Slashdot Mirror

If you get rid of the FCC there will be no wireless that is even remotely useable. There would be mass chaos,

There might be chaos for a short period but not for long. Chaos will rob businesses of profits and they will be forced to self regulate. Simply mass media won't be able to deal with interference from competitors. If company A were to say increase their broadcasting power this would interfer with company B's broadcasting so B would increase their transmission's power which would interfer with A and with Company C. So either they would get together to eliminate interference each causes the other or they will end up in an arms race. Aa an arms race would increase their costs while reducing income it's more likely they would cooperate to find an answer acceptable to all parties. Quite simply the FCC was started in an era where the airwaves amd communications were limited. The broadcasting technology of that tyme needed a relatively large spectrum of airwaves to broadcast without interference, however using today's tech the bandwidth needed is much more narrow. Fact is today it's the FCC and regulations that prevents or hinders broad availability of wireless broadband and other technologies. "Reason" magazine earlier this year or late last year had an article on this. And the CATO Institute had some studies on it also. You may mention these are slanted to the freemarket but the FCC is biased as well. On the technical front the "IEEE Spectrum had an article on this in the print issue earlier as well saying somwhat the same, that FCC regulations were appropriate at first but that as tech has advanced these old regulations are now hindering advancements, availability of technology.

But what you can't disagree with is that these reasons are among the reasons that refineries have not been built here since the 1970s.

Total Revenue Growth. Nominal federal revenues dou-bled in the 1980s from $517 billion to $1.031 trillion. From 1981 to 1989 real federal revenues climbed by 20 percent. As a share of GDP, however, federal tax revenues fell by 1.0 percentage point during that period.

• It looks to me that CATO's not using real dollars here -- which is profoundly dishonest. They're using absolute dollars; this makes revenue increases artificially larger and decreases artificially smaller.
• CATO's not including 1980 and they are including 1989 (when Reagan wasn't in office). Why? Because doing so allows them to discount drops in 1980 and include rises in 1989.
• CATO neglects to mention Reagan's tax hike in 1984.

You might find this article interesting. According to Ehrlich, in The Population Bomb, we should have all died of starvation a couple of decades ago.

Also read this. Make sure you note, "According to the most recent EPA statistics, pollution of the air and water is not increasing, it is decreasing..."

I think you are confusing capitalistic anarchy for libertarianism. Libertarians DO believe that the government has a role. They just differ as to the extent of that role. There are things where libertarians have no problem involving the government. A car that explodes due to negligence isn't the right of the car company unless the car company told you that they were selling you an exploding car. If you really wanted an exploding car, you of course welcome to buy one and use it on your own property, but if a car company sells you a bomb and calls it a car, libertarians would be all for throwing them in jail and litigating them out of existence. In a libertarian society you do not have the right to misrepresent a product any more then you can in this society.

As for drugs, it isn't government permission you need. What you need is to agree to not sue the drug company that sells you the heroin when it puts you in a hospital. If a drug company sells you heroin and doesn't bother to mention that their product is lethal, in a libertarian society you are free to litigate against them. Libertarians DO believe that the government is an arbiter in contract law. A libertarian would not be against mandating that when entering a contract to use a substance that has a great possibility of being lethal and addictive, that the user must go through a training program that fully explains the dangers of the drug before they can use it.

Libertarians have no notion of "public property".

That simply isn't true. I have yet to hear any libertarian advocate private ownership of air. Further, you are taking libertarianism to its fullest extreme. That is like accusing a socialist of being insane because nations NEEED currency to function, all the while having the socialist looking at you like an idiot because he never advocated the banishment of currency. The extreme farthest end of socialism might demand money be done away with, but no sane socialist would advocate doing it because we have yet to develop a method of better assigning value better then money when confronted multiple economic options.

They do have the notion of, "if the air is above my land, it's my air. Stop by if you want to discuss the issue. You have three choices, you can pay me to not pollute my own air, you can get the hell of my land, or you can say hello to my double-barrel shotgun."

From http://www.cato.org/pubs/chapters/marlib23.html

Pollution is generally some form of waste, but even if pollution were unavoidable in certain manufacturing processes, strongly enforced property rights would force polluters to either clean up or close shop. By definition, pollution is a trespass against someone's property or person.

If you want to get technical and take libertarianism to its extreme, in this case if a company that is spewing HCl into the air and that HCl floats over your property line and causes you to vomit blood, you get to sue them out of existence and throw them in jail for causing you bodily harm. Dumping onto private property that is not yours is absolutely forbidden in a libertarian society. As you have already noted, libertarians take the concept of private property very seriously, and dumping your waste onto property other then your own is a massive violation of private property. In the most extreme of libertarian societies were literally everything was owned, polluting would be almost impossible. Every scrap of pollutant you create, you would need to withhold on your own property. If any of that pollution seeped off of your property, you would be immediately held fully liable for it and it would be treated as if you drove a dump truck onto someone's law and dumped toxic waste into intentionally. If you want to talk about extremes, in a truly libertarian society pollution is completely impossible.

Of course, such a society would cease to function. Society needs to be able to pollute to at least some d

It seems that all the intelligent people I've met understand the the War on Drugs is a total snipe hunt.

As long as their is demand, there will be a market.

The fundemental question seems to be:
Is the government trying to punish marijuana smokers or educate them?

More than 60% of all drug incarcerations are for non-violent possesion of marijuana.

As a rational individual, it seems obvioius that their current tactics only succeed in punishing marijuana smokers. Actual use of marijuana is at the same levels or higher than it has ever been so as a preventive, prohibition has most definitely failed. The supply of marijuana is greater than ever and the potency is higher too. The DEA says this to scare the uninformed. They attempt to create the analogy that stronger means greater threat. In reality, stronger means that pot heads have to consume less marijuana to get high. So in reality, higher potency means healthier pot smokers. Who do you believe the DEA with their vested interest in maintaining the status quo or an independent organization of scientists and medical researchers, the esteemed World Health Organization. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/general/w ho-index.htm

If anything prohibition has made the problem worse. Prohibition tends to create a black market which opens the door for large scale criminal organizations. Examples of these are the Mafia ( very small organization until their massive growth thanks to alcohol prohibition), the Latin & South American drug cartels in the '80's, and of course the DEA.
http://www.prohibitioncosts.org/
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html

In fact the only voices that seem to be raised against the legalization of marijuana are those of the DEA and the penal system. That's only natural, without them maintaining their lies, their free ride is over. Even the politicians are afraid of the power of the DEA. Apparently the DEA thinks they don't have to obey the Constitution.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2003 /jan/16/514528463.html?Marijuana%20Group:%20Feds%2 0Broke%20Law

http://www.leap.cc/ is a really interesting website put together by former Law Enforcement Officers that have seen that the Drug Laws cause more harm than good.

