What is Digg?105 Comments
- fadeout, on 11/28/2007, -3/+29"Cyberpunk cultural icon?"
A rise is smug levels detected... - sundancekid503, on 11/28/2007, -3/+26Under this open source government all "noobs" will be rounded up, forced to wear badges and sent to live in ghettos.
- emptyparadigm, on 11/28/2007, -1/+16Destroying the two party political system is going to take a helluva lot more than some guy posting an e-manifesto under some web pseudonym. Don't get me wrong, I think it needs to happen (and it will...eventually), but this isn't going to change anything.
- cmw72, on 11/28/2007, -0/+10Yeah, but then any time somebody ran for reelection, they would get buried as a dupe!
- segphault, on 11/28/2007, -6/+14No. Most libertarians do not recognize intellectual property as a natural right and believe that it is a form of government market intervention. As the article says, Sirius advocates a more balanced approach to copyright law that would empower content consumers.
- inactive, on 11/28/2007, -3/+10GNUlitician
- noahhoward, on 11/28/2007, -2/+9True democracy has one big flaw... people have a knack for being stupid.
- oldhick, on 11/28/2007, -2/+8In actuality, true Libertarians don't believe in corporations as they exist today.
- oldhick, on 11/28/2007, -1/+7Libertarian philosophies and the Libertarian party are two completely different things. I would venture a guess that the majority of the people would agree with libertarian principles. That it was the article is talking about. That does not mean they agree with the Libertarian party in the US.
- Ammo, on 11/28/2007, -1/+6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_governmen ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikigovernment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_politics - natedouglas, on 11/28/2007, -2/+7Many (if not most or all) Libertarians I've spoken to don't really like the idea of corporate deregulation, either, and many of them don't believe corporations shouldn't exist at all. As much as I'd like to believe that Libertarians want to turn the world into ShadowRun or something, I don't think they do.
- demiurgency, on 11/28/2007, -1/+5I have to agree. G.W. Bush voted in for a second term represents for me a near-complete loss of faith in democracy. It's a sad truth, but no one except the American public can be blamed for the past four years.
- notque, on 11/28/2007, -1/+5A. We don't have a Democracy.
B. Less than a majority of the population voted him in counting abstentions.
C. Most people who voted for him from polls had the exact opposite views he did, but thought he was for what they were for.
The media lied and coerced the population concerning the issues. The Public Relations industry ran the elections.
If you have real discussions of the issues, removing the propaganda, you would get much different results. - kushed, on 11/28/2007, -6/+10I think they should pass laws or get rid of them using Diggs method. True democracy.
- signal15, on 11/28/2007, -2/+6That's awesome. But, instead of conceding that the "Duopoly" will take this year's election, why not scurry to make a difference and help Ron Paul get elected??
At least that way, we'll be in much better shape for at least the next 4-8 years while they design their open-source party and get everything ready. If they wait too long and let a crazy in the White House, there might not be elections ever again. :) - F1R3DUP, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3If this takes off and becomes a threat to "them", "they" will squash it and this RU Sirius character.
- nekochan, on 11/28/2007, -2/+5i'm all for that. and i propose extending the definition of 'noob' to include people who use txtspk anywhere other than in a text message.
- spacechip, on 11/28/2007, -1/+4I don't think it's true at all that the public is solely to blame for W's terms. I believe his elections show that the country does not currently function democratically, rather than reflect poorly on the idea of democracy itself. I'm just just talking about Florida, but the entire political climate. Talking heads, talking points, sensationalism, fear-mongering, corporate interests, etc.
- noahhoward, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3The very fact that you do read my posts and we do butt heads should actually prove me right in this instant. If you knew me personally you would know I'm an intelligent individual, I pay attention and I usually think things through, however as my comment record can attest I can get hung up on details I can be very stubborn and can let emotion cloud judgement, in short, I'm human and I make mistakes.
- nekochan, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3it's legit. i don't know if it's truly a mirror or not, but it's definitely not a rickroll.
- notque, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3@noahhoward
They are called idiots, to use the classical word. And there is nothing wrong with that. The question is, if there were an option to be involved in the state of things, would they. The evidence shows they would, although we would need a lot more evidence to make a concrete point. For that, we must try it.
Public opinion polls show quite clearly the population feels isolated from decision making, so opts out by ignoring the mess. If they were not isolated, would they feel the same way?
A lot of evidence says they wouldn't. - notque, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2"I don't see any way out of this fine mess either, without strict censorship of the press, which I am thoroughly against."
Let me give it a shot (this would be a proposal under open government.)
What if we gave the public airwaves, which the public owns back to the people. We take the channels that exist and split them similar to digg topics.
We decide what topics exist, etc. We can allow corporations to submit shows that we will then decide on using or not. Or make our own.
How would that work? - geddon, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2I just asked the dollar in my back pocket what comes after two. I guess it thought I was setting up a joke because it just sat there in a blank stare.
Next weekend, I'm planning on taking a couple hundred of his buddies out of the bank to go camping in the woods. I figure if money makes the world go round, it should be able to make for some wild nights in the wilderness! Just me and my money au nautral, back to the basics, mano e moneyo. - noahhoward, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3If Digg is any indicator this would fail miserably around the time the mandatory ho laws are passed.
