Assuming the article interprets the proposed law correctly..
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 12:57 AM EDT |
Assuming the article interprets the proposed law correctly and assuming it gets inacted (and there's no guarantee of either) small scale FOSS development would continue to thrive outside of the EU. There is no way the EU could force a developer outside their jurisdiction to meet the requirements of the law. |
| Libervis Jun 11, 2009 5:07 AM EDT |
Right, but this is still pretty outrageous.. Just another intrusion. It's none of their business what kinds of agreements should people make. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 9:14 AM EDT |
Actually, in my decidedly non-libertarian view, consumer protection is the business of government. This law just goes too far. by failing to recognize the difference between large corporations and hobbyist efforts. |
| tuxchick Jun 11, 2009 9:45 AM EDT |
Caitlyn, I see it a little differently, not as the difference between corporate and hobbyist, but the difference between 'completely at the mercy of the vendor' and 'integral, open mechanisms to find and fix defects.' With closed-source binary apps you're stuck-- only the vendor can do any kind of code inspection, quality assurance, and fixes. If the vendor is a poopyhead and won't meet their responsibilities, under current laws the customer is stuck. Nothing they can do, no recourse. With FOSS anyone can find and repair problems, so there is always recourse for anyone who uses it. FOSS is more analogous to other consumer products, where warranties are all about who pays to fix defects. Anyone can repair any consumer product. The line between corporate and hobbyist is never a clear one because so many FOSS projects start out small, and then grow and become enterprise-y and part of important infrastructure. I'd hate for regulators to have to make that distinction. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 9:50 AM EDT |
tuxchick: Actually, here in the U.S. laws make that distinction in a reasonable way all the time. There are all sorts of regulations on business (i.e.: regarding hiring practices) that apply to large corporations but don't apply to a business with less than 50 employees. That's an easy, cut and dried way to separatey big business from small business and hobbyist. There is a recognition in many laws that there are things that can be done cost effectively at scale that simply can't be done by small business. The same sort of rule could be applied here. Whether E.U. regulators will use that sort of common sense measuring stick remains to be seen. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 11, 2009 1:45 PM EDT |
Intrusive laws always have negative repercussions, because they are arbitrary. Caitlyn sees 50 employees as a "reasonable" dividing line, but that too is arbitrary. Why not 100? Is the 51st employee somehow radically different than the 49th? But on the topic of this law, what about Microsoft's absolute EULA that supposedly shields them from any and every repercussion from the use of their software. Does that get thrown out the window? If so, does it become impossible for someone to NOT get into a support contract? In effect, does it force support whether I want it or not? If so, this is going to be a HUGE cost increase for everyone. ...except the EU bureaucrats, of course. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 2:32 PM EDT |
What you call "intrusive laws" I call consumer protection or workers rights. Of course employee 49 is no different than employee 51. Ideally the same protections should be offered regardless of number of employees. However, there is a realization that for small or startup companies making exceptions may be the only way to keep them in business and give them a chance to grow into larger companies. However, if we're talking about core principles, yes, something like healthcare should be a right afforded to all citizens. It's criminal that the only major industrialized country that doesn't do it that way is also the wealthiest. Yes, as I read it, the Microsoft EULA would be invalid in Europe if this regulation were to become law. That, from my point of view is a GOOD THING. Nothing in the law mandates support contracts. That's what some see as the likely effect of the law. My objection to it (and I don't live in the E.U. so I have no say) is that there are no exceptions and that will hurt small and startup businesses and may all but render small software efforts impossible in Europe. As its described here (and I haven't seen the full text so the description may not be accurate) this isn't something I could support. The principles are good ones. The implementation is flawed. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 11, 2009 2:51 PM EDT |
