Should You Care About Politics? 325
Jim Deggan, a self-described Linux Geek from Sunnyvale, California, e-mailed me last week that he hangs around sites like this one specifically to avoid talk of conventional politics, "or any reference of any kind to people like Al Gore and George Bush." He appreciates the advance warning Slashdot provides: that he can block all stories with the "United States" logo and thus access a politics-free environment. But he was curious, before he blocked, about whether there was some reason why he shouldn't. (Maybe the real question is whether it's even possible). He was surprised to see me writing about politics at all, since he assumed from my previous writings that I didn't like the subject any more than he did.
Nobody can blame Deggan, a database administrator, for wanting to avoid the bizarre ritual going on in that other realm. Most people on this site feel just the way he does. But the truth is, he can't avoid politics, even if he wants to. And since he cares about technology, there are compelling reasons why he might want to pay attention and perhaps, one day, even participate.
It's been more than a decade since William Gibson articulated the idea of "cyberspace," and the surreal revolution he predicted has not only come to pass but has become one of the most significant political forces in the world. Computer networks are blasting away the existing political landscape, reconfiguring it in ways we are just now struggling to figure out.
Gibson's paranoid notion of a world ravaged by ruthless, greedy and competing multinational corporations whose power derives from hyper-linked information networks is transcending fiction. The skirmish between AOL/Time-Warner and Disney over cable domination and other issues is a prescient conflict-of-the-future right out of Gibson and the non-virtual games "Mage" and "Shadowrun." The disorienting thing is that we have two political cultures, the old and the new. And the new tends to make the ancient mistake of underestimating the old, corporate and otherwise. Government is seen as clueless and toothless, but program's like the FBI's "Carnivore" program and laws like the DMCA suggest they still have plenty of sharp teeth, a strong reason for caring about politics.
The odd reality is that some techies can be "tech smart" but "world dumb" -- that is, their work and interests tended to be internal and circumscribed. Some (not all) think that knowing about programming is the same thing as understanding technology or its impact on the world beyond. Many think they live and work beyond the reach of politics or government. This intensity, I suggested to Deggan, kept them from grasping the fact that what they are do is often intensely political, both directly and indirectly. Code, for example, is more significant each day, relating to freedom, culture, intellectual property, commerce. The content, language and architecture of cyberspace now affects almost every aspect of the political and economic system.
What economists like to call "late capitalism" -- the emergence of a new post-capitalist, techno-driven global economy -- is characterized by the astonishing growth of multinationals : Microsoft, Barnes &Noble, Wal-Mart, Bertelsmann, McDonalds. More powerful than most governments, these conglomerates operate beyond conventional oversight or regulation, acquire culture, business and media, render conventional political boundaries obsolete. They operate in a new kind of social geography, powered by technology. They corrupt politics by becoming its primary bankrollers. They smother innovation with legal assaults, assault individualism. Simply put, they have taken over, without much of a tussle. Our only hope is that eat each other, as Gibson suggested.
Technology is the central element in their rise. The focal point of these companies' power is an electronic network that covers the planet, and a marketing system to expand and inventory it. This power has no world headquarters; it's in the ether, built into the very architecture of the cyberworld Gibson foresaw. That's what makes technology so political, and gives us so many powerful new reasons to care about it and the political environment surrounding it.
This new kind of politics provokes relevant questions about whether conventional civic systems can or ought to survive, but at the same time it makes politics more important than ever. Ironically, though there's less reason than ever to pay attention to the two-party politics practiced in Washington, there are more reasons than ever to care about politics itself.
Among them: privacy, ownership of ideas, control over software and hardware that powers the network, the use of supercomputing to address social and medical problems, the open source challenge to proprietary institutions (which is shaping up as one of the landmark political struggles of the new century), the use of computer-assisted gene mapping to engineer human life at the hands of for-profit bio-tech companies, and control over creativity itself. Compared to the Bush-Gore-Nader agenda, those kinds of political issues are in urgent need of debating.
The truth is, technology and politics are no longer separable. Almost every citizen, from the hapless buyer trying to get tech support to the parent eliminating a potentially retarded embryo has to deal with technology, even though we don't have any national philosophy of technology and it almost never surfaces directly as an issue in our political system.
Congress is awash in last-minute bills relating to telecoms, free speech online, encryption, privacy, pornography. The gaming culture itself has become one of the biggest mainstream entertainment cultures on the earth, even though the violence allegedly caused by videogames has become a frequently invoked issue in the presidental election, raised by Gore, Cheney, Bush and Lieberman.
Right down to its conception as a communications tool that could survive the Cold War, everything about the Net is intrinsically political, from the distributed architecture incorporated into its design to the empowerment it provides for its users. Conventional politics will shortly feel its effects on the way money is raised, voters vote, volunteers are recruited, on the potential for new candidates and parties to reach new audiences. Whatever the early coders and hackers intended, the information revolution they've created is an in-your-face slap at the way much of the world has done business for centuries.
As interactive tools transform the lives of millions of once disenfranchised kids, who now have access to much of the world's archived information despite frenzied efforts to block and filter them, technology has also empowered and politicized the young. That has traumatized educators, politicians and parents, but the fact is that kids can escape suffocating adult restrictions on their cultural and social lives. In political terms, that may be the biggest whopper of all.
So the citizens of cyberspace have a tricky dilemma. While it's difficult to take seriously a system that labors for months and finally offers us George Bush, Al Gore, Ralph Nader and Patrick Buchanan and their Pleistocene campaigns, it is becoming almost impossible to live in this space and avoid politics. If you don't find it, it will find you.
Next: Birth of the CyberNation. Filling the new space with an ethical platform.
There's a difference... (Score:1)
-- Don't you hate it when people comment on other people's
Politics a la Slashdot (Score:2)
O P E N___S O U R C E___H U M O R [mikegallay.com]
Politics is contemptible, but necessary (Score:5)
Subject (Score:1)
-------------------------------------------
Earth is my country (Score:1)
Of course (Score:2)
Because, if you don't vote, you vote anyway - for the majority.
Unfortunately the majority's opinion sucks most of the time.
So, hell! Yes, get your lazy but of the sofa and : vote!
Disclaimer: I'm darn glad that I can't partake at the US presidential election. It's sort of the choice between a rotten apple and a watermelon gone bad. This is however no excuse to let Mr. Bush wreck your country...
corrupting politics? (Score:1)
As long as there is government... (Score:3)
Voting is useless (Score:1)
all i know about politics (Score:1)
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
ICQ# 77863057
A simple plan for political voting. . . . (Score:3)
(Paraphrased, as I don't have the exact copy on me)
If you live in a society where you can vote, do so. ..). Then do exactly the opposite.
If you cannot find someone to vote FOR, find someone you can vote AGAINST
If all else fails, ask the advice of a well-meaning fool (there is always one or two about.
I've found it to be a quite useful guide in confused times. .
Oh, and Katz makes an excellent well-meaning fool for the final method. . .
Here's my opinion... (Score:2)
I am tired of hearing people complain about the way the system works or that the people in office are crooks, etc. The only way to change the system is to make your voice heard. Don't like any of the candidates. Vote against the one you hate most. Your state going to elect the guy you don't like for president? Vote for a 'third-party' candidate. Maybe that person will now get 5% of the vote and their party gets matching government funds.
Paraphrasing Heinlein, "If you make a choice, you may be wrong. If you don't make a choice, you will be wrong." Exercise your right to vote. Take some time to find out some of the issues for your area. Try to determine not only how the issue(s) will affect you now, but also how they will affect you in five, ten, and twenty years. Because unless it is declared unconstitutional (possible, but unlikely) or repealed (about as unlikely) the issues that are passed are likely to be around for a long time.
That's my political message for the day.
Eric Gearman
--
Katz is right (Score:1)
I feel that democracy is essential to maintaining our rights and freedom. And if the citizenry does not take part in politics, (even if they do vote), then that is no democracy. That is why the attitude of Deggan and people like him is so harmful.
Now, we're not exactly knocking at the door of tyranny yet. But any careful observer, or casual reader of slashdot, will note that our freedom is under constant attack... and eroding steadily each day.
I sometimes think the Athenians had the right idea -- all citizens were required to vote! But in lieu of that, I must urge each of you to become aware of what's going on. Read many news sources. Chat it up with your neighbors. And for Tech's sake, vote!
