|
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . .
When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil."
- Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
You should shoot anybody that significantly aggresses against your person. I couldn't care less if he was a cop. The right to my life, the rights of my family and property comes above all.
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate elitists are the law. Corporations are a creation of law. There's nothing illegal occurring, I assure you. All the oppression that is occurring is only due to a poor legal system.
|
|
|
|
Most of the people who call themselves the 99% are still in the top 1% globally.
By their own logic, they should withdraw most of their savings and donate them to slum dwellers in Africa.
This reminds me of a comic of a protester holding a sign while a hobo was pulling on his shirt asking for his iPad. |
|
|
|
the millions upon millions that are earned by these specialists; by these doctors, lawyers, scientists and technicians that make the so-called 1%? You think there are doctors scientists and techniicians in the 1%? LOLZ. Don't take my word for it. Look at the tax records. It's mostly doctors followed by people with valuable skills. The whole idea that the true wealthy elite are sitting in this taxable category is a myth; pure red-herring propaganda. You are avoiding the point. No-one is demonstrating outside hospitals demanding that doctors be fired. The demonstration is against subsidised institutions like banks. I am not. The movement is calling for the 1% to sacrifice more of their wages. That includes doctors. Your latter statement is not within the context of the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
How much does it cost to keep an account with ING? That might be the limiting factor.
|
|
|
|
the millions upon millions that are earned by these specialists; by these doctors, lawyers, scientists and technicians that make the so-called 1%? You think there are doctors scientists and techniicians in the 1%? LOLZ. Don't take my word for it. Look at the tax records. It's mostly doctors followed by people with valuable skills. The whole idea that the true wealthy elite are sitting in this taxable category is a myth; pure red-herring propaganda. |
|
|
|
Preventing destruction, I'm all for that. Destroying an adversary that creates more destruction than what he produces is only a gain.
However, destruction in the name of the destruction that has occurred, merely an eye for an eye... If that's justice, call me unjust as much as you please. Equality is overrated. Equality for the sake of equality is a farce of crocodile tears and envy. It is merely emotion with only loss for us all.
End the 1% they claim. Redistribute the wealth they say. It would only be so just if they had truly been stolen from. Have the purported victims --the 99%-- been so looted and so raped of this great value they have created; the millions upon millions that are earned by these specialists; by these doctors, lawyers, scientists and technicians that make the so-called 1%? Will the dissolution of their regime of offering highly valuable services to society really make things just or only lead to further destruction?
The argument is that the 1% don't deserve public subsidy. No-one cares about doctors earning decent money. People care that bankers get paid millions to take risks but that if a banker screws up, the taxpayer is on the hook for the loss. If doctors don't receive their required value, they won't work. The bankers are irrelevant in this equation. Very few of the recorded "1%" are financial profiteers. They are mostly specialists. Why should they punished for the mistakes of others? Why should they be forced to subsidize? The vast majority of the people being subsidised are in the 1%. The argument is very simple. If a select group in society is getting huge subventions from the taxpayer, then unless they are doing something to earn that money, the system needs to change. Currently banks are sitting on a taxpayer guarantee that is worth trillions to them. New players cannot enter the market as the guarantee only applies to those "too big to fail." Do you think this is fair? Are you happy to see your tax money spent on that? I am not. I am against taxation entirely. The system does need to change. However, we are not talking about banks nor businesses. We are talking about ordinary people like you and me that are currently being demonized by society for the value they provide. The vast majority of people being subsidized are not in the 1%. They are in a group that is off-the-record, that does not allow their wealth to be shown publicly. The public, accountable 1% are just ordinary, highly-skilled people; not bankers and certainly not corporate accounts. |
|
|
|
Preventing destruction, I'm all for that. Destroying an adversary that creates more destruction than what he produces is only a gain.
However, destruction in the name of the destruction that has occurred, merely an eye for an eye... If that's justice, call me unjust as much as you please. Equality is overrated. Equality for the sake of equality is a farce of crocodile tears and envy. It is merely emotion with only loss for us all.
End the 1% they claim. Redistribute the wealth they say. It would only be so just if they had truly been stolen from. Have the purported victims --the 99%-- been so looted and so raped of this great value they have created; the millions upon millions that are earned by these specialists; by these doctors, lawyers, scientists and technicians that make the so-called 1%? Will the dissolution of their regime of offering highly valuable services to society really make things just or only lead to further destruction?
The argument is that the 1% don't deserve public subsidy. No-one cares about doctors earning decent money. People care that bankers get paid millions to take risks but that if a banker screws up, the taxpayer is on the hook for the loss. If doctors don't receive their required value, they won't work. The bankers are irrelevant in this equation. Very few of the recorded "1%" are financial profiteers. They are mostly specialists. Why should they punished for the mistakes of others? Why should they be forced to subsidize? |
|
|
|
Ad hominem; a false one at that.
Face the truth. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or hated by a flying spaghetti monster in the sky. If you can't effectively force people to do or not to do something, the preference is worthless.
