Author Topic: Reasons for hacking DSOs  (Read 91118 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline kcbrown

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 388
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #550 on: April 12, 2016, 03:45:04 am »
It completely ignores the reasoning for 'Not doing X because it might become illegal'.

One simple example is for someone developing a process which relies on a particular set of operations, would be unwise to base any critical components on an operation that could become unavailable.  While there may be circumstance that are powerful enough to accept that risk, I would be looking for less risky alternatives that could achieve the desired outcome.

How does that apply to the question of an individual hacking their scope, which is what I understood as the context of the original statement to which I was replying?

That said, this is a good point as regards the general case.
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 9480
  • Country: au
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #551 on: April 12, 2016, 04:04:06 am »
I was speaking to the general case - but having said that, the implication for hacking a scope can still fall under the general case.
 

Offline kcbrown

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 388
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #552 on: April 12, 2016, 04:32:55 am »
I was speaking to the general case - but having said that, the implication for hacking a scope can still fall under the general case.

Okay, how does (or can) the situational logic you mention apply to the case of an individual hacking a scope for private use?   I don't see that at all.  He can either hack the scope or not.  If he hacks the scope, he now has a hacked scope.   A law that passes after the fact doesn't change the fact that he has a hacked scope, it only prevents him from being able to hack a future scope.   If he refrains from hacking his scope both now and in the future, then he's behaving as if the law already exists.

What is he doing that is dependent on the ability to later hack his scope (or some equivalent that yields the same result), such that refraining from hacking his scope now preserves some necessary capability in the event a law forbidding hacking one's scope passes?  Put another way, what incentive could he possibly have for refraining from hacking his scope that isn't rooted in the false logic I called out before, but is dependent upon the possibility of a law against hacking the scope being passed?
« Last Edit: April 12, 2016, 05:41:10 am by kcbrown »
 

Offline KL27x

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3740
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #553 on: April 12, 2016, 04:58:52 am »
I am laughing on the inside at the idea of someone logging into the forum for the first time in weeks and tuning into the thread at this very moment.  :-DD
 

Offline Brumby

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 9480
  • Country: au
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #554 on: April 12, 2016, 06:03:11 am »
A law that passes after the fact doesn't change the fact that he has a hacked scope, it only prevents him from being able to hack a future scope.

You make the assumption that his already hacked scope is not a problem for him to possess.


Quote
If he refrains from hacking his scope both now and in the future, then he's behaving as if the law already exists.

Tenuous logic IMO - but I understand the point.

As for trying to define a scenario where such a situation applies, there is no need.  It's the principle at the heart of this point and trying to build up an example will only result in a tangential argument about its merits.
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10337
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #555 on: April 12, 2016, 01:24:16 pm »
The "debt" I owe to society is exacted from me every year, at gunpoint.  That's what taxes are.  Why should I believe I owe any debt greater than that?

I dunno. Every American I ever met told me America was the greatest country in the world.  :-//
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10466
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #556 on: April 12, 2016, 01:45:46 pm »
The "debt" I owe to society as a result of being taught to read and write, etc., was exacted from my parents, and is exacted from me every year, at gunpoint.  That's what taxes are.  Why should I believe I owe any debt greater than that?

If that is all your society is, then I'm sad for you.

Note that my family does have some knowledge of the USA: I emigrated to the US when I was 5 weeks old, but my parents decided to return. Their decision was influenced by my being showered with glass when a bullet shattered the glass of the Pittsburgh streetcar we were riding in. They didn't think it was a good place to raise children.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline G0HZU

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2576
  • Country: gb
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #557 on: April 12, 2016, 02:08:28 pm »
The "debt" I owe to society as a result of being taught to read and write, etc., was exacted from my parents, and is exacted from me every year, at gunpoint.  That's what taxes are.  Why should I believe I owe any debt greater than that?

If that is all your society is, then I'm sad for you.