I don't know who to root for (Score:1)
Ennui (Score:2)
Doldrum (Score:3)
-------
CAIMLAS
Yes, you should. (Score:3)
If you don't take the time to use the little bit of influence you have, the government's not going to bother doing anything to please you. Why should they care if they upset you, or even take away your freedoms, when you won't spend the time or the effort to let them know how you feel?
Sitting around complaining and doing little more doesn't change anything, it just makes you unhappier. And the fact is, it has a lot of effect on your life - even if you're not in the US. Don't believe me? The free market and capitalism sure didn't bring about this internet thing.
Oh, and if you're only concerned about the internet, technology, computers, and programming, then you're in trouble anyways.
---
Not to mention morbidly interesting... (Score:4)
His answer: He has friends at the Centers for Disease Control who have no liking at all for viruses or diseases, but find them nonetheless absolutely fascinating....
---
Politicians == Managers (Score:3)
However, those that are a bit more pessimistic view the whole process of government as pointless. I have been like that myself at times. We can't realy do anything to fix it, just like in our jobs, so we often want to leave to go somewhere else. I still think I will end up leaving the U.S. to move somewhere, I have a few ideas of places, but I am waiting a bit so I can see if improvements will be made in the U.S. The problem, and sites like slashdot particularly cater to the paranoid people when dealing with news, is that we hear the bad stuff more often than good. Honestly, I don't know if anything good is going on in the government right now, but from what I see and hear they are only sitting around wasting my tax money trying to find ways to take away more rights. Of course I am going to have a negative view towards politics, and since the majority of people in the U.S. seem to be content, nothing will happen to change it.
I think I fall within the standard point of view of slashdot readers. I can be enraged about some things such as laws like the DMCA, but when picking an elected official such as president, I am more apathetic. I am going to vote for Browne as I believe he is closest to what I believe to be right, but I know he won't win. It reminds me of a lyric: "Informed, but powerless."
The Vacuum of Politics (Score:2)
If you sit back and do nothing, and give everyone else the freedom to do what they want, want happens? All those people who want to meddle and interfere and shove their solutions down *your* throat will be the ones who *will* participate and shove their solutions down *your* throat. Then *you* bitch about it.
What is wrong with this picture?
If you do not take responsibility for your life and your environment, political or otherwise, you become one of Kosh's pebbles ("The avalanche has begun, it is too late for the pebbles to vote" - B5)
The solution sadly, is not to isolate yourself in the cubicle or hole up in the hills. The solutions is to be involved, to grow your influence and power for the things you care about. This does not just include technology issues, but things like personal freedom, your friends and family, etc.
Anyhow, who am I to tell you what to do?
it is *only* your life ...
Its the USA, go team! (Score:2)
The only politician running and openly criticizing the multi-nationals is Nader. Unless you want to include Gore's rhetoric about not being in the corporate pocket which is coming from an environmentalist who helped stopped the required raise in CAFE standards and supports NAFTA and the WTO. Toss in the best friend of the insurance industry VP and we have a pretty lousy ticket for liberals.
Even if Nader is never to be heard from again, at least he's opened political discourse for millions of minds accross the nation with real plans to curb corporate power and their media control, which helps keep this issue, perhaps the biggest of our times, from serious discussion in the two major parties.
naive (Score:2)
The thing that I detest is that politicians have not embraced technology and allowed it become a powerful tool of democracy. Instead, as what usually happens, is our leaders get in their respective office and do as they see fit, rarely asking the people what they would like after the election.
Re:Earth is my country (Score:2)
I'd love to see you explain that to the cops over in the lovely Socialist Republic of Kalifornia...
Local governments well fight very hard to hold onto every last scrap of power they can get their hands on. The only technologies that can save you from overzealous local governments are your neighbor's video camera.
Ultimately the only technology that can protect your right of free speech is the gun. That is why the second amendment follows the first.
Enjoy,
Chris
Re:Your challenge (Score:2)
There are many ways to reinvent the system. One of the more interesting which receives very little attention is the Madisonian model of government. In it power is more closely held by the people, and each higher level of government is diminished in importance.
Under the Madisonian model, it is difficult for special interests and political parties to gain control the apparatus of government, which is exactly the problem we are facing today. The special interests with undue influence are the corporations wishing to trample on the rights of consumers. See the DMCA and the UCITA for perfect examples of how the centralization of power and the propogation of that power upwards in the political strata have corrupted a system once based on protecting the rights of the individual.
Our current political system is based upon the assumption that those elected to office are benevolent, but that ignores the truth of the corruptability of man. Faith in that very corruptability is what has made our free market economy a success, and the Madisonian model exploits that same weakness. It gives the lower rungs of government a built in incentive to want to hold on to as much power as they can, and not allow the centralized leaders to take over too much of it. So, power is decentralized and diffused so that the energy and resources needed to exert undue influence on the system becomes unreasonably large.
Read up on it. It's good.
Re:Earth is my country (Score:2)
To which country? I haven't studied every country on the planet, but from what I can tell, they all have a goverment that does something I don't like.
People like to think of islands and such, but it turns out every island is claimed by a goverment that has a police force to enforce whatever laws. (Except antartica I suppose, but you can't survive there without interacting with other goverments) SeaLand might qualify, but they still have a goverment, and people being what they are I doupt that everyone on SeaLand will agree with you.
The Constitution is Like Unix (Score:4)
Consider:
1) The Electoral College is a throwback to a form of representative democracy born in an era when direct democracy was not technologically feasible. The notion that a person whom the majority of Americans hate could still become President because he won in three states should be quite troubling.
2) The Bill of Rights is in serious need of revision. Does anybody even pay any attention to the ninth and tenth amendments? Of course not. Legally, they are too vague and the government can't tell when it is violating them. As a result, they are ignored just as vague terms in a contract may be safely ignored by the parties. What about the third amendment? Quartering soldiers in peacetime? Does anyone really think this applicable to the 21st century?
Perhaps it's time to re-think the system. Keep what's good, but throw out the cruft and make it usable by average Americans without degrees in Constitutional Law.
Politics more important now? (Score:2)
Politics and politicians have been held in disdain for thousands of years. Just go back to the writings of the ancient Greeks, or read Plato's account of Socrates trial. I don't think our freedoms and liberties are under any more risk now than they always have been. Technological changes occur and the world eventually adjusts to them in spite of politicians.
stifling innovation? (Score:2)
Multi-national corporations will not smother innovation, nor will they become huge monolithic monopolies due to the science of things. In any large organization, whether it is a company, religion, application development, etc., there is always the pressure to fork. You *NIX nuts should know this the best. People always have different ideas about how something should progress. If you feel strongly enough, you fork. It doesn't matter what area you're in, that's the way large social groups function. Whether you're Lutheran-Catholic-Episcopalean-etc. or Pepsico-turned-Pepsi-and-"that food company" or just wait until Microsoft becomes Windows-Office-.NET-etc... at such a point, it becomes necessary for groups to splinter to solidify their ideas and receive funding. Look at Palm and 3COM... or Ma Bell, Lucent, and all of the Baby Bells...
Things will grow, band together under a common purpose, then splinter, reshuffle, and band together again. The whole thing is cyclical. In a capitalist society, there will always be competition, and when there is competition, there will be innovation. And as long as human beings are relied upon for innovation, there will always be worker's rights. Why? Because humans need incentive to work and to work well.
Give them the boot (Score:2)
________________________________________
This entire story is (-1, Flamebait) (Score:2)
Ugh. Is that asking for a flaming or what?
The Actual Text :"The Notebooks of Lazarus Long" (Score:2)
If this is too blind for your taste, consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way. This enables you to be a good citizen (if such is your wish) without spending the enormous amount of time on it that truly intelligent exercise of franchise requires.
Text is copyrighted 1973 by Robert A. Heinlein, from "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long" The latest edition was published in 1995 by Pomegranite books, and the ISBN number is: ISBN 0876544731
Multi Nationals real problem (Score:2)
Cultures are dieing, they are being systematically attacked by the huge marketing machine that is big business. And is American.
- What happened to the "family farm" and the culture of the land?
- What happened to little town America?
- What happened to the statesman?