I have your wife, kiyote. She chose me. I make her happier. No matter how much you want her back, no matter how wrong you think it is that she's in my bed, it changes nothing.
You'll have to kill me and rape her to get her back.
And yes, there is a lot your can do to force someone to obey the laws. You can use force. You can't hold force against the millions torrenting as we speak. You're ignoring the whole discussion at hand which is fine. Don't expect to get much out of this, in that case. |
|
|
|
|
Ad hominem; a false one at that.
Face the truth. It doesn't matter if it's illegal or hated by a flying spaghetti monster in the sky. If you can't effectively force people to do or not to do something, the preference is worthless.
I have your wife, kiyote. She chose me. I make her happier. No matter how much you want her back, no matter how wrong you think it is that she's in my bed, it changes nothing.
You'll have to kill me and rape her to get her back.
|
|
|
|
Assuming you live in the US, you live in a republic. You voice is heard through your vote for your representative, as well as any conversation you may have with him or her convincing her of your point. The representative secures rights, in this case copyrights, through legislation, which aim to, yes, reflect "things just generally agreed on based on the whims of contemporary culture."
I couldn't care less how the system views me and what they allow me to do. It's how they stop me from doing what I wish that matters. I'll go out of the way to accomplish what I want despite whatever others wish. I'll change nation's if that will bring me the value I desire in the end. I am a free body. The point I've been trying to make throughout this whole ordeal, disagreeing with that legislation doesn't grant you the right to be exempt from copyright.
Sure it does. It doesn't affect me one damn bit. It can't touch me. Which is actually understandable if you've never been in a position to have produced something for which copyright granted a noticeable benefit, yet have been in a number of positions where you have either seen or felt the negative repercussions of breaking copyright.
It doesn't affect me on an individual level. On a societal scale, it's only a negative benefit. Innovation is empirically limited by copyright laws. But the people who actually produce something will always be given the preferential treatment. As they should be.
Not for long. The force that makes their treatment possible is gradually becoming irrelevant. |
|
|
|
I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.
That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.
That's fair. Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership. Their supposed ownership holds no authority over me. It holds as much authority as your preference not to have other men dream of fornicating with your wife in their sleep. Your whole idea of a right is just a mere emotional whim. It has no standing on its own. The soil will not be tilled, the cows will not graze sustainably just because you prefer it. Feel free to force others to your whim; however, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. Mmmhmm, see how you believe in ownership when I take your cows, break your plow and then fuck your wife.  You can't because my household is armed. The government that puts a backing behind my supposed "rights" is armed and I'll probably snap you like a twig before you can touch my wife. My "rights" have backing. Your "intellectual property" does not. You cannot touch all the millions who infringe these supposed rights daily. They are broken and bypassed with ease by the individual. There is nothing to them. They are empty. Void. |
|
|
|
I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.
That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.
That's fair. Not giving a shit about infringing on other people's ownership is actually a lot more refreshing than the belief that it's your right to be given that ownership. Their supposed ownership holds no authority over me. It holds as much authority as your preference not to have other men dream of fornicating with your wife in their sleep. Your whole idea of a right is just a mere emotional whim. It has no standing on its own. The soil will not be tilled, the cows will not graze sustainably just because you prefer it. Feel free to force others to your whim; however, whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed. |
|
|
|
|
Empirically, rights can only be enforced by the blood and sweat of others. You can only lay your claim to yourself and others by the potential of force; the fear of losing life itself along with its products.
|
|
|
|
|
I own my computer and the electricity that flows through it. I care not if it resembles the matter or energy of another; it is mine. There may be many like it but it is mine. It is in my domain and within my control. I will use it as I please regardless of any ownership claimed by others. My physical property right supersedes. I shall shape it, modify it and utilize it as I please. You shall have no say over its use.
That's what I have to say to intellectual property rights and the like.
|
|
|
|
|
Preventing destruction, I'm all for that. Destroying an adversary that creates more destruction than what he produces is only a gain.
However, destruction in the name of the destruction that has occurred, merely an eye for an eye... If that's justice, call me unjust as much as you please. Equality is overrated. Equality for the sake of equality is a farce of crocodile tears and envy. It is merely emotion with only loss for us all.
End the 1% they claim. Redistribute the wealth they say. It would only be so just if they had truly been stolen from. Have the purported victims --the 99%-- been so looted and so raped of this great value they have created; the millions upon millions that are earned by these specialists; by these doctors, lawyers, scientists and technicians that make the so-called 1%? Will the dissolution of their regime of offering highly valuable services to society really make things just or only lead to further destruction?
|
|
|
|
Our company wants the service of graphic artists to create high-resolution and intricate designs. Details will be made available upon request. We are willing to pay up to 5 BTC a design. We can be reached at alpha.harvey@gmail.com Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
I have one question:
Does a governing body invest the people's money into innovation better than the population acting freely?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
