Leauki

Reply to A Libertarian Tomorrow Begins Today! in Politics JoeUser Forums

"Land ownership creates security creates the value" And that statement is plain wrong. The value of a piece of land is not based on anything its owner does with it. It is based ONLY on what OTHER people do near it. It is location that makes land valuable, it is demand for the land that makes it valuable. The land itself, not created by man, does not contain any value except the value created by demand. Imagine two identical h

Reply to A Libertarian Tomorrow Begins Today! in Politics JoeUser Forums

"I think the value is so fundamental that it is hard to put into words." I find that most things so fundamental that it is hard to put them into words are really not fundamental at all. They are often beliefs without reason, things one simply believed and never questioned, and the result of indoctrination rather than individual experience. "How difficult will it be to, say, get a loan for $250,000 to build a home in a nation wher

Reply to A Libertarian Tomorrow Begins Today! in Politics JoeUser Forums

"If the government can "redistribute" land and natural resources for the public good, the natural resources "benefit everybody", and we're taxed for using the land, do we really own it?" BTW I did say "tax" land ownership, I did not speak of "redistribute", even though you put the word in quotes. Redistributing land is a concept you brought up, not I. Please remember that when you address my point, should you decide to do so. Thank you. <B

Reply to A Libertarian Tomorrow Begins Today! in Politics JoeUser Forums

"If you take the benefit from land ownership, and allow the government to "manage" land ownership, then is there really any point IN land ownership?" Perhaps not. But why should there be? Why is it desirable for land ownership to be an asset?

Reply to A Libertarian Tomorrow Begins Today! in Politics JoeUser Forums

"Urm, that would leave us where we are at, wouldn't it? I mean, the government controling the land we supposedly own. You assume that because you use the word "democratically" we'll have some say. And we do. The "We" just happens to be private business interests." Yes. That's pretty much correct. I'd only want a few changes to get closer to my ideal place. For example if use of land and other natural resources as well as pollution (wh

Reply to A Libertarian Tomorrow Begins Today! in Politics JoeUser Forums

I think you completely overestimate both Ayn Rand and the value of her "Objectivist" philosophy (which is NOT Libertarianism as she was fond of explaining). Most people don't even know her. And many of those who do are not impressed by a few novels where heroes who don't act but merely make decisions command great power in a phantasy world. But it is likely that if her philosophy will influence the 21st century as much as Marxism

Reply to The IRA gives up their guns? in International JoeUser Forums

"And if it does, will the Unionists follow suit?" Which Unionists would that be?

Reply to Draginol, Kazza and guilty pleasures in Current Events JoeUser Forums

"IP Infringement is the equivalent in this digital age to theft. It's the closest thing we have to it. Saying it's something other than standard theft actually is what gives the RIAA and MPAA the wiggle room to make piracy a crime with punishments more severe than murder or racketeering. If it's 100% equated with stealing (a crime that it differs from only in method) then the punishments will be reasonably matched." That is quite ridiculous. I

Reply to Iraq Body Count in War on Terror JoeUser Forums

Lee, feel free to post it there, if you like. But I do not know if it is appropriate to post the emails I quoted there.

Reply to Draginol, Kazza and guilty pleasures in Current Events JoeUser Forums

"i'm not angry. I know that no matter how many arguments I make there will always be irrational people who like to make up their own reality" So disagreeing with you is irrational? Did you find the quote where the Supreme Court call a copyright violation "stealing" that you were talking about? To be honest, the fact that you don't understand copyright law, doesn't mean that disagreeing with you about it is irrational. It mere

Reply to Draginol, Kazza and guilty pleasures in Current Events JoeUser Forums

Lifehappens, I understand your point of view. I just disagree with it. What you can't seem to understand is that I do not have to call an act stealing just to agree that the act is wrong. But in your hypothetical case, the word stealing is simply wrong. I wouldn't be "stealing" your income, because you don't have the income. You merely might or might not have it. That's really not the same as taking something away from you, something

Reply to Draginol, Kazza and guilty pleasures in Current Events JoeUser Forums

"I'm really surprised at the laid back position that people have taken on this issue. Maybe if we were in a different position, our opinions would change...." Perhaps if you bought as many DVDs as I, you would also be so annoyed by non-skipable messages accusing you of potentially supporting terrorism, that you would have very little sympathy for the copyright mafia. And if you don't know what I am talking about, you have not bought e

Reply to Draginol, Kazza and guilty pleasures in Current Events JoeUser Forums

"Hmmmmm, so anyone breaking the monopoly on author's right to distribute would be breaking what law? Keep it simple.......think hard......STEALING! Copyright only protects tangible works, not ideas. By trading, copying, distributing their work, digitally or physically, you are STEALING." No. Breaking a law is not "stealing". Taking an object away is stealing. You are not keeping it "simple" if you use the word stealing to describe violation of

Reply to Draginol, Kazza and guilty pleasures in Current Events JoeUser Forums

BakerStreet, it doesn't matter how angry you get. It's still not stealing. Calling illegal copying stealing is merely an attempt to create a moral equivalence between taking an object AWAY from somebody (meaning that the victim doesn't have it any more) and not taking an object away. Stealing and copying are not morally equivalent and should not be described by the same word, and, in legal jargon, aren't.

Reply to Can a Muslim be a Suicide Bomber in Philosophy JoeUser Forums

It is indeed not Islam or Muslims who perpetrate these acts, it's Arab nationalism and its dream of a pan-Arabic and possibly pan-Islamic empire. Muslims like the Kurds and even the Iranians have fought Arab nationalism and so have individual Arab countries that were under attack (Jordan, Kuwait). I wrote about that in my blog. Look for two articles about Pan-Nationalism.

Reply to Lawyers Demand respect in Current Events JoeUser Forums

"No, the lawyer needs to first be 100% loyal to the law." No. That is exactly wrong. At least for defence attorneys. Chakgogka, the differences between Common Law and Civil Law you cite have nothing to do with the duties of a defence attorney.

Reply to Lawyers Demand respect in Current Events JoeUser Forums

BakerStreet, I agree with you in principle. But this is not how it could possibly work. Your method would require the lawyer to hold loyalty to higher principles and not solely his client. That's not what a lawyer is for. A lawyer MUST be 100% loyal to his client and use whatever means he legally can to act in the best interest of his client, the person he must be 100% loyal to.

Reply to Can a Muslim be a Suicide Bomber in Philosophy JoeUser Forums

"I grow tired of the myth of the innocent, persecuted Jew, universal victim, forever wringing his hands and wailing 'why ME Lord, why ME'. Why not you?" I can tell you why I did not grow tired of the myth of the innocent, persecuted Jew. I do not get tired of the myth of the innocent, persecuted Jew because Jewish institutions in Germany have to be guarded by the police; because synagogues in France are being burned down ever

Reply to Lawyers Demand respect in Current Events JoeUser Forums

How does such a law qualify as bad? Surely the civil servants who work with the secretaries and MPs have a legal background?

Reply to Can a Muslim be a Suicide Bomber in Philosophy JoeUser Forums

"Jews may not currently be carrying out acts of terrorism" But that doesn't stop you from attaching some blame to them, I guess. "but nothing stopped Zionists from murdering British policemen and soldiers during the time of the British Mandate in Palestine" I was under the impression that policemen and soldiers are legitimate military targets. The idea of terrorism surely is to create terror by murdering civilians, not attack

Reply to Lawyers Demand respect in Current Events JoeUser Forums

A lawyer is supposed to do the best for his client. And the means he can use are the means the accused have because of their rights. And the accused is allowed to lie. I don't have a problem with a lawyer lying in such a case. It's perfectly acceptable. But it does mean that lawyers have willingly chosen a profession that includes lying as one of the standard tasks on the job. There are other jobs that involve similar tasks. Soldiers are suppo

Reply to Draginol, Kazza and guilty pleasures in Current Events JoeUser Forums

"And when the 95th anniversary of Walt Disney's death rolls around, Congress will up it to 110 or 120, and so on." I wonder if a never-ending extension of a time limit counts as a limited time. Given the meaning of the word "limit" (a point or level beyond which something does not or may not extend or pass), it seems rather odd that extending that time is compatible with that idea.

Reply to Draginol, Kazza and guilty pleasures in Current Events JoeUser Forums

"Mmm, well "stealing" is defined by the law, not you, and not laws from 100 years ago trumping newer ones." If "stealing" is defined by the law, why do you insist that an act must be called "stealing" when the law doesn't call it "stealing"? I don't understand you. Considering your position here, the argument that the law defines the terms is rather odd. I wouldn't have expected it from you after I made that point. "Andrew, if it

Reply to Draginol, Kazza and guilty pleasures in Current Events JoeUser Forums

"Then you should take that up with the Supreme Court, Attorney Generals of the US, the Department of Justice, the press, and everyone else that openly use the word "theft" and "stealing" when refering to it. Obviously they should be asking you what words to use." I don't care what the press call it, it's not stealing. And I doubt that the Supreme Court calls it "stealing". They usually know their legal jargon. Copyrights were original

Reply to Draginol, Kazza and guilty pleasures in Current Events JoeUser Forums

"I agree that stealing is stealing. It doesn't matter if you walk out of the store with a box or download a program from the internet. No arguments there." Actually... it does matter. And copying copyrighted work is NOT stealing. Copyright is not, regardless of what many believe, a property right. You do not "own" your copyrighted work, you own the copyright. Copyright is a title, a government-granted monopoly. That's why copyrights r