What is SO funny to me is the number of Time magazine articles about some small businesses success selling some small doo dad no one thought of. In each article it is painfully obvious to me that some person got sick of being fed mass produced crap, and decided to go his/her own way (snaple for instance). Time (and other popular media) are constantly amazed when someone "makes it" because they do something they want to do. Instead of something they are told to do (in adverts, on the TV, in shopping centers and WWF stadiums)It is replaced by the culture of the "Corporate Farm"
It is laughed at nightly on television, and if you come from a little town you'd better not admit it (bad for the career old boy).
They were run out of town by the politicians (it's politically expedient)
The culture of "GEEK" is sheik..... now. Wasn't long ago that "family values" were all the rage. Now family values are sneered at if you mention some values are important to you. It's as if you had contracted some disease. Remember this, a homogenous culture is much easier to sell to. A homogenous culture is easy to figure out and market to. Niche marketing is simply moving that niche to the mainstream, marginalizing it, and in the end destroying it.
Differences in culture makes for an interesting life, makes for different thought patterns and adds some spice (if I may so say, and I do)
Ah yeah, politics, pick your politician wisely, or else he will help pass laws to marginalize YOUR culture, and you will be part of the mainstream. Fear that!
Re:Earth is my country (Score:2)
The gun is also the only tool to take it away...
(actually sticks rocks and torches does the job too)
The only technologies that can save you from overzealous local governments are your neighbor's video camera.
And what saves me from my neighbors video cameras and guns when I want neither of them pointing in my direction?
Re:Your challenge (Score:2)
And the more fundamental flaw of the gullibility of people. The willingness to believe what a person says even when their past record doesn't live up to it, because what they say sounds so good. The high number of people that fall victim to psychics, faith healers, and the like is proof of this - the lack of critical thinking most people have.
When they're so easily taken in by the small timers like this, of course the charismatic con-men that are attracted to power will gravitate to politics, because there they can get it. There they can get control over peoples' lives, over money, etc. (A few hundred years ago they went into religion, because they had a lot of power and control there. Some still do, but it doesn't have the importance it used to.)
Sometimes I think the flaw is that we have to vote for people who WANT into office - I worry that politicans are the worst people to run the country. (OK, second worst, behind religious leaders - but then again, they already run quite a bit *Cough*Pat Robertson*Cough*Christian Coalition*Cough*Republicans*Cough*.
---
Care About Politics (Score:2)
So, yeah, I care enough, but I'm not going to roll in it like a dog does in a carcass.
--
Re:Wir sind die braunen Soldaten (Score:2)
VOTE VOTE VOTE or LEAVE and pay taxes elsewhere!!! (Score:5)
What's wrong with this country is not "Liberal" or "Conservative" philosophy, but entrenched power locked in place for our representatives by multinational corporate power through media management and campaign contributions. The whole system is completely corrupt.
I've protested. I've sent letters (snail-mail) to my representatives. I've voted (though I missed '96). Frankly, no matter what I do I feel completely unrepresented as a constituency and citizen by those in political power. I'm at my wits end here. I'm a pacifist, so no black bloc activity for me.
So, some of my friends tell me that if I don't like it here I ought to leave; these folks are somewhat nationalist. You know, I'm seriously considering emigrating from the United States and removing my taxes from the US revenue base. Maybe they're right! It's the only protest I can think of left to do. If a few tens of thousands of well paid geeks up and blew out of here that would make a real dent on the tax base. A few hundred million anyway. Money is something I know these politicians understand.
I don't mind paying taxes. I'll pay taxes for education, health care, supporting the elderly, safety regulators, defending our borders, etc. But I'M SICK OF PAYING TAXES FOR INTEREST ON OUR NATIONAL DEBT!. I'm sick of paying taxes for ridiculous "defense" systems like SDI, which clearly can't work and serves only as a money funnel to defense contractors. Look at the Bush tax cut: forget how it's spread to benefit mostly wealthy tax payers, and instead consider the rationality of dumping a trillion dollars into our economy at the same time the Federal Reserve is raising interest rates. The Fed doesn't want to stimulate the economy... they're trying to control inflation at the same time the Republicans promote a highly inflationary tax cut, which WILL NOT PAY DOWN THE DEBT! The Democrats are no better... just look at the crap Gore promotes.
Maybe it is time to blow the hell out of this country.
Why you should care (Score:2)
Reasons to be involved (Score:2)
What reason does a legislative body have to act in the nation's best interests when the nation doesn't care what they do?
What better way to say "I don't care what legislators do to the Internet" is there than to forefit your one quantifiable method of influencing who makes the decisions?
Try this at home. Tell somebody, "I really could care less what you do!" See if they act in your best interests.
America will remain a free country so long as it retains a participatory government. Lose the participation, and you'll be left with a corpocracy, or worse.
Organizing society through markets and property (Score:4)
In a political system, anything you do benefits everyone, but the full costs fall on you. THAT is why so many people are uninterested in politics. And that is why you have to watch out for political solutions -- because people who take an interest in politics usually do so because they intend to use the political process against other people.
-russ
Power (Score:2)
Perhaps Katz's pal will understand it better this way.
"Politics" (a word that is rather lazily thrown about these pages) are really about Power. Geeks should understand this because we are also into Power. We see something that we like, think is cool, want to use, etc, and we fusk with it. We make it do cool things. We wield command over the tools in our dominion. And the users in our domains, incidently.
Politicians have been doing this with the world for the lifetime of human social interaction. They're much better practiced at doing that in their realm than we are in ours. They're powerful. We have servers and cell phones and /. There are defininte differences between "us" and "them" but one thing must be clear--you are a "political" animal.
My point is just that they are powerful, and thus often judged. We should understand about power, becuase geeks do have a relationship with power. So think about that before you hold in comtempt a politician for being a politician.
You do not get to live your life independent of society, obviously, and by virtue of your living you are involved, you are therefore politically engaged. In other words, you are a part of the American political landscape even if you choose to "not act."
Inaction is action, as anyone who has read about Buddhism will readily tell you. I never thought about that much before I read into Buddhism, and it seems that Heinlein also notes this (see above). Not that Heinlein should be our guiding, light, frankly I think the man was a sexist pig. But who cares about this.
So what is really happening here is that Deggan doesn't like the politicians that he encounters. He therefore equates "politics" with poor thinking or wrong action (akusala action, to keep with my buddhist theme) and discards it as below his station.
If we do this, we commit a grevious error and we will loose the power that we have wrought for ourselves. We must be aware of the fact that if we do not concern ourselves with the stuggle for power, what power we have could be taken from us. This may be done financially, politically, etc. They can't out tech us, for sure, but we're not immune to our sociopolitical landscape.
That said, vote Nader. [votenader.org]
Or Bush, if you really feel he'll be less inclined to regulate free speech on teh web, which has been mentioned on /.
Or Gore if you don't want to "throw away" your vote by voting for Nader.
Or don't vote, but know that you cast a vote by not voting.
Re:As long as there is government... (Score:2)
And as long as there are corporations, there will be corporate involvement in technology.
And as long as there are humans, there will be human involvement in technology.
No government, corporation or human (alone or organized) has the power to dictate the rules alone. The result will always be some form of compromize. Optimal to none, but workable for all.
I don't think it's a tech thing (Score:2)
Ironic (Score:2)
It's fascinating to me to read some of these articles about the world Katz lives in, which bears so little resemblence to the world I live in. It's almost like he's describing an alien place.
Jon, the reason no one cares about politics right now is not because of any sense of corporate powerlessness, it's because life is too good! Unemployment is incredible low, salaries are high, and so people have to find issues to whine about (that being human nature).
When the inevitable downturn comes, people will become interested in politics again, and these "pseudo-issues" that grace the frontpage of Slashdot will fade away.
--
Why you should care. (Score:2)
That means that if you work a 40 hour week, over 20 hours of your time is spent generating money for other people to spend.
Politics is about deciding how to spend YOUR money.
You have no other expense that remotely compares; not your house, not your car, not your broadband connection, not your caffeine or nicotine habit; nothing.
I don't know about you, but it seems obvious to me that one should care about how half of one's income is spent.
