be produced without copyright. It always has. It always will be. Copyright is an immoral institution that needs abolished, and people need to wake up to that fact. The Romantics are spinning so fast in their graves, we could solve our energy problems just by sticking Victor Hugo's casket in a generator.
Let me quote a video which I think makes my point better than I have; it isn't directly related, but it is very easy to see how the problem relates to the illusion of power a lot of people in the west have. David Mitchell on Consensus.
Owning a "business" (a government created entity, btw) as a property right is a very American idea. You'll find it is lacked across most of Europe. Further, you jump from "nationalization of certain industries" to "nationalization of industry." I said the first, not the second, so the rest of your straw man is invalid... as I said nothing about that. I find it comical you suggest that "nationalization of certain industries" leads to mass murder, though. Perfect narrow-minded American stance, and a perfect example of the mind of delusions democracy tends to cause people to hold against their own interests.
Where do I do that? If you want to make a vague, wide reaching statement about me personally, pony up proof, and do it right away. I said nothing about what exactly should be done. The point of my post was that the majority probably do not agree with me, but that the current system isn't that different fundamentally from all those of the past. Note I did not say worse, but rather 'not very different.' Democracy gives people the power to change things, but also misleads them into thinking that things change without their direct action. Hence democracy is more stable, but not necessarily more just.
Are you serious? You just in your last post called me an anarchist, now you're calling me a fascist and/or communist? How did I go from one extreme to the other in two posts? Don't you feel that's a bit suspect on your part? Bit of advice: if you want to mindlessly attack people, at least pick one and stick with it; otherwise you make your black and white view of the world obvious to everyone.
In a dictatorship, suppressing people only begets more anger. It might temporarily put it down, but it doesn't change the underlying emotions.
Democracy gives an illusion of power to people who have none. How many times have you been advised to write your congress person if you have a problem? Illusions of power beget apathy. As long as the situation does not become too horrible (and indeed, few dictatorships survive such situations), and as long as the choices are fairly limited, democracy ends up functioning surprisingly similar to all those other worse forms of government tried before. Except, democracy, as it creates apathy, is that much less likely to improve.
You claim to be "content with things as they are," but if you look around you, can you not see the massive injustices everywhere? What you take for granted as normal today, might very well be looked at in the future as serfdom or divine right are now. Yet, you're happy, and don't really care to improve. There is no questioning if the system; the system is good, you think. I have say in the system, so it must be good. Yet many have put forwards ways to improve society, and yet very few have been tried. Even the ones that work end up being ignored. Why is that?
This is the problem. You faithfully believe things are good, because you see democracy, and believe in a collective approval of how things are. You are allowed (in your Free Speech Zone) to protest torture, or the cutting of programs, or changes to taxes in whichever direction you might be concerned, and so you rarely do those things. The collective of people will get what they want, by voting in the rich and already powerful, to supposedly do the people's bidding. That is the thesis of the United States government as it stands today.
That is why there is no fundamental difference in dictatorships and democracy. A dictatorship is the lowest form of government; it rules by force alone. Then you have monarchy, which justifies force with religion. Then you have democracy, which justifies it with arguments and speeches. None of them are that different on a basic level. All have similar social strata, chains of command, and often enough, leaders. That you are so willing to believe that simply having a democracy automatically makes you better, is exactly my problem with democracy.
I think what a wise man asks is - if democracy is better than all other forms of governments; to whom?
Interesting. I am a supporter of public services, welfare (to an extent, one far more comprehensive than we have in the US), nationalization of certain industries, etc.. Being for personal freedom as well makes me an anarchist? If what I just listed are aspects of anarchy, things have changed a lot. Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions that anyone criticizing your precious country is some kind of radical.
My point, though, is less about any specific change; in fact, you can be on opposite ends of the political spectrum and realize the same problem. Western democracies are extremely good at keeping intact the old aristocratic systems, while managing to convince the general public that they actually have a say. Both sides in the US play upon the psychology of the people, while both have the same root goal of making sure they are the ones in charge. Who has more power in the US - lawyers, lobbyists, the rich, or common people? I suspect only the most deluded would choose the last. No matter your politics, it is rather obvious that voting is more a system of rubber-stamping than actual government. You will never get anywhere in politics without money, and you'll never get money without money.
The fact that massive political divisions exist, while nothing really ever changes, is a good example of why I say democracy is a distraction. It doesn't matter what grand shows you put on, or what ideals the government is founded on: sooner or later, the old systems creep back in. I'm not sure if this can be fixed, or if it is just human nature, but ignoring it solves no problems. Democracy is the most ingenious invention ever for keeping people in check.
Playing global sports, "my country is better than yours! mine is freer than yours!" only leads to wars and hate, not solutions, when everything in the end is so similar.
Closest time until DMCA without going over, and you win one fine, only slightly used internet. Me, I'll go with noon tomorrow.