My more people that know the truth, the better our society becomes.

Just because you like being sober doesn't mean you have to hate those that want to smoke pot.

The United States is still a free country, right?

So tell me again, what is the "political motivation" of those climatologists who believe in global warming?

- - - - -

How about the billions of dollars in "global warming" research grant?

http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-07-04.html

The basic idea behind it is school. School is a microcosm meant to prepare people to enter society. Only their reward systems are different. Whoever get rewarded in school (the straight-A student usually) has a hard time being rewarded in society, which tends to make the better students stay in school, while the others get out to make the money. This naturaly introduces jealousy, which in term brings eliticism on behalf of those who feel they are not rewarded as they should be.

The article is at http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-20n1-1. html and is written by Robert Nozick.

The U.S. is pro-democracy, but only insofar as democracy is a means to guarantee a liberal and limited government. The UN is anything but, because of its member states, who are far more willing (indeed eager) to regulate, limit, and filter the internet. Other nations already have a voice--they just don't have ultimate control. And that's a good thing.

The U.S. is pro-democracy? - only insofar as it serves their intentions by giving it lip service. Historically the USA has been for Democracy only when the democratic process results in a government they find pliant or tolerable.

Our current pretender, Mr. Bush is allied with Musharraf, the Pakistani dictator who overthrew a democratically elected government. The Bush Admin has expended great efforts stretching the truth about N.Korea, Iran and Iraq, while hiding the truth about Pakistan's exportation of nuclear tech to other countries. Up until recently the Bush Administration was happy to ally with one of the world's present day devils, Uzbekistan's Karimov, and even after last May's Uzbek government's Andijon massacre of their protesting citzenry, which was described by one of the protestors with "They shot at us like rabbits", equivocated before supporting the EU demand for an International Inquiry. While this was going on, they had actively tried to destablize Chavez in Venezuela, who won his election. Then there is the Abdullah love pecks.

Are these allies of ours liberal and limited governments? The only reason the Bush Admin presently loudly touts democracy, is that it's the only even half-assed rationale left for Bush's War Upon Iraq. It certainly wasn't waged to get our real enemy, the 911 perps, many of whom have licked their wounds received from Afghanistan battles up in Pakistan.

And this is only our present Administration. The Pro Democracy spin is hype. The American Government is comprised of powermongering control freaks, the truth notwithstanding.

Yeah, so The USA is better than the Dynastic Maoposeur gang's Great Firewall of China, and mainliand's i-net policy of Hu owns Yu; so all your posts are belong to the People's Republic, but the US government is still insidious, and still without a clue. I was spooked to see how a weird-assed robot with a dot mil DNS resolution made a jump across two web domains on a previously invisible thread, in the temporary weblogs, only to have both providers(1 UK and 1 US based) erase its tracks on the permannent logs. Especially since the pages had nothing whatsover to do with "terrorism". One was a satire about Mike Savage's and Alan Ginsburg's frolicking relationship from the past, and the other some political cartoons.

The great terrorist hunters of the Naval War College , investigating adolescent humour poking fun at right-wing homophobia in their herculean attempts to probe and root out the evil doers. They aren't called Rear Admirals for nothing; In The Navy...

The USA politicians want control of the internet only for the sake of control, and for the advantages they can then provide to their cronies.

Well, it was supported by the GOP as part of their "Contract with America" and Clinton supported them, but then a bunch of strict constitutionalist (both Repub and Dems) objected and supported the lawsuit to have it repealed (again: http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-06-98.html)

In fact, last December, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.), long the prince of pork on Capitol Hill, declared that if the court strikes down the line item veto, it would be "my Christmas wish come true." ...
"We feel that the liberties of the American people have been assured," said Byrd. "Without adequate control by the citizens represented in Congress, liberty is threatened."

Also, FDR died in office.

See, term-limits do work. No, you're correct. The amendment was passed in 1951, six years after FDR's 1933-1945 term "ended". Truman was in office from 45-53 (also a Democrat like FDR). Next came Eisenhower in 53 (a Republican). Hmmm... Presidential term limits enacted after five consecutive Democratic terms...go figure.

The line-item veto is arguably good for the country, but Congress quietly cheered the downfall of the line-item veto as it saved their pork-barrel projects from cancellation (http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-06-98.html).

Unfortunately, Congress's gain is the taxpayers' loss. One year's experience with the line item veto taught us all an important lesson: the line item veto works. In 1997 President Clinton used this new veto 82 times to delete unnecessary expenditures in 11 spending bills. The savings to taxpayers total nearly $2 billion over five years. True, in a $1.75 trillion annual budget, this is not a huge sum. But even by Washington standards, $2 billion is still real money -- and a whole lot of pork.

If the information is already in a database it can save them money from collecting dna from those seeking medical coverage.

I don't see how. The government is not exactly known for being the most efficient at these things.

Which is more inefficient, "reusing" data or duplicating efforts?

But even if it is cheaper for the insurance companies to do it this way, isn't that a good thing, because it means lower rates for everyone?

No it's only good for those who have a "perfect" makeup. One reason for dna testing by insurance companies is to identify those who present greater risks to profits, for instance someone who'd identified as having a greater chance of having cancer X, that person can then either be made to pay more for coverage, can be denied coverage, or shades in between. I don't mind if the person will need to pay more but only if they can afford to pay. Uninsured people raise the prices for everyone. The only other way out is with "Soylent Green".

But no outcry if the government gets everyone's DNA, sells it to the insurance companies, and the insurance companies start dropping people?

But there will be an outcry from some quarters, sectors of society, the ACLU for instance is already questioning if putting the dna of those that haven't been convicted of any crime into a government databse would be unconstitutional. As Jim Harper a specialist of privacy issues at CATO says, "it's a classic mission-creep situation".

This is what Timothy Lynch said, on 21 August 2000 in "The USA Today":

"The federal government is constantly trying to expand its purview over every aspect of American life. And wherever the feds go -- whether it be health care or education -- they inevitably demand information about people. Sooner than you think, the feds will want your DNA to be stored in an FBI database."

Congress unleashed a runaway train in 1994 when it established a program called Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). The CODIS program offered state officials federal funds if they assisted the FBI with DNA-sample collection. By 1998, all 50 states had passed laws requiring local police departments to collect DNA samples. At first, the demand for DNA collection seemed innocuous and uncontroversial. Only convicted sex offenders would be required to give DNA samples. Such a database would enable the authorities to track down serial rapists. Who could oppose that?

Once the DNA database was established, however, the police quickly realized that they could increase their chances of catching criminals by expanding it. We've been sliding down the slippery slope ever since.

The second stage was to get a sample from all convicted felons, not just sex offenders. In New York, Gov. George Pataki is pushing to require anyone convicted of a misdemeanor to submit to DNA profiling. The former police commissioner of New York City, Howard Safir, goes even further. He says that any person arrested should be included in the database. According to Safir, "The only ones who have anything to worry about from DNA testing are criminals." Then why stop with arrestees? Why not obtain samples from every single American?

There is, of course, cause for concern. Federal officials have abused their powers in the past, such as by throwing Japanese-Americans into detention camps, by conducting barbaric experiments on black men in Tuskegee, Ala., and by deliberately exposing GIs to atomic blasts, to name just a few.

If we believe that tomorrow's political leaders will somehow be incapable of abusing their power over a fully centralized DNA database, the next generation will never forgive us -- and rightly so.

This article originally appeared in The USA Today on August 21, 2000.

The more power government gets the more power it wants.

If the information is already in a database it can save them money from collecting dna from those seeking medical coverage.

I don't see how. The government is not exactly known for being the most efficient at these things.

Which is more inefficient, "reusing" data or duplicating efforts?

But even if it is cheaper for the insurance companies to do it this way, isn't that a good thing, because it means lower rates for everyone?

No it's only good for those who have a "perfect" makeup. One reason for dna testing by insurance companies is to identify those who present greater risks to profits, for instance someone who'd identified as having a greater chance of having cancer X, that person can then either be made to pay more for coverage, can be denied coverage, or shades in between. I don't mind if the person will need to pay more but only if they can afford to pay. Uninsured people raise the prices for everyone. The only other way out is with "Soylent Green".

But no outcry if the government gets everyone's DNA, sells it to the insurance companies, and the insurance companies start dropping people?

But there will be an outcry from some quarters, sectors of society, the ACLU for instance is already questioning if putting the dna of those that haven't been convicted of any crime into a government databse would be unconstitutional. As Jim Harper a specialist of privacy issues at CATO says, "it's a classic mission-creep situation".

This is what Timothy Lynch said, on 21 August 2000 in "The USA Today":

"The federal government is constantly trying to expand its purview over every aspect of American life. And wherever the feds go -- whether it be health care or education -- they inevitably demand information about people. Sooner than you think, the feds will want your DNA to be stored in an FBI database."

Congress unleashed a runaway train in 1994 when it established a program called Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). The CODIS program offered state officials federal funds if they assisted the FBI with DNA-sample collection. By 1998, all 50 states had passed laws requiring local police departments to collect DNA samples. At first, the demand for DNA collection seemed innocuous and uncontroversial. Only convicted sex offenders would be required to give DNA samples. Such a database would enable the authorities to track down serial rapists. Who could oppose that?

Once the DNA database was established, however, the police quickly realized that they could increase their chances of catching criminals by expanding it. We've been sliding down the slippery slope ever since.

The second stage was to get a sample from all convicted felons, not just sex offenders. In New York, Gov. George Pataki is pushing to require anyone convicted of a misdemeanor to submit to DNA profiling. The former police commissioner of New York City, Howard Safir, goes even further. He says that any person arrested should be included in the database. According to Safir, "The only ones who have anything to worry about from DNA testing are criminals." Then why stop with arrestees? Why not obtain samples from every single American?

There is, of course, cause for concern. Federal officials have abused their powers in the past, such as by throwing Japanese-Americans into detention camps, by conducting barbaric experiments on black men in Tuskegee, Ala., and by deliberately exposing GIs to atomic blasts, to name just a few.

If we believe that tomorrow's political leaders will somehow be incapable of abusing their power over a fully centralized DNA database, the next generation will never forgive us -- and rightly so.

This article originally appeared in The USA Today on August 21, 2000.

The more power government gets the more power it wants.

Did you know that the United States sends back a higher percentage of it's Congressional incumbents than most countries? In fact, and I have heard this from many places, we send back a bigger percentage of than the old Soviet Politburo did in it's heyday.

Link to one story

Scary, huh?

To show why I assert that there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons, I shall briefly review the science associated with those predictions.

Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is a consultant to the Global Modeling and Simulation Group at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, and a Distinguished Visiting Scientist at California Institute of Technology's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (Ph.D., '64, S.M., '61, A.B., '60, Harvard University)

...but you and I will see the end of cheap oil in our life times...

That mantra has been chanted for over 40 years now. Oil can also be made from coal and we have enough coal to last for centuries. Here is an intersting article:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv27n1/v27n1 -1.pdf

Electricity for making hydrogen and running electrics comes mostly from fossil fuel, mostly coal.

There are plenty of links that describe the NFIP subsidy mostly based on money owed to the Treasury and debts that have been forgiven so that they never need to be paid back, but the reality can be summed up in a single quote:

"...if NFIP charges actuarial rates, the program is superfluous."

In other words, if the NFIP were able to recover it's liabilities plus adminitration costs from the premiums paid by the people who need the coverage then a private insurance company would be more than willing to provide that service. Private insurance companies are unwilling to provide a free market alternative.

That quote was from CATO but please don't write me off as a free market trumps common sense wing nut. I just think that welfare should go to people who need it not millionaires building McMansions on sand dunes (or 10 feet under the sea level).

You have a very warped and unfactual view of libretarian theory.

A libretarian view is that the private sector does most things better than the government does (with the exeception of military and police). The government should stay out of these areas and let the private sector take care of them, since the private sector does things more efficently, more cheaply, and over all better than the government does.

Altrusim in not a libretarian no-no. I don't know where you pulled that bullshit from. In fact, libretarians encourage it and believe that private charities work better than state-sponsored welfare programs. (Because, well, they do). These are funded by altruism.

A libretarian believes in a limited government - a government that stays out of people's private lives (so long as they're not harming other people) and that stays out of the market place, because free markets function best.

For more information on Libretarian views, visit http://www.cato.org/.

What is happening in New Orleans (with regard to the looting) is pure anarchy - it reminds me of what Hobbes said the state of nature would look like...

90% of all ice on this whole damn spinning rock is located on Antartica. While the phrase "vast majority" is of course relative, I would consider that far beyond the neccessary requirements.
For some more information on a subject you know nothing about, click here.

"Actually, global warming is a fact."

See, this is the type of thing we need to fight. People who don't know the difference between hypotheses, theories, and facts. Or people so closed minded they refuse to believe anything other than what the celebrities on TV tell them.

"The global temperatures are increasing."

You mean the "average ground temperatures of various cities is increasing". Well we know that, and we know what is causing it. Increased development warms the local area. Large concrete buildings and asphalt streets get warmer than medows and forests. Thats not global warming.

"The ocean temperatures are rising"

And you thought the Texans were distorting data? More reading material for you.

A lot of ISPs' privacy policies state that they wont give out your personal information with anything short of a warrant.

With the FBI basically writing their own warrants now, it's put them in an awkward legal position.

The best part is: even before the patriot II (which passed, see above link), ISPs could be charged with obstruction of justice for not giving the FBI what they ask for in unofficial terms.

Speaking as someone who was tracked down in such a way over a MISDEMENOR (dismissed, thank God), I can say that this affects us all. I'm very proud to say that a grand jury was assembled and a warrant had to be issued before Cox gave the information up. This was after Patriot I, however, it was BEFORE Patriot II.

Nowadays.. well ...

I agree that supplies are tight, but that is not because there is no oil. See this and this for more information.

It isn't even clear CO2 is much of a problem. http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html makes some interesting claims about the effects of CO2. It attributes most global warming to H2O. Wild stuff. Be sure to note that Cato is more wacko libertarian than they are wacko right wing.

Perhaps with 60 years of sort of ok measurements of some places and lets say, I don't know, 25 years of reasonable global data(satellite imagery), we can't even say anything about the climate of the planet?

Sure there are ways of estimating historical global temperatures using ice and plant growth and stuff like that, but how accurate are those estimates? If the error is even as low as plus or minus 2 degrees, we can't say shit about what temperatures would be without human influence. The data we do have suggests that temperatures have only climbed a small amount(a degree C or two) since the start of the burning, err, industrial revolution.

From a global perspective, it is probably reasonable to talk about temperature change using some sort of time average, averaging across somewhere between 50 and 500 years. The last ten years, scientifically speaking, don't mean shit.

To bring this back on the original topic a little. The article is by someone at the Von Mises Institute. Ludwig Von Mises is best known for his books demonstrating that socialist and communist systems have an inherent tendancy to end up controlled by power-hungry groups and individuals. He predicted the results of socialist policies years before they came to pass, because he had been exposed to them as an economist in Austria before they become academically popular worldwide.

Essentially, the personal qualities that get you promoted fastest in a socialist government also happen to be the personal qualities that lead someone to set themselves up as a dictator or at best an oligarchy.

The problem with "true socialism" is that due to human nature, it's not stable. It quickly devolves into "true totalitarianism" and has every time it's been tried on any national scale.

As for the Nazi's, you know the "National Socialist German Workers Party", they might have been in competition with the Russian Communists, but that doesn't mean they weren't also Socialists, not some sort of idealogical opposite. Sure, they had a slightly different agenda and wanted their group to be in charge instead, but it wasn't anything like Laissez-faire economics, which WOULD be the opposite of them and the Russians at the time.

Lastly, it's not a coincidence that the countries listed as having the most economic freedom every year also happen to have the highest economic growth rates and the ones at the bottom of the list have the lowest (or even mostly negative) growth rates.

You have to literally ignore history in order to make any sort of case that socialism is the solution to starvation instead of the primary current cause of starvation in the world.

No, it isn't really a reaction to "recent news," unless you consider 1957 "recent" (you could with respect to a lot of things, but not nuclear).

The Price-Anderson Act of 1957 provided indemnity coverage to protect the public from the low probability of a high-cost catastrophic nuclear accident and to encourage the development of the atomic energy industry.
  http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n1/reg15 n1-rothwell.html

While a lot of that indemnity has changed since then it is still present to a large degree.

NO! That is a recipe for continuation of the status quo. They BOTH need to feel the heat NOW. Otherwise the Dems will take over and think their social agenda of increasing the loss of our freedoms for different reasons was the cause of their "success" at the polls. You wind up in a perpetual seesaw resulting in the steady elimination of all rights equally between the two. You repeatedly trade bully one for bully two, then reverse and repeat.

There is nothing you or I can do to stop the pendulum of the bi-polar polity, other than convince enough people who will vote to actually change it. There was a chance at a third party with clout, but Buchanan, the Republican loyalist to the end, took the FEC money and trashed them in 2000. Demcorats still blame Nader, the fools, they should be blaming Buchanan, Perot and Ventura.

In the current circumstances, the best that can be achieved is an evenness of parties, and the abrasion that comes with it. I think that a large part of the economic boom in the 90's was due to the great friction between the parties. Neither side had enough power to suck their vigorish off of the top, and the free market that could, did. The equities traders screwed it up, but equity traders should be dealt with. If they didn't venture for capitalisation of the business, they are leeches, sucking from the valuation of the compensation provided to the producers of the product.

An Abridged Listing Why I Beat Upon Republicans Presently

The republicans have gained the upper hand in large part by betraying both their core ideology and the Dreamtime America. NeoConservatism's maturation can be traced from marxism to trotskyite CIA stooges to Scoop Jackson DemoHawks to Reagan to the Son of Bush. They have never given up the marxist trait of spewing rhetoric, the truth notwithstanding. The self-confessed American traitor, David Horrowitz calls Kerry and Fonda traitors, and is given stature within the Right. The putrescence of moral relevancy oozing from the partisan defense of a president who fixed the intelligence and the facts around his policy of familial vengence, and took America into an unrighteous conflict without contemplating the aftermath. a president who sings sweet songs of liberty and democracy, yet gives aid to dictatorial destroyers of democracy, has liasons with leaders loathsome of liberty, and goes out on ManDates with Saudi Princes who come to the USA laden with extra baggage.

When did conservatives begin to support due process of law applied inequally to humans? That is a high crime against America, yet they still repeatedly remind us that a stained blue dress is impeachable? Why not decry Blood-Stained Iraq Sands?

Bush's SCOTUS nomimee Roberts is a dangerous and activist judge who DOES NOT adjudicate using original intent, and all the country can think about is which way he'll decide on abortion cases. His assent in the Hamdi v Rumsfeld appeal is frightful. It posits that a president is above the very law that legitimises his power, stating this is a function of war power, in a war upon unstated enemies, of an indeterminate duration. Why hasn't anyone asked Roberts just what the hell he was doing during that ongoing criminal enterprise: The Reagan Administration? This is ano

Now that our side is dominant and impleneting it's policies (mostly rolling back socialism in favor of classical liberalism) it is now the Democratic party yelling STOP! in an attempt to preserve their gains.

Towards classical liberalism? Really?

Since when is a $1.2 TRILLION Medicare spending bill (passed by Dubya) something that a smaller government would do?

The idea that Bush is any fiscal conservative at all is a bunch of cracksmokery.

You clearly don't read enough of the Cato Institute which called him a "Progressive President" or The Economist magazine or Reason magazine where Bush's spending record is concerned. Oh, and Bush's "lean budget" this year? It's "like being the slimmest sumo wrestler in the ring."

Soaring yearly budget deficits approaching 5% of yearly GDP are not the work of any "classical liberal"; those deficits -- as the great (and *real* classical liberal) economist Milton Friedman once wrote of deficits decades ago -- are nothing more than a tax increase on future generations. 90% steel tarriffs (ruled illegal by the WTO) are certainly not the work of any free-trading classical liberal (although to his credit, CAFTA is admittedly a nice step).

The very notion that President Bush is returning us to a more classical liberal -- a.k.a. moderate libertarian -- society is almost completely intellectually-bankrupt, whether we are discussing economics (as we are in this thread) or social policy.

We've hit Bush's economic leg, and find he hasn't one to stand on. Clearly Bush has little in the way of classical liberal leanings there (his Social Security reform aside, although even there, his plan will effectively discredit the value of private investment by greatly restricting the basket of investments into which people may invest). What about his classical liberal views on social policy?

He doesn't have a leg to stand on there either.

The real classical liberals would not have attacked a foreign nation unprovoked (Iraq), although they certainly would've fought back against the 9/11 attackers (i.e., we would have gone to Afghanistan, as we actually did). Classical liberals believe in the value of privacy; Bush does not. Classical liberals (usually) support private gun ownership; Bush supported the Assault Weapons Ban even though even the anti-gun Violence Policy Center's own leader said the AWB was of little value (the re-enactment of the AWB thankfully died in Congress, no thanks to Bush). The classical liberals of today -- like Milton Friedman -- support the legalization, or at least decriminalization of illegal drugs; Bush, like any conservative, opposes it (thanks to Ronald Reagan's promotion of the so-failed-even-some-Republicans-admit-it-now "war on drugs").

As a final nail in his socially non-classical liberal policy: on free speech, classical liberals love freedom of speech -- they wrote the First Amendment after all! We would allow full, free, and unrestricted speech on our airwaves (with exceptions perhaps only for very-specific, very limited national security instances, e.g. disallowing the announcement of the procedures and launch codes for any of our nuclear missiles, though

Now that our side is dominant and impleneting it's policies (mostly rolling back socialism in favor of classical liberalism) it is now the Democratic party yelling STOP! in an attempt to preserve their gains.

Towards classical liberalism? Really?

Since when is a $1.2 TRILLION Medicare spending bill (passed by Dubya) something that a smaller government would do?

The idea that Bush is any fiscal conservative at all is a bunch of cracksmokery.

You clearly don't read enough of the Cato Institute which called him a "Progressive President" or The Economist magazine or Reason magazine where Bush's spending record is concerned. Oh, and Bush's "lean budget" this year? It's "like being the slimmest sumo wrestler in the ring."

Soaring yearly budget deficits approaching 5% of yearly GDP are not the work of any "classical liberal"; those deficits -- as the great (and *real* classical liberal) economist Milton Friedman once wrote of deficits decades ago -- are nothing more than a tax increase on future generations. 90% steel tarriffs (ruled illegal by the WTO) are certainly not the work of any free-trading classical liberal (although to his credit, CAFTA is admittedly a nice step).

The very notion that President Bush is returning us to a more classical liberal -- a.k.a. moderate libertarian -- society is almost completely intellectually-bankrupt, whether we are discussing economics (as we are in this thread) or social policy.

We've hit Bush's economic leg, and find he hasn't one to stand on. Clearly Bush has little in the way of classical liberal leanings there (his Social Security reform aside, although even there, his plan will effectively discredit the value of private investment by greatly restricting the basket of investments into which people may invest). What about his classical liberal views on social policy?

He doesn't have a leg to stand on there either.

The real classical liberals would not have attacked a foreign nation unprovoked (Iraq), although they certainly would've fought back against the 9/11 attackers (i.e., we would have gone to Afghanistan, as we actually did). Classical liberals believe in the value of privacy; Bush does not. Classical liberals (usually) support private gun ownership; Bush supported the Assault Weapons Ban even though even the anti-gun Violence Policy Center's own leader said the AWB was of little value (the re-enactment of the AWB thankfully died in Congress, no thanks to Bush). The classical liberals of today -- like Milton Friedman -- support the legalization, or at least decriminalization of illegal drugs; Bush, like any conservative, opposes it (thanks to Ronald Reagan's promotion of the so-failed-even-some-Republicans-admit-it-now "war on drugs").

As a final nail in his socially non-classical liberal policy: on free speech, classical liberals love freedom of speech -- they wrote the First Amendment after all! We would allow full, free, and unrestricted speech on our airwaves (with exceptions perhaps only for very-specific, very limited national security instances, e.g. disallowing the announcement of the procedures and launch codes for any of our nuclear missiles, though

Now that our side is dominant and impleneting it's policies (mostly rolling back socialism in favor of classical liberalism) it is now the Democratic party yelling STOP! in an attempt to preserve their gains.

Towards classical liberalism? Really?

Since when is a $1.2 TRILLION Medicare spending bill (passed by Dubya) something that a smaller government would do?

The idea that Bush is any fiscal conservative at all is a bunch of cracksmokery.

You clearly don't read enough of the Cato Institute which called him a "Progressive President" or The Economist magazine or Reason magazine where Bush's spending record is concerned. Oh, and Bush's "lean budget" this year? It's "like being the slimmest sumo wrestler in the ring."

Soaring yearly budget deficits approaching 5% of yearly GDP are not the work of any "classical liberal"; those deficits -- as the great (and *real* classical liberal) economist Milton Friedman once wrote of deficits decades ago -- are nothing more than a tax increase on future generations. 90% steel tarriffs (ruled illegal by the WTO) are certainly not the work of any free-trading classical liberal (although to his credit, CAFTA is admittedly a nice step).

The very notion that President Bush is returning us to a more classical liberal -- a.k.a. moderate libertarian -- society is almost completely intellectually-bankrupt, whether we are discussing economics (as we are in this thread) or social policy.

We've hit Bush's economic leg, and find he hasn't one to stand on. Clearly Bush has little in the way of classical liberal leanings there (his Social Security reform aside, although even there, his plan will effectively discredit the value of private investment by greatly restricting the basket of investments into which people may invest). What about his classical liberal views on social policy?

He doesn't have a leg to stand on there either.

The real classical liberals would not have attacked a foreign nation unprovoked (Iraq), although they certainly would've fought back against the 9/11 attackers (i.e., we would have gone to Afghanistan, as we actually did). Classical liberals believe in the value of privacy; Bush does not. Classical liberals (usually) support private gun ownership; Bush supported the Assault Weapons Ban even though even the anti-gun Violence Policy Center's own leader said the AWB was of little value (the re-enactment of the AWB thankfully died in Congress, no thanks to Bush). The classical liberals of today -- like Milton Friedman -- support the legalization, or at least decriminalization of illegal drugs; Bush, like any conservative, opposes it (thanks to Ronald Reagan's promotion of the so-failed-even-some-Republicans-admit-it-now "war on drugs").

As a final nail in his socially non-classical liberal policy: on free speech, classical liberals love freedom of speech -- they wrote the First Amendment after all! We would allow full, free, and unrestricted speech on our airwaves (with exceptions perhaps only for very-specific, very limited national security instances, e.g. disallowing the announcement of the procedures and launch codes for any of our nuclear missiles, though

Now that our side is dominant and impleneting it's policies (mostly rolling back socialism in favor of classical liberalism) it is now the Democratic party yelling STOP! in an attempt to preserve their gains.

Towards classical liberalism? Really?

Since when is a $1.2 TRILLION Medicare spending bill (passed by Dubya) something that a smaller government would do?

The idea that Bush is any fiscal conservative at all is a bunch of cracksmokery.

You clearly don't read enough of the Cato Institute which called him a "Progressive President" or The Economist magazine or Reason magazine where Bush's spending record is concerned. Oh, and Bush's "lean budget" this year? It's "like being the slimmest sumo wrestler in the ring."

Soaring yearly budget deficits approaching 5% of yearly GDP are not the work of any "classical liberal"; those deficits -- as the great (and *real* classical liberal) economist Milton Friedman once wrote of deficits decades ago -- are nothing more than a tax increase on future generations. 90% steel tarriffs (ruled illegal by the WTO) are certainly not the work of any free-trading classical liberal (although to his credit, CAFTA is admittedly a nice step).

The very notion that President Bush is returning us to a more classical liberal -- a.k.a. moderate libertarian -- society is almost completely intellectually-bankrupt, whether we are discussing economics (as we are in this thread) or social policy.

We've hit Bush's economic leg, and find he hasn't one to stand on. Clearly Bush has little in the way of classical liberal leanings there (his Social Security reform aside, although even there, his plan will effectively discredit the value of private investment by greatly restricting the basket of investments into which people may invest). What about his classical liberal views on social policy?

He doesn't have a leg to stand on there either.

The real classical liberals would not have attacked a foreign nation unprovoked (Iraq), although they certainly would've fought back against the 9/11 attackers (i.e., we would have gone to Afghanistan, as we actually did). Classical liberals believe in the value of privacy; Bush does not. Classical liberals (usually) support private gun ownership; Bush supported the Assault Weapons Ban even though even the anti-gun Violence Policy Center's own leader said the AWB was of little value (the re-enactment of the AWB thankfully died in Congress, no thanks to Bush). The classical liberals of today -- like Milton Friedman -- support the legalization, or at least decriminalization of illegal drugs; Bush, like any conservative, opposes it (thanks to Ronald Reagan's promotion of the so-failed-even-some-Republicans-admit-it-now "war on drugs").

As a final nail in his socially non-classical liberal policy: on free speech, classical liberals love freedom of speech -- they wrote the First Amendment after all! We would allow full, free, and unrestricted speech on our airwaves (with exceptions perhaps only for very-specific, very limited national security instances, e.g. disallowing the announcement of the procedures and launch codes for any of our nuclear missiles, though

Now that our side is dominant and impleneting it's policies (mostly rolling back socialism in favor of classical liberalism) it is now the Democratic party yelling STOP! in an attempt to preserve their gains.

Towards classical liberalism? Really?

Since when is a $1.2 TRILLION Medicare spending bill (passed by Dubya) something that a smaller government would do?

The idea that Bush is any fiscal conservative at all is a bunch of cracksmokery.

You clearly don't read enough of the Cato Institute which called him a "Progressive President" or The Economist magazine or Reason magazine where Bush's spending record is concerned. Oh, and Bush's "lean budget" this year? It's "like being the slimmest sumo wrestler in the ring."

Soaring yearly budget deficits approaching 5% of yearly GDP are not the work of any "classical liberal"; those deficits -- as the great (and *real* classical liberal) economist Milton Friedman once wrote of deficits decades ago -- are nothing more than a tax increase on future generations. 90% steel tarriffs (ruled illegal by the WTO) are certainly not the work of any free-trading classical liberal (although to his credit, CAFTA is admittedly a nice step).

The very notion that President Bush is returning us to a more classical liberal -- a.k.a. moderate libertarian -- society is almost completely intellectually-bankrupt, whether we are discussing economics (as we are in this thread) or social policy.

We've hit Bush's economic leg, and find he hasn't one to stand on. Clearly Bush has little in the way of classical liberal leanings there (his Social Security reform aside, although even there, his plan will effectively discredit the value of private investment by greatly restricting the basket of investments into which people may invest). What about his classical liberal views on social policy?

He doesn't have a leg to stand on there either.

The real classical liberals would not have attacked a foreign nation unprovoked (Iraq), although they certainly would've fought back against the 9/11 attackers (i.e., we would have gone to Afghanistan, as we actually did). Classical liberals believe in the value of privacy; Bush does not. Classical liberals (usually) support private gun ownership; Bush supported the Assault Weapons Ban even though even the anti-gun Violence Policy Center's own leader said the AWB was of little value (the re-enactment of the AWB thankfully died in Congress, no thanks to Bush). The classical liberals of today -- like Milton Friedman -- support the legalization, or at least decriminalization of illegal drugs; Bush, like any conservative, opposes it (thanks to Ronald Reagan's promotion of the so-failed-even-some-Republicans-admit-it-now "war on drugs").

As a final nail in his socially non-classical liberal policy: on free speech, classical liberals love freedom of speech -- they wrote the First Amendment after all! We would allow full, free, and unrestricted speech on our airwaves (with exceptions perhaps only for very-specific, very limited national security instances, e.g. disallowing the announcement of the procedures and launch codes for any of our nuclear missiles, though

Now that our side is dominant and impleneting it's policies (mostly rolling back socialism in favor of classical liberalism) it is now the Democratic party yelling STOP! in an attempt to preserve their gains.

Towards classical liberalism? Really?

Since when is a $1.2 TRILLION Medicare spending bill (passed by Dubya) something that a smaller government would do?

The idea that Bush is any fiscal conservative at all is a bunch of cracksmokery.

You clearly don't read enough of the Cato Institute which called him a "Progressive President" or The Economist magazine or Reason magazine where Bush's spending record is concerned. Oh, and Bush's "lean budget" this year? It's "like being the slimmest sumo wrestler in the ring."

Soaring yearly budget deficits approaching 5% of yearly GDP are not the work of any "classical liberal"; those deficits -- as the great (and *real* classical liberal) economist Milton Friedman once wrote of deficits decades ago -- are nothing more than a tax increase on future generations. 90% steel tarriffs (ruled illegal by the WTO) are certainly not the work of any free-trading classical liberal (although to his credit, CAFTA is admittedly a nice step).

The very notion that President Bush is returning us to a more classical liberal -- a.k.a. moderate libertarian -- society is almost completely intellectually-bankrupt, whether we are discussing economics (as we are in this thread) or social policy.

We've hit Bush's economic leg, and find he hasn't one to stand on. Clearly Bush has little in the way of classical liberal leanings there (his Social Security reform aside, although even there, his plan will effectively discredit the value of private investment by greatly restricting the basket of investments into which people may invest). What about his classical liberal views on social policy?

He doesn't have a leg to stand on there either.

The real classical liberals would not have attacked a foreign nation unprovoked (Iraq), although they certainly would've fought back against the 9/11 attackers (i.e., we would have gone to Afghanistan, as we actually did). Classical liberals believe in the value of privacy; Bush does not. Classical liberals (usually) support private gun ownership; Bush supported the Assault Weapons Ban even though even the anti-gun Violence Policy Center's own leader said the AWB was of little value (the re-enactment of the AWB thankfully died in Congress, no thanks to Bush). The classical liberals of today -- like Milton Friedman -- support the legalization, or at least decriminalization of illegal drugs; Bush, like any conservative, opposes it (thanks to Ronald Reagan's promotion of the so-failed-even-some-Republicans-admit-it-now "war on drugs").

As a final nail in his socially non-classical liberal policy: on free speech, classical liberals love freedom of speech -- they wrote the First Amendment after all! We would allow full, free, and unrestricted speech on our airwaves (with exceptions perhaps only for very-specific, very limited national security instances, e.g. disallowing the announcement of the procedures and launch codes for any of our nuclear missiles, though

1. We are supposed to live in a free country where we enjoy the opportunity of believing whatever we want about the origins of earth (or anything for that matter).

2. The real issue here stems from the lack of freedom in being able to choose what types of information and theories are taught to children in public schools. Diffrent people have different opinions so why bother getting into a flame match on slashdot.

3. IF we had an educational system in place that allowed you to choose between public and private alternatives anyone who wishes to send their child to school A with belief B would be allowed to. This would give us real power vs simplying complaining about the issues we don't like and looking for government to "fix it." Instead we are forced to squeeze everyone's beliefs into one public system (see also: box). This is illogical, school choice would fix this problem.

4. I will step off my soapbox now, but if you wish to read the cold hard facts about school choice you might want to go to the Cato Institute's website. Follow this link for starters http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3990

Yes, it does. If you think pure capitalism would be so much better, try Googling for the "Gilded Age" or "Standard Oil".

You need to get over it, and your insecure need to demonize the "enemy".

Yup. Welcome to the Libertarian party! Have a look at the following:
 
* http://www.cato.org/
* http://www.reformthelp.org/
* http://www.lp.org/
* http://www.theadvocates.org/
 
There's also some good info on Libertarians on WiKiPedia. Though sometimes divided we support drug reform, welfare reform, social security reform, minimal government and above all else personal liberty. We're growing stronger each and every year.

One's take on the matter is probably preordained by how you feel about William H Gates, but there is at least some room for rationally questioning the wisdom of the Microsoft antitrust case. Some choice quotes from those rabid foes of antitrust, Cato:

"...antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions--tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions--all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market."

"Robert Bork and his new-found friends at the Antitrust Division intend to mutate Microsoft's private property into something that belongs to the public, to be designed by bureaucrats and sold on terms congenial to rivals bent on Microsoft's demise."

"Welcome to the post-modern world of high-tech antitrust, where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wake-up call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment."

One's take on the matter is probably preordained by how you feel about William H Gates, but there is at least some room for rationally questioning the wisdom of the Microsoft antitrust case. Some choice quotes from those rabid foes of antitrust, Cato:

"...antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions--tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions--all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market."

"Robert Bork and his new-found friends at the Antitrust Division intend to mutate Microsoft's private property into something that belongs to the public, to be designed by bureaucrats and sold on terms congenial to rivals bent on Microsoft's demise."

"Welcome to the post-modern world of high-tech antitrust, where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wake-up call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment."

One's take on the matter is probably preordained by how you feel about William H Gates, but there is at least some room for rationally questioning the wisdom of the Microsoft antitrust case. Some choice quotes from those rabid foes of antitrust, Cato:

"...antitrust officials are preoccupied with antiquated notions--tying arrangements, exclusionary contracts, predatory pricing, and a host of other purported infractions--all wholly irrelevant, unless the real purpose, of course, is to pacify rent-seeking executives trying to attain in the political arena what they have been unable to attain in the market."

"Robert Bork and his new-found friends at the Antitrust Division intend to mutate Microsoft's private property into something that belongs to the public, to be designed by bureaucrats and sold on terms congenial to rivals bent on Microsoft's demise."

"Welcome to the post-modern world of high-tech antitrust, where big is once again bad, lofty profit margins are a wake-up call to government regulators, executives are brought to heel for aggressively worded e-mails, pricing too high is monopolistic, pricing too low is predatory, propping up politically wired competitors is the surreptitious aim, bundling products that consumers want is illegal, and successful companies are rewarded by dismemberment."

Of course many more people would own copies of an operating system if Windows were sold below monopoly prices. Consumers would be rolling in consumer surplus if the market could be evenly split between Windows, QNX, Plan 9, Solaris, and Hurd.

If Microsoft's profits were reasonable, they couldn't waste money on extravagant exercises like Project Green to integrate their four overlapping sets of business applications. They would stop squandering greenbacks on world-class engineers like Ray Ozzie. They'd quit financing dead-end high stakes ventures into new fields, like the Xbox. They wouldn't have an obscenely unfair hedge against the vagaries and volatility of the computer industry.

I grew up using the Commodore Amiga. I hated Microsoft for beating Amiga. I'd like nothing better than for the federal courts to use nineteenth century business regulations to squash Billy G and to restore Jay Miner (late creator of the Amiga) to his rightful prominence.

One caveat though... There's precedence of antitrust laws being used for rent seeking by competitors in the guise of consumer protection. So there may be some call for deliberation before unequivocally endorsing this tactic on our foes the way Nixon used antitrust against TV networks he didn't like. There may also be some reason to suspect that the effects of antitrust may include unanticipated consequences. Come to think of it, maybe we just should just compete on the merits and marketability of our work and leave the courts out of it.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

Can I put this stuff on my car

Yes kind of: http://www.engelhard.com/Lang1/xDocID7A06011F50F14 EBB84D7DD0CD39BAB99/xDocTable_News/Tab_Overview/Te chnologyClassID0/MarketID0/TechnologyID0/Applicati onID0/ProductID0/up1/SubSiteID0

Instead of CARB trying to steal/criminalize classic cars and sell the valuable energy credits to Oil companies and other polluters.

http://www.hotrod.com/projectbuild/42840/

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg17n3-johnst on.html

They could have a program where they replace anyone's radiator for free with one with the abve coating - Some newer cars are so low emission already that with these radiators they would become NEVs - Negative Emission Vehicles.

I wonder how many billions that kind of program would have cost - sorry forgot we don't have any to spare for important long term issues because we need it all to line the pockets of the cronies.

That's the peril of global politics ... if you give money for "humanitarian aid" to a country ruled by thugs, the money usually goes to the thugs. If you don't give money, you're accused of being a self-centered, greedy nation. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

The Executive Branch produces all kinds of information with millions of people watching thanks to FOIA.

The current admin, Bush's, is all to happy keeping secrets. Especially when it comes to whistleblowers. Take Sibel Edmonds , she worked as an FBI translator until they fired her because she was making too much noise. After she testified to congress after 911 the Bush admin slapped a classified rating on the info and a gag order on her. When she hired an attorney to sue over being falsely fired she had to get permission from the admin just to tell her lawyer anything. Or take Mary Schneider an INS agent who reported to Attorney General John Ashcroft and the FBI that terrorists linked to bin Laden were living in Central Florida and that they were preparing for an attack before 911. There have also been reports the Bush admin has buried scientific reports that don't fit their beliefs.

Actually the War on Drugs costs around $18 billion dollars a year to run.

Our differing figures probably just come from different ways of cutting the data. I believe the federal anti-drug budget is around 20 billion as you mentioned, but including states expenditures raises that dramatically. I don't really have time to find more sources, but here are a few articles from a quick google search that mention the higher figures I was referencing.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/12-02-04.html
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/warondrugs/a/WODB ackground_5.htm
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/pr isons/investment.html

Agree with everything else you said wholeheartedly.

Of course. Matter is property too. Thus, the government can redistribute it elsewhere it sees fit. Didn't you know?

What's more, if it weren't for pesky rules like Prop. 2 1/2 (in Massachusetts), the government wouldn't even have to use eminent domain. They can just set property taxes to whatever they want!

What's yours suddenly becomes theirs -- and no doubt will soon belong to Wal-Mart or whomever it is that owns your local representative.

Yes, young leftists, I feel the anger flowing within you. Strike big government down with all your hatred, and your journey to the Dark Side will be complete!

One of the space products has been Microspheres several magnitudes more precise than those made on earth. Other of the NASA Microgravity projects can lead directly to ultrapure chip development for use in, for example, pinhead size medical and scientific gas chromatographs and mass spectrometers.

Because the microgravity should allow for high chip yield and high quality, the remaining issue is cost of production.

Allowing for $10,000 per Kg (source) for a mature launch/return system like the Saturn 5, Delta, or Titan series, a 100 Kg furnace containing 10 Kg of product would cost $1,000,000 to orbit. If the output is 0.01 gram chips at 95% yield, that gives you 950,000 chips. If you can sell them for a bit over $1.05 per chip, you're in the money. At only $5000/Kg, you are way ahead!

The medical market alone for $5-10 one-shot broad spectrum biochemical testers would easily absorb the 10 million-plus that could be produced with monthly launches.

1. Insert sample into tester
2. Plug tester into USB/Firewire port
3. Read results from software support package
4. (Profit!)

Absolutely. That's the whole purpose of the subsidies. Why do you think Bush increased that already bloated government program by another $30 billion as soon as he got into office? By making sure third world local farmers can't make a living growing food, the U.S. assures its position as the bread basket of the world. Going into the 21st century, arabs may have the oil but we have the corn syrup. And ultimately that is much more valuable. After all, Juan Valdez can get by without driving a car but the man has to feed his family.

This informational message was not brought to you by the Archer Daniels Midland Company

But don't get me wrong. I think it's a better way to maintain dominance than, say, invading and occupying some viper pit on the other side of the planet.

Thank you for citing this material. However, your link to the Cato Paper is not working. Here is a link that I tested:

Dismal Science Fictions: Network Effects, Microsoft, and Antitrust Speculation by Stan Liebowitz and Stephen E. Margolis

http://www.cato.org/cgi-bin/scripts/printtech.cgi/ pubs/pas/pa324b.pdf

Starting at page 8:

The QWERTY design is reputed to be far inferior to the "scientifically" designed Dvorak keyboard, which allegedly offered a 40 percent increase in typing speed. Supposedly, the Navy conducted experiments during World War II demonstrating that the costs of retraining typists on the new keyboard could be fully recovered within 10 days. The story is claimed to validate path dependence: no typists learn Dvorak because too many others use QWERTY, which increases the value of QWERTY all the more.

That is an ideal example because the number of dimensions of performance is small, and in those dimensions, the Dvorak keyboard appears overwhelmingly superior. Yet upon investigation, the story appears to be based on nothing more than wishful thinking and a shoddy reading of the history of the typewriter keyboard. The QWERTY keyboard, it turns out, is about as good a design as the Dvorak keyboard and was better than most competing designs that existed in the late 1800s when there were many keyboard designs maneuvering for a place in the market.

Ignored in the stories of Dvorak's superiority is a carefully controlled experiment conducted under the auspices of the General Services Administration in the 1950s comparing QWERTY with Dvorak. That experiment contradicted the claims made by advocates of Dvorak and concluded that retraining typists on the Dvorak keyboard made no sense. Modern research in ergonomics also finds little advantage in the Dvorak keyboard layout, confirming the results of the GSA study.

So on what bases were the claims of Dvorak's superiority made? Critical examination shows that most, if not all, of the claims of Dvorak's superiority can be traced to the patent owner, August Dvorak. His book on the relative merits of QWERTY and his own keyboard is about as objective as a television infomercial. The wartime Navy study turns out to have been conducted under the auspices of the Navy's chief expert in time-motion studies--Lt. Comdr. August Dvorak--and the results of that study were clearly fudged. There is far more to the story, but it all leads to the conclusion that the QWERTY story qualifies as no better than a convenient myth.
---
Footnote 11 from the above excerpt:

For a full debunking of the QWERTY myth, see S. J. Liebowitz and S. E. Margolis, "Fable of the Keys," Journal of Law and Economics 33 (1990): 1-25.

It wasn't practical then, it isn't practical now- it is estimated that Toyota (not to mention, the Japanese government) subsidized the Prius to the tune of at least $17,000.

Even if it was correct (CATO's impartiality is doubtful), it is four years out of date. Less than two years later Toyota was reporting per-vehicle profits on the Prius. Batteries and the like have only gotten cheaper since then, and it's not like Toyota has to offer incentives to move them!

It's a common myth that the hybrid system is what gives it such good gas mileage. It isn't. It's narrow, hard tires and good aerodynamics.

1. Regenerative braking in traffic.
2. Reduced engine friction due to smaller engine.
3. Reduced throttling losses, ditto.
4. Idling losses reduced or eliminated under many operating conditions.

"real scientists" Do you mean climatologists, or do you mean "people who may have a degree in a completely unrelated field of study but are "scientists" so therefore their opinions are just as good as someone who ACTUALLY studies climates?" The original report that the White House started drawing their conclusions from included less than 2000 people - few of which were actually scientists who have climate related degrees.
try reading these two articles on the Global Warming reports:
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=50
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html