> The principles are good ones. The implementation is flawed. The inevitable result of using coercion. The Ring of Power seduces through the idea of using that power to do good. But it is only through voluntary interaction that all parties benefit. Coercion is always at best a zero-sum game, because any benefit comes at a cost to someone else. Today, you object to the costs to "small and startup businesses and may all but render small software efforts impossible in Europe." But what about when it's something you like? Will you then have the same compassion to the people negatively effected by regulations and programs you approve of? Clearly not: > something like healthcare should be a right afforded to all citizens. Doctors and nurses enslaved to serve, or everyone else enslaved to pay their salaries. That is the definition of a "right" to someone else's labor: Slavery. > It's criminal that the only major industrialized country that doesn't do it that way is also the wealthiest. Maybe the reason for that wealth is because we haven't reached that level of socialism...yet. But don't worry, at the rate we're nationalizing industry, everyone will be equally poor soon enough. Why is Microsoft's EULA, the part about them not being responsible for your use of their product anyway, such a bad thing? The part of their EULA that I object to is that I am not afforded the same level of disconnect as Microsoft. There are things I must (or must not, like benchmarking) do while Microsoft is absolved of everything. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 3:18 PM EDT |
Small "s" socialism is a GOOD thing. Every successful economy on the planet is a blend of capitalism and socialism including the United States. Most people in the U.S. want things like social security, public schools, public transportation (at least for city and suburban dwellers), public safety, public libraries, Medicaire, etc... All of it is socialist. The term in the U.S. has been equated with Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist totalitarian "Communist" governments which is anything but what socialism means. I put Communist in quotes because what was implemented in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, eastern Europe, or pretty much any other nation that called itself Communist has little to do with what Karl Marx wrote. He foresaw the state withering away, not becoming all powerful. Socialism, when blended properly with capitalism, does not equate to poverty. Visit Scandinavia and then talk to me about the standard of living there. Nations like Japan, Israel, Germany, Italy, and France are anything but poor. The last three I mentioned are also ranked as the three countries with the best healthcare in the world. Where does the US rank? Certainly better than any so-called Communist country, better than any dictatorship or totalitarian regime, but better than other Western democracies? Some yes, most no. Oh, and before you bring up Canada and the U.K. as talking points as the right always does remember that they are rated below the United States and as such are not examples of what proponents of national healthcare want. The U.S. is not nationalizing industry, certainly not on a permanent basis. It turns out Chrysler is being sold to Fiat, not being controlled by the U.S. government. If you're talking about GM then I would point out that having an industrial base is what allowed the U.S. to retool for and win World War II. Selling that off or closing it down is contrary to national interest for reasons that have nothing to do with the economy. That, and suddenly putting thousands or perhaps millions of people out of work would throw us into a full scale Great Depression. If you are talking about AIG, big banks, or Wall Street firms, I will point out that it is the lack of government regulation that caused the mess in the first place. The Depression-era safeguards were all torn down and look at the result. While I would have loved to let those institutions fail what would have been the consequences to the economy if we had? Another Great Depression? Worse? Anyone who works for a salary is, by your definition a wage "slave". I don't think most European or Israeli or Japanese or Canadian health care workers feel enslaved. It's certainly a definition of slavery most won't agree with or accept. I've already said that ideally there should be NO exceptions for small business. In an ideal world the regulations to protect the rights of workers should be equal. I recognize the economic consequences of doing that which is why I accept the necessity of some exceptions. I don't have to like them. Sorry, but I believe the needs of society as a whole, the many, outweigh the right of individuals to unfettered greed and self-interest. That isn't coercion. In fact, if you interview Europeans you will find they overwhelmingly voted for and like their social system. They also have the power to elect parties into government that would dismantle it. They rarely do and when some countries have moved in that direction they ultimately decide it was a really bad idea and reinstate much of what was lost. Coercion impllies against the will of the public. When it comes to European small s socialism nothing could be further from the truth. The Microsoft EULA is a really bad thing in more ways than I care to name. A company should have responsibility for the consequences of using their products. Tell me, should Union Carbide have been held responsible for what happened in Bhopal, India, or should