Note that my family does have some knowledge of the USA: I emigrated to the US when I was 5 weeks old, but my parents decided to return. Their decision was influenced by my being showered with glass when a bullet shattered the glass of the Pittsburgh streetcar we were riding in. They didn't think it was a good place to raise children.
Stop trolling and accept that the same argument kcbrown makes applies equally well here in the UK. I'm a high rate taxpayer here in the UK and get fleeced every year by taxation. There's so many stealth taxes here that affect so many people and it all helps to pour money in to the governments public spending budget. This pays for education, schools, roads health etc etc.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2016, 03:46:13 pm by G0HZU »
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10337
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #558 on: April 12, 2016, 02:18:00 pm »
I'm a high rate taxpayer here in the UK and get fleeced every year by taxation.

So...where did you earn that money that you're being "fleeced" on? That's right - in the UK.

Try going to a third world country and see if you can earn that much money doing what you do.

 

Offline mnementh

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5663
  • Country: ca
  • *Escaping The Suck*
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #559 on: April 12, 2016, 02:27:45 pm »
I am laughing on the inside at the idea of someone logging into the forum for the first time in weeks and tuning into the thread at this very moment.  :-DD

On THAT, I can wholeheartedly agree.  :-DD We are fast devolving into "How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin" territory.  :wtf:  Which depends, of course... before or after they moved to Anaheim?  ;)

The "debt" I owe to society is exacted from me every year, at gunpoint.  That's what taxes are.  Why should I believe I owe any debt greater than that?

I dunno. Every American I ever met told me America was the greatest country in the world.  :-//


We are not the greatest country in the world; more than 50 years of institutionalized corruption working its way from the top down has seen to that.  ::) We are now simply the wealthiest 3rd world nation on the planet. BIG difference.  :-\ Such is the rise and fall of all great societies, only every iteration happens faster. What took the Romans 5000 years took Great Britain 700; and now we've managed to cut that down to 200-300, depending on whose yardstick you use. Even worse, this is our 2nd attempt at this wholesale collapse; you'd think we would have learned our lesson from 1929. We can't even FAIL without fu**ing it up, loudly and messily.  |O


mnem
Nothin' to see here folks, move along...
 

Offline kcbrown

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 388
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #560 on: April 12, 2016, 05:32:34 pm »
The "debt" I owe to society as a result of being taught to read and write, etc., was exacted from my parents, and is exacted from me every year, at gunpoint.  That's what taxes are.  Why should I believe I owe any debt greater than that?

If that is all your society is, then I'm sad for you.

Society itself is a framework that governs interactions between its members.  It provides advantages and disadvantages. The advantages generally outweigh the disadvantages, but the disadvantages are still there (mainly in the form of the removal of liberty, something that is happening continuously such that liberty is an ever shrinking thing).

A debt is something that is imposed from the outside.  And as I noted, the debt you speak of is paid at gunpoint.  But that does not mean I care nothing about my fellow man or anything.  Quite the opposite.  My behavior is driven not by some debt that people think I owe, but by my desire to see others bettered.


I would have a better opinion of the society I live in, and of other societies, if they weren't continuously trying to remove ever more liberty from its members.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2016, 08:22:40 pm by kcbrown »
 

Offline kcbrown

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 388
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #561 on: April 12, 2016, 05:40:21 pm »
The "debt" I owe to society is exacted from me every year, at gunpoint.  That's what taxes are.  Why should I believe I owe any debt greater than that?

I dunno. Every American I ever met told me America was the greatest country in the world.  :-//

"Was" is the keyword here.  The desire to keep people free (that has never been implemented well, really) seems to have long vanished.  It's now a race between two major political parties to control people, the antithesis of liberty.  The advertised purpose of the country is essentially dead, existing only in a few remaining embers scattered across the country.  There is no place left in the world that reveres liberty.

Don't believe me?  Then tell me where in the world laws, which are restrictions upon liberty, are being repealed more quickly than they are made.
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10466
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #562 on: April 12, 2016, 05:49:53 pm »
There is no place left in the world that reveres liberty.

There never was.

Or more accurately, each generation believes that things were better in The Good Old Days when they were young (and naive). Don't you remember what was being said in the 60s and 70s by the unhip square generation?
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline G0HZU

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2576
  • Country: gb
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #563 on: April 12, 2016, 05:57:15 pm »
I'm a high rate taxpayer here in the UK and get fleeced every year by taxation.

