Industrial Espionage û Myth or Everyday Problem

[Dr Maturin]

One thing that you do not include in your definition(s) of freedom(as in your observation "Without capitalism there can be no...") is that without morals capitalism is a monster that will destroy us all. Just like any other system. Without moral values that transcend the capitalism per se it is no different than any other system. "Thou shalt not kill" Has nothing to do with capitalism but it is an essential rule, necessary for the system to work. What I read in your postings is that you do not want freedom, your want the survival of the fittest. Personally I'm more a fan of Libertarianism.

I believe in Social-Darwinism, so yeah, survival of the fittest.

I don't think you understand what Libertarianism is...having the freedom to say what you want, to do what you want, hell, to fuck in public, means nothing without economic freedom to equal it.

And capitalism in the US does have morals...we charge people with crimes.

I don't think the Patriot-act was subject to a referendum. A 'war-situation' was used to curtail the freedom of all americans permanently.

You've no idea what you're talking about. I don't know if you've ever even visited here, and if not, you'd have no frame of reference to judge whether or not any of our freedoms have been curtailed. The Patriot Act hasn't curtailed any freedoms. Not one. The Patriot Act (under a different name) was proposed to President Clinton during his time in office after all of the terrorist attacks of the 90's, but he rejected it and 9/11 happened. Did he reject because he didn't think it was a good idea? No...he probably rejected it because of the way it would be perceived, and he didn't want to be near anything like that.

It seems like everywhere I go, people have the same talking points -- almost key words -- but they can NEVER elaborate upon any of it. And I'm talking about people on both sides of the road, too.

And as for why the USA is freer than Europe...we here have the greatest combination of economic and social freedom anywhere. I mean, if whatever you guys have works for you, then more power to you.

[David Panzer]

As an aside, I've tried to read the Patriot Act to find out what it says. It's about 500 or so pages of drivel which is essentially in this manner of writing: "In Sec.5782 paragraph 47 subsection 9a, of U.S. Code 83248, substitute "and" for "or".

As another aside, "Thou shalt not kill" is a mistranslation. In the Hebrew, the word "ratsach" means murder. It's been a while since I read the Bible, but Leviticus has hundreds of laws, some of which demand the life of an individual who breaks them. There are also instances where god gives his approval or even tells his followers to kill, such as telling Saul to utterly wipe out the Amalekites, even down to the animals.

[AaronB]

As an aside, I've tried to read the Patriot Act to find out what it says. It's about 500 or so pages of drivel which is essentially in this manner of writing: "In Sec.5782 paragraph 47 subsection 9a, of U.S. Code 83248, substitute "and" for "or".

Welcome to modern day law writing 101.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) for short and objected to about 10 points in the Patriot Act. Life continues just as usual, Marshal Law has not been declared and they are not lining up and killing non-christians (although if you would listen to some people you would think that has happened). The hysteria over these kind of things is really unwarrented.

WillieSteal: I'll comment on the other part of you post in the religion section.

[David Panzer]

What were the points that they objected to?! A preference for one conjunctive over another? I never saw anything clearly stated that said certain laws and practices would either be curtailed, bended, or otherwise removed. To me, it read more like a list of substituting 3 letter words for other 3 letter words or 2 letter words. Unless the ACLU had the cliff notes version of the Patriot Act or some pebbles, chicken entrails, and a young virgin to better understand it.

[AaronB]

What were the points that they objected to?! A preference for one conjunctive over another? I never saw anything clearly stated that said certain laws and practices would either be curtailed, bended, or otherwise removed. To me, it read more like a list of substituting 3 letter words for other 3 letter words or 2 letter words. Unless the ACLU had the cliff notes version of the Patriot Act or some pebbles, chicken entrails, and a young virgin to better understand it.

Quite honestly I don't remember what they were. I'm sure that they had lawyers and former law makers pouring over it to see what they could find objectionable.

[Dr Maturin]

Check this out: New York Times

A case of activist journalism.

New York Times...the voice of dissension in this troubling era!

[AaronB]

Check this out: New York Times

A case of activist journalism.

New York Times...the voice of dissension in this troubling era!

ZHDD,

tinyurl.com is your friend.

[Dr Maturin]

ZHDD,

tinyurl.com is your friend.

I shortened it on the edit using the "insert hyperlink" tool. Does it not appear as "New York Times?"

[AaronB]

I shortened it on the edit using the "insert hyperlink" tool. Does it not appear as "New York Times?"

The first time I saw it, it didn't. Now that I am at work, it shows as a link. That may be an issue with Safari (the Mac default browser).

