Stulle, on 11 March 2012 - 11:15 AM, said:
So advocating to free slaves in the pre civil ware US was a crime, never the less it was right.
Quote
No, my cause it to enable others to infringe copyrights without having to fear any consequences.
As I stated already I don't fear any consequences.
Quote
I bag to differ.
Freedom of thought and speech is the most fundamental freedom of all, and I argue that using Internet is an extension of this.
Quote
But still you would just look like other humans are harmed in the name of the law even you think its utter crap.
So for you the rule of the law is more important that the wellbeing of you fellow human beings?
Quote
"Wo Unrecht zu Recht wird, wird Widerstand zur Pflicht"
Quote
Well, but its kinda the poitn that we ware sizialised to belive many things, we neverthe less dont.
I would think my grand-parents were terrorists just as much as i think that copying is theft, meaning not at all.
And thats kindy my point you should always think for your self and not let the state or society do this for you.
Quote
Well, I don't advocate for a leack of state, where did you read this into my postings?
I advocate only for a proper balance between what the state can do and individuality.
this is on the line of not allowing the state to use violence against competently non violent people.
Quote
No, I'm telling you that if the law requiters you to do an evil thing you are evil if you follow the law.
Isn't that simple?
Quote
Irreversibility is not an argument in itself. Everything that can happen along the way needs to be taken into consideration.
And in your mind this justfyes to spy on every human on the internet?
how about on teh realworld, you can spread lies there just as good, shoulnt than all verbal conversations be recorded, inc ase some one spreads lies about some company?
Quote
Thats not correct, cause I'm not affraid about my memorabilia being broken by some thief.
I'm woried explicitly about damage caused by the state.
I would be equaliy woried if this guy would loose his bakerydoe to the state.
Quote
Thats not a proepr analogy, as when you shoot it is only up tp you wather oyu hit or miss, the victim does not have an option.
If you tell somethign painfull its just as much up to you to chose the right wrong words as it is to the victim to being harmed by them.
Quote
What gives the state the right tpo protect someone from himself, it is his live and his boddy and those his choice how and if hw wants to harm himself.
Quote
You you even know how much deaths the US war on drugs causes, and how muc suffering cound be avoinded if one could buy drugs like alkohol?
Quote
Whats unacceptable to me is the state doing a clearly wrong thing and using all its force to finish his objective.
I don't care so much about ruining the company because you are allwoed to try to fight it, to defand your self.
If the police comes to search your house and possibly break soemthign, you are nto allwoed to defend yourself.
Thats what makes the difference.
Booth acts are evil, but the act that is legal is uncomprehensable more evi, as oyu are not alowed in any way to defend yourself.
Quote
Well, whats there to say, with the right dictator you can have a better society as with a democracy, here you are competently right for once.
But you should ask yourself if you think it is wise to put the wellbeing of millions of humans into the hands of one person.
Also I guess I can assert quit right that the past showed us that no dictator leaved for ever and those sooner or later a one will get in power that will f*** up everything.
Those basing on our empirical experience we can assert that in the long run a dictatorship always results in a disaster.
David X.
This post has been edited by DavidXanatos: 11 March 2012 - 01:02 PM