So...where did you earn that money that you're being "fleeced" on? That's right - in the UK.

Try going to a third world country and see if you can earn that much money doing what you do.
Strawman or trolling?
 

Offline kcbrown

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 388
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #564 on: April 12, 2016, 08:19:04 pm »
There is no place left in the world that reveres liberty.

There never was.

Well, the U.S. has from time to time claimed to cherish liberty, but I suspect it was largely just advertising.  There might have been a brief period in the early years of the United States where it was relatively highly valued, but I suspect that only the people who were there could really say.


Quote
Or more accurately, each generation believes that things were better in The Good Old Days when they were young (and naive). Don't you remember what was being said in the 60s and 70s by the unhip square generation?

I'm not saying that things were better back in my youth than they are now (the 60s and 70s are slightly before my time).  My situation today is much better than it was back then.  But it is unwise to casually dismiss the lamentations of old timers, just as it would be to assume that those lamentations aren't at least somewhat fuzzy due to the mists of time.

It cannot be denied that people today have less freedom than they did before.  We know this, because there are far more laws in place now than ever before, and each law is a restriction on someone's freedom. 

That noose has been tightening for a long time.  Liberty is generally never regained except through violent revolution.  The cost of that is so high that nobody in their right mind desires it.  And so we are left with our liberty ever dwindling.  Enjoy it while you can.  And remember this conversation when you are telling your grandkids about all the things you were able to to that they will never be able to do.
 

Offline GlowingGhoul

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 234
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #565 on: April 12, 2016, 09:51:18 pm »
I'm a high rate taxpayer here in the UK and get fleeced every year by taxation.

So...where did you earn that money that you're being "fleeced" on? That's right - in the UK.

Try going to a third world country and see if you can earn that much money doing what you do.

LOL, obviously trolling....though I might be being generous. I suppose it is possible to that simple.
 

Offline kcbrown

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 388
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #566 on: April 12, 2016, 11:21:18 pm »
A law that passes after the fact doesn't change the fact that he has a hacked scope, it only prevents him from being able to hack a future scope.

You make the assumption that his already hacked scope is not a problem for him to possess.

This is true, but it seems a pretty reasonable assumption.  Most laws govern actions, not possession.  There are laws which govern possession, of course, but they are comparatively rare, and many of the ones that do exist have a grandfathering clause of some kind.


Quote
Quote
If he refrains from hacking his scope both now and in the future, then he's behaving as if the law already exists.

Tenuous logic IMO - but I understand the point.

As for trying to define a scenario where such a situation applies, there is no need.  It's the principle at the heart of this point and trying to build up an example will only result in a tangential argument about its merits.

Perhaps so, but the reason I raised the question is that, while I'm willing to grant the possibility that the principle you outlined is generally applicable, I'm not (yet) willing to grant that it is universally applicable.  In particular, it seems that there are certain conditions that must be present for the principle you outline to be true, and the situation that I mentioned as an example seems to not adhere to all of those conditions.

The conditions in particular are:

  • There must be a substitute action which yields the same end result that one is attempting to achieve (since, if there is no such substitute action, the risk/reward calculation probably favors taking the original action, with preserving the possibility of taking the action later being the only reason for refraining at that point).
  • The purpose of the result of the action is such that there is substantial value in being able to achieve it in the future as well as in the present (if this is not the case, then there is no reason to concern oneself with future illegality).  Which is to say, the outcome you're trying to achieve through your action has to be, if not a necessity, highly desirable (otherwise, why care that you might not be able to take the action later?).
  • There is sufficient expense in changing the action between the time the action is legal and the time it becomes illegal that there is substantial incentive to use alternative actions in the present (otherwise, why not just take the action now and, if it becomes illegal, take a different action at that point?).

The situation I outlined seemingly violates the third condition at a minimum, and probably also the second condition.