-
Re:Heinlein (Score:2)
Heinlein was not racist. He was not sexist. He may have been elitist, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Sixth Column was set in an America conquered by the "Pan-Asian Empire". It is, therefor, possible that the characters may have had racist feelings towards their oppressors without attributing the same feelings towards the author. In fact, the characters showing such biases makes them far more believable than they would be without showing those biases.
Farnham's Freehold is set, for the most part, in an future in which the 'minorities' of the 60's (I believe the first part of the book is set in the 1960s, but I may be wrong) are now the rulers of the planet, and the 'majority' races (whites, Japanese) are slaves, and even food sources for the leaders.
The main characters of that book are thrust from their relatively comfortable time period into this future via nuclear blast. One of the characters has no problem with the new situation (he's now one of the leaders, instead of a houseboy), two of the characters 'accept' their 'slave' status, whereas the other two attempt to escape and are eventually sent back in time to the past they came from (almost).
The point Heinlein was trying to make was that slavery or oppression of any kind, even in an attempt to redress past wrongs, is morally and ethically repugnant.
Try reading "Time Enough for Love", "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", or "Stranger in a Strange Land". Heinlein was as much a social commentator as he was one of the most profound and insightful science fiction authors.
Of course you should! (Score:2)
"Should I care about politics?"
Need you even ask?! Of course you should. Politics effects every facet of your life, and you can either take control of it or let it run right over you.
As I said in the first article, the alternative to politics is a system where someone puts a gun to your head and makes all choices for you. That's not the kind of system I want, and I'd imagine that Mr. Katz would have some objections to it himeself. Yeah, politics is a dirty business, but it's the only way to preserve individual liberty.
Many of the problems of the Slashdot-reading community are political, just not in the way people think.
One of the first criticisms levelled against Christianity was that it was too apolitical and that brought about the fall of the Roman Empire. To be honest, that's not an entirely inaccurate statement. We need to learn from that criticism. If we allow ourselves to get suckered into this notion that our vote doesn't matter, then we sign away the essential freedoms that we take for granted today. We're all effected by politics, so it is imperative that we take control of it.
You may argue that the two major party candidates don't represent you. Still, that doesn't mean that your vote is worthless. A vote for a third-party candidate will be noticed. (Believe me, I work for one of the major political parties and we're watching the Nader movement very closely.) You have the opportunity not only to pick a president, but others who can represent your special interests.
It's simple - either work with the system to enact positive change or allow yourself to be steamrolled by it. You may dislike politics, but you have the power to change it - don't let those who would want you to sacrifice that freedom convince you otherwise.
Re:The Constitution is Like Unix (Score:2)
Whoa there buddy! The BoR is the most forthright protection of basic human liberties ever writen down.
Does anybody even pay any attention to the ninth and tenth amendments? Of course not. Legally, they are too vague and the government can't tell when it is violating them.
In that case, the government should err on the side of not violating them, rather than ignore them. And the government knows full when when it is violating them most of the time. I don't think we should roll over and say, "Oh well, the government won't respect our rights as soverign citizens of our various states, so let's just chuck out that part of the consitution." I don't see how that will make it better.
As a result, they are ignored just as vague terms in a contract may be safely ignored by the parties.
How sad that is.
What about the third amendment? Quartering soldiers in peacetime? Does anyone really think this applicable to the 21st century?
Yes.
Remember history guys!
________________________________________
Re:Power (Score:2)
That said, vote Nader.
Or Bush, if you really feel he'll be less inclined to regulate free speech on teh web, which has been mentioned on
Or Gore if you don't want to "throw away" your vote by voting for Nader.
Or don't vote, but know that you cast a vote by not voting.
Or, Vote Libertarian if you care about liberty and freedom, and getting government back into the role of being the government, not a nanny and adjunct of corporate America. [lp.org]
________________________________________
Universal hegemony and/by conscription (Score:2)
Representation by conscription and
Universality of hegemony.
The representatives we end up electing are usually our answers to Who will do the least damage to me . The best of the worst. The old saw goes: People who want office should be barred from it. They are either greedy, venial and will extract the most advantage from our pockets or they're masochists and not representative either. In the large part we are neither thieves or fools ruled by cupidity or stupidity.
Picking names out of phone books every four years would get us a real democracy and eliminate the incredibly expensive gathering of favors by those who want your vote and which will have to be repaid (out of your pockets) that happens every four years and results in some change of names, but not agendas.
Universality of hegemony would be truly devastating to the entrenched who stuff ballot boxes either crudely, a la Milosevich or with goodies that they don't deliver a la Read my lips: No new Taxes.
It means that just because you happen to be somewhere, doesn't mean that you get your services from and pay your taxes to the local authority. If you're willing to live with Sweden's taxes in order to get their health care, you don't have to put up with the Swedes to do it.
Hate your local demagogue? Why not deprive him (or her,) of your taxes and be under the wing/rule of someone you do appreciate?
The odds of this actually coming to pass are nil, none and fuggedaboudid. And we have pathetic voter turnouts as a result.
Throwing a vote away? (Score:3)
The majority of the people I know want a third party candidate to win, and the majority of those people are afraid to vote for a third party candidate for the above stated irrational fears. Well I have news for you that does matter; if everyone who wanted a third party candidate to win had the courage to vote by their heart, we would have a strong government by the people. Instead, we have a situation where the majority of the U.S. population votes like sheep, and we keep putting the same criminals back in office. Wake up and stand up, people!
Please find out what you're really voting for before you do: www.issues2000.org
Throwing a vote away? (Score:3)
The majority of the people I know want a third party candidate to win, and the majority of those people are afraid to vote for a third party candidate for the above stated irrational fears. Well I have news for you that does matter; if everyone who wanted a third party candidate to win had the courage to vote by their heart, we would have a strong government by the people. Instead, we have a situation where the majority of the U.S. population votes like sheep, and we keep putting the same criminals back in office. Wake up and stand up, people!
Please find out what you're really voting for before you do: www.issues2000.org
Re:This entire story is (-1, Flamebait) (Score:2)
[stock rant on the subject]
This whole story should be marked (-1, Flamebait) or (-1, Troll) .
The job shared by Hemos, CmdrTaco, et al., can be stated as publishing stories on the front page that will generate lots of page visits. To troll, in the fishing sense, is to put bait out that will generate predictable bites on the hook. Thus, Slashdot is a troll, but that's by design.
If you don't want to be baited, don't go somewhere that constantly and loudly claims to have nothing to do with professional journalism. They intend to get people to talk, even if it's on a gut-reaction level, as that is what pays the rent.
[end of stock rant on the subject]
You Fool (Score:2)
Capitalism has failed. Any system that can only provide me a six year-old car, and my wife an eight year-old car, is broken. My dishwasher makes a funny rattling noise when I run it. My central air heating/air conditioning unit will have to be replaced in the next five years. This is not a society, my friend. This is a scarred, blackened, Hellish wasteland. How we have survived this long is truly a testimony to the human spirit.
IT is time for the common man to revolt. No longer should most of us have to put up with measely 56K connections and 50-channel basic cable. That computer I mentioned earlier? A Packard Bell. That's right. With an S3 Virge video card.
Indeed, this is truly one million times worse than the Blade Runner future horror we have all feared. DAMN YOU, MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS!!!!!!!!
The technology of the cash register (Score:2)
Wal-Mart does not destroy local economies. Local shoppers make the choice to avail themselves of the convenience and selection of these mega stores. Local shops suffer. Is it a conspiracy or just the choice that consumers make?
McDonalds success merely proves that many consumers choose convenience and consistency over taste.
Barnes & Noble shows that consumers want a large selection of material over the atmosphere of a mom and pop bookstore.
If multinationals are a threat, their power doesn't come from technology. The power is contained in the consumer's wallet. You have the choice to keep it in your pocket.
Re:VOTE VOTE VOTE or LEAVE and pay taxes elsewhere (Score:2)
The entrenched two-party system that offers false alternatives between "liberal" and "conservative" is what's hurting this country. The republicrats rig the elections to shut out any other voices. They raise the requirements of ballot access when the Libertarians or Greens get on it; they shut non-Republicrats out of debates big and small.
