pro suck
i have a problem; i can’t take most “tests”. good example of a question written by a fool (or, more likely, a group of similarly motorized douches):
“Are you or any of your close friends, relatives or business associates a member of an organization or association, formal or informal, that believes, advocates or advances the belief that the internet should be completely unregulated?”
bad enough in isolation, but two more strikes against the context where i found it:
- it’s on a questionnaire given potential jurors in the fedgoon bullshit case against lori drew.
- it’s prefaced in this article by, “Several questions seem designed to spot libertarian-leaning internet users.”
notice to all tools who want to use words like “libertarian” (or “voluntarist”, the only true liberty position, whatever you label it) at least semi-coherently: such anti-state types are inherently the most lawful of the world. so when you ask about “regulation” without specifying who’s doing the regulating, the question is not answerable yes or no by any moral man. it must be modified for clarity and logic.
what in fuck does “completely unregulated” mean? IP addresses are regulated. computers are regulated. the internet wouldn’t work without regulation — rules, protocols, agreements, adherence… order. but dumbfucks begin every writeoff of such things they’re too stupid or chickenshit to consider by supposing, “oh, those are those wacky libertine types — ‘free-duhm’. ‘anarchy’.” bleh.
no, assholes. voluntarists (and many so-called anarchists) simply demand that all interaction be voluntary. it doesn’t mean you must get your way on someone else’s turf. it doesn’t mean you can’t run an engineering plant with constraints tighter than a paramecium’s ass, you cheapshit lazy deplorable morons. it also doesn’t mean, for example, that wal-mart can’t rightfully ban employees from having guns anywhere in a wal-mart parking lot, including inside their cars.
most of that fedgoon “law” travesty concerns illegal fedgoon piling on over private agreements (e.g., the almost universally unread terms of service [TOS] for MySpace) and emanations therefrom (e.g., “conspiracy”, a charge on the bullshit scale perhaps second only to “disorderly conduct“). it’s the classic bureaucrat’s nirvana described by ayn rand:
“Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against — then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted — and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
had this conversation with a pig sergeant last month. i was bitching about a jackass from his department who didn’t know the “law” for shit (he’d threatened me for driving with an earphone in one ear), and we ended up talking for about an hour (most of which was me trying to teach him how to parse english). he said early on that he was very strict about enforcing “the law” equally and 14th (alleged 14th) amendment blah blah. about 20 minutes later he mentioned something he figured i’d disagree strongly with (duh) — his participation in a supposedly DUI checkpoint that evening, which he basically touted as a snare to fuck those with “unregistered” vehicles or no “license” (if you must ask if someone driving has a “license” to drive, he apparently doesn’t need one; obviously, it’s the thwack end of the “papers please” shakedown). describing some of the goonery they’d pulled, he also told of one guy who claimed he’d just been laid off and couldn’t afford to renew his “registration“. so the sergeant let him go without ass-raping him the usual amount.
well, i noted, that wasn’t equal enforcement of the law, was it?
cop was perplexed. how could i have a problem with him being such a great guy, cutting a break to a sad sack during hard times? did i expect him to write a ticket and impound the sack’s car?
no, i explained, it’s a horrible law with no moral purpose. strike the whole thing. all it does is give you power to screw with people, rewriting law as befits your mood and false beneficence. if the law’s worth a damn, it must be enforced across the board, as you’ve already claimed you do.
instant subject change.
this case against lori drew is the rankest example of selective enforcement, which is simply legislation by gung-ho dipshit behind desk, looking for press. these tyrants probably heard piles of complaints against lori drew, ranging from the usual “i want to speak to my congressman” style crap on down. action had to be taken — and by fedgoons, highest god of gods! they’ll “do something“.
whole thing’s an affront to intelligence and manhood. lori drew deserves to suffer? then make her suffer, old school. do it. have some balls. don’t run to washington with your skirt flailing behind you, whining to some pussified paper pusher psycho, invoking meaningless drivel that applies to pretty much everyone who’s ever turned on a computer and gone into an AOL chat room, insulting someone while a buddy looks on.
the story, of course, is that this is being driven by sociopaths too frail to enact their desired result — or even justice — directly. normality in the goonited states. dress up your sociopathy in a suit, then get it in front of a bank of microphones with double-spaced motions, briefs, indictments, complaints, summonses, and disingenuous prancing douchebags.
December 28th, 2010 at 17:27
[...] the question at usatoday.com. typical of abject fools who think that composing accurate questions is “simple”, of the “answers” provided, entering the accurate one indicates to them that your [...]