A single counterexample is sufficient to disprove the universal applicability of a principle.  That does not imply that the principle doesn't remain generally applicable -- it only means there are exceptions.   And since the situation I outlined is exactly the situation that we're actually discussing in this thread, it seems quite relevant.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 12:59:47 am by kcbrown »
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10466
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #567 on: April 13, 2016, 01:31:46 am »
Or more accurately, each generation believes that things were better in The Good Old Days when they were young (and naive). Don't you remember what was being said in the 60s and 70s by the unhip square generation?
I'm not saying that things were better back in my youth than they are now (the 60s and 70s are slightly before my time).  My situation today is much better than it was back then.  But it is unwise to casually dismiss the lamentations of old timers, just as it would be to assume that those lamentations aren't at least somewhat fuzzy due to the mists of time.

The point is that over time things become different. Some things become worse, some become better. Swings and roundabouts. "The past is a foreign place, they do things differently there": LP Hartley in "The Go-between"

Quote
It cannot be denied that people today have less freedom than they did before.  We know this, because there are far more laws in place now than ever before, and each law is a restriction on someone's freedom. 

That is a grossly blinkered view. Many law are to ensure people have freedom and are not oppressed by other people.

If you want to live in a place where there are no (enforced) laws, go and live in Somalia or Sierra Leone. You'll soon appreciate that laws give you freedom to do as you wish.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline kcbrown

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 388
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #568 on: April 13, 2016, 01:59:28 am »
It cannot be denied that people today have less freedom than they did before.  We know this, because there are far more laws in place now than ever before, and each law is a restriction on someone's freedom. 

That is a grossly blinkered view. Many law are to ensure people have freedom and are not oppressed by other people.

There are some laws like that, certainly.  Those are the most basic ones, and have existed for centuries.  They don't seem to be anywhere near the dominant form.  We long ago moved on from laws which do prevent harm to laws that might prevent harm.  And as societies get ever more risk averse, liberty will suffer at the hands of people who insist on achieving the ideal of living free of risks.


Quote
If you want to live in a place where there are no (enforced) laws, go and live in Somalia or Sierra Leone. You'll soon appreciate that laws give you freedom to do as you wish.

Lawlessness is not what I'm arguing for.  I realize that laws which forbid intentional acts of harm to others are a necessity (not to prevent the acts of harm -- people intent on harm will perform those acts regardless -- but to make it possible to remove people who insist on intentionally harming others from our midst so as to minimize their presence).  What we have goes well beyond that, however, extending even to laws that have as their one purpose the prevention of harm solely to the person who would otherwise take the forbidden action (or not take the required action).
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 02:18:43 am by kcbrown »
 

Offline kcbrown

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 388
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #569 on: April 13, 2016, 02:06:29 am »
The point is that over time things become different. Some things become worse, some become better. Swings and roundabouts. "The past is a foreign place, they do things differently there": LP Hartley in "The Go-between"

Sure.  But my view here is not with respect to things like technological capability, but rather with respect to liberty itself.

That, too, ebbs and flows, of course.  But the general direction is towards the extinguishment of liberty, until some violent event restores some of it.


There are many things that affect quality of life.  Liberty is but one of them, but it's a big one.  And it is perhaps the most relevant one for this particular discussion, seeing how we're talking about an action that I'm sure some people believe should be made illegal.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 02:21:23 am by kcbrown »
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10466
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #570 on: April 13, 2016, 02:25:45 am »
It cannot be denied that people today have less freedom than they did before.  We know this, because there are far more laws in place now than ever before, and each law is a restriction on someone's freedom. 

That is a grossly blinkered view. Many law are to ensure people have freedom and are not oppressed by other people.

There are some laws like that, certainly.  Those are the most basic ones, and have existed for centuries.  They don't seem to be anywhere near the dominant form.  We long ago moved on from laws which do prevent harm to laws that might prevent harm.  And as societies get ever more risk averse, liberty will suffer at the hands of people who insist on achieving the ideal of living free of risks.

And at that point you are incorrectly eliding many independent concerns.

Quote
Quote
If you want to live in a place where there are no (enforced) laws, go and live in Somalia or Sierra Leone. You'll soon appreciate that laws give you freedom to do as you wish.
Lawlessness is not what I'm arguing for. 

