SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the you-can-never-have-too-many-offsite-backups-eh dept.
The Internet Archive plans to create a backup of its data in Canada in response to the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States:
The Internet Archive, a nonprofit that saves copies of old web pages, is creating a backup of its database in Canada, in response to the election of Donald Trump. "On November 9th in America, we woke up to a new administration promising radical change," the organization wrote in a blogpost explaining the move. "It was a firm reminder that institutions like ours, built for the long-term, need to design for change."
[...] The move will cost millions, according to the Internet Archive, which is soliciting donations. In their post, the Internet Archive justified its decision to backup its data in Canada, claiming that Trump could threaten an open internet. "For us, it means keeping our cultural materials safe, private and perpetually accessible. It means preparing for a Web that may face greater restrictions."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @03:47PM
Actually, a good portion of libertarians support the idea of dissolving the very notion corporatehood since it it is essentially the state conferring a right to a group that the individual doesn't have.
Have to admit that's a bit more principled than bearing the evils of Apple so long as you can tax the to fund your utopia.
And I find it odd that that a group as marginal as libertarians (as the left was found of pointing out... until they lost complete control of the government) could be that major of a force for Trump, especially since totals for the libertarian party have never been higher.
Your tears are delicious and your parties will die.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-1SkYN5ZG0 [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:00PM
I've got my own objections to the ideals of libertarianism, that are a lot more nuanced than this debate will probably allow for. Suffice it to say, the eye rolling thing is definetly directed at the pseudolibertarians who can't imagine a difference between fundamental human rights that allow us all to live the lives we want to live and free market economics that assume the best possible results for everyone will always be fostered by less government interference in everything.
That is to say, an asshole who opposes people saying mean things about him getting elected is probably going to have zero effect on my conclusion that claims of treating an illness ought to have some kind of objective third party review that keeps people from being defrauded or injured. The debate I'd have with a sincere, radical libertarian would probably require a lot more lengthy discussions about the nature of knowledge and the failings of the efficient market hypothesis, the definition of ethics, the role of government, and countless other basic premises of my beliefs than dismissing a trite shithead who thinks "You think X, YOU MUST ALSO THINK Y, HA!" is valid reasoning(I mean it can be if Y absolutely logically follows from X, but you know).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:09PM
Your backtracking has been noted, but the issue remains: given the possibility that a person like Trump can and has been elected, is it better that he have the full force of government as the left imagines it, or limited government?
Or moving to Canada. Whatever. It's not like consistency has been the left's strong suit.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:19PM
Considering that some of the most dangerous other policies he's going to be taking on are the dismantling of the useful parts of the government and the reducing the tax burden in exactly the way you'd call "shrinking" I find it a starkly irrelevant question.
Do I wish our military were less gigantic and police forces less militarized? Yes. Do I think the people advocating "shrinking government" have ever even briefly considered doing that? No. So fuck off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @04:32PM
<sarcasm>Yes, the Libertarian Party has long been associated with wars abroad and full arming the police with personal nuclear devices to combat crime.</sarcasm>
(Score: 2, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @05:02PM
Alright, fine. We'll have this stupid debate. Even though the point wasn't libertarianism, but the people who think that there's a magic oversimplified answer to the problem of tyranny.
A nice solid majority of people using your magic words of "small government" do. Period. The end. The thing I said? The words I used? Absolutely true.
The slight change you made? Arguable either way. Reason magazine, what I think of of as the face of libertarian ideology, wasn't [reason.com] exactly [reason.com] anti-war [reason.com] in 2002.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:02PM
Even though the point wasn't libertarianism
Jesus, Christ, pseudolibertarians
Man, you can't even stay coherent in a single thread.
Three articles in the aftermath of 9/11 is all you got?
One questions whether the left would be as anti-war if there was a democrat elected (which we all know the answer to that after Obama was elected), one questions how bad human rights violations have to get before the idea of military intervention is justified (Was it justified to go to war against Germany even though they never attacked the US directly), and the other postulating justifications for attack, the author even taking part in a debate concerning (yeah, Reason is waving that pro-war flag)
http://reason.com/archives/2003/01/01/should-we-invade-iraq/#comment [reason.com]
Pretty disingenuous to represent that as pro-war given the circumstances.
Here's a few other bits from the era you conveniently ignored
http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/01/baghdad-bait-and-switch [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/07/us-out-of-saudi-arabia [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/30/the-other-of-all-battles [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2002/09/11/were-not-winning-the-war-on-te/1 [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2002/10/30/avoid-tenuous-reasoning [reason.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2002/12/30/saddams-war-and-ours [reason.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2003/01/16/its-alright-ma-were-only-bleed [reason.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2003/01/31/if-war-doesnt-work-we-may-have [reason.com]
http://reason.com/blog/2003/02/13/time-for-war-right [reason.com]
http://reason.com/archives/2003/03/17/liberators-or-invaders [reason.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:09PM
You know how I said "arguable either way?" That wasn't a "I refuse to acknowledge anti-war libertarians exist." That was a "You're being highly selective to create a worldview where you're always right." You seem intent on misunderstanding me.
So... I'll let you go. You defeated what imaginary me said. Good job, kid. That man, and his straw is all nicely scattered ripped to shreds.
The argument I never made, laid to rest with surgical precision. The careful word choice to exclude exactly what you want excluded, safely ignored. Your victory is well earned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:37PM
Uh-huh. More backpedaling.
Debating an issue isn't exactly condoning, and is pretty far removed from "arguable either way" considering only ONE of the articles you cite actually made the case for war with Iraq specifically (and was in fact part of a debate that also argued against going to war).
Here's selections from the Libertarian platform in 2002 in case you were unclear:
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and the defense -- against attack from abroad -- of the lives, liberty, and property of the American people on American soil. Provision of such defense must respect the individual rights of people everywhere.
The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration.
We recognize that foreign governments might violate the rights of Americans traveling, living, or owning property abroad, just as those governments violate the rights of their own citizens. We condemn all such violations, whether the victims are U.S. citizens or not.
Any effort, however, to extend the protection of the United States government to U.S. citizens when they or their property fall within the jurisdiction of a foreign government involves potential military intervention. We therefore call upon the United States government to adhere rigidly to the principle that all U.S. citizens travel, live, and own property abroad at their own risk. In particular, we oppose -- as unjust tax-supported subsidy -- any protection of the foreign investments of U.S. citizens or businesses.
We support withdrawal of the United States government from, and an end to its financial support for, the United Nations. Specifically, we oppose any U.S. policy designating the United Nations as policeman of the world, committing U.S. troops to wars at the discretion of the U.N., or placing U.S. troops under U.N. command. We oppose U.S. government participation in any world or international government. We oppose any treaty under which individual rights would be violated.
We call for the reform of the Presidential War Powers Act to end the President's power to initiate military action, and for the abrogation of all Presidential declarations of "states of emergency." There must be no further secret commitments and unilateral acts of military intervention by the Executive Branch.
We favor a Constitutional amendment limiting the presidential role as Commander-in-Chief to its original meaning, namely that of the head of the armed forces in wartime. The Commander-in-Chief role, correctly understood, confers no additional authority on the President.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ikanreed on Wednesday November 30 2016, @06:52PM
No, you won. You utterly got me on all those things I specifically set out not to say, and intentionally chose words to indicate I was not saying.
Yep. You're not a fuckwad trying to "win" a dispute that didn't really exist except in your mind. I'm totally "backpeddling" by pointing out what I actually said and meant.
Congratulations hero. You won! Because that's clearly what matters here! Beating someone in an argument, not having a meaningful point to make.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:28AM
He's almost right about the spelling of "back-pedaling"!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 01 2016, @10:51AM
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/backpedaling [thefreedictionary.com]