Slashdot Mirror

CATO was once upon a time a libertarian think-tank. Now they are to a very large degree responsible for the reprehensible right-siding of American libertarianism.

Check out their RSS commentary feed. Not one of the ten is about civil liberty. No true libertarian think-tank would simply ignore the recent news regarding warrantless spying on US citizens in their commentary.

CATO posted a incredibly acquiescent acceptance of the 2002 FBI guidelines allowing their agents to monitor Internet sites, libraries, and religious institutions without first showing cause. The author is Roger Pilon, CATO's vice president for legal affairs, a reagancomic, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution".

CATO has shown itself to be afflicted with the same moral relativism as contemporary conservatism, when they unfurled their banner onstage behind the hand-wringing homophobe, and probably most anally retentive US Senator, Rickey Santorum. They haven fallen far from the Libertarian grace that they once basked in. Three of CATO's best foreign policy analysts have departed in the recent past.

Leon Hader is the earliest think-tank criticizer of Neoconservatism I am aware of:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 125 December 29, 1989
• "Creating a U.S Policy of Constructive Disengagement in the Middle East"
• by Leon T. Hadar

Charles Pena was always anti-imperialist, whether it emerged from liberals or conservatives:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 502: December 15, 2003
• "Iraq: The Wrong War"
• by Charles V. Peña

Ivan Eland was prescient as a CATO old schooler:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 306 May 5, 1998
• "Protecting the Homeland: The Best Defense Is to Give No Offense"
• by Ivan Eland
• --*--
• Cato Foreign Policy Briefing No. 50 December 17, 1998
• "Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?"
• by Ivan Eland

Another anti-foreign interventionist, albeit second stringer, Doug Bandow, was recently righteously terminated from CATO, for his less than ethical moonlighting. Now there are just two remaining, Ted Galen Carpenter, and Christopher Preble.

CATO has sold their birthright for a fancy new house within the beltway. In this era of an executive administration, so arrogant, ignorant and incompetent, that the WTC destruction occurred on their watch, which has furthered dishonored itself by callously ignoring Constitutional restrictions, CATO has instead focused upon property rights, social security reform, and slandering the Federal Judiciary, while barely mentioning Republican hypocrisy inherent in the rampant deficit spending, and the increase of governmental invasion of personal liberty in the name of religion.

CATO was once upon a time a libertarian think-tank. Now they are to a very large degree responsible for the reprehensible right-siding of American libertarianism.

Check out their RSS commentary feed. Not one of the ten is about civil liberty. No true libertarian think-tank would simply ignore the recent news regarding warrantless spying on US citizens in their commentary.

CATO posted a incredibly acquiescent acceptance of the 2002 FBI guidelines allowing their agents to monitor Internet sites, libraries, and religious institutions without first showing cause. The author is Roger Pilon, CATO's vice president for legal affairs, a reagancomic, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution".

CATO has shown itself to be afflicted with the same moral relativism as contemporary conservatism, when they unfurled their banner onstage behind the hand-wringing homophobe, and probably most anally retentive US Senator, Rickey Santorum. They haven fallen far from the Libertarian grace that they once basked in. Three of CATO's best foreign policy analysts have departed in the recent past.

Leon Hader is the earliest think-tank criticizer of Neoconservatism I am aware of:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 125 December 29, 1989
• "Creating a U.S Policy of Constructive Disengagement in the Middle East"
• by Leon T. Hadar

Charles Pena was always anti-imperialist, whether it emerged from liberals or conservatives:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 502: December 15, 2003
• "Iraq: The Wrong War"
• by Charles V. Peña

Ivan Eland was prescient as a CATO old schooler:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 306 May 5, 1998
• "Protecting the Homeland: The Best Defense Is to Give No Offense"
• by Ivan Eland
• --*--
• Cato Foreign Policy Briefing No. 50 December 17, 1998
• "Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?"
• by Ivan Eland

Another anti-foreign interventionist, albeit second stringer, Doug Bandow, was recently righteously terminated from CATO, for his less than ethical moonlighting. Now there are just two remaining, Ted Galen Carpenter, and Christopher Preble.

CATO has sold their birthright for a fancy new house within the beltway. In this era of an executive administration, so arrogant, ignorant and incompetent, that the WTC destruction occurred on their watch, which has furthered dishonored itself by callously ignoring Constitutional restrictions, CATO has instead focused upon property rights, social security reform, and slandering the Federal Judiciary, while barely mentioning Republican hypocrisy inherent in the rampant deficit spending, and the increase of governmental invasion of personal liberty in the name of religion.

CATO was once upon a time a libertarian think-tank. Now they are to a very large degree responsible for the reprehensible right-siding of American libertarianism.

Check out their RSS commentary feed. Not one of the ten is about civil liberty. No true libertarian think-tank would simply ignore the recent news regarding warrantless spying on US citizens in their commentary.

CATO posted a incredibly acquiescent acceptance of the 2002 FBI guidelines allowing their agents to monitor Internet sites, libraries, and religious institutions without first showing cause. The author is Roger Pilon, CATO's vice president for legal affairs, a reagancomic, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution".

CATO has shown itself to be afflicted with the same moral relativism as contemporary conservatism, when they unfurled their banner onstage behind the hand-wringing homophobe, and probably most anally retentive US Senator, Rickey Santorum. They haven fallen far from the Libertarian grace that they once basked in. Three of CATO's best foreign policy analysts have departed in the recent past.

Leon Hader is the earliest think-tank criticizer of Neoconservatism I am aware of:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 125 December 29, 1989
• "Creating a U.S Policy of Constructive Disengagement in the Middle East"
• by Leon T. Hadar

Charles Pena was always anti-imperialist, whether it emerged from liberals or conservatives:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 502: December 15, 2003
• "Iraq: The Wrong War"
• by Charles V. Peña

Ivan Eland was prescient as a CATO old schooler:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 306 May 5, 1998
• "Protecting the Homeland: The Best Defense Is to Give No Offense"
• by Ivan Eland
• --*--
• Cato Foreign Policy Briefing No. 50 December 17, 1998
• "Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?"
• by Ivan Eland

Another anti-foreign interventionist, albeit second stringer, Doug Bandow, was recently righteously terminated from CATO, for his less than ethical moonlighting. Now there are just two remaining, Ted Galen Carpenter, and Christopher Preble.

CATO has sold their birthright for a fancy new house within the beltway. In this era of an executive administration, so arrogant, ignorant and incompetent, that the WTC destruction occurred on their watch, which has furthered dishonored itself by callously ignoring Constitutional restrictions, CATO has instead focused upon property rights, social security reform, and slandering the Federal Judiciary, while barely mentioning Republican hypocrisy inherent in the rampant deficit spending, and the increase of governmental invasion of personal liberty in the name of religion.

CATO was once upon a time a libertarian think-tank. Now they are to a very large degree responsible for the reprehensible right-siding of American libertarianism.

Check out their RSS commentary feed. Not one of the ten is about civil liberty. No true libertarian think-tank would simply ignore the recent news regarding warrantless spying on US citizens in their commentary.

CATO posted a incredibly acquiescent acceptance of the 2002 FBI guidelines allowing their agents to monitor Internet sites, libraries, and religious institutions without first showing cause. The author is Roger Pilon, CATO's vice president for legal affairs, a reagancomic, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution".