Oddly enough I didn't think you were arguing for that! But lawless anarchy is the natural consequence of your loose thinking and wishes. Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline kcbrown

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 388
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #571 on: April 13, 2016, 06:03:30 am »
There are some laws like that, certainly.  Those are the most basic ones, and have existed for centuries.  They don't seem to be anywhere near the dominant form.  We long ago moved on from laws which do prevent harm to laws that might prevent harm.  And as societies get ever more risk averse, liberty will suffer at the hands of people who insist on achieving the ideal of living free of risks.

And at that point you are incorrectly eliding many independent concerns.

Perhaps so.  But the existence of a concern does not automatically justify a restriction on liberty.  In fact, liberty is so difficult and expensive to recover once it's gone that I argue that a restriction should not be placed on liberty unless there literally is no other choice.

Of course, few value liberty in that way, because they're so used to not having it.  It gets worse with each generation.

You do realize, of course, that tyranny is the historical norm, right?


Quote
Quote
Lawlessness is not what I'm arguing for. 

Oddly enough I didn't think you were arguing for that! But lawless anarchy is the natural consequence of your loose thinking and wishes. Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.

Apologies in advance for the long-windedness.  I don't know how to properly address this with greater brevity.

Lawlessness is not the natural consequence of my wishes.  What I wish is for liberty of the variety of "your right to swing your fist ends at my face" or some analog thereof.  What I wish for is an at worst stable amount of liberty, where those liberties that are removed have been removed because there really was no other choice, and not merely because some amount of the population (and especially not because some people who regard themselves as leaders) wanted it.  It is not enough that there merely be "good reason" for a restriction on liberty.  "Good reason" is sufficient to justify all restrictions on liberty, most especially if it includes what might happen as opposed to what will happen.

In this view, the purpose of government is to ensure that liberty is maximized, and to act as an arbiter whenever liberties collide.  Clearly, liberty is reduced when some people are forcibly imposed upon by others, which means that the government's purpose is to ensure that such imposition is minimized.  And yes, that clearly must include the imposition by the government itself.

Most laws are not of that variety anymore.  It may be that at one time, that was the type of law that was prevalent.  Most certainly, laws of that type tend to be the oldest ones.  But people seem to have this desire to simultaneously do what they want while controlling others, and the latter is what usually wins because they control others by proxy, through the leadership that exists (whether elected, appointed, or through force), and generally don't realize or don't care that their pleas to control others are also being made by others who have the same desire to control them.  The end result is that everyone is forcibly restrained through the wishes of everyone else, and this goes on for centuries before some influential group of people (such as the founders of the United States) decides they've had enough of it, and manage to recover some of that lost liberty through force of arms.  And then the cycle repeats, because nobody has been bright enough (or, alternatively, influential enough) to design and implement a system with the necessary feedback mechanisms to prevent it.

That role of government I mentioned is quite clearly something of a contradiction, which is why people with the views I have generally tend to believe that government size and power must be kept to the absolute minimum necessary.  It's precisely because that role is something of a contradiction that failure to zealously keep the government in check (either through active management or through a systemic feedback mechanism) will inevitably result in the government acquiring ever more power and control, and the loss of liberty that is inescapably tied to it.  Whether it is government power or the desire of the population to control others that comes first doesn't matter.  That feeds back into itself, and the end result is that people in every generation end up telling their grandkids about the things they could do that are now forbidden.


What I wish for in the above is not achievable in a stable fashion with a typical government structure, even ones that initially respond to the wishes of the minority.  It can only be achieved through proper engineering of the government structure itself, so that it includes feedback mechanisms that ensure that even tyranny of the majority cannot prevail.

You realize, of course, that the liberty that is left after imposition of the union of all restrictions that people would impose upon others is something approaching the null set, right?
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 06:08:16 am by kcbrown »
 

Online tggzzz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10466
  • Country: gb
    • Having fun doing more, with less
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #572 on: April 13, 2016, 09:34:54 am »
You do realize, of course, that tyranny is the historical norm, right?

And you do realise that they way of curbing such tyranny is through laws, right?

