Slashdot Mirror

yea, actually that's exactly what the local constitution here in hell says too "everybody has the RIGHT to work" i always read that as they can't deny you a job actually but it seems it gets tranlated as everybody has the DUTY to pay for the five governments and their administrations pension plans (while they accidentally borrowed the money from the funds of the working class heroes ... and forgot to put them back) https://c4ss.org/content/46748

As I wrote here about the USA: http://www.pdfernhout.net/basi... "Right now, a profit driven health care system has sized emergency rooms for average needs, and those emergency rooms are often full. With a basic income and more money going on a systematic basis to the health care system, the health care system emergency rooms will no longer be overrun with people there for reasons they could see a doctor for. So, emergency care would be better for millionaires. Millionaires with heart attacks won't be as likely to end up being diverted to far away hospitals because the local hospital emergency room is full. Likewise, emergency rooms might, with more money going to medicine, become sized for national emergencies, not personal emergencies, so they might become vast empty places, with physicians and other health care staff keeping their skills sharp always running simulations, learning more medical information, and/or doing basic medical research, with these people always ready for a pandemic or natural disaster or industrial accident which they had the resources in reserve to deal with. So, millionaires who got sick or injured in a disaster could be sure there was the facilities and expertise nearby to help them, even if most of the rest of the population needed help too at the same time too. In that way, some of this basic income could be funded by money that might otherwise go to the Defense department, because what is better civil defense then investing in a health care system able to to handle national disasters? So, any millionaires who are doctors (many are) would benefit by this plan, because their lives as doctors will become happier and less stressful, both with less paperwork and with more resources."

We should also reduce the monopoly power of the AMA and related organizations that creates an artificial scarcity of physicians in the USA using quotas and high credentialing prices. See for example:
http://c4ss.org/wp-content/upl...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

We should also be systematically rethinking our technical infrastructure to be more resilient rather than depend on long supply lines that need to be "defended" by troops in foreign countries, and also rethinking our security strategy to be more mutual rather than unilateral.
http://www.pdfernhout.net/reco...
"Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere? ... We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working"). ... This all suggests that our biggest danger as as society is in putting the *tools* (some being useful as weapons) of a post-scarcity civilization into the hands of scarcity-preoccupied minds. (Especially ones following outdated military dogmas like unilateral security instead of mutual security.) As Albert

I'm surprised to see all of the anti-libertarian sentiment in the comments above. I haven't seen this much anger at straw-man libertarian views outside of Salon. At least based on people's comments about libertarians, you'd think that libertarianism were some unified Kochtopus front ready to take away everything they hold dear, rather than a fairly divided set of political views and philosophies that share a few bits of common ground. I guess the angry folks don't read the same people I do.

Yet another reason to attend: http://c4ss.org/stateless-university

Unfortunately, when we rule out all the scumbags and lowlifes, we are left with nobody worth voting for. Oh well <flips coun>

(insert half-assed, thinly-disguised pro-anarchy, anti-government litany by a random solipsistic survivalist kook here)

Why settle for that, when you can have a whole-assed, non-disguised pro-anarchy litany by highly intelligent, reasonable, and well-educated people who would prefer to engage with society and improve it rather than withdraw and hope for disaster? Or is that not strawmannish enough?

Politics as a Dead End:
Part One, Part Two

Unfortunately, when we rule out all the scumbags and lowlifes, we are left with nobody worth voting for. Oh well <flips coun>

(insert half-assed, thinly-disguised pro-anarchy, anti-government litany by a random solipsistic survivalist kook here)

Why settle for that, when you can have a whole-assed, non-disguised pro-anarchy litany by highly intelligent, reasonable, and well-educated people who would prefer to engage with society and improve it rather than withdraw and hope for disaster? Or is that not strawmannish enough?

Politics as a Dead End:
Part One, Part Two

i think this pdf touches on the topic:
http://c4ss.org/content/888

Not by any consistent or sane definition of the term.

Like all political labels the term is abused (as is the term free market - most 'free market' advocates don't advocate anything close to it).

The most commonly accepted definition of libertarianism is political thought founded upon the Non Aggression Principle - that is, it is immoral to initiate aggression against another.

On those grounds, consistent libertarian thought opposes patents and copyright as arbitrarily enforced by an aggressive state. Free software on the other hand is a great example of decentralised, voluntary organisation - the very essence of any libertarian society.

That's not to say that there could not be software licenses - that's possible, but they'd probably be unenforceable.

For some more consistent libertarians who embrace open source/free software and apply it in their own work, try c4ss.org.