CATO has shown itself to be afflicted with the same moral relativism as contemporary conservatism, when they unfurled their banner onstage behind the hand-wringing homophobe, and probably most anally retentive US Senator, Rickey Santorum. They haven fallen far from the Libertarian grace that they once basked in. Three of CATO's best foreign policy analysts have departed in the recent past.

Leon Hader is the earliest think-tank criticizer of Neoconservatism I am aware of:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 125 December 29, 1989
• "Creating a U.S Policy of Constructive Disengagement in the Middle East"
• by Leon T. Hadar

Charles Pena was always anti-imperialist, whether it emerged from liberals or conservatives:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 502: December 15, 2003
• "Iraq: The Wrong War"
• by Charles V. Peña

Ivan Eland was prescient as a CATO old schooler:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 306 May 5, 1998
• "Protecting the Homeland: The Best Defense Is to Give No Offense"
• by Ivan Eland
• --*--
• Cato Foreign Policy Briefing No. 50 December 17, 1998
• "Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?"
• by Ivan Eland

Another anti-foreign interventionist, albeit second stringer, Doug Bandow, was recently righteously terminated from CATO, for his less than ethical moonlighting. Now there are just two remaining, Ted Galen Carpenter, and Christopher Preble.

CATO has sold their birthright for a fancy new house within the beltway. In this era of an executive administration, so arrogant, ignorant and incompetent, that the WTC destruction occurred on their watch, which has furthered dishonored itself by callously ignoring Constitutional restrictions, CATO has instead focused upon property rights, social security reform, and slandering the Federal Judiciary, while barely mentioning Republican hypocrisy inherent in the rampant deficit spending, and the increase of governmental invasion of personal liberty in the name of religion.

CATO was once upon a time a libertarian think-tank. Now they are to a very large degree responsible for the reprehensible right-siding of American libertarianism.

Check out their RSS commentary feed. Not one of the ten is about civil liberty. No true libertarian think-tank would simply ignore the recent news regarding warrantless spying on US citizens in their commentary.

CATO posted a incredibly acquiescent acceptance of the 2002 FBI guidelines allowing their agents to monitor Internet sites, libraries, and religious institutions without first showing cause. The author is Roger Pilon, CATO's vice president for legal affairs, a reagancomic, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution".

CATO has shown itself to be afflicted with the same moral relativism as contemporary conservatism, when they unfurled their banner onstage behind the hand-wringing homophobe, and probably most anally retentive US Senator, Rickey Santorum. They haven fallen far from the Libertarian grace that they once basked in. Three of CATO's best foreign policy analysts have departed in the recent past.

Leon Hader is the earliest think-tank criticizer of Neoconservatism I am aware of:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 125 December 29, 1989
• "Creating a U.S Policy of Constructive Disengagement in the Middle East"
• by Leon T. Hadar

Charles Pena was always anti-imperialist, whether it emerged from liberals or conservatives:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 502: December 15, 2003
• "Iraq: The Wrong War"
• by Charles V. Peña

Ivan Eland was prescient as a CATO old schooler:

• Cato Policy Analysis No. 306 May 5, 1998
• "Protecting the Homeland: The Best Defense Is to Give No Offense"
• by Ivan Eland
• --*--
• Cato Foreign Policy Briefing No. 50 December 17, 1998
• "Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism?"
• by Ivan Eland

Another anti-foreign interventionist, albeit second stringer, Doug Bandow, was recently righteously terminated from CATO, for his less than ethical moonlighting. Now there are just two remaining, Ted Galen Carpenter, and Christopher Preble.

CATO has sold their birthright for a fancy new house within the beltway. In this era of an executive administration, so arrogant, ignorant and incompetent, that the WTC destruction occurred on their watch, which has furthered dishonored itself by callously ignoring Constitutional restrictions, CATO has instead focused upon property rights, social security reform, and slandering the Federal Judiciary, while barely mentioning Republican hypocrisy inherent in the rampant deficit spending, and the increase of governmental invasion of personal liberty in the name of religion.

So if I search their site for "Bush" I should get things that advocate corporate welfare and support the bush administration, right?

Cutting Corporate Welfare Could Fund a Bush Social Security Plan states that "Domestically, these handouts favor certain companies and industries over others. Internationally, corporate welfare weakens the free-trade credentials of the U.S. and invites retaliation from Europe and Asia.". It goes on to ask "Why not just transfer corporate welfare money into the current program? Why do we need personal accounts?".

Also, Bush's Call to Stay the Course Is Simply an Act of Folly speaks for itself.

I really don't get where you got the idea that the neoconservatives that are running the US are in any signifigant way related to libertarians. They complain about Bush almost as much as the Democrats do.

the Bush administration (largely viewed by actual economists as one of the worst fiscal administrations in the history of this country)

Yes, most economists are advocates of a mostly free market, like libertarians. They want Regan and Clinton, not "W" or Nixon.

True. However, can you point to any examples where Cato actually falls into anything remotely close to left wing? For example, take a look at their briefing papers. Where are the position papers on issues of equality that are the hallmark of left-libertarian thought? The fact that there are libertarians with more leftist views as traditionally described does not mean Cato is one of them. In fact, it isn't. It's one of the organizations that promotes the right-wing, free market religion.

It's "The Cato Institute" http://www.cato.org/about/about.html. CATO doesn't spell out anything. It's "Cato", named after "Cato's Letters" -- used as anonymous treatises pro-American Revolution by some founding fathers, named after an ancient Roman "Cato", who wrote against tyranny and oppression in his day and age.

Its http://www.cato.org/about/about.html actually more of a libertarian group. And libertarians favor less goverment control (more so than republicans.)

Could you post the actual budget figures to back up your claims.

Well, no. Do your own home work. BLS.gov. :p Here's an interesting resource as well. I especially like the comparison of average annual GDP growth per president: Reagan is second in modern times only to Kennedy/LBJ (which stands to reason, because Kennedy cut the income tax rates by a whopping 30 percent).

It also includes a lot of figures on the budget. It's no love affair with Reagan either, and I disagree with some of it.

Also, when converting to constant dollars which year are you using? Are these 1980 dollars, 1989 dollars, or 2006 dollars?

Sorry, it was late last night, I meant to write current, not constant. If it were constant, then $200 billion over 8 years would be no big deal!

I was under the impression that the budget differences between what Reagan proposed and what Congress passed weren't significant, and that at least once Reagan requested more than was passed.

Exactly once, out of the eight years. And maybe $200 billion out of $7.5 trillion is not significant, but again, when you add in the cumulative cost of each increase, it adds up: so the $50 billion more Congress spent in FY1982 adds up to about $400 billion over those eight years, not even adjusting for annual spending increases or inflation (because those additional expenditures in FY1982 remain in the budget for subsequent years). The $35 billion in FY1983 adds up to about $280 billion (unadjusted). FY1984-87 were much less significant, but Congress picked up again in FY1988-89.

Name one civil liberty that you have lost during this administration.

The 6th Amendment.

Ahem... "without a Republican government to protect Microsoft"...
 