[SpooRancher]

I believe in Social-Darwinism, so yeah, survival of the fittest.

I don't think you understand what Libertarianism is...having the freedom to say what you want, to do what you want, hell, to fuck in public, means nothing without economic freedom to equal it.

And capitalism in the US does have morals...we charge people with crimes.

As a card-carrying member of the Libertarian Party, US, "fuck in public" is not one of the things in our platform. We do not believe in the freedom to "say what you want, to do what you want". We believe that each person should have the freedom to make their own choices, for good or for bad, and deal with the consequences, good or bad, of their decision. We do not believe the government should make artificial consequences for non-violent behavior.

Initiation of force, fraud and violence are 100% against our platform. So we do not endorse all behaviors. We merely believe that what happens between two consenting adults, be it sexual, personal or financial, should not be unduly regulated by the government.

[Dr Maturin]

Initiation of force, fraud and violence are 100% against our platform. So we do not endorse all behaviors. We merely believe that what happens between two consenting adults, be it sexual, personal or financial, should not be unduly regulated by the government.

Exactly. It's unfortunate that some believe you are free when the sexual and personal are factored in while leaving out the financial.

[SpooRancher]

Exactly. It's unfortunate that some believe you are free when the sexual and personal are factored in while leaving out the financial.

That is what makes the difference between a "civil libertarian" which is basically a leftist liberal and a "libertarian" who believes that the only thing people should not be free to do is avoid the consequences of their behavior.

I have watched with interest some goings on in Europe and Canada. "Civil libertarian" issues such as gay marriage and drug legalization (neither of which am I opposed to, mind you) are given as great examples of the increasing freedom proffered by the governments, where heavy taxation, high social program spending, gun control and oppressive business regulation are basically ignored as issues.

If you are not free to earn and spend your money as you see fit, you are not free, you are merely a member of a vassal state. You are not a free man, you are a resource for your government, to be exploited at it's whim, not your own.

Likewise, if you are not free to engage in non-violent personal and sexual behavior (and make no mistake, I consider any action toward a minor to be violent, as they are not legally or morally able to consent) you are not free, you are merely, again, a servant of a government.

Out of the boardroom AND the bedroom is the only direction we should be taking government. Scale them back to the point where they are protecting us from others who initiate force, fraud or violence, and we have the amount of government we need. They should protect us from others. We can neither afford, not dare have, enough government to protect us from ourselves.

[Dr Maturin]

That is what makes the difference between a "civil libertarian" which is basically a leftist liberal and a "libertarian" who believes that the only thing people should not be free to do is avoid the consequences of their behavior.

I have watched with interest some goings on in Europe and Canada. "Civil libertarian" issues such as gay marriage and drug legalization (neither of which am I opposed to, mind you) are given as great examples of the increasing freedom proffered by the governments, where heavy taxation, high social program spending, gun control and oppressive business regulation are basically ignored as issues.

If you are not free to earn and spend your money as you see fit, you are not free, you are merely a member of a vassal state. You are not a free man, you are a resource for your government, to be exploited at it's whim, not your own.

Likewise, if you are not free to engage in non-violent personal and sexual behavior (and make no mistake, I consider any action toward a minor to be violent, as they are not legally or morally able to consent) you are not free, you are merely, again, a servant of a government.

Out of the boardroom AND the bedroom is the only direction we should be taking government. Scale them back to the point where they are protecting us from others who initiate force, fraud or violence, and we have the amount of government we need. They should protect us from others. We can neither afford, not dare have, enough government to protect us from ourselves.

Don't mistake libertarian with Libertarian. The party has its own stances on ALL issues, so "civil" and "economic" doesn't really come into it. Those modifiers can be used when the L is not capitalized.

[Towelmaster]

Zhd: Is freedom as defined in America only for americans or is it a universal principle? I do not visit the U.S.A. For one : I would have to get a damned retinascan-passport although these things have not even been tested, are bloody expensive and Do Not Work Properly. If I don't get one I won't get into America. Although I do not have anything even remotely like a criminal record I am treated as one by default. If you do not call that curtailing people's right to freedom, dismantling the 'innocent until proven guilty-idea' as well as spreading paranoia and hate of foreigners I don't know what is.

Further more there are numerous stories in your own press(from left- to rightwing in this case) that are either all lies or that contradict your opinion/data/etcetera. There is no way in Hell that you can call someone like for instance Jerry Pournelle left-wing(www.jerrypournelle.com). Stories of people not allowed to carry a nailfile on a plane... As R. Williams joked in december 2001 ; "What are they thinking? YOU! Take this plane to Washington or the bitch loses a cuticle!" Not having plastic cutlery on the plane anymore, by Jove; ever tried to eat with one of those crapthingies? They break if you handle them without love and affection. How is one supposed to force a plane down with a plastic fork?

