GDPR is a good example of another law which is potentially dangerous. However, I do see that it's hard to comply with both, but I don't see how they interact with other.
> P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :)
Why?
The copyright law requires you to store metadata about the user who publish content forever while GDPR forbids you to do so.
> Why?
I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian.
Then GDPR does not forbid you to do so, Article 6.1 c)
> 1. Processing shall be lawful only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies:
> [...]
> c) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject;
GDPR allows you to do so, if there is a requirement. Complying with another law is certainly a reasonable requirement. That's also why you're "allowed" to keep your invoices for ten years, because you're "required" to do so.
> I would say most of HN leans left not libertarian.
This might be true, might be false. A good discussion should incorporate different views. And back to topic: I firmly believe this law to be dangerous by itself and not because there is a (more or less) applicable quote by a controversial writer.
True. Your quote from Ayn Rand was actually a reaction from 2 characters discussing how one law make it not possible to respect another. GDPR does make it more complex, and one can argue copyright is not a subject that should infringe privacy. It’s up to debate. Debate that US based startups won’t need to have if they don’t want to.
And it was more a Kudos to quoting Ayn Rand and an upvote!
There are certainly some ideas of merit but supporting politicians that push it seems to inevitably involve benefiting the right who is pushing for many agendas that will personally damage me and mine so I cannot in good conscience do so.
And you seem to be misunderstanding. Left-wing libertarians do not have the same set of ideas as the right-wing ones, you seem to think that there is "libertarianism" and that I am saying that some on the left also stand for those ideas that those on the right, (the only real area of agreement is an anti-war stance).
Left libertarianism is mostly about personal freedom, as opposed to authoritarianism, while still being in favor of social programs, oppose privatization of public services etc. You should read up on it.
See also [1].
"In the United States, the word "libertarian" has become associated with right-libertarianism after Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess reached out to the New Left in the 1960s.[7] However, until then political usage of the word was associated exclusively with anti-capitalism and in most parts of the world such an association still predominates."
it means about as much as "scripting language" or "strongly typed"
Also, now I want to write a framework called "libtarianism" that includes a pseudo rand generator.
I would've thought so too, until I looked at discussions about unions on here.
Look at all the mentions of "nazi", "fascist" and "hate-speech" in this thread. You can tell when a place leans left because this is a common left-wing conspiracy theory - that the world is full of fascists/nazis, but they're all trying to hide it. They call it 'cryptofascism'.
You clearly know nothing about Rand's philosophy. You would do yourself a favor to correct that error. Even if you ultimately disagree with her, she has very many intelligent things to say and, if you give her a chance, she will challenge many of your preconceptions about morality, ethics, and their postcursors of economics and politics, and raise the level of your discourse significantly.
Of course it's fine for you to dismiss their entire point with derailment even further into meta-arguments because, after all, they started it /s
>Social shaming also isn’t an argument. It’s a demand for listeners to place someone outside the boundary of people who deserve to be heard; to classify them as so repugnant that arguing with them is only dignifying them. If it works, supporting one side of an argument imposes so much reputational cost that only a few weirdos dare to do it, it sinks outside the Overton Window, and the other side wins by default.
> Nobody expects this to convince anyone... People who use this strategy know exactly what they’re doing and are often quite successful. The goal is not to convince their opponents, or even to hurt their opponent’s feelings, but to demonstrate social norms to bystanders.
[1]: http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/08/varieties-of-argumentat...
(And yes, the majority view is that Rand is not worthy of any special attention as either a philosopher, political theorist, economist or author. Not more worthy than any other random member of those groups of people.)
...and natural and efficient. ie Not wrong or right. I'm not sure where you get your ideas from.
Lots of things we consider "natural", we also pride ourselves on the ability to choose not to give in to.
Vice versa, there could be things that are "not natural" which--oh wait, no there aren't. To be "natural" is one of those really stretchy concepts that can include anything if you argue it the right way back.
For instance, this discussion is about a copyright bill. Is that natural? Is copyright natural? Is economics? Politics? Rationality?
We also have a word for such terms in an debate: inconsequential.
Not to speak of the idea that anything that is "efficient" must be amoral. In my opinion exactly the opposite is true. Most things which are "efficient" read pretty damn strong on my right/wrong moral compass--either I think they're pretty cool, or I think they're pretty terrible. There's really very few efficient things that make me feel "yeaaaahhh, it's efficient sure, but meh. you do you".
Things that are efficient you need to consider extra carefully exactly because the efficiency can swing the needle on the moral compass rather dramatically!
In your selflessness, perhaps you'll consider espousing my view instead of yours? In return, I promise to dutifully, comprehensively, and correctly represent your view, as you can see I've done here now.
She was born to wealth she didn't earn and saw the confiscation of such when the communists took over Russia.
She forever thereafter decried all taxation for the common good not seeing a substantive distinction between the communists taking all her families shit and a democratically elected government taxing to pay for hospitals and roads.
Her ideal man was a criminal to kidnapped a little girl, extorted her father for money, then took the money and ditched the little girls dismembered body and took the money and ran because he refused to live by societies rules.
She gushed over him before dying dependent upon the social security she didn't want anyone else to have.
Both use cherry-picking and unfalsifiable approaches to history and sociology to construct a narrative in which there are two classes: the noble, heroic people who produce all the value; and the awful, leeching parasites who attempt to co-opt that value for their own use.
The differences between them are rooted entirely in which class each views as noble and value-producing versus which is parasitical.
Problem solved. Shall we talk about the copyright bill, now? :)
P.S.: Taking some risks quoting Ayn Rand on HN. :)