What the DOJ did in 2001 is protect a free market by agreeing with a D.C. court of appeals. The court of appeals saw written and verbal testimony by hundreds of economists, that concluded that breaking up Microsoft would not protect consumers, and is counter productive to a free market economy.
 
What has been gained from the break up of the big bell? We had over a decade of artificially inflated prices due to "connection fees" the "baby bells" where all imposing on each other, followed by mergers back into large geographically dominant super powers. And it cost tax payers how many millions of dollars to do?
 
Forced government regulation such as this on a company is a very dangerous precedent, and provides no tangible benefits to the consumer. In the end innovation wins. We're seeing this with Firefox gaining ground on IE and VoIP taking market share from the bells. Government regulation did not cause these products to become available, nor did it influence people to use them, talented people with innovative ideas did.
 
For more in depth analyses of how this type of government regulation is bad for consumers and our economy I'd recommend: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-296es.html

You're misreading the law.
The Attorney General may certify an alien

This doesn't mean that the Attorney General may certify a US citizen as an alien if they meet the requirements. It means that if somebody is already an alien (i.e. not a US citizen) and meets the requirements then the Attorney General may certify them as a terrorist alien subject to detention.

Apparently, I'm not the only one misreading the law: http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-21-03.html

Jose Padilla is the U.S. citizen who supposedly plotted to detonate a "dirty bomb." Since his capture -- not on the battlefields of Afghanistan or Iraq, but at Chicago's O'Hare Airport -- he has not been charged with any crime. Yet, for more than a year, Padilla has been held incommunicado in a South Carolina military brig.

But yes, he is brown.

gas prices in my home are not up much once you factor in inflation over the past 15 years.

Inflation is meaningless. I'm paying less for a TV than in 1989, but I might buy one every 15 years. Food is more expensive, though, as well as heating fuel.

Note that gasoline is a large part of the inflation itself. A far better metric than "inflation" is the Federal minimum wage.

In January 1989, Gasoline was $1.00 per gallon (source). The Federal minimum wage was $3.35 per hour (source). In 1989, someone making the federally mandated minimum wage worked one hour for three and a third gallons of gasoline.

Today's prices need no source; look at the sign on your way home. It's $2.47 this morning here. The federal minimum wage is $5.15; the worker making minimum wage today can afford about two gallons of gas for an hour's slavery, as opposed to the 3 1/3 in 1989.

Please stop believing everything the liars in government tell you and do a little basic research yourself. Thirty seconds googling found the true increase in the price of gasoline.

Whistles... sure made it easy by making that argument that it was legal for him to do so at any time. We don't know if he did it or not (as it would probably be illegal for someone to talk about it) but there is little doubt that him and Bush were of the same mind on it's legality.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-271.html

So he's stuck in 1998, and you're helping him update to 2000.

Nice job.

As you say later, in addition to the above:
> They're setting up considerable precedent in the future that the President doesn't have to abide by Congressional edicts, high court rulings, or indeed, international human rights treaties.

This is not surprising though, since ratified treaties carry the same/similar weight as the words of the Constitution itself (provided no part of the treaty is contrary to our Federal laws or Constitution (Article 6 and 1836's New Orleans v. U.S.? I'm sure someone will correct me)). If Bush can't be bothered to abide the Constitution he surely isn't going to be hung up over treaty obligations.

However, the President is not above the law. Ever. As Jefferson argued[1], if a President feels obliged (morally) to break the law in order to uphold his oath of office he must submit to the penalty of law (it is noble to fall on one's own sword in defense of the republic). If Bush has to (apparently) violate FISA and Amendment 4 to save the republic (from the terrorists!) then he must be willing to submit to us, under our laws. I might even go as far as claiming that if George Bush is not impeached, he must be arrested and tried in January of 2009. Don't worry though, innocent men are arrested all the time, even jailed pending trial (arguably in every case as they have not yet been proven guilty).

[1]http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/00304 6.php and http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cache:www.iwm. at/publ-jvc/jc-11-04.pdf+author:%22Bailey%22

I wonder when CATO will run one of these on Bush.

The Cato Institute also fought wind power by pointing out the terrible, just terrible carnage the turbines would wreak on bird populations. This marked the absolute first time they've ever tried to pretend they gave a crap about the environment.

I don't trust the Cato Institute, or any other agenda-driven "groupthink-tank" to perform the research first, then draw the conclusions. This study seems no different.*

* Note: I wrote that statement before I actually read the study. Which is an absurd, biased way to go about researching a topic, and the exact sort of thing the Cato Institute pulls. The "study" (more of a survey, really) is sometimes blatantly obvious ("Oh, gee, people are more prosperous when the government protects the private property rights of individuals, rather than robbing them blind or standing idly by while rampaging mobs do the same.") At other points, it seems economically naive, only devoting one dismissive paragraph about externalized costs (which amounts to a refusal to engage the primary justification for government regulations) and expending zero effort distinguishing between physical and intellectual property.

The survey also frequently exhibits the intense desire to jump to tasty conclusions without providing support. Their desire for less government regulation is obvious, even though they never distinguish between the security and extent of private property rights. After all, there is no guarantee that loosening a given restriction on property rights will lead to better economic decision making by owners, but it is certain that they'll make better decisions if they're secure in the knowledge that whatever rights they have today will also exist tomorrow.

Certainly, the fastest road to prosperity for a given country is for it to have a government which works for the people, protecting their lives and property. But despite our agreement on that front, I can hardly step aside and let you quote the Cato Institute as though it were a respectable institution not run by right-wing nitwits who think the only good government is a dead government.

Free speech is the absolute foundation of democracy and freedom.

<sarcasm>
Agreed. It's a good thing we Americans don't live in a country where the amount of money you have determines the amount of speech you have, and therefor the amount of democracy and freedom afforded you. We live in a country where the wealthy class can't use their money to drown out the voices of common working people. That's what makes us great.
</sarcasm>

For those less cognizant of the current state of American thought, money *is* considered by American courts, libertarians, and conservatives to be equivalent to speech. That means that in America, some people have more free speech than others. Remember when you visit America and hear someone say they believe in freedom, ask them whose.

In 1972 the "Club of Rome" published "Limits to Growth", full of dire predictions about how the world was destined, among other bad things, to run out of oil by 2000. Yawn. It didn't turn out that way in 2000, and it probably won't turn out that way in 2025. In fact, recent history has shown that dire predictions usually don't come true.

Has the Congress issued a Declaration of War? Against whom? Where can I find a copy?

If the Congress has not issued a Declaration of War, how can the President be exercising "wartime powers?"

The CATO Institute doesn't believe a Declaration of War has been issued. Do you?

I found this quote from that article quite interesting, as well, in the context of a Declaration of War:

It's true that the Constitution makes the president the "Commander in Chief" of the US Army and Navy. But as Alexander Hamilton noted in Federalist No. 69, this does no more than make the president the "first General" of America 's armed forces. And generals don't get to decide which countries we go to war with.

Do you believe that the same people who feel entitled to intercept private communications without first obtaining a warrant (or, without obtaining one within the FISA specified period) would feel compelled to report that they have caused injury to anyone by implementing their secret policy? If you don't know you're being tapped, how do you know if you've been injured? If you think you've been injured by a secret tap, how can you prove it if they're secret? Will the Administration say, 'Oh, yeah, sorry about that mate. National Security and all. Feel free to talk to the press.'

On the otherhand, I'm sure that anyone who had contacts with terrorist-related entities has now either encoded their speech, shortened their messages, or switched to alternative (electronic) secure communications. So, in a sense, we've made made it harder for our society to detect harm coming our way, which in my opinion is the real crime.

The 'enemy combatants,' if they have two neurons to fire together, have to assume that their communications are subject to interception. If they accept that, then they would have to be assumed to be taking measures to obfuscate their communications. On this, you and I (seem to) agree. If the targets of these secret taps are encrypting their communications, then what is the point of the secret taps?

--
Sig nificant

oops! too late! http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-231.html Now will warehouses have to pay more to get the trucks full of goods to the consumer sites?

As of 2003, there were 54,846 pages of Federal tax rules (source).

Bill Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches in 1994:

In 1994, President Clinton expanded the use of warrantless searches to entirely domestic situations with no foreign intelligence value whatsoever. In a radio address promoting a crime-fighting bill, Mr. Clinton discussed a new policy to conduct warrantless searches in highly violent public housing projects.

On December 20th Glenn Reynolds noted this CATO Institute Report published back in 1997:

The Clinton administration has repeatedly attempted to play down the significance of the warrant clause. In fact, President Clinton has asserted the power to conduct warrantless searches, warrantless drug testing of public school students, and warrantless wiretapping...

Except for the fact that the incumbency rate is well above 90%!!
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n3-2.html

The best solution, for now, would be the implementation of term limits, which you simply will not get from the same people it would affect.
http://termlimits.org/Current_Info/current_info.ht ml

"Please explain how this affects your theories. :)

Do you actually believe the crap at that link? You seemed smarter in your postings.

If crime was not on a major rise in this country, then explane why we had bills passed in congress (during the clinton Administration, a 30 billion dollar 1994 crime bill)
See http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-mr-3.html) that increased law enforcement budgets across this country in astronomical amounts?(because people were afraid, thats why)

And why did almost every major police force across America go to a "no-tollerance" stance? (because people were afraid, thats why. Do a google on "no-tolerance + law enforcement")

And why do we have a trillion dollar budget to deal with drug enforcement?(because kids are unsupervised after school and latter become adult offenders. And, what does that do?? --Come-on...You should know by now... It makes people afraid, thats what it does.)
See http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=4503555

And finally,..Why have most prisons been privatized?(its a multi-billion dollar industry today because the government could no longer justify the expense of building more prisons and still please the --afraid-- people-- by not raising taxes.) http://nicic.org/Library/017518

Movies, Video games and the Mass Media are partly responsible for this mess. I do not recall there being an such an urgency to respond to crime in America when Ms.Pac-Man was the video game of choice or when the best movie around was Star Wars. But dont ask me,
Ask any qualified and truly concerned psychologist.

BY THE WAY,
Please explain how this affects your link :)

Or is your link just more of the PoP-Media's propaganda and bullshit that we have become so use to in America today?



--------

A little Julian Simon will go a long way towards answering how we will prosper in the future. In a nutshell, the only real resource is human ingenuity and there is an unlimited supply of it.

What ever happened to the "Line Item Veto"

http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-sm032300.html

It doesn't seem like it was being abused.

Yes, the study that you are talking about has been done. You won't like the result. These neat little safety gizmos don't save any lives. They just let people take more risks. Cars, Cholera, and Cows: The Management of Risk and Uncertainty explains why.

Ed Crane, President of the Cato Institute had this to say about Bill Gates and Microsoft:
"Our auditorium is named after the great Nobel Laureate, F. A. Hayek, whose last book was entitled The Fatal Conceit, by which he referred to politicians and bureaucrats who had the lack of humility to think they could order societal affairs better than the spontaneous order of the marketplace.
Today, Bill Gates is in a battle with an entire department of the federal government that suffers from a terrible case of the fatal conceit. We wish him well in that battle and congratulate him on the incredible success story that Microsoft Corp. is."

Cato is irrelevant

I disagree that they are irrelevant to this discussion. The only source you have directly cited and the only source I am responding to is the Cato Institute.

Even if your cigarette example were accurate it is irrelevant.

I dare you to prove that it's inaccurate. Come on, do it. I double dare you.

Second, your definition of shill seems to be anyone who upsets you world view.

This is nonsense. I have posted evidence showing that the Cato Institute fits the very definition of a shill. (As it applies in this context.) You can't prove otherwise, because it's the documented truth. You might choose to argue that even though they are shills (overall), they are right in this instance and this would at least be a respectable stance, but to ignore the evidence staring you in the face is just silly.
To actually go yet another step and imply that the source I quoted is lying is really going over the top. The quote is right here. The financial ties are also easily proven.

(1) You conveniently ignore the rise to dominance.

Ah but I don't. It's not as if these two antitrust convictions were in the last two years. This has been going on for quite some time, as have Microsoft's illegal tactics.

You equate an anti-trust conviction with the existence of a monopolist market, the former does not imply the later.

From the findings of fact:
" Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market."

You might enjoy the PDF from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-380es.html:

You might enjoy this bit of reading about the integrity of the Cato institute. In general it's important to realize that a group like the Cato institute doesn't have anywhere close to the integrity that a federal court does. Here's another choice gem on those guys:
"Not surprisingly, the Cato Institute has been a fierce defender of the tobacco industry, in publications such as 1998's "Lies, Damn Lies and 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths." which claims that tobacco is "far less pernicious than Americans are led to believe. . . . The government should stop lying and stop pretending that smoking-related deaths are anything but a statistical artifact.""
If you want people to take you seriously, I do not reccommend using them as a source.

In response to the particular sections you quoted:
-The first quote is nonsensical. First it tells me that 70,000 appilcations dependant on windows represent a barrier to entry for other operating systems which do not have this library of applications. This is essentailly true. Next it says that a competing operating system would need a similar suite of applications in order to compete. I think we can agree that this is also true.
Now here comes sentence number four. It's a quote from the judge with the number 70,000 inserted. It's true, but the number is not actually part of the quote and it's inclusion is dishonest. Which we'll come back to later.
Sentence five is a doozy. It's a classic misdirection. The conjecture is the 70,000 applications means that there IS competition in the software industry. This is true, but not in the market we're talking about. It's referring to a different business, similar to the difference between a screw and a screwdriver. Interrelated yes, the same no. This is dishonest. It's garbage.
Next they move on to attack the 70,000 number. The argument is that because there aren't actually 70,000 applications out there I can go out and buy individually, there is no significant barrier. But the thing is, the judge never actually claimed that a competitior needed 70,000 applications. Just like the Cato institute, the judge knows that one doesn't actually need 70,000 applications and never actually claimed that they do. What he did say was that the cost to develop the applications necessary to compete would be high. This they have not managed to rebut.

-The second quote is even worse. The first sentence is just plain false. Section 2 subsection 45 of the findings of fact specfically recognizes these other operating systems.
The rest of the argument doesn't even really make sense. The claim is that MS is not charging enough for their OS therfore the alternatives have not managed to become commercailly viable. This argument does not acknowedge the known facts of the case such as MS forcing OEM vendors to sign exclusive deals in order to get a good price on Windows.

This is simply not true. THEY HAVE BEEN CONVICTED TWICE OF ANTITRUST VIOLATIONS. Your statements here are provably false. Go read the findings of fact. It is especially egregious that you believe consumers are responsible for their continued dominanace.

Your errors: (1) You conveniently ignore the rise to dominance. (2) You equate an anti-trust conviction with the existence of a monopolist market, the former does not imply the later. You might enjoy the PDF from http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-380es.html:

"Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson bases his ruling against Microsoft on the claim that the company's monopoly in operating systems is protected by an "applications barrier to entry" made up of 70,000 Windows-based software programs. Without an entry barrier, any dominant producer that seeks to restrict sales in order to raise prices above competitive levels will find its market share eroded as new entrants capture price-sensitive customers. But, according to Judge Jackson, to enter the operating-system market a newcomer would need a large and varied base of compatible applications like those available to consumers who might otherwise choose Windows. He concludes that "the amount it would cost an operating system vendor to create [70,000] applications is prohibitively large." Judge Jackson seems unaware that the mere existence of a large number of Windows-based applications proves that Microsoft has stirred competition among software developers--leading to better products and falling prices and raising the value of both hardware and software to consumers. That said, there is a fatal flaw in the judge's argument: The overwhelming majority of the 70,000 Windows applications that make up the supposedly impregnable barrier to entry either never existed as unique products, no longer exist, or are totally out of date. When only unique Windows applications are counted--setting aside various versions of the same program--the number of applications is a small fraction of the judge's count. Moreover, survey data indicate that the needs of active computer users are satisfied by a very small number of applications. That means the barrier to entry into the operating-system market is nowhere near as impregnable as the judge has claimed, which in turn helps explain many of Microsoft's aggressive business tactics to preserve its market position. Because the judge's most essential finding is clearly erroneous, it cannot support his conclusions of law."

"The judge's claim that there is "no" alternative to Windows ignores, however, the obvious fact that firms like Apple, Red Hat, Sun, and IBM (and several others) already have operating systems that can be used on personal computers. They might not be "commercially viable" in the sense that they have sizable market shares, but that could be because Microsoft is not acting like a monopolist. Firms like Apple, Sun, and Red Hat, which are already in the operating-system market, could quickly become "commercially viable" (or more commercially viable than they already are) if Microsoft did what monopolists are supposed to do: restrict sales in order to raise the company's prices and profits."

Here are a few links for those who are unaware of the price supports the U.S. Govt. gives out:

Preface: SBC = Evil, Verizon = Evil I know you've read a lot crap about "deregulation" coming from the baby bells (SBC, Verizon) these days, and I can understand why the word would make you shudder. I shudder when I hear about thier brand of "deregulation". It's bullshit. It's really selective deregulation where they remove all the regulations that keep them from squashing and locking out the competition, while retaining the regulation that prevents competitors from building their own infrastructures.

Having said that, let's move on.

Please read this history of Ma Bell. It's long but it's a great eye opener.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html

Essentially it reads: After the patents for the telephone had expired the market flooded open with all sorts of new competition. After 13 years of competition, telephone use rose from 270,000 to 6,000,000 with service available practically everywhere with competition servicing areas where Ma Bell thought it wasn't worth it.

1. Lots of redudant phone networks strung everywhere.
2. Poor interoperability.
3. In addition to that, I'm sure a lot of the service was just plain shitty.

It was between 1913-1921 when Theodore Vail approached the government to help him with his little problem of competition. After going through a series of phases of regulation, the telephone system was finally nationalized on Auguest 1, 1918 during WWI for national security reasons.

So no. An unregulated market did not create a natural monopoly in the case of AT&T. If anything, it goes to show how good big companies like AT&T are good at selling the public bullshit regulation.

If we eliminated most of the fraud, waste and abuse in the government. With the Department of Education not being able to account for a majority of its budget, the Defense Department losing over $12B of tax dollars in Iraq and all of the pork that goes through Congress, I can't help but think that if the Congress didn't have the power to spend money on "internal improvements," we'd not be in this problem today.

The governments in this country waste so damn much of our GDP on pure bullshit that if we actually had fiscal responsibility, this would be non-issue. We have a GDP of $11T, does anyone actually think that if the costs associated with compliance, regulation, tax payments, etc. were much easier that corporate America would be bitching about this transition? It'd be just a drop in the bucket.

The privatized roads still have to compete against rail transportation, airports, and city- and county-maintained roads (not all roads will be privatized; just the Interstate and state highways). If the maintainers of those private roads rest on their laurels, then commuters and travelers will switch to other forms of transportation that don't require those roads, which means that the roads will lose money until they improve their conditions.

The government, on the other hand, can't be fired. Sure, the government can change leadership every four years, and new Congresspeople can be elected every so many years, but you still can't fire the government. If there are some potholes on the government road, then it may take a while before they get fixed. If the road is congested and needs to be widened, the government now has to deal with lengthy bureaucratic processes of getting the funding, securing right of way, dealing with NIMBYs and environmentalists, and it may take many years to widen that road. And even then, the tax dollars quickly add up. If a private road wanted to be widened and if profits are going strong, then they would widen it, one way or another (even if they had to double deck it or build underground; whatever's good for their customers and their wallets).

This is a nice (but long) essay about privatizing our roads, and some of the efforts that have already been made in building private roads. Once again, I'm not a huge road privatization fan, but it is feasible if push came to shove.

Slashdot has never been a haven of economically-literate people. People here are computer geeks; they have little, if any interest in business, finance, or economics, and indeed, many are openly-hostile to the very *idea* that such systems work as described.

Nevermind that well over 90% of all economists, both in academia and in the business world, agree that free trade is good for trading nations and that price controls (already enjoying support in a post to this very topic) are a proven failure. Slashdotters, like most economically-left-leaning people, make-believe that the entire study of economics is one giant conspiracy against mankind (because much economics study disproves their ideology they want to make-believe actually works when in practice it does not); that *somehow*, there is no scarcity of goods in the world. Nevermind the Law of Conservation found in physics says the same thing -- this is Slashdot, and on Slashdot, we don't like facts!

Most Slashdotters, being high school or college students, I would hazard a guess have never taken an economics course in their lives. Slashdotters, categorically-speaking, are economically-illiterate, and no matter how many times you beat them with the cluesticks of Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, or Arnold Kling, you find that the generally-socialist population of Slashdot refuses to learn, because they are blinded by their dreams and ideals that can never be and which ultimately failed in practice 15 years ago. There is no reputable economist in the western world at this point that promotes socialism and communism to the extent that most Slashdotters do; even the "old guard" of socialist economics (John Kenneth Galbraith, George Stigler, and to a lesser-extent (though from which the former two derive their work), J.M. Keynes) have started fading-away in light of economic reality.

In terms of overall economic design, pure socialism failed, true communism was never actually achieved by the Soviets or anybody else (though Chairman Mao came close), and free market capitalism emerged victorious. That is the political-economic conclusion of the 20th century.

Yet, Slashdotters remain clueless to economic history, theory, econometrics, etc.. For such "intelligent" people, they sure like to remain ignorant!

Me, I'm one of those rare people who actively seeks out intersections between the computing and economics worlds. But you will find very few people (perhaps a dozen or so) like me here unfortunately...

Odd, I didn't realize that ALL yahoo servers were in France.

power was deregulated in some areas

Where? California changed power regulations to call them "market-oriented," but continued to maintain plenty of stringent price regulations. As described here...
If "deregulation" means less - not more - political control over an industry, then the California electricity industry has not been "deregulated."

First, the state forced the electricity companies to sell their power plants to independent investors and become power distributors.

Second, the state assumed total day-to-day control of the utilities' power grid to make sure they couldn't abuse their market power.

Third, the state required new owners of the divested power plants to sell their juice to a state-managed "power pool." The price of that power is set by a daily spot market run by - you guessed it - the state. Electricity companies that wanted to compete for your business had to buy their electricity from this pool, and the price charged them was equal to the highest price received by any electricity generator in the daily state-managed spot market.

Fourth, regardless of what they pay for power in the wholesale market, no company can charge a consumer more than 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour. That price can't change until the company has paid off its share of the bailout the state gave the electricity companies in order to accept this new regulatory scheme.

Now, what kind of "deregulation" imposes rigid government dictates on how industries should organize themselves? What sort of deregulation keeps fixed prices on retail providers? What kind of "deregulation" requires retailers to buy power through a state-run central exchange? And what brand of "deregulation" forbids retailers from buying electricity more than one day ahead?

Would you like to prove the existance of something with a non-zero elasticity of demand in relation to price?

The only economically valid argument for public utilities is the potential elimination of transaction costs in purchasing land for right-of-ways, and the fact that land is truly a limited commodity (with the exception of landfill islands...)

RF spectrum is much less limited than land, especially given new work on MIMO and UWB.

I'm sure you already know that the reason it's called "Black Friday" is because it's the time of year when retailers finally move out of the red and into the profitable black column on their balance sheets

Although this doesn't apply to privately held stores, at least any corporate retail chains have to report their earnings quarterly. And any non-R&D company that reported three out of four quarters in the red would find itself trading as penny stocks within just a few cycles of that.


Not to say that such a claim counts as entirely untrue, though - I suspect it counts as "true" in the same way that you can truthfully claim that Americans have to work almost until June to reach "Tax Freedom Day", the day we stop working just to pay our taxes, and start our year "in the black" so to speak.


So, I suppose that in some retail sectors, the fairly thin profit margins mean that, if you add up all their costs for the coming year and start counting income against them from January 1st onward, they might experience an analogous "Overhead Freedom Day" sometime in late November. But looking at the numbers like that would leave everything after that point, including the very lucrative holiday season, as pure profit... So not quite such a bleak outlook as staying in the red for 11 months.



Or to look at from a more common-sense approach - Why even open the doors from February to October if you'll only run a loss for the first 11 months? They'd make more, in the long run, to go on vacation for nine or ten months out of the year.

"Isn't it ironic that the Chinese government is helping to fund the War in Iraq AND the eradication of US civil liberties?"

Irony can be brutal; but few are seldom able to see it reflected from the mirror. Do you will to speak in defense for the organisation picked as your slashdot homepage pointer?

If the answer to the previous question is yes:

• Can you explain how the reagancomic Roger Pilon, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution", became vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute, and why they posted his fatuous defense of stolen liberty upon the website? What's next, a lifetime honorary chair for Meese?
• Can you honestly defend Cato's willingness to unfurl their logo on a banner behind the hand-wringing homophobe Santorum? No matter the underlying cause, to offer aid and comfort to that anti-libertarian putz is evidence of Cato's impurity, and saddened me to learn learn of it.
• What happened to Eland, Pena, and Hader? Why haven't proper replacements been found for them?
• When Carpenter, Bandow and Preble leave, will they be replaced with more 'libertarianism means the repeal of minimum wage' right-sided minimalists?

Cato has become a producer of 2nd rate wonkage:

• Understanding Privacy -- and the Real Threats to It
• Cato Policy Analysis no. 520-August 4, 2004
• by Jim Harper
• synopsis - pdf file

Privacy Is Not a "Right" Though generations of advocates have called information privacy a "right," the better view is that it is not. Privacy is a condition people maintain by exercising personal initiative and responsibility. Other legal rights allow them to do this.

An example can illustrate how something as vitally important as privacy is not a right: Most people agree that individuals should be allowed to develop and follow their own sense of morality, as long as they do not harm others. People may decide for themselves, for example, whether a higher power exists; whether bad acts have consequences in a future life; and whether to sing, pray, or remain silent. These, one could argue, reflect a "right" to morality.

As important as morality is, though, there is no "right" to it. Instead, morality is a quality that individuals develop and practice in the shelter given by individual rights like the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, the right to associate with others, and the right to own property. These rights protect individuals from government interference and shelter essential human institutions like morality. People who seek morality as an entitlement from government are censors, at best.

This is a backdoor empowerment of tyranny. What is not explicitly given to the government constitutionally, they have not the right to take or use.

And please, cite the place(s) in the US Constitution that speak of this "right to property". I think that you cannot, because a right to property is only implied in the constitution, as is the right to be left alone by the government.

Why has Cato lain with the swine in their new beltway domicile up on the hill of beans by not frequently engaging in voiceferous criticisms of the War Upon Iraq? One pretty much has to go back to the now terminated Pena two years hence to find anything of substance:

• Cato Policy Analys

"Isn't it ironic that the Chinese government is helping to fund the War in Iraq AND the eradication of US civil liberties?"

Irony can be brutal; but few are seldom able to see it reflected from the mirror. Do you will to speak in defense for the organisation picked as your slashdot homepage pointer?

If the answer to the previous question is yes:

• Can you explain how the reagancomic Roger Pilon, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution", became vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute, and why they posted his fatuous defense of stolen liberty upon the website? What's next, a lifetime honorary chair for Meese?
• Can you honestly defend Cato's willingness to unfurl their logo on a banner behind the hand-wringing homophobe Santorum? No matter the underlying cause, to offer aid and comfort to that anti-libertarian putz is evidence of Cato's impurity, and saddened me to learn learn of it.
• What happened to Eland, Pena, and Hader? Why haven't proper replacements been found for them?
• When Carpenter, Bandow and Preble leave, will they be replaced with more 'libertarianism means the repeal of minimum wage' right-sided minimalists?

Cato has become a producer of 2nd rate wonkage:

• Understanding Privacy -- and the Real Threats to It
• Cato Policy Analysis no. 520-August 4, 2004
• by Jim Harper
• synopsis - pdf file

Privacy Is Not a "Right" Though generations of advocates have called information privacy a "right," the better view is that it is not. Privacy is a condition people maintain by exercising personal initiative and responsibility. Other legal rights allow them to do this.

An example can illustrate how something as vitally important as privacy is not a right: Most people agree that individuals should be allowed to develop and follow their own sense of morality, as long as they do not harm others. People may decide for themselves, for example, whether a higher power exists; whether bad acts have consequences in a future life; and whether to sing, pray, or remain silent. These, one could argue, reflect a "right" to morality.

As important as morality is, though, there is no "right" to it. Instead, morality is a quality that individuals develop and practice in the shelter given by individual rights like the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, the right to associate with others, and the right to own property. These rights protect individuals from government interference and shelter essential human institutions like morality. People who seek morality as an entitlement from government are censors, at best.

This is a backdoor empowerment of tyranny. What is not explicitly given to the government constitutionally, they have not the right to take or use.

And please, cite the place(s) in the US Constitution that speak of this "right to property". I think that you cannot, because a right to property is only implied in the constitution, as is the right to be left alone by the government.

Why has Cato lain with the swine in their new beltway domicile up on the hill of beans by not frequently engaging in voiceferous criticisms of the War Upon Iraq? One pretty much has to go back to the now terminated Pena two years hence to find anything of substance:

• Cato Policy Analys

"Isn't it ironic that the Chinese government is helping to fund the War in Iraq AND the eradication of US civil liberties?"

Irony can be brutal; but few are seldom able to see it reflected from the mirror. Do you will to speak in defense for the organisation picked as your slashdot homepage pointer?

If the answer to the previous question is yes:

• Can you explain how the reagancomic Roger Pilon, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution", became vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute, and why they posted his fatuous defense of stolen liberty upon the website? What's next, a lifetime honorary chair for Meese?
• Can you honestly defend Cato's willingness to unfurl their logo on a banner behind the hand-wringing homophobe Santorum? No matter the underlying cause, to offer aid and comfort to that anti-libertarian putz is evidence of Cato's impurity, and saddened me to learn learn of it.
• What happened to Eland, Pena, and Hader? Why haven't proper replacements been found for them?
• When Carpenter, Bandow and Preble leave, will they be replaced with more 'libertarianism means the repeal of minimum wage' right-sided minimalists?

Cato has become a producer of 2nd rate wonkage:

• Understanding Privacy -- and the Real Threats to It
• Cato Policy Analysis no. 520-August 4, 2004
• by Jim Harper
• synopsis - pdf file

Privacy Is Not a "Right" Though generations of advocates have called information privacy a "right," the better view is that it is not. Privacy is a condition people maintain by exercising personal initiative and responsibility. Other legal rights allow them to do this.

An example can illustrate how something as vitally important as privacy is not a right: Most people agree that individuals should be allowed to develop and follow their own sense of morality, as long as they do not harm others. People may decide for themselves, for example, whether a higher power exists; whether bad acts have consequences in a future life; and whether to sing, pray, or remain silent. These, one could argue, reflect a "right" to morality.

As important as morality is, though, there is no "right" to it. Instead, morality is a quality that individuals develop and practice in the shelter given by individual rights like the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, the right to associate with others, and the right to own property. These rights protect individuals from government interference and shelter essential human institutions like morality. People who seek morality as an entitlement from government are censors, at best.

This is a backdoor empowerment of tyranny. What is not explicitly given to the government constitutionally, they have not the right to take or use.

And please, cite the place(s) in the US Constitution that speak of this "right to property". I think that you cannot, because a right to property is only implied in the constitution, as is the right to be left alone by the government.

Why has Cato lain with the swine in their new beltway domicile up on the hill of beans by not frequently engaging in voiceferous criticisms of the War Upon Iraq? One pretty much has to go back to the now terminated Pena two years hence to find anything of substance:

• Cato Policy Analys

"Isn't it ironic that the Chinese government is helping to fund the War in Iraq AND the eradication of US civil liberties?"

Irony can be brutal; but few are seldom able to see it reflected from the mirror. Do you will to speak in defense for the organisation picked as your slashdot homepage pointer?

If the answer to the previous question is yes:

• Can you explain how the reagancomic Roger Pilon, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution", became vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute, and why they posted his fatuous defense of stolen liberty upon the website? What's next, a lifetime honorary chair for Meese?
• Can you honestly defend Cato's willingness to unfurl their logo on a banner behind the hand-wringing homophobe Santorum? No matter the underlying cause, to offer aid and comfort to that anti-libertarian putz is evidence of Cato's impurity, and saddened me to learn learn of it.
• What happened to Eland, Pena, and Hader? Why haven't proper replacements been found for them?
• When Carpenter, Bandow and Preble leave, will they be replaced with more 'libertarianism means the repeal of minimum wage' right-sided minimalists?

Cato has become a producer of 2nd rate wonkage:

• Understanding Privacy -- and the Real Threats to It
• Cato Policy Analysis no. 520-August 4, 2004
• by Jim Harper
• synopsis - pdf file

Privacy Is Not a "Right" Though generations of advocates have called information privacy a "right," the better view is that it is not. Privacy is a condition people maintain by exercising personal initiative and responsibility. Other legal rights allow them to do this.

An example can illustrate how something as vitally important as privacy is not a right: Most people agree that individuals should be allowed to develop and follow their own sense of morality, as long as they do not harm others. People may decide for themselves, for example, whether a higher power exists; whether bad acts have consequences in a future life; and whether to sing, pray, or remain silent. These, one could argue, reflect a "right" to morality.

As important as morality is, though, there is no "right" to it. Instead, morality is a quality that individuals develop and practice in the shelter given by individual rights like the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, the right to associate with others, and the right to own property. These rights protect individuals from government interference and shelter essential human institutions like morality. People who seek morality as an entitlement from government are censors, at best.

This is a backdoor empowerment of tyranny. What is not explicitly given to the government constitutionally, they have not the right to take or use.

And please, cite the place(s) in the US Constitution that speak of this "right to property". I think that you cannot, because a right to property is only implied in the constitution, as is the right to be left alone by the government.

Why has Cato lain with the swine in their new beltway domicile up on the hill of beans by not frequently engaging in voiceferous criticisms of the War Upon Iraq? One pretty much has to go back to the now terminated Pena two years hence to find anything of substance:

• Cato Policy Analys

"Isn't it ironic that the Chinese government is helping to fund the War in Iraq AND the eradication of US civil liberties?"

Irony can be brutal; but few are seldom able to see it reflected from the mirror. Do you will to speak in defense for the organisation picked as your slashdot homepage pointer?

If the answer to the previous question is yes:

• Can you explain how the reagancomic Roger Pilon, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution", became vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute, and why they posted his fatuous defense of stolen liberty upon the website? What's next, a lifetime honorary chair for Meese?
• Can you honestly defend Cato's willingness to unfurl their logo on a banner behind the hand-wringing homophobe Santorum? No matter the underlying cause, to offer aid and comfort to that anti-libertarian putz is evidence of Cato's impurity, and saddened me to learn learn of it.
• What happened to Eland, Pena, and Hader? Why haven't proper replacements been found for them?
• When Carpenter, Bandow and Preble leave, will they be replaced with more 'libertarianism means the repeal of minimum wage' right-sided minimalists?

Cato has become a producer of 2nd rate wonkage:

• Understanding Privacy -- and the Real Threats to It
• Cato Policy Analysis no. 520-August 4, 2004
• by Jim Harper
• synopsis - pdf file

Privacy Is Not a "Right" Though generations of advocates have called information privacy a "right," the better view is that it is not. Privacy is a condition people maintain by exercising personal initiative and responsibility. Other legal rights allow them to do this.

An example can illustrate how something as vitally important as privacy is not a right: Most people agree that individuals should be allowed to develop and follow their own sense of morality, as long as they do not harm others. People may decide for themselves, for example, whether a higher power exists; whether bad acts have consequences in a future life; and whether to sing, pray, or remain silent. These, one could argue, reflect a "right" to morality.

As important as morality is, though, there is no "right" to it. Instead, morality is a quality that individuals develop and practice in the shelter given by individual rights like the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, the right to associate with others, and the right to own property. These rights protect individuals from government interference and shelter essential human institutions like morality. People who seek morality as an entitlement from government are censors, at best.

This is a backdoor empowerment of tyranny. What is not explicitly given to the government constitutionally, they have not the right to take or use.

And please, cite the place(s) in the US Constitution that speak of this "right to property". I think that you cannot, because a right to property is only implied in the constitution, as is the right to be left alone by the government.

Why has Cato lain with the swine in their new beltway domicile up on the hill of beans by not frequently engaging in voiceferous criticisms of the War Upon Iraq? One pretty much has to go back to the now terminated Pena two years hence to find anything of substance:

• Cato Policy Analys

"Isn't it ironic that the Chinese government is helping to fund the War in Iraq AND the eradication of US civil liberties?"

Irony can be brutal; but few are seldom able to see it reflected from the mirror. Do you will to speak in defense for the organisation picked as your slashdot homepage pointer?

If the answer to the previous question is yes:

• Can you explain how the reagancomic Roger Pilon, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution", became vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute, and why they posted his fatuous defense of stolen liberty upon the website? What's next, a lifetime honorary chair for Meese?
• Can you honestly defend Cato's willingness to unfurl their logo on a banner behind the hand-wringing homophobe Santorum? No matter the underlying cause, to offer aid and comfort to that anti-libertarian putz is evidence of Cato's impurity, and saddened me to learn learn of it.
• What happened to Eland, Pena, and Hader? Why haven't proper replacements been found for them?
• When Carpenter, Bandow and Preble leave, will they be replaced with more 'libertarianism means the repeal of minimum wage' right-sided minimalists?

Cato has become a producer of 2nd rate wonkage:

• Understanding Privacy -- and the Real Threats to It
• Cato Policy Analysis no. 520-August 4, 2004
• by Jim Harper
• synopsis - pdf file

Privacy Is Not a "Right" Though generations of advocates have called information privacy a "right," the better view is that it is not. Privacy is a condition people maintain by exercising personal initiative and responsibility. Other legal rights allow them to do this.

An example can illustrate how something as vitally important as privacy is not a right: Most people agree that individuals should be allowed to develop and follow their own sense of morality, as long as they do not harm others. People may decide for themselves, for example, whether a higher power exists; whether bad acts have consequences in a future life; and whether to sing, pray, or remain silent. These, one could argue, reflect a "right" to morality.

As important as morality is, though, there is no "right" to it. Instead, morality is a quality that individuals develop and practice in the shelter given by individual rights like the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, the right to associate with others, and the right to own property. These rights protect individuals from government interference and shelter essential human institutions like morality. People who seek morality as an entitlement from government are censors, at best.

This is a backdoor empowerment of tyranny. What is not explicitly given to the government constitutionally, they have not the right to take or use.

And please, cite the place(s) in the US Constitution that speak of this "right to property". I think that you cannot, because a right to property is only implied in the constitution, as is the right to be left alone by the government.

Why has Cato lain with the swine in their new beltway domicile up on the hill of beans by not frequently engaging in voiceferous criticisms of the War Upon Iraq? One pretty much has to go back to the now terminated Pena two years hence to find anything of substance:

• Cato Policy Analys

"Isn't it ironic that the Chinese government is helping to fund the War in Iraq AND the eradication of US civil liberties?"

Irony can be brutal; but few are seldom able to see it reflected from the mirror. Do you will to speak in defense for the organisation picked as your slashdot homepage pointer?

If the answer to the previous question is yes:

• Can you explain how the reagancomic Roger Pilon, who "held five senior posts in the Reagan administration, including at State and Justice, and was a National Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution", became vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute, and why they posted his fatuous defense of stolen liberty upon the website? What's next, a lifetime honorary chair for Meese?
• Can you honestly defend Cato's willingness to unfurl their logo on a banner behind the hand-wringing homophobe Santorum? No matter the underlying cause, to offer aid and comfort to that anti-libertarian putz is evidence of Cato's impurity, and saddened me to learn learn of it.
• What happened to Eland, Pena, and Hader? Why haven't proper replacements been found for them?
• When Carpenter, Bandow and Preble leave, will they be replaced with more 'libertarianism means the repeal of minimum wage' right-sided minimalists?

Cato has become a producer of 2nd rate wonkage:

• Understanding Privacy -- and the Real Threats to It
• Cato Policy Analysis no. 520-August 4, 2004
• by Jim Harper
• synopsis - pdf file

Privacy Is Not a "Right" Though generations of advocates have called information privacy a "right," the better view is that it is not. Privacy is a condition people maintain by exercising personal initiative and responsibility. Other legal rights allow them to do this.

An example can illustrate how something as vitally important as privacy is not a right: Most people agree that individuals should be allowed to develop and follow their own sense of morality, as long as they do not harm others. People may decide for themselves, for example, whether a higher power exists; whether bad acts have consequences in a future life; and whether to sing, pray, or remain silent. These, one could argue, reflect a "right" to morality.

As important as morality is, though, there is no "right" to it. Instead, morality is a quality that individuals develop and practice in the shelter given by individual rights like the right to free speech, the right to free exercise of religion, the right to associate with others, and the right to own property. These rights protect individuals from government interference and shelter essential human institutions like morality. People who seek morality as an entitlement from government are censors, at best.

This is a backdoor empowerment of tyranny. What is not explicitly given to the government constitutionally, they have not the right to take or use.

And please, cite the place(s) in the US Constitution that speak of this "right to property". I think that you cannot, because a right to property is only implied in the constitution, as is the right to be left alone by the government.

Why has Cato lain with the swine in their new beltway domicile up on the hill of beans by not frequently engaging in voiceferous criticisms of the War Upon Iraq? One pretty much has to go back to the now terminated Pena two years hence to find anything of substance:

• Cato Policy Analys

I think you might be confused.

Perhaps you are really libertarian and don't know it.
You should try The World's Smallest Political Quiz (it only takes about 45 seconds):
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Most liberals (and unfortunately some conservatives too these days) want MORE government intervantion in their lives, not LESS. The founding principles of the libertarian movement are:

1) limited govenrment
2) individual liberties
3) free markets

According to your post, it looks like you meet 2 out of the 3 of those.

Here are some links for further reading on the topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
http://www.cato.org/
http://www.lp.org/

My point is that your claim:

You can see this by looking at graphs of consumption before and after the speed limit in the US was raised from 55 to 65.

... cannot be substantiated. There are many factors that cause gasoline consumption to rise. Aside from a few pauses, consumption has risen without regard to the speed limit: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/perspectives.p df. Look at figure 19 on page xxiv. There's no discernible change in the trend in 1995. As I posted in my last message, the US DOT estimates that -- at most -- the 55mph speed limit reduced consumption by 1%, which is statistically insignificant. But, that was at the expense of billions of man hours, which translated directly into reduced productivity and billions of wasted dollars.

Repealing the speed limit didn't increase accident fatalities or injuries, either. After accounting for the increase in miles driven, accident injuries and fatalities actually declined from 1995 to 1997: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa346.pdf