Without laws monarchs and the aristocracy are free to physically plunder the little people. Nowadays, of course, plundering is done electronically by people like Bernie Madoff and some people named in the "Panama Papers". And many US local police departments don't exactly have a stellar reputation.

No, more laws are needed to prevent those bastards screwing the likes of thee and me. The bastards will, of course, defend their position using sleight of hand to deflect the little people's attention away from their activities onto something, anything else.

Quote


Quote
Quote
Lawlessness is not what I'm arguing for. 

Oddly enough I didn't think you were arguing for that! But lawless anarchy is the natural consequence of your loose thinking and wishes. Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.
...
You realize, of course, that the liberty that is left after imposition of the union of all restrictions that people would impose upon others is something approaching the null set, right?

Your arguments amount to wanting to ignore laws you don't like. If that is acceptable, then it is also acceptable for everybody else to do the same. And at that point the restrictions approach the null set, you are living in hell on earth. See various (failed) countries around the world for evidence.
There are lies, damned lies, statistics - and ADC/DAC specs.
Glider pilot's aphorism: "there is no substitute for span". Retort: "There is a substitute: skill+imagination. But you can buy span".
Having fun doing more, with less
 

Offline kcbrown

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 388
  • Country: us
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #573 on: April 13, 2016, 05:36:46 pm »
You do realize, of course, that tyranny is the historical norm, right?

And you do realise that they way of curbing such tyranny is through laws, right?

No, the way of curbing such tyranny is through systems of government that do not allow government actors to gather power.  Law is imposed by tyrants and just systems of government alike.  It is a tool that can serve to protect or to enslave.


Quote
Without laws monarchs and the aristocracy are free to physically plunder the little people.

This doesn't follow.  Monarchs are not subject to the law except voluntarily, because monarchs make the law (generally.  There have been systems where the law was made by a parliamentary body, and the monarch was symbolic only, but those are irrelevant to this discussion).  Name one monarch who was removed because he violated the law.

The aristocracy follow the law only because it is imposed upon them by the monarch. 


Quote
Nowadays, of course, plundering is done electronically by people like Bernie Madoff and some people named in the "Panama Papers". And many US local police departments don't exactly have a stellar reputation.

No, more laws are needed to prevent those bastards screwing the likes of thee and me.

Really?  So you think the people in question are not already violating the law?


Quote
The bastards will, of course, defend their position using sleight of hand to deflect the little people's attention away from their activities onto something, anything else.

Most certainly.


Quote
Quote
You realize, of course, that the liberty that is left after imposition of the union of all restrictions that people would impose upon others is something approaching the null set, right?

Your arguments amount to wanting to ignore laws you don't like.

No.  My arguments amount to advocacy for a reduction in the burden of law to that which is minimally necessary, precisely because laws are impositions upon liberty.


Quote
If that is acceptable, then it is also acceptable for everybody else to do the same. And at that point the restrictions approach the null set, you are living in hell on earth. See various (failed) countries around the world for evidence.

Again, I'm not arguing for lawlessness.  A minimum set of laws is necessary to ensure that liberty is retained by the people, that it is not removed through coercion by other people, and so that people who intentionally harm others are removed from our midst.

But we have gone well beyond that.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 05:39:21 pm by kcbrown »
 

Offline Fungus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 10337
  • Country: 00
Re: Reasons for hacking DSOs
« Reply #574 on: April 13, 2016, 06:05:04 pm »
Quote
If that is acceptable, then it is also acceptable for everybody else to do the same. And at that point the restrictions approach the null set, you are living in hell on earth. See various (failed) countries around the world for evidence.

Again, I'm not arguing for lawlessness.  A minimum set of laws is necessary to ensure that liberty is retained by the people, that it is not removed through coercion by other people, and so that people who intentionally harm others are removed from our midst.

So ... there should be no laws against public drunkenness, dangerous driving, gambling, etc. Building codes are a waste of time, so are environmental laws. See a tree? Cut it down. Nobody was harmed. Who cares if I go out and dump my trash in the country? Nobody lives there. When I go out I should be able to shoot all the animals, too. I enjoy doing that. So what if my car is old and needs new tires? It gets me where I'm going. I always drive carefully so why do I need car insurance?

 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf