It seems that the UK is rapidly becoming more authoritarian. Of course, I'm hard pressed to think of a single country that's becoming less authoritarian.
This article misuses the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as synonyms for socialism and capitalism. For those of you who don't know the difference, here's a quick rundown:
CONSERVATISM: An ideology which seeks to preserve or return to the status quo. The actual goals of conservatives can differ greatly depending upon the country they represent and the current time period.
LIBERALISM: An ideology which seeks to optimize freedom. Classical liberals, who support capitalism, were responsible for the American Revolution. However, social liberals, who support socialism, have overshadowed classical liberals in the US since the Great Depression.
CAPITALISM: A system in which people have the freedom to work, start a business, invest money, give to charity, hoard their money, etc. Some welfare can be offered to people who are unable to work. Some restrictions can be placed on the economy in order to ensure increased freedom, such as anti-trust laws and fair use laws.
SOCIALISM: A system in which wealth is plundered via progressive taxation. The revenue goes mostly into the hands of the politicians, while some is diverted to the poor in order to ensure the reelection of those politicians. Meanwhile, progressive taxation keeps small businesses from getting bigger, thereby ensuring that only a handful of big businesses dominate the market. As a result, less jobs are available, which forces more people to get welfare, which requires more taxation. Meanwhile, greedy conglomerates aren't afraid of competition from new businesses, which allows them to raise their prices beyond reason. This raises the cost of living, which in turn forces even more people to get welfare, which requires even more taxation.
That said, I disagree with those conservatives and libertarians who absolutely oppose any welfare, anti-trust laws, fair use laws, etc. Economic freedom does require some activity on part of the government. However, I don't like the way this article confuses capitalism with an uncaring attitude towards the poor. I, for one, condemn rich people who refuse to give to charity.
I absolutely condemn the usage and sale of drugs, but I'm also opposed to the war on drugs. It's a campaign of kidnapping and murder, which is funded by billions of dollars that are stolen from the citizens by the IRS. Now it seems that the US government is using the war on drugs as an excuse to prevent free speech.
The only rights that are being violated are those of gay organizations. This lawsuit would prevent them from speaking freely, which includes calling themselves whatever they want. Besides, this lawsuit implies that the people of Lesbos are ashamed to be mistakenly associated with gay females. That sounds a bit homophobic to me.
@Alex What if an ad blocker just blocks the CPM ad from being displayed, but still loads it in cache? Would the site still get payed?
Regardless of the fact that I don't consider ad blocking to be theft, I still don't think it's right to block banner ads without a really good reason. However, pop-ups are a different story, because they deliberately interfere with the normal viewing of a page.
There's absolutely no moral basis by which ad blocking could be considered theft.
Ads never convince me to buy products. At best, an ad might inform me about a product that I'm unfamiliar with, but my decision to buy will be based upon more objective sources.
I'm glad Wal-Mart made the right decision, but I seriously doubt that they were motivated by compassion.
That said, I'm astonished at some of the comments in favor of Wal-Mart's original decision. Even if the contract was valid under libertarian ethical principles, we shouldn't confuse natural rights with moral rightness.
Did the cops have any evidence of a crime being committed? If not, then they didn't have any legal right, let alone any MORAL right, to force those kids to take breath tests.
CONSERVATISM: An ideology which seeks to preserve or return to the status quo. The actual goals of conservatives can differ greatly depending upon the country they represent and the current time period.
LIBERALISM: An ideology which seeks to optimize freedom. Classical liberals, who support capitalism, were responsible for the American Revolution. However, social liberals, who support socialism, have overshadowed classical liberals in the US since the Great Depression.
CAPITALISM: A system in which people have the freedom to work, start a business, invest money, give to charity, hoard their money, etc. Some welfare can be offered to people who are unable to work. Some restrictions can be placed on the economy in order to ensure increased freedom, such as anti-trust laws and fair use laws.
SOCIALISM: A system in which wealth is plundered via progressive taxation. The revenue goes mostly into the hands of the politicians, while some is diverted to the poor in order to ensure the reelection of those politicians. Meanwhile, progressive taxation keeps small businesses from getting bigger, thereby ensuring that only a handful of big businesses dominate the market. As a result, less jobs are available, which forces more people to get welfare, which requires more taxation. Meanwhile, greedy conglomerates aren't afraid of competition from new businesses, which allows them to raise their prices beyond reason. This raises the cost of living, which in turn forces even more people to get welfare, which requires even more taxation.
That said, I disagree with those conservatives and libertarians who absolutely oppose any welfare, anti-trust laws, fair use laws, etc. Economic freedom does require some activity on part of the government. However, I don't like the way this article confuses capitalism with an uncaring attitude towards the poor. I, for one, condemn rich people who refuse to give to charity.
1. They're funded by theft.
2. They impose their will over an arbitrary area of land to which they have no rightful claim.
What if an ad blocker just blocks the CPM ad from being displayed, but still loads it in cache? Would the site still get payed?
Regardless of the fact that I don't consider ad blocking to be theft, I still don't think it's right to block banner ads without a really good reason. However, pop-ups are a different story, because they deliberately interfere with the normal viewing of a page.
Ads never convince me to buy products. At best, an ad might inform me about a product that I'm unfamiliar with, but my decision to buy will be based upon more objective sources.
That said, I'm astonished at some of the comments in favor of Wal-Mart's original decision. Even if the contract was valid under libertarian ethical principles, we shouldn't confuse natural rights with moral rightness.