What is "conservative?" By definition, and practice, it's the liberalism of the past. Or as Bob Dole said, "we have to stop this system where the democrats propose a bill, we vote it down and then phase it in over three years." The real choice is between freedom and non-freedom (slavery; corporate control; collectivism; big brother -- call it what you like). The problem with the two main parties as they they are always for non-freedom. Whatever they do tends to increase the power of government over our lives. Or it deputizes coporations to take on government duties (like tax collection). Vote for a party that things less government means more freedom [lp.org], not one that thinks more government control [rnc.org] is more freedom [democrats.org].
It's not the economy, stupid; it's not for the children; it's freedom! Vote for freedom!
________________________________________
morality not technology (Score:2)
Jon, what a poor choice of words in the above statement. In fact, technology does surface in political discourse, but the example that you used about reproductive choice is driven mostly about ideas about morality (God, embryo/fetus viability) not technology per se.
If we, as the people are divided, then how CAN our legislators be united on this issue?
Re:The Constitution is Like Unix (Score:2)
Aboslutely. How many times has US Military (including National Guard which is not a state militia organization) been deployed due to riots or natural disasters within the US borders?
If you're a third party supporter (you should be) (Score:2)
But you know why your vote matters? Third parties like the Libertarians or the Greens, (Reform party if you're crazy) appear on ballots in different states based on the number of votes they got in the last election. So if one of them represents your beliefs, vote for them. Then in the next election, it hopefully won't take 30000 signatures to get your favored candidate on the ballot.
Don't believe the media's insistence that there are 2 candidates. There are 6 parties on my ballot for president. Republican, Democrat, and then the ones that matter: Libertarian, Green, Reform, and Constitution. Is your local ballot like that? Shouldn't it be? There are far, far more people than this running for president however. There are always at least a couple hundred people running for president. I'm sure the UFO party's candidate would appreciate your vote. I am sure that there is someone who represents you who's running. You just can't depend on the media to tell you who.
Re:As long as there is government... (Score:2)
Ralph Nader said it best... (Score:2)
"If you don't take an interest in politics, politics will take an interest in you."
This issue of a world controlled by a few megacorps that Katz talks about is the reason I'm voting for Nader, because as far as I can tell both Gore and Bush are running on the Corporatism party ticket (even though there are many differences between them, mostly who to tax and who to spend it on, but I digress...).
I do not believe voting for Nader is throwing away my vote. First of all, just because your candidate doesn't win, doesn't mean you throw away your vote. As I said before, elections are not horse races; you are not there to predict the winner, but to make an informed vote, and to vote your conscience. Also, voting for Nader is building up the Green party which addresses a number of important issues the top two parties are not talking about. A large showing for that party increases its visibility in future elections.
The same is true for other third parties for that matter (as I know a lot of libertarians read this site, and your issues will be different than mine. I see a lot of libertarians running on the local (WA) tickets; good work...)
Re:Heinlein (Score:2)
Face it, the guy's a 'cult' writer. Most people read his work, like Ayn Rand's work, in late adolescence, but get over it as they continue to mature.
There are always a few arrested adolescents who continue to be members of the cult well into adulthood, though.
Re:Your challenge (Score:2)
Frankly, I believe our current government is *too* efficient, and perhaps more efficient than the founders intended. They regarded political parties as "faction" and something to be avoided. Competing interests are fine, but having only two dominant sets of competing interests was not the intent at all. Imagine a situation where the President was not a member of either of the parties fighting over congress. Congress would be forced to be more bipartisan. Or maybe quadpartisan!
Walt
Re:corporations are nicer than governments! (Score:4)
Sure, boycotts *can* work, but not very often, corporations would much rather throw a chunk of change at the person to get them to shut up rather than be exposed. I know about this first hand, a friend of mine found worms in a popular food brand, when she complained, she was given a gag order and given some money, this happens alot more than one would think.
The corporations think of it this way, is it cheaper to shut this person up or to change our product or whatever they are complaining about. They always want the settlement, it's much cheaper and not costly to their image because they can simply get a gag order.
They can really disrupt the politcal process too. They have money reserves which transfer into lobbying power that the average Joe just does not have. With all of the media-mega-mergers too, we have lost our ability as citizens to have corporations fairly reported on. If there is something these companies don't want the public to hear, they just won't report on them, and that in my opinion, is wrong, and is much more dangerous than the government.
Fight Corporate Power!
A reason to care (Score:2)
Check out the FBI story a couple stories more recent than this one. This guy got a search warrant served just because he was curious to see what had been done to a defaced site. Basically, he did little more than look at the site, but that was enough to get served. Check out the a href-"http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/31/ 025228&mode=thread">full story. Just to give an idea of how inocuous this is, its what any I-Noc op does to trouble shoot a problem. Yet, the system labels it suspect. They can do this because we--the techies--don't bother get involved in politics. We don't try to explain, and when an outsider is dumb enough to ask a question, we tend to crap on 'em. But, worst of all, we don't do anything except sit in our rooms, code, chat, and play net games. The world is out there, and its reacting fearfully to something that it does not understand.
Re:Yes, you should. (or maybe not) (Score:2)
What the majority of /. posters don't seem to understand is that this is actually a good thing. The whole point of national elections is that a candidate has to have a bland enough platform that they can be seen as the lesser of two evils by the majority of people. This means that the whole process is filled with compromises and politics, but it also means that the people we elect will be unlikely to do anything terribly radical without a huge amount of public concensus.
This way when the candidate you like fails to get elected it is not the end of the world. If splinter parties had more of a voice we would live in a very different place. During one president's term the Lord's prayer and the pledge of allegiance would be mandatory in every school, workplace, ballpark, and recreational facility, in the next president's term it would become illegal to drive a car anywhere in the Western United States because the resulting pollutants endanger the spotted tree marmot.
A good example of this has been President Clinton's tenure as Chief Executive Officer. His major plans were all completely frustrated, but he, in turn, was able to frustrate many of the plans of the Republican Congress. In the end only those measures that had broad public support were made into laws.
The bottom line is that if you are unwilling to cooperate with other people to forward the issues that you care most about, then you will never be heard. What's more, society is probably better off. Ideas that are only popular among a small part of the populace are generally not the kinds of ideas that should become laws.
Politics affects *you* (Score:2)
I'm sure 99% of people will find *something* in that list which concerns them. If you find nothing in that list, it's because the list is incomplete. Politics *is* society (ahem, although Mrs Thatcher famously remarked that there is "no such thing as society" - but she was a daft old cow). If something about society bothers you, and if you choose to ignore politics, you have chosen to sacrifice your right to complain.
--
Nothing is new... nor should it be (Score:2)
One of the wonders of our political system is that it does not need to be changed to handle every new thing that comes along. Unfortunatly people think that it does. This is why every new medium of expression has to go before the Supreme Court to see if it too is covered by the first amendment. It happened with radio, tv, the internet, and now software. The reason we have so many freedoms in this country (and for those of you who insist we have no freedoms here I sugest you move to China or Libya) is that our constitution spans the life of our nation.
If we want new developments to be treated with equity, we need to stop making exceptions for them. I think we would all perfer that DVDs be handled under conventional copyright law rather than the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. As if authors deserve more compensation in this millenium than in the last one.
Re:Such BS -- jobs are easier, richer, more fun & (Score:2)
Here in Silicon Valley, many companies serve lunch every day, have food in the lunch-room for breakfast and dinner
and snacks. Pete's coffee is almost a requirement. Oracle and other big companies have fantastic cafeterias with
very low prices.
Well that's just *special* for those of us lucky enough to have high-paid IT jobs.
Now, stop being so selfish, and start thinking about people on the minimum wage, or those with no job and no prospects. If you don't, some of them will get desperate, and you or someone you like may well be one who gets robbed.
--
Re:The Actual Text :"The Notebooks of Lazarus Long (Score:2)
> consult some well-meaning fool (there is always one around) and ask his advice. Then vote the other way.
Granted, this wasn't the original poster's intent, but the aforementioned quote is probably the best argument I've seen to vote for Bush during the whole campaign ;-)
Re:Throwing a vote away? (Score:2)
It forces the candidates to appeal to a broad base of states, rather than just running a national campaign that ignores regional issues. You can see this working as Bush and Gore are traveling around the country, trying to hit as many states as possible. It hurts states that are "sure things" for a specific candidate.
It reduces the influence of minor political parties by awarding all of a state's electoral votes (winner take all) to the winner in a state. This isn't in the Constitution but it is the law for selecting electors in most states. This avoids the problems of a parliamentary system, where small parties can demand concessions from a coalition government.
Pundits is the Problem - in Politics and ... (Score:2)
Think about it: if there weren't hired "analysts" out there, having to come up with something new to say about why this poll is up, or this poll is down, when any first-year statistics student can tell you that one in twenty polls will be way off and any poll can be up or down 4 percent for no reason. If they didn't have to come up with false distinctions between look-alike candidates.
And if slashdot didn't have it's own version, such as those who feel the need to think that everything is a conspiracy that will result in the rise of the ubergeeks and the overthrow of normal society by the technological advantaged.
Man, if we could line all those people up against a cliff and give them a short sharp swift kick to the rear, what a wonderful silence would result.
Much technology is irrelevant to politics (Score:2)
That may be true, but the kind of tech you see people obsessed with all over the web is irrelevant to politics. It seems that the only political issues many netters are interested in are those related to internet taxes and Napster and encryption. It's a weird, twisted out-of-touch view.
Recently posted a story about low end video cards. It turned out that the definition of "low end" in the article was pretty much "anything that's not a GeForce 2." Then there was verbal blasting from people putting down cards like the TNT 2 and ATI Rage 128. Whoa. Top of the line game developers were doing 3D modelling using software rendering all the way up until 1997 or so. Now here we are, three years later, and people are putting down cards that are 10-20x more powerful? Excuse me, but you can't continually be relative about the state of technology. Heck, the Game Boy has surpassed 100 million units and is selling like hotcakes.
It's not so much that geeks have an interest in technology, but that there's a peculiar fixation in what I see as a self-centered backwater swamp that's irrelevant outside such neurotic circles.
Re:Politics? Important? (Score:2)
Hey, do you have any references for that?!!
(Yes, I know Social Security is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY since there is NO LAW that requires a person to have a Socialist Slave Number.)
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
Re:May I quote? (Score:2)
"...But give me liberty, the right to walk down the streets and say what I want, to not live in fear of violence..."
Make up your mind. If you truly want to walk down the street without fear of violence, then give the authorities the ability to punish the violent. Bush isn't the one who makes you afraid to walk down the street; it's the murderers who walk out of prison unpunished. The men Bush had killed were killers themselves.
The only problem with your Adbusters revolution.. (Score:2)
Politics == Religion (Score:2)
However, there's a scary comparision between politics and religion as played around the world: both areas assume that your ideologies (political or faiths) are so in-line with a large group of people that you should belong to that group. If you can't align your (political|religious) beliefs with these groups, you are generally treated with less respect and possibly are attacked by the system. Thus, both politics and religion lead to a mass mind-control system that can be used effectively to keep independent and enlightened members of a society down.
Look at the Spanish Inquistion (not the Monty Python sketch, but the real thing) -- they threatened people to convert to Christianity under penalty of death. The prosecution of non-Catholics under the Roman Catholic church of the mid 1500s (IIRC) until Martin Luther nailed a declaration of rights to the church door. The recent proclaimation by the Vatican that other religions are 'valid', but only Catholism will get you eternal salvation.
Similar trends in politics happen today. The continual pidgeonholing of everyone into Rep or Dem, and the stronghold of maintaining a unbreakable 2 party system; the crying of a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush, and trying to kill any 3rd party successes. Even the constant swaying that Shrub and Gore are trying to convience the undecided voters to vote Democratic or Republican.
Does it work? Certainly, even in today's age. I know people that follow their religion down to the letter, even though they don't feel a certain aspect of it is right (example, the recent slamming of the gay community by Southern Baptists left many a member questioning that judgement but felt that they had to stay with the church and joined in the slamming reluctantly). If you can't believe 100% in the ideals of that religion, then how can it be your religion? Similarly, if you are a Republican, save for the issue of abortion rights, how can you consider yourself a Republican? The answers easy for most people, however: it's easier and requires much less 'work' to go with the flow. Are you Lutherian? Then the church tells you to follow this, that, and that other thing without questioning why, and you get eternal salvation. Are you Democratic? Then you simply vote every D on the ballot without researching the candidates, and you get more Democratic party-like government support.
Now, in both cases, there has been times where the status quo has been challenged by enlightened folks, such as Martin Luther and the Founding Fathers of American for religion, and those successful third party candidates like Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura. But it's hard to have these people achieve success when those in power want to keep it down. But there has been successess in religon: while not universal, the right to practice any religion with question is granted in many countries. However, while we have the 'right' to vote any way we want, there is still prosecution at a mental level for any independant voter or third party candidate.
What this boils down to is the fact that I cannot believe that every person can say that they believe every ideal that a limited number of religious or political choices can offer. Some can, but the majority can't; they only like to make the choice that aligns closer with their views such that they don't have to worry about anything else and makes their life easier. Those that do try to find something else are typically prosecuted and treated as lower class until they do align with something. And while the religion side has come to realize that they can't speak for everyone, politics still tries to mind-control everyone they can.
Politics, Business and Violence (Score:2)
Not to get off on a libertarian rant here, but
If you think that politics doesn't involve breaking heads, try not registering for the draft -- or even worse, not paying your taxes -- and see how many times the government asks politely before they send someone to your house with a gun. Say what you will about "ruthless, greedy, competing multinationals" and "empty suits" -- at least they derive their influence from mutually consensual transactions, not from brutal force -- and business can never "ravage" the world the way government has (are we so quick to forget Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Tianenmen Square, South Africa under apartheid...?)
While you listen to Bush, Gore, and Nader go down their laundry list of issues they want to "do something about" (i.e. control by force), remember what political philosopher John Locke said: "Nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation, and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it. So that he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me."
IT
Re:Politics == Religion (Score:2)
Bush 26%
Gore 21%
Nader 18%
Buchanan 13%
Browne 6 %
Trump 4 %
Other 3 %
The guy ruling the country only has 26% support? That's the stuff revolutions are made of, and this is the type of thing a limited party system avoids. Trust me, it's very intentional.
Also, the two-party system is around because it makes things simpler. Who has the time to research a field of 45 candidates, none of whom can be easily categorized? Only a select few.
Under the system we have, without looking into things at all you can get a general sense of what each guy stands for, just by the fact that one guy has an elephant next to his name and the other guy has a donkey. We Americans are busy people, with a lot on our minds. We need our simplicity now and then.
No, I don't understand why a Republican has to be opposed to abortion, in favor of the death penalty, and in favor of lower taxes, all at the same time. What do those three issues have to do with each other? Nothing. Yet a republican is expected to support all three. And Democrats are the same way. No, it doesn't make a lot of sense. And yes, in a way, it works.
Again, we can't just look at the system and say it's bad; we have to ask ourselves if another system would work better. And I have yet to hear any suggestions that make me want to scrap the one we have.
Re:Yes, you should. (or maybe not) (Score:2)
For every wild haired Einstein with a raft of good ideas, you have 20 radicals that can't hit their butt with both hands. In the end the Einsteins and the Gallileos of the world win out for the simple reason that they are right, and the rest of us are wrong. The good ideas become mainstream, and the laws begin to reflect their good sense. Sure, this process takes a little longer, but it is the surest way to guarantee that progress is made. For example, it is much more likely to yield success than simply listening to whatever wild-haired loony happens to be passing by.
The good news is that if you are actually right, then your ideas will eventually prevail.
This is why it is so important that we don't try to short circuit the process. Anything that makes it easier for anyone to create laws is a bad idea. It allows our opponents to push through laws like the DMCA before we have time to organize opposition. Gridlock is our friend, and the political process that creates this gridlock in the national elections is doubly our friend. We want bland presidents with little power to actually change things, because their simply aren't enough Galileos and Einsteins to outnumber all of the Homers and Beavis's, so the popular vote is bound to elect some Presidents who have bad ideas. If these Presidents had a free reign to actually make changes we would be screwed.
Fortunately, the process that allows them to be elected, combined the politics of staying popular, means that they can only push for programs with wide public appeal. These sorts of programs are almost always well within the "safe" range of measures that nearly everyone agrees on (because they have been well proven).
Responce to rebuttals: (Score:2)
The only way out of this mess is to support any and all candidates who are NOT part of the political power base. This is why I'm willing to support Libertarians, even though I completely disagree with their philosophical base. Let's be clear here, the reason why I support the Greens first of all is because I agree with their platform.
