I take management blaming here to mean that this is a systemic problem that can can only be solved at an organisational level (rather than blaming a caste within that org).
This whole light thing seems a bit out of proportion, like being paranoid of people wearing shades in case they are eyeing you up (which is more than half the reason anyone wears them in the first place).
How hard can it be to just stick them in some aviators? Plenty of people would be after a pair of those. You could be half geek and half Lou Reed circa Street Hassle.
I think there's maybe a distinction to be drawn between transactions between individuals, which could be made in virtual doughnuts if both parties agreed, and a currency used in trade.
As far as I can see, btc is now two things - a protocol which could be used as technical implementation for any number of things, and also implementation of a currency which isn't backed by any concrete asset or entity (other than end users). For the currency, the main value and insurance against risk seems to be in the brand (i.e. what makes a bitcoin worth more than a foocoin).
But it's trivial for a government to kill commercial use of btc as an alternate currency within their jurisdiction. It's not legal tender and therefore can be banned for use in transactions by registered companies - that can be easily enforced by tax authorities and police. It's also quite justifiable on the basis of collecting taxes, protecting the economy generally, and protecting citizens from being caught with paper that isn't backed by law or national banks. Black markets are by definition illegal - the only question is to what extent they are tolerated and that is largely a question of their size and impact on the formal economy.
It may not be for all but as far as I'm aware most productive creative people are rigorous in their schedules. For example, I've read a number of artists and writers talking about the importance of developing the habit of creating output every day regardless of quality.
There's no such thing as an unbiased report and you are being disingenuous here as the article is clearly a personal account. As such, it obviously wouldn't and shouldn't aim to be a broad survey on the pros and cons of the utility and ethics of various approaches. On the contrary, the aim is clearly to add new first-hand information to the public debate, which has hitherto been deliberately biased by extensive and coordinated efforts to repress that info.
I think you intended this as a reductio ad absurdum but a lot of people take this view, quite possibly the majority of Europeans and Buddhists for example.
A related point is that we used to have conscription and it was much harder to get elected if you didn't have a good record of service. This meant that leaders thought much harder about going to war and there was a genuine political cost in that the masses had a better grasp on the implications.
The usual argument is that such people 'occur naturally' and the army at least directs their activities outwards (it forms the distinction between grunt and officer class in the forces). I don't agree with the premise but it's a nature vs nurture question.
In my experience the vast majority of people join the military for job opportunities and benefits. I know more military members than average I would say. My husband and many of my friends being active duty, my father, grandfather, some friends, and the majority of my uncles being vets.
The military doesn’t commit suicide at a significantly higher rate than the general population.
I don't buy the justification. We can choose not to kill people. We can choose to spend our time educating people, instead. Those who join the military, subjugate themselves to others, and stop making choices. This is a contagious disease, not some 'normality' about human existence...
Your killer is a straw man - someone who seeks to only kill more, to become the most murderous possible person (s)he can, a "Hannibal Lector" of vengeance w/o the epicurean instinct. Then you've further demonized him/her. This is paranoid idealization. But some notes:
fit2rule: "when you are in the business of killing, murdering, maiming other human beings, you're no longer really part of society"
Soldiering sometimes requires killing. So soldiers are no longer part of society? What about the executive branch of our government (which issues the orders to soldiers)?
fit2rule: "we in the 'normal' society don't have a clue what those in the 'murdering business society' really think about us"..."This is a contagious disease, not some 'normality' about human existence..."
Murderous thoughts run through the minds of people everyday. They don't usually act on them but they are there. It's part of our nature: we've always done it. Here's a famous quote:
"I am a man: I hold that nothing human is alien to me."
- Terence
For a history of killing and how the responsibility has shifted from the individual to the government:
"Why They Kill: The Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist" by Richard Rhodes.
fit2rule: "the 'official killers' really don't care about human life"
Categorical nonsense. People love their spouses, children, family and friends. Soldiers are people as are Presidents. Even psychopaths love and protect their children (usually). All will protect the ones they love from those who they fear will cause harm.
fit2rule: "if you get up in the morning with the intention of taking a human life, if ordered to do so, then you no longer belong to the human race." ..."Anyone who claims to have the right to kill others - for any reason whatsoever - should be treated by greater society as anti-human"... "anyone whose job it is to murder, maim, kill - officially, with sanction from the state - and who chooses to do this as a career is a very, very sick individual."
You're out on a limb here- this is simply a rhetorical blast. I fail to see how being a killer makes you inhuman. I don't know how you would treat someone as "anti-human" - possibly kill them?!8-\
Look around you. What is the rarest substance in all the universe? Life. Why should we remove it from the face of the Earth, if we haven't yet engaged it in conversation?
Every villager killed is a missed opportunity to educate, enlighten, and liberate - both parties.
The point is this: there isn't enough evidence to support killing, and more than sufficient evidence to support not killing. Yet, it still happens - and the reason why is, the people have not woken up to the fact that they are responsible for the actions of their State, and that they do deserve whatever comes to them when they let their State murder, maim, kill.
fit2rule:" What is the rarest substance in all the universe? Life. "
I would say "Intelligence." There's an abundance of life on Earth but not much intelligence.
fit2rule: "The point is this: there isn't enough evidence to support killing..."
There often is. If someone has wantonly killed before, (s)he'll do it again. One can allow them to continue or stop the activity. I have little to no mercy for someone intent on homicide. Such people are not usually willing to sit down and talk their problems through.
fit2rule: "...the people have not woken up to the fact that they are responsible for the actions of their State, and that they do deserve whatever comes to them when they let their State murder, maim, kill."
Until now I didn't realize that you were laying out a justification for terrorists, jihadis et al to strike against nation-states. Thank you for that clarification.
Violence is a part of nature, and humans are evolved to participate in it like all animals. It only becomes evil in the context of human values, where I agree there is no reason for people to be killing each other. However the ability and taste for killing is a genetic trait that has been valuable for some individuals over time, so don't fool yourself that some people aren't genetically primed to be killers.
Humans can choose to be non-violent. This is what makes us human.
The moment you remove that choice - either personally or socially - you become an animal, again.
Genetic traits? Well, we've overcome them before, with our free will - we'll do it again. We had lots of genetic traits that predetermined our inability to live on the Moon - but we soon decided that wasn't going to get in our way. Why can't we do the same thing with War?
Because viewpoints such as yours are contagious diseases which fester in the mind of Mankind, and very few are ever prepared to cure themselves of it.
> viewpoints such as yours are contagious diseases
Way to take an even-handed comment like mine stating facts with minimal value judgements and attempt to turn it into fuel for your idealogical steamroller. The only problem is you didn't really read and comprehend what I said.
The problem is, you don't realize what you are saying can be used by those who wish to murder to continue to do so. Yes, your point of view, since it is used tirelessly as a justification, is responsible for continued crimes against humanity.