It has gone to the extreme and I have to admit immediately that, although the european countries have not gone that far yet, they are definitely following a lot of the American rules. I believe strongly that politicians just love to spread this FUD. It keeps the people on edge and insecure. I also think politicians should be booted out of office for this kind of thing as it is the exact opposite of what they are supposed to work for.

Now on a related note : No, I have not travelled the length and breadth or the U.S.A. although before 9/11 I had plans to do so during a long vacation. The plan was to hire a van or something and just drive into America. Because do not get me wrong ; I believe there is much to be seen and enjoyed in the U.S.A. and much of it seems beautiful to me. And I'm not just talking about mountains and other landmarks, I'm also talking about people. I also believe that politics does not define a people, it only defines the "image" of a people to the outside world. Europe consists of a couple of dozen countries and they are all very different. Hence my objection to you trying to define Europe as a whole. Hence my example of the European Constipation being flagged down by the people. Although I do not consider the European Union a democratic institution at all, the same can be said for a big chunk of the American system. How come that if a president is "lucky" and several judges in the supreme court die, he gets to completely change the outlook of the Supreme Court for who knows how long? How can it be that one person can rule over his own political grave? After 8 year he is gone and if this president has been able to get lets say 3 judges elected they could be there for ever. As a matter of fact ; your supreme court justices typically grow to be very old. If you consider the U.S.A. to be a complete and utter democracy(for instance), how can it be that the winner takes all in politics, thus shutting out a(usually) very sizable minority? That is called a Republic and that is what the U.S.A. is. It may be a democratic republic but a republic it remains. Compare this to the Netherlands where the winner does not get all, he gets exactly what he deserved. This forces compromise into the system and prevents stuff like those idiotic Fillibusters that the democrats now have to use to get compromises from the republicans.

I do not think that America is the 'baddie' of the world as so many others do outside the U.S.A. but neither is Europe. And it is disturbing to see how you assume so much that just isn't true while at the same time responding incredibly protective when it comes to the pitfalls of the American system.
Both are far from perfect and - to put it a bit extreme - it does not do to glorify the one crucify the other.

P.S. I never mistake a political movement with an ethical movement. With liberterian I meant the ethical movement(as promoted by for instance Benjamin Franklin I believe), not whatever political movement might exist. Because political movements frequently tend to screw their own initial beliefs because of their best personal interests.

If you are not free to earn and spend your money as you see fit, you are not free, you are merely a member of a vassal state. You are not a free man, you are a resource for your government, to be exploited at it's whim, not your own.

Absolutely. But I think that there should be a choice. You either decide to get health-insurance or you decide not to, but there should be a health-insurance garantueed to be available if you want to pay for it. If you don't want it then that is your own decision. This is not the same as 'lets do away with government-controlled health-insurance'. It means that everyone should have the liberty, the personal freedom, and you yourself decide whether you want to get insurance or not. So in my view there is definitely a place for government-controlled services(which are therefor available to everyone). However, they should not be monopolized by the state and they should not be compulsary.

Is that somewhat in accordance with the idea of libertarianism in the U.S.A. or is this a typically non-American view?

TM.

[Dr Maturin]

Absolutely. But I think that there should be a choice. You either decide to get health-insurance or you decide not to, but there should be a health-insurance garantueed to be available if you want to pay for it. If you don't want it then that is your own decision. This is not the same as 'lets do away with government-controlled health-insurance'. It means that everyone should have the liberty, the personal freedom, and you yourself decide whether you want to get insurance or not. So in my view there is definitely a place for government-controlled services(which are therefor available to everyone). However, they should not be monopolized by the state and they should not be compulsary.

Is that somewhat in accordance with the idea of libertarianism in the U.S.A. or is this a typically non-American view?

You do have the choice in having health care...it's called getting a job that offers it or paying for it on your own. That's the whole thing...the USA was not set up to offer health care coverage. The Clintons' big health care bill was shot down in the 90's.

Do you realize that life-appointments for judges are the only things that have allowed progressive movements to take hold in the USA? They are the sole reason that decisions are made in government that go against the majority of American opinion. What's sad is that when it's a Republican's turn to appoint judges, the Democrats don't want to play fair and give the judges a vote.

And here is a little factoid for you: There are places you can live here that would resemble your home country. There are others that would be much more conservative. The great thing is that you can choose a place that best fits you and live there.