the suffering and death there been chalked up to the cost of free markets? I get the impression you'd support the latter. Granted, there is nothing physically toxic about Microsoft software until it fails while running something mission critical that can kill someone. If your Libertarian ideas are so fantastic why has no Libertarian candidate for U.S. President ever captured more than 1% of the vote? I know the system is stacked against third parties but that didn't stop Ross Perot from getting 20% of the vote, John Anderson from getting 7%, or George Wallace from getting 11%. Why is Libertarianism so unpopular? Why do you feel you have the right to impose it on those of us who believe that government regulation is a necessity and generally more beneficial than harmful? You have a different philosophy which you tout on LXer ad nauseum. Fine, if the TOS is not going to be enforced expect me to challenge each and every one of your posts at length until it is. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 11, 2009 3:47 PM EDT |
> Anyone who works for a salary is, by your definition a wage "slave". It would be nice if you could get my position right, at least, regardless of your disagreement with it. Voluntary interaction, be it sexual, intellectual, material, economic, or whatever, is just fine by me. Working for someone is an excellent way for all parties to benefit by focusing on what each does best. The worker worries not about the market for their product, while the manager can be sure he will have a product and focus on finding the raw materials. The entrepreneur can focus on finding a market for the product, rather than gathering materials or making the product itself. Each benefits from the arrangement. The socialist maxim that "labor" is somehow exploited by "management" is a lie, so long as the interaction remains voluntary. > Socialism, when blended properly with capitalism... "Properly" is a personal judgement call. Your idea of "proper" is different than mine, which is different than someone else's. So long as any one person's judgement is enforced by law, it's not "small S". It's BIG S. Sadly, as socialism fails over and over, it's supporters come up and say, "It will work, if it's done by the right people this time." If you're going to disagree with this law, Caitlyn, then you must admit that people are going to disagree with any law. If you think this law is going to have bad consequences, then you must admit that every law has bad consequences. Just because you believe something is "right" does not mean everyone else does. I'm sure that there is someone who is just as convinced that this law is "right", which you don't. That's the problem with statute law: It's opinion, backed up by force. > If your Libertarian ideas are so fantastic why has no Libertarian candidate for U.S. President ever captured more than 1% of the vote? I would love to know that, too. I have a theory, but it's just another conspiracy theory so I'm not going to bore you with it. Here's one for you: If you think socialized medicine is so good, why don't you go rob your neighbor at gun point like an honest thief to cover your doctor's bills, instead of sending goons with badges to do your dirty work for you? The reason is because 99% of the time you are fully aware of right and wrong, that it is wrong to coerce other people even if you think the cause is a good one. But pulling a lever in a ballot box is so EASY, so CHEAP, insulates you from the repercussions of your policies. You don't have to do the robbing, you've hired some goons to do it for you. Oh, but it's for such a "good cause". > if the TOS is not going to be enforced What, you think you get to spout off about how bad a law is, and I can't do the same? Either YOUR POST is just as much a violation of the TOS as mine, or neither of them are. The article is about repercussions of a law. So are both your and my posts. If you don't like that, then don't post political ideas yourself. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 11, 2009 3:59 PM EDT |
> Coercion impllies against the will of the public. 51% of the population can be just as wrong as 49%. A majority is not magical. So lynching blacks is just fine, because they're individuals going against the will of "the public" majority? I don't think so, and I am pretty sure you don't think so either. |
| jdixon Jun 11, 2009 4:03 PM EDT |
> Small "s" socialism is a GOOD thing... No, it's not. So let's just agree to disagree and drop the subject, shall we? > Every successful economy on the planet is a blend of capitalism and socialism including the United States. And the less socialistic, the more successful. But again, let's agree to disagree. > Sorry, but I believe the needs of society as a whole, the many, outweigh the right of individuals to unfettered greed and self-interest. I don't, but the many have me outgunned, and fortunately for all concerned, I'm not willing to kill people over it. Sooner or later, it will reach a point where some people will. Then you'll see the price of your ideals. > If your Libertarian ideas are so fantastic why has no Libertarian candidate for U.S. President ever captured more than 1% of the vote? Goldwater was effectively a libertarian. He got a lot more than 1% of the vote. Reagan was so too, and he won twice. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 11, 2009 4:27 PM EDT |
> Reagan was so too, and he won twice. Reagan certainly talked the talk, but sadly his administration fell into pragmatic "you vote for my program and I'll vote for yours" usual politics. Carter fell into the same trap, having very fine ideals that ended up being corrupted into pure nanny-state intrusiveness in everything and every way. My motorcycle still has a highlighted 55 on the speedometer, as if. Speaking of the European Union, since that is the topic of the original article, one of Britain's EU ministers was on Faux News' "Freedom Watch" yesterday, and had quite a bit to say about how the EU intrudes into the workings of its member states. http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9A377DE3EDA4C156 As a Brit, I wonder if Caitlyn is going to take his comments about the "benefits" of socialist policies more seriously than she takes mine, since he has to live with more of it than I do. Hmm... I was quite surprised by his assertion that in some ways the EU member states are far less free to enact their own internal rules than the individual US states are. |
| bigg Jun 11, 2009 4:50 PM EDT |
> Reagan certainly talked the talk, but sadly his administration fell into pragmatic "you vote for my program and I'll vote for yours" usual politics. Can't resist violating the TOS. Reagan was the most effective candidate ever at getting the libertarian vote. Cutting spending, not taxes, though, is what a libertarian should do. He simply postponed taxes. Sorry, couldn't let that one go, as I'm always fascinated by the libertarian love given to Reagan. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 5:02 PM EDT |
I am very familiar with France and Israel, countries where I have significant family and have spent more time than in the U.K. (I have family in the U.K. but no close family.)Quoting:The socialist maxim that "labor" is somehow exploited by "management" is a lie, so long as the interaction remains voluntary. By that definition people who work in sweat shops or under other horrific conditions aren't exploited because they'd rather work under horrific conditions than starve. It's not a lie. Sorry, management, given the opportunity, will do all they can to enhance the bottom line. That almost always includes exploiting the workers, hence the need for laws to protect worker rights and the need of workers to have the right to organize. Quoting:it's not "small S". It's BIG S. Not so. Big S implies membership in an organized sociaist movement. No organized socialist movement has ever taken power in the U.S. All the small s socialism in the U.S. was enacted by Democrats and Republicans. (Yes, there have been a handful of independents and even one or two Sociallists [big S here] in legislatures at the state and federal level but it always required the backing of a major party to get anything passed.) Quoting:Sadly, as socialism fails over and over, it's supporters come up and say, "It will work, if it's done by the right people this time." European small s socialism has not failed. Socialism in the U.S. has not failed, unless you call public libraries, public safety and Social Security all failures. You will be in a very tiny minority if you do. Oh, and while you insist that a majority doesn't mean anything when that minority is really tiny society has a word for it: nuts. Quoting:If you're going to disagree with this law, Caitlyn, then you must admit that people are going to disagree with any law. If you think this law is going to have bad consequences, then you must admit that every law has bad consequences. Flawed and fallacious logic. I must agree or admit to no such thing. Egg has bad cholestorol. Bad cholestorol can harm you. Egg is a food. Food therefore has cholestorol. It can harm you. By your logic we should all stop eating. Try that and let us know how it works out for you. Many laws are wholly beneficial. The one that says that I can't murder you even though I disagree with you is a fine example. Quoting:That's the problem with statute law: It's opinion, backed up by force. So you want all laws eliminated? You're an anarchist? When you remove the rule of law only force remains. We see how well that works in Somalia, in Gaza, and other such corners of the earth where neither you nor I would want to live. The rule of law is what holds civilization together. I am grateful we have a society ruled by laws even if I don't agree with each and every one of them. If I don't like a law in a free society I can campaign to have it changed. If I can pursuade enough people it will be changed. Quoting:Here's one for you: If you think socialized medicine is so good, why don't you go rob your neighbor at gun point like an honest thief to cover your doctor's bills, instead of sending goons with badges to do your dirty work for you? You don't rob people to pay for socialized medicine. You pay in for it like everyone else. Some people pay more and use less, it's true, while others pay less and use more. You won't find a majority of people, or even a large minority of people, who live in countries which have socialized medicine who want it eliminated. It's not about goons, badges, or theft. Those things don't happen in the countries I talk about. It's what the people of those nations have chosen for themselves. If enough Americans could see the benefits for themselves rather than buy the malarkey spewed by right wing pundits then the American people would choose it for themselves as well. Sadly, the only politicians in the last election who even vaguely proposed socialized medicine were Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel. It has been so villified in this country that mainstream politicians avoid it like the plague. The net result is that we are going to get a much less effective or efficient and much more expensive hybrid system if we get any reform at all. That's one of the reasons I didn't support President Obama in the primaries. He was far too conservative on this issue. For a national health insurance system (as opposed to a national healthcare system) to work the risk has to be spread out over the largest pool of insured people possible. Without mandates and without a single payor system the public system gets the riskier cases private insurers don't want driving the cost way up for the public system and keeping the private profiteers fat and happy. Quoting:The reason is because 99% of the time you are fully aware of right and wrong, that it is wrong to coerce other people even if you think the cause is a good one. I'm not advocating coercion. The people in this country would have to choose such a system just as they have done in most of the rest of the Western world, just as they have done in every other modern, democratic nation on the planet. That isn't theft nor is it the hiring of goons, sorry. Your over the top characterizations are just that: over the top with little or no basis in reality. Oh, and yes, of course my posts as TOS violations. Absolutely! Sander and Scott should free free to delete them along with yours. However, if you keep insisting on making this a political forum expect opposition. Quoting:So lynching blacks is just fine, because they're individuals going against the will of "the public" majority? I don't think so, and I am pretty sure you don't think so either. Of course not. That's why the Constitution protects minorities from oppression by the majority. 51% can't vote the other 49% onto boxcars. However, you have argued that statute law, of which the Constitution is the supreme example in the U.S., is just coercion backed by force. Are you arguing we should eliminate the constitution and allow black people to be lynched? That isn't what you believe is it? Quoting:So let's just agree to disagree and drop the subject, shall we? Sure. When Bob agrees I'll agree too. Not before. Quoting:Goldwater was effectively a libertarian. He got a lot more than 1% of the vote. Reagan was so too, and he won twice. Neither were doctrinaire libertarian (something I agree with Bob and bigg on) and neither presented themselves as Libertarians. Both were foreign policy hawks, for example. Libertarians want to keep us out of foreign entanglements. That's why you saw such strong opposition to the Iraq war from Ron Paul,a Republican in name only but really Libertarian. He broke with hia supposed party and sided with the Democrats based on Libertarian principles. He and Dennis Kucinich sounded like political twins on that issue. Just because someone is British doesn't mean I support his views. The British are currently the most anti-Semitic nation in Europe, for example. So, no, I don't take it any more seriously, sorry. |
| azerthoth Jun 11, 2009 5:05 PM EDT |
I would remind, regardless of what the US government actually does, for people to read what it is that they are allowed and disallowed to so specifically Article I Section 8, and the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. These articles, specifically lay out what Congress may do, and also clearly and specifically prohibits them from doing. I realize that this is typically TOS, however, in relevance to the conversation, this will illustrate in what manner such a law as being discussed in the EU can not be enacted or supported in the US. That it has implications to other parts of the conversation, while convenient, is unintended. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html |
| jdixon Jun 11, 2009 5:06 PM EDT |
> ...but sadly his administration fell into pragmatic "you vote for my program and I'll vote for yours" usual politics. Agreed. However, what the people voted for was his ideals, not the details of what got through Congress. Which directly refutes Caitlyn's statement. > He simply postponed taxes. Unfortunately, yes. But given the Congress he had to work with, what choices did he have? That's a largely rhetorical question, don't feel you have to respond. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 5:07 PM EDT |
I believe azerthoth is entirely correct. This is why the law, if enacted in the E.U., would not kill FOSS. It would just move it entirely outside of the 27 E.U. member nations with the possible exception of FOSS development backed by large corporations. See, it's not so hard to get back on topic, is it? |
| gus3 Jun 11, 2009 5:38 PM EDT |
GOOD LORD here we go again. Maybe we should go dig up Claus in the Haus to make it really interesting? |
| hkwint Jun 11, 2009 7:47 PM EDT |
Quoting:and assuming it gets inacted Don't worry, it won't. BSA has a particular strong influence in the EP. You know, Klaus Heiner Lehne, working both as juridical leader of the largest EP-fraction and at the same time working for Taylor Wessing, at which Microsoft receives 10% discount. If necessary, they will hand out some free ice-creams again. You see, a whole thread about some law that won't make it in first place, what a waste. Please take this thread offtopic and have fun. Oh, I missed, you already succeeded at that. Just an advise: Please beware that Libertian threads are deleted from time to time here at LXer however. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 8:24 PM EDT |
Quoting:Please beware that Libertian threads are deleted from time to time here at LXer however. That would make a nice change. Please feel free to take my opposing comments with the Libertarian ones. Getting rid of the politics would be a good thing. |
| hkwint Jun 11, 2009 8:26 PM EDT |
Quoting:Getting rid of the politics would be a good thing. Getting rid of government would be better. Oh, sorry, that's Bob's text, not mine. Excuse me. Anyway, did you know you shouldn't put fresh carrots in the freezer because they taste like crap once you cooked them? I found out yesterday. |
| Borax_Man Jun 11, 2009 8:31 PM EDT |
@ caitlyn
Quoting: Anyone who works for a salary is, by your definition a wage "slave". I don't think most European or Israeli or Japanese or Canadian health care workers feel enslaved. It's certainly a definition of slavery most won't agree with or accept. Slavery is not judged by whether one 'feels' enslaved or not, but by the nature of the arrangement between the slave and master. Centuries of tradition can make the absurd seem rational, and people in these nations are brought up to consider private ownership of the means of production, and 'making a living' by carrying out the will of the owners of the means of production as something quite natural, as if it was the cosmic order of things. Fact is, most people must 'earn' a living by a) getting approval off someone to work and b) obeying their dictates, ie doing what the boss wants on 'his' time with the threat of being fired. The alternative is you don't earn money, cannot afford food, clothes, being ostracised socially. Therefore, its a false choice and it is an act of coercion. Compete with others to be given the 'priveledge' to work, and work with threat of poverty and lowered social status if you don't comply. Self-employment is not possible for 100% of the population, therefore most have to accept a position whereby they seek permission from someone else to sell their labour on set, pre-prescribed terms. We consider this normal,largely because our education system indoctrinates us with this 'normality' and does not give people the mental wherewithal to percieve alternative ideologies and explore the philosophy of this system. That seems coercive to me, and not a matter of free will. Wage Slave seems very appropriate, considering the nature of the options presented to people. |
| azerthoth Jun 11, 2009 8:43 PM EDT |
I like pie |
| jdixon Jun 11, 2009 9:15 PM EDT |
> Sure. When Bob agrees I'll agree too. Not before. Then why don't you and Bob take it to private email. We all know the arguments on both sides. You can CC me and maybe gus3 on it if you want referees. I'm not impartial, but I'll try to restrain my bias. |
| jdixon Jun 11, 2009 9:18 PM EDT |
> Anyway, did you know you shouldn't put fresh carrots in the freezer because they taste like crap once you cooked them? If you have to do that, use a crock pot. The slower cooking seems to do a better job with frozen vegetables. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 9:23 PM EDT |
Hans: Yes, I knew that about carrots. If you can't use them up before they'd go off make yourself a nice carrot cake. Yummy. azerthoth: It depends what kind of pie. Pumpkin? Yummy. Rhubarb? No thanks. Borax_Man: It's not an either/or choice in a free society. A few years ago I decided it was better off to start my own business. Earlier this year I was worried I made a poor decision considering where the economy was going. May was a good month for me. June looks like it will be even better. I'm eating, paying for my ferrets' vet care next week (check ups and vaccinations), and generally doing fine, thankyouverymuch. Even when I worked for someone else I didn't feel enslaved. If the situation wasn't good for me I was able to find other work and say adios to the boss that ran the unacceptable situation. Working for someone else doesn't make anyone a slave. jdixon: If Bob agrees I'm fine with that. Or I can just drop it. I'm fine with that too. |
| tuxchick Jun 11, 2009 9:44 PM EDT |
I read that ferrets don't like pie, so there is more for the humans. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 9:46 PM EDT |
