[Kosh]

Originally posted by Clave
I don't go to the cinema that often, but I'd miss it after it had been killed off by your idea....

Movie theatre's already charge rediculous amounts of money.

[Rictor]

bwahahaha

suprnova mirror is up, get it while you can

http://www.bi-torrent.com/

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Yeah, basically.

Laws mean nothing, since they're just enforced through fear of punishment. Laws are not inherently right or wrong, its the morality behind them that matters. Governments can decide right and wrong the same way the mafia can - you follow the rules cause there's a can of whoop ass waiting if you don't. That's not genuine morality, only "legal morality".

Which basically boils down to the individual simply ignoring any laws that are unjust, and likewise following non-existant laws that are just.

Which would be totally unworkable in practice as everyone has different ideas of morality; you'd probably end up with teenage mothers being burnt in the streets.

[Rictor]

Would you rather have one all powerful group imposing its views on morality, and having that group be seen as legitimate no less, than every person imposing their view of morality as far as they can enforce it, which is not too damn far?

The government's law is right only because they can enforce it via the police and military. As soon as someone becomes powerful enough to openly defy those, they no longer apply to him/her. Basiically, rule by force is what the government is.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Would you rather have one all powerful group imposing its views on morality, and having that group be seen as legitimate no less, than every person imposing their view of morality as far as they can enforce it, which is not too damn far?

Of course.  The alternative is anarchy; you would have no laws whatsoever and be relying upon the good nature of people.

Originally posted by Rictor
The government's law is right only because they can enforce it via the police and military. As soon as someone becomes powerful enough to openly defy those, they no longer apply to him/her. Basiically, rule by force is what the government is.

The force of majority support.  You're talking about a fault in the application of the system, not the principles of it.

[Rictor]

I would rather have anarchy than institionalized tyranny. Democracy is still tyranny of the majority against the minority. What's scarier, 1984 or a state of lawlessness?

Now of course we're talking about pure idealogy, not practice. In practice, I would support neither extreme (tyranical government or no government) but a happy middle. However, I think that large groups, whoever they may be, are to be feared because they are able to more readily oppress those who disagree with them than an individual or small group would. Centralization of power almost inevitably leads to tyranny, of this there can be little doubt.

You seem to overestimate the degree of political involvement and knowledge possessed by most oeople. Democracy means nothing if the choices are not informed, and I think that in large part they're not. Anyone with of money and a slick PR campaign can win the support of the people, and thereby claim that his views reflect the majority views. Give me a few billion dollars and the best marketing firms on the planet, and I can get people to believe that an attack from Neptune is imminent, and that the only way to prevent it is to lock up all gypsies in prisons.

[aldo_14]

I don't see how any of that could justify the wholesale idea of ignoring the laws you don't agree with.  I would say lawlessness and 1984 style tyranny are equally terrifying prospects when taken to an equivalent level of extremity.

Human nature leads to centralisation of power and conflict; you can see it in tribal structures from hundreds, thousands of years ago.  So of course it's going to be reflected in having a government; even if you abolished it overnight, you'd still end up with various sized ethnic and social groups emerging and filling similar roles - but without the legal and social checks carried with democracy.

[Rictor]

Well, thats the problem, isn't it? Human nature leads to the formation of ever larger and more powerful organizations, which become increasingly tyranical.

There's no way to keep government small and decentralized, cause people will just build it up again, like those novelty pencils that keep coming back up when you knock them down.

For me, and this is just me, losing control of my destiny to a large, omnipotent group (the government, when taken to the extreme) is far worse than worrying about who's going to come around with a bat and try to steal my food. At least that way, I am in control, and if I loose out, oh well. But with the type of resources that are at the government's disposal (everything from surveilance, to police to money), its nearly impossible to effectively fight back and maintain control.

[karajorma]

There are pills you can take for that level of control freakery Rictor.

While I may agree that governments can become tyranical I'd take any current western government (even Bush's) over anarchy. As you say people just end up building their own governments. This doesn't just occur wit big government. It starts right at the grass roots. So instead of being subservient to a big faceless government you end up serving a tyranical warlord who's managed to grab some small chunk of the country to himself.

The only way to avoid that in an anarchy is to become the dictator yourself.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Well, thats the problem, isn't it? Human nature leads to the formation of ever larger and more powerful organizations, which become increasingly tyranical.

There's no way to keep government small and decentralized, cause people will just build it up again, like those novelty pencils that keep coming back up when you knock them down.

For me, and this is just me, losing control of my destiny to a large, omnipotent group (the government, when taken to the extreme) is far worse than worrying about who's going to come around with a bat and try to steal my food. At least that way, I am in control, and if I loose out, oh well. But with the type of resources that are at the government's disposal (everything from surveilance, to police to money), its nearly impossible to effectively fight back and maintain control.

Can you ever 'control' your life anyway?  Too much depends on other people.......

[Sesquipedalian]

In Canada, file sharing is legal.  (Music, movies, etc., but not apps, as far as I know.)

It makes me wonder why people don't put up their bittorrent tracker servers here where big bad MPAA trolls can't get at them.

[Kosh]

one all powerful group imposing its views on morality

*cough* *cough* US Republican Party *cough*

It makes me wonder why people don't put up their bittorrent tracker servers here where big bad MPAA trolls can't get at them.

Suprnova.org was based on eastern europe somewhere, croatia or one of the other ex-yugoslav states IIRC. MPAA couldn't touch it there.

Rictor & Aldo: I actually would prefer the kind of solution in Deus Ex 1 where a good person merges with a super advanced AI.

[Rictor]

Slovenia, which is where the owner, sloncek (er, it means elephant as far as I can make out), lives.

However, the servers weren't actually in Slovenia, they were all over the place, but the law says that the owner is accountable so wherever the owner lives, that's which laws apply.