- notque, on 11/28/2007, -3/+5Sounds like he's talking about Classical Libertarianism, not American Libertarianism. All the threads where I complain about what real Libertarianism is? Something similar is what he's proposing, and I'm all for it.
- TheUngod, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3Great idea. Seeing as how we can't even get the libertarian party hardly any recognition, lets try a more specific niche party. As much as I'd like to see it happen, people can't even get past the 2 party system, let alone to a 3, 4, 5, etc. party system.
- notque, on 11/28/2007, -3/+5It doesn't sound like he's talking about Ron Paul's libertarianism, but what is means everywhere else in the world.
- noahhoward, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2I don't disagree that it would be something to see and is a very good idea in theory. I think pessimism gets the better of me when I look around and I worry about the results.
- SoyJames, on 11/28/2007, -3/+5Great idea if we can get past the "vote fusion" and "sour grapes" laws...
- ronaldinho, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3"Grassroots Internet campaigning has certainly increased the visibility (and fundraising prowess) of Paul, but it hasn't changed the fact that he still lags far behind the mainstream Republican candidates in polls that don't take place on the Internet"
So true. You take a poll on the internet, Ron Paul will blow everyone away on the Republican side, because on the Republican side most young people will support him (like Digg). However, our corporate media will be determined to have a Hilary vs Giuliani, hence why they will not have internet polls (but instead continue to do phone polls targeting only old people who do not use the internet and therefore are likely to believe whatever the mainstream media is feeding them) to minimize exposure to Ron Paul as much as possible. I'm not even a Paul fan, but seeing some true politicians who can change America for the better (Paul, Kucinich, maybe Obama) will be very nice. - JasonCox, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3You know, I'm kinda contentious of most things that are open source, but this nation would really benefit from an open and transparent party.
- littleorfnannie, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2As much as I hate the 2-party system we have, it is here to stay. The only 3rd party to make it was the Republicans, all other 3rd parties have failed to have long-term standing. It's the way our government is set up, change that and we may have a chance in allowing more parties.
- zaphar, on 11/29/2007, -0/+2Because socialism, as we know it, is forced upon everyone within the country, you have to participate. In a free market system, a group of people can setup their own socialist system, as long as everyone voluntarily opts into the system.
So basically you can setup whatever system you want in a free market, as long as everyone participating in it does so voluntarily. - EricAnderton, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Breaking up the two-party system is kind of like trying to break the duopoly of Coke and Pepsi.
RC Cola anyone? - notque, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2@noahhoward.
The very fact I do read your posts indicates true libertarianism is the way to go. I can listen to you, reply to you, and we can argue our points and let people decide. I know you're an intelligent individual. I don't have to know you personally to know that.
I even agree with you at times. You'd be shocked how many times I've dugg you up. I say, let those who are actors decide. - john2kx, on 11/28/2007, -2/+4hell, I propose extending it to include people who use it _in_ a text message, as well.
- noahhoward, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Keyword is if. You assume that government is the main barrier to discussion. There are many people who haven't clue one about anything political and they like it that way.
- geddon, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Those are invisible shackles strengthened only by ignorance. Two ways of looking at things are simply impossible on the 'net.
- WilliamDavis, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1"The value of a dollar is basically based on the strength of the US"
And when you have clowns running the place, they have the ability to make us all worse off. Greatly. Something non-fiat removes their ability to screw things up. - WilliamDavis, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1A third party will just become the new 2nd party.
- notque, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2Yes. The people must have control and say in their affairs. Government should be ruled by the people. No other existence is acceptable.
- notque, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2Because Ron Paul isn't the same thing as this. Read it again until you understand that. Or read what Ron Paul is for if you don't understand that.
- geddon, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2I can hardly begin to express how excited this makes me to see someone announce their support of an Open Government. All of us are aware that corruption is inherent in a closed source system. Putting such power in the hands of the few ultimately leads to Democracy looking like Corporatism, or Socialism looking like Communism. The only path to true Freedom for each and every American is an Open Government.
- Toshibi, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2Oldhick, Libertarianism does tend to lend itself to some economic models better than others. If you're talking about how a person chooses to use their labor and money interacting with others, then any of those would be fine (I for one have no problem with people setting up communes on their own property and living the perfect communist lifestyle) though in the largest sense, the most free system would be Free Market Capitalism, that is an agreement between a producer and a consumer with no external forces but the market and competition to set price, etc.
- notque, on 11/28/2007, -1/+2You say you're not waiting for a savior, just that you're waiting on other people to do the work until you join.
Sounds like you're waiting for someone. Why? Is it fear? Laziness? What stops you from finding groups in your area working on the problem or creating your own? What stops you from finding out about these issues, and speaking about them to others?
Why are you "waiting for people to actually get motivated" when you aren't willing to do the hard work yourself? - notque, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1You just showed your inability to think outside the paradigm. The reply would be,
Water anyone? - DarkTravesty, on 11/29/2007, -0/+1Libertarianism is very much in favor of capitalism, this is evident in the libertarian belief that many government agencies should be eliminated, which would impact and eliminate many social programs. Socialism is all about these social programs and big government, libertarianism is about small government and eliminating these.
- PATSCRU, on 11/28/2007, -0/+1Then why do all the ron paul supporters go around decrying socialism and in the same manner that neocons decry terrorism?
- funkywood, on 12/01/2007, -0/+1Not quite. They are ignorant and lazy. They just appear stupid.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 104 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is