tc: Ferrets tend to have a sweet tooth. Pie is bad for them. Some kinds can even be toxic. They would still eat them with great abandon in most cases. So, no, no pie for my ferrets. |
| jdixon Jun 11, 2009 9:55 PM EDT |
> jdixon: If Bob agrees I'm fine with that. Or I can just drop it. I'm fine with that too. That all I can ask Caitlyn. As I said, we all know the arguments on both sides by now. And my position on the matter is equally well known, so I don't really have anything to add either. Bob, you know I'm more in agreement with you than Caitlyn, but none of the three of us are going to convince anyone, and the positions have been made. Let's drop it, please. Now, if someone wants to suggest ways to influence the outcome, then that would be useful information for those in the EU. Any ideas? |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 11, 2009 10:12 PM EDT |
> So you want all laws eliminated? You're an anarchist? Caitlyn, really, I cannot imagine that you weren't fully aware of this before now. Recommended reading: The Market For Liberty http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/ > > So let's just agree to disagree and drop the subject, shall we? > Sure. When Bob agrees I'll agree too. Not before. So far as I can tell, Caitlyn, your posting in this thread asserting your position in favor of intrusive regulation of business came first. So telling me I'm wrong for doing exactly the same thing seems rather biased. Your reply then informed me that you were interested in discussing the topic. Really, just scroll back up and look. The escallation is obviously mutual. I get the impression that, face to face, we'd get into a wonderful raging argument that would last for hours, ending only through mutual exhaustion. > Now, if someone wants to suggest ways to influence the outcome, then that would be useful information for those in the EU. Any ideas? Political problems are only answered by political answers. Vote Pirate Party. |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 11, 2009 10:15 PM EDT |
> Sorry, couldn't let that one go, as I'm always fascinated by the libertarian love given to Reagan. I assure you, only Republicans still tout his "libertarian" effectiveness. The rhetoric was very nice, yes, but even by 1984 the Libertarians were listing the failures of his administration. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 10:24 PM EDT |
@Bob: I took your advice and scrolled back to see who started it. It was Libervis. I have no problem with political debate. For Israelis politics is both a national passtime and an obsession. We can have raging arguments that seem really nasty then all sit down to dinner and still love each other. Politics isn't personal even if there was a personal attack or two thrown it. That's the culture. I have no objection to debating you. Others on this site and the TOS are where the objections come in. A former coworker and friend who is Palestinian taught me that in this respect, at least in private, there is no difference between Palestinian and Israeli culture. (Voicing certain views in public is decidedly dangerous for a Palestinian.) Our friendship was forged through debate that to others may have looked and sounded like the beginning of a personal round of the conflict between our peoples. We both agreed that if we could negotiate for our respective sides we'd have peace in a week :) So, yeah, for me political argument comes naturally, is very much a cultural thing, and, no, there is no personal dislike for you or anyone else on this site. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 10:25 PM EDT |
Correction: I do have a dislike for the two or three Microsoft shills that popped up here lately. I never cared much for trolls. |
| tuxchick Jun 11, 2009 10:26 PM EDT |
Now we know how to drive Caitlyn nuts-- agree with her all the time. |
| caitlyn Jun 11, 2009 10:27 PM EDT |
tc: That might just work :) |
| tuxchick Jun 11, 2009 10:41 PM EDT |
Yes, I think you're right! Again! |
| Bob_Robertson Jun 11, 2009 10:47 PM EDT |
> It was Libervis. PILE ON! |
| jdixon Jun 11, 2009 11:27 PM EDT |
> Others on this site and the TOS are where the objections come in. If this were a forum where the others expected politics to be on topic, there wouldn't be a problem. But since they don't... I can discuss or not, and skip what I;m not interested in, but what's the point if it's just going to get the thread deleted? > ...there is no personal dislike for you or anyone else on this site. Hmm. Libervis? Nah, not really. He just reminds me too much of myself about 35 years ago. And other than that, none at all. Even Dino and I disagree on a semi-regular basis without too many ill effects, and he's as opinionated as any of us. Of course, if anyone really wants political mayhem, they can start with the following quote: "Anyhow, it's important to maintain your perspective and keep in mind that using Apple products doesn't make you a better person. That's what Linux is for." from my favorite Christian Libertarian, Vox Day at http://voxday.blogspot.com/ and go from there. :) |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!