Because I agree with their platform. I said in the previous post that I don't mind paying taxes for services in the public benefit. I'll gladly pay 50% taxes for national health care; universal head start and pre-school; national infrastructure including public transportation, roads, bridges, and telecommunications investment; a military which focuses on the defense of our national borders (though I'm not anti-immigration, just anti-overdeployment); free college tuition for everyone who pulls a good GPA; and even targeted tax cuts to push a semi-social agenda such as supporting solar power for homeowners.
I believe that government is most useful when providing services that the entire population needs. That is, it makes no sense to me for private corporations to split apart and profit from our society over basic survival requirements such as health care. However, I don't want our government manufacturing shoes, steel, cars, or other commodities. When the citizenry's lives are at stake, the government should step in with either regulation or services. That's my belief.
Re: your plug for Libertarian... forget it. I think Ayn Rand was a terrible hack of a writer, and her philosophy is as wide reaching in scope as it is shallow in practice. It's yet another utopian fantasy that attempts to shoe-horn a philosophical stance into unworkable policy. JMNSHO.
Finally, WRT my stance on paying down the national debt: From reading my positions you would probably label me as a "Liberal" voter, as I might view your beliefs "Conservative". However, I think BOTH of us agree that paying down the national debt is in the best interest of all citizens. We're paying a good third of the tax revenue in interest on the debt. Don't you think that $300 Billion or so could better go to schools, roads, bridges, or even a tax cut? I'm NOT opposed to a tax cut after we pay down our debt, I'm just opposed to the outright stupidity of promoting one with a $6 Trillion dollar debt to pay off. Again, JMNSHO.
Re:Ennui (Score:2)
A 'corporation' is an artificial construct. From the Western World, who's sole purpose is profit. It is neither a Person or is it really a display of the will of 'people'.
The corporation employee's people - dont do as it asks: starve.
The corporation lives forever, providing a mandate and continuity that becomes very powerfully: it lives 'forever' unchanging in its pursuit for power (concentration of wealth and other influences).
The corporation will do things that are irrational and irresponsible to serve the bottom line: uncontrollable pollution/unnecessary layoffs/re-construct its environment (exert influence on a citizen organized government)
Although 'people' are the 'owners' and 'workers' that power corporations they are merely cogs - our economic system is being shaped to act as environment to foster the development of these beasts, but 'people' are not the ones putting it together - corporations, empowering themselves, will construct their own environment in order to assure there success.
Imagine a virus who is capable of building its own perfect host. This is what is happening to the governments of the western world.People are no longer in control A single person isnt capable of shouting loud enough, of hitting hard enough, of cutting deep enough to influence these gargantuan entities. Very few people are in control of the economic future of the world - by virtue of their greed or sheer luck they are in this position, ordinary people yes, but with an exorbitant amount of influence. A position that is so easily corrupted. The fact that 1000's of people organize to support it is an act of self-preservation, nothing more (on behalf of those citizens). With the overwhelming drive to keep oneself fed, clothed, sheltered - it becomes clear what the involvement of people becomes. Quite frankly, the present state of the world (that Katz describes) is undeniably true - look at the undemocratic nature of your government: closed debates, flawed electoral system [discover.com] (which would be the best, easiest step to right some of the present wrongs! dont forget about this people! share this information! tell your government to move to another voting system!), corporate lobbies and Soft Money all devices used to predicate the present broken/flawed system.
Change is good people - start demanding fundamental, basic changes in the system... no better time to start than 11.07.00
Start by telling your friends/neighbours/relatives/coworkers to:
Re:The Constitution is Like Unix (Score:3)
Perhaps you should read some of the comments from other posters as well as this: Electorial College Homepage [nara.gov]. If what you suppose were really true then one of these guys that the other
For one thing, the States determine the way their votes are cast, not the feds (feds only determine the number of votes per State). Every State could have a proportional system like Nebraska or Maine. If you don't live in those 2 states then I suggest you lobby your own State Legeslature and leave the Constitution alone please. It is your State government that is broken, not our Constitution.
I have never seen anything supporting the notion that the electorial college system was created because votes could not be counted fast enough or that the Founding Fathers actually wanted anything besides a Republic. If there is some actual discourse amoung the founding fathers about this then please let the rest of us know. Until then, please let this myth die along with that myth that Ammendment II has anything at all to do with hunting.
2) The Bill of Rights is in serious need of revision. Does anybody even pay any attention to the ninth and tenth amendments?
That would be these? IX and X [loc.gov]
Another poster mentioned the Supreme Court knocks down the legeslative and executive branch with those 2 Ammendments whenever it can. It would be nice if this happened much more often, but it does happen.
I did not miss your comment on Ammendment III, but if you do not see the importance of that already then you never will.
Visit DC2600 [dc2600.com]
Re:The Actual Text :"The Notebooks of Lazarus Long (Score:3)
Actually, yes ;-)
The difference is, to paraphrase C.S. Lewis, that the malicious at least sleep. Those who mean well never rest.
Gore's position is to give "targeted tax cuts" to things he likes. Nader wants to tax "things he doesn't like". Both are using the power of the state to micromanage individual behavior.
Given the choice, I'd vote Browne. But given that Browne's not gonna win, I'll take Bush. A fool? Sure. Malicious? Perhaps. But at least malice sleeps at night. Those with good intentions never rest.
Re:Politics == Religion (Score:2)
Do realize that a 26% vote would not win in the electoral college. Even those cases where the majority candidate based on popular vote would not win in the electoral college is where the voting %s are around 50%. However, the current system of "one vote, one candidate" is not good if we did have several small parties as opposed to limited major ones. The rank vote that ICANN used and suggested here is one possible solution.
Also, the two-party system is around because it makes things simpler. Who has the time to research a field of 45 candidates, none of whom can be easily categorized? Only a select few.
If you the American Voter cannot take the time to digest all the various issues that are important to use and judge all the available candidates based on that, such that you can vote in the most important person on the planet (practically) for the next 4 years, maybe you shouldn't have the right to vote. Running for office *should* not be the same as running for senior class president; it's not a issue of popularity, but how the fundamental issues the country runs on will be affected by this person. Now, sure, if we took the media of today and tried to apply that in the multiple party race, it wouldn't work; current media would be too biased, and it would be very hard to get all the info you need. But with the advent of the internet, and other new media, it is possible to have unbiased and biased reporting on all candidates with equal coverage, and thus you can research them all you want.
Under the system we have, without looking into things at all you can get a general sense of what each guy stands for, just by the fact that one guy has an elephant next to his name and the other guy has a donkey. We Americans are busy people, with a lot on our minds. We need our simplicity now and then.
However, this year we get parties that have both moved towards the middle; the concepts that Democrates typcially stand for are not all in force this year, and the same with Republicans. If Joe 6-Pack just came out of his mountain shack with no news and wants to vote Democratic, he might be surprised at all the issues that the Democrates are favoring. Again, it's the fact that you need to read up appropriately on these candidates before you make a once-in-a-4year choice; that's your responsibility as a voter.
A better system? Remove the party affliation from ballots, ditch the primaries and caucuses and conventions. Implement a rank vote as opposed to one choice. Remove soft-money contributions, only allow equal federal funding for each candidate. The problem is is that these all go against status quo, and people will not accept these changes today, though they would be better off in the long run with them.
Re:Politics a la Slashdot (Score:2)
Medicare is a non-issue. You drop Medicare, and you have millions of very angry seniors getting your ass out of office tout suite.
Technology IS an issue. UCITA, DMCA, and Carnivore are the proverbial tips of the iceberg. And we're the Titanic.
Do you really think that THEY want the net to be freely available, with information as varied as the people that post it, with no checks? No. But, as long as the First Amendment is upheld, they can't do squat to the information.
But, if the information is turned criminal, then THEY can have a field day. That's what's happening in the MPAA v. 2600 (v. deliberate; this SOB is gonna get Supreme Court review); the MPAA wants to control how DVD movies are played, and so it got the law passed with ridiculous terms. (Like, you can, under certain conditions, circumvent copy controls. However, you can't use a device to do so. That's impossible. Let's hope the appellate courts and the SC see it that way.)
Re:VOTE VOTE VOTE or LEAVE and pay taxes elsewhere (Score:2)
...
You forgot to mention the international zionist conspiracy.
Okay; the post wasn't a troll, and isn't simply conspiracy theory, and to attempt to equate it to some kind of racist mentality is just wrong.. Pick up any economics textbook and read up on Fractional Reserve Banking. Here are some slides used in Economics classes at Ohio State [ohio-state.edu]. Try a class from Missouri [missouri.edu]. Or Colorado [colorado.edu]. Or Columbus State [cscc.edu]. Don't like those? Try the Britannica [britannica.com]. Go the the Fed's website and read about how it works (prepare for reading a LOT). Read about expansion of the money supply in "Money Supply for Dummies " [excite.com]. Pick up a copy of William Greider's Secrets of the Temple [amazon.com] -- his book was issued to MBA students at the MIT Sloan School of Business and describes the process which I outlined in my post. For another view, refer to the words of Representative Jack Metcalf [house.gov].
You can even read the words of a Fed Chairman [frb.org] (William Poole, President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis):
Before 1933, the Federal Reserve did conduct monetary policy by adhering to an external standard-the gold standard. Now, the U.S. dollar is pure fiat money, whose purchasing power is determined by the Fed's decisions and their interactions with the U.S. and world economies.
America DOES have debt-based fiat money, and the elimination of debt eliminates money. It is that simple.
Not a troll. Just the facts.
________________________________________
The third amendment saves lives! (Score:2)
Before the third amendment was enacted, it was a common practice among governments to subdue their populaces, not merely by forcing them to support and house soldiers, but by exposing them and their children to rape by those same soldiers. It's bad enough that such things happen during wartime (and classified as warcrimes); I'm proud that our constitution specifically addresses it in the Bill of Rights.
Today, rape still occurs among military personel (especially in retaliation to gender-integration), but for the most part, it occurs in barracks or on ships and away from civilians (though our Japanese friends living near navy personel stationed in Osaka may disagree).
Re:corporations are nicer than governments! (Score:2)
Someone on the internet should be reporting on this! People are attacking Flynt's character, but hey, he was right about Livingston, Barr and Gingrich! I wonder who sponsors "Crossfire", I bet they had something to do with gagging Flynt.
Organizing society through markets and property (Score:2)
There is a view which says you can eliminate power, and thus politics, from a society, but fundamentally I cannot believe this. It tends to be anarchists (all stripes), anarchocapitalists and libertarians who suggest that this is possible. Inherently though, people will always be able to do things other people want, and people will always be able to hurt each other. Thus there will always be power, and thus there will always be politics.
Its interesting that we tend to use 'politics' these days to mean democratic politics. I consider this to be quite a feat of brain-washing. There are plently of sources of power that are not accountable to the electorate, and there are a lot of things we can do politically other than vote in elections. Quite a lot of the 'boredom' everyone expresses with politics is really because democratics politics is very limited in its scope. Politicians cannot change many of the things people would really like to change in the way society is run, and their scope for action is falling all the time.
Re:Organizing society through markets and property (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Organizing society through markets and property (Score:2)
-russ
Nader cares only for himself (Score:2)
Sorry, I know I'm posting too much today, but I can't let that pass.
I'm really, really tired of the morally-superior tone coming out of the Nader camp. I don't want to hear any more about Nader's love of the truth until he stops spewing the greatest lie of this campaign -- that Bush and Gore are identical.
But even that isn't what really pisses me off about Nader. It's more the fundamental betrayal of his own people and the very movements he claims to endorse.
It's instructive to look at his counterpart on the right, Pat Buchanan. Buchanan is also running a highly ideological campaign that is siphoning votes from the mainstream party. But Buchanan is doing it in the least destructive way possible, because he's keeping his eye on the greater goal and doesn't want to help Gore win this election.
Buchanan is spending his money to attract Bush voters in states that Bush has already lost. The argument goes, "Your vote is meaningless anyway, so vote for me, and maybe I'll get enough of a popular vote that I'll get funding for the next election, where I'll continue to fight the damn liberals for you".
Nader is doing precisely the opposite. He's putting all his money into swing states, actively doing whatever he can to destroy Gore's chances of winning. You might ask why he's doing this, since he's going to lose all of his natural allies and also help elect the man who most strongly opposes the environmental movement as well as the anti-corporate movement.
The only answer I've been able to come up with is because Ralph Nader values his own advancement more than he does the very causes he pretends to champion. What does Nader care if George W. wins, as long as the spotlight is on him? He just wants the ego boost from those extra votes in the swing states. He likes seeing his face on TV.
What you folks currently supporting Nader need to realize is that this is a betrayal. Bush will rape the environment, as he did in Texas, increase free trade, and limit the power of unions in any way possible. Supposedly you care about these things, or you wouldn't be supporting Nader. Maybe some of you should ask your leader why he's doing everything possible to throw this election to your mortal enemy.
Maybe you should also ask yourselves why you're supporting a candidate who has so far demonstrated that he's less ethical than Pat Buchanan.
Disenchanted Disenfranchised (Score:2)
So now I'm faced with a "choice" of two candidates, neither of whom I feel is qualified to be president. It's like having to choose from between two retards: one with an 80 I.Q., the other with an 82. I guess one is more qualified, but really neither is a good fit for the job.
Re:Troll moderation (Score:2)
Greenspan used to argue for a Gold Standard. I would actually welcome Friedman's suggestion as progress in that it is a means for restraining the rate of money creation. However, any fiat- and debt-based money system is inherently unstable. Greenspan nearly always mentions that in his public speeches.
The Byzantine Empire had gold-based money. Its banks were for storing money and validating its weight. The bank employees had to undergo rigorous training, and the penalty for devaluing the money (shaving or other means applicable to metal-based money) was to have a hand chopped off. The Byzantine empire was stable for 800 years, and its money accepted the world ever even after its demise.
I've read about gold money, silver money, ancient and modern fiat money, even tobacco and cigarettes as money. It sems that societies that use commodity-based money are always more prosperous and stable than fiat-based ones, for the simple reason that eventually the government just prints all the money it wants. The U.S.A. has had a 90% devaluation over the past century since going off the gold standard. That money doesn't disappear; it's spent. Inflation seems a lot like a hidden tax, in that when the government creates money, it devalues money already in existance. When it spends it, it is spending a little bit of everyone's wealth without haveing to actually levy a tax. The Fed is the official bank of the Treasury, and buys whatever bonds the Treasury issues that other do not pick up. The Fed + Government Debt seems like a way to simply print money to pay the bills.
I've been discussing commodity vs debt-based money with a guy who has a PhD in Economics, and he's not ocnvinced me that fiat- and debt-based money isn't, in its essence, an elaborate scam. It seems like one... can you help explain why a debt-based fiat money system is both legitimate and good? And/or why it is better than a commodity-based money system?
Thanks!
________________________________________
Re:Throwing a vote away? (Score:2)
Yes, it is a good thing, and a bad thing. It makes it more likely that a candidate will win a decisive victory. It marginalizes small parties that don't have a regional base. It is a stable system. Each system has its pluses and minuses. A direct popular vote would take power away from the states. Parliamentary systems are more representative, but then you have to deal with fringe parties and coalition governments.
Re:Yes, you should. (Score:2)
Persactly. I know I tend to the UAH students who bother me about things. I only have so many hours in my day to do my job as SGA VP, so I take care of as many gripes as I can and let the rest fall to the side. Most politicians, I think, are the same way--in other words, like most of us.
Try working in a field--like, say, aerospace--that highly depends on government spending. You'll really learn to care about politics.
--
Re:Why you should care. (Score:2)
First of all, I was talking averages; people who make the average salaries in this industry are in a much higher tax bracket than you. Don't worry, you'll get there.
Secondly, are you including the other withholdings besides income tax? Are you including the sales tax you pay on goods you purchase? Excise taxes? Gas taxes?
You probably come out somewhere between 40% and 45% once it's all added up.
-
Re:Disenchanted Disenfranchised (Score:2)
You're just a lazy ass like me, otherwise
~Tim
--
So what? Warhead decoys make SDI worthless (Score:2)
Don't just consider if one aspect of the technology works... consider the whole policy and whether the entire system meets it's stated goals. SDI FAILS under that presumption.