Slashdot Mirror

It wasnt lack of regulation that led to the AT&T breakup - it was lack of competition, eg AT&T was a monopoly, becuase land-based copper is inherently a geographic monopoly, and AT&T just bought up all the small companies.

Bzzt, yourself.

One of the main reasons AT&T became a monopoly was because telecommunications were nationalized during WW1 for "nation security reasons".

Claims of "natural monopoly" were used not as a description of the situtation of phone service but to actually justify the regulatory elimination of competition in the name of greater efficiency.

Read UNNATURAL MONOPOLY: CRITICAL MOMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BELL SYSTEM MONOPOLY .

The entry costs have risen far too high and the established businesses are so well-grounded that no new entrant has any hope of competing - or at least, they might have a slender hope, but nobody's going to invest the required amount on the basis of a slender hope.

Translation: We're too lazy to work hard and start our own businesses. We're too lazy to try and raise the capital necessary. We're entitled to something more and we don't want to work hard for it...or it could be: I worked for some small startups who failed, and tried to start one that failed, therefore nobody can do it.

People start small businesses every day. Most of them fail. Some of them prosper. It's always worked this way. Sure, if you want to start a tier 1 ISP, you're going to need capital that's beyond the reach of most mere mortals' bank accounts. Does that mean that the system is hosed? No.

I also think that believing that government officials are more accountable than "corrupt" businesses is just insane. Federal personnel data shows that just 434 civilian federal workers were fired for poor performance in 2001. This is 434 out of how many? Hundreds of thousands? That's a piss-poor record. What are these federal workers accountable for? Certainly not the bottom line...and while the bottom line may not be the fairest metric, it's a start.

You offer absolutely no evidence that capitalism is less sustainable than socialism. We've got a standard of living in the USA that tends to show that your antecdotal evidence is just wrong. Sure, there is income disparity -- but that's part of the point of capitalism. There's nothing wrong with the fact that some people (for example, Bill Gates) have unimaginable amounts of money. That's his perogative...and if you want that, fine -- go after it. Good luck. If you don't, then don't.

No system is perfectly fair, and this one is certainly no exception. I'll never deny that. However, I think that you'll have to work a little harder to prove that it hasn't worked. You can try and point to things like the strong Euro and the weakening dollar, but you're going to have to come up with more than just short term trends...can't draw much from those. Thus far, you've come up with antecdotal evidence, and weak evidence at that. There are some good arguments for socialism (if there weren't, it wouldn't exist) -- you're just not hitting on them.

Maybe you should go find the section in the treaty that says "China and India can produce as much polution as they like".

Jesus...

Kyoto doesn't apply to developing nations like India and China.

Maybe you could start learning about the subject before you form an opinion?

True, but Republicans also like to spend other peoples money. Mostly on "defense", much of it being wasteful or just plain pork*. I respect the Libertarian position, but the Republican position is pretty nasty in my eyes - they are happy to spend our money on killing people and pork projects but refuse to help people in need. That's just amoral in my eyes.
Not that I'm really defending the Democrats per say - when it came down to it, they chose to end social welfare as we know it but didn't cut back their own cronyism.

*references here and here and here and here and here

It is just the Judicial Branch of government in the USA that still makes rulings to benefit "The People", the Legislative branch and Executive branch have sold out to big business a long, long time ago.

U.S. citizens registered to vote can help take back Congress and the Presidency by voting Libertarian. Libertarians believe more strongly in the invisible hand of the free market than the Republicrats do, but at least one libertarian think tank recognizes that copyright interferes in a free market (PDF) and that its coercion on users should be minimized.

It is just the Judicial Branch of government in the USA that still makes rulings to benefit "The People", the Legislative branch and Executive branch have sold out to big business a long, long time ago.

U.S. citizens registered to vote can help take back Congress and the Presidency by voting Libertarian. Libertarians believe more strongly in the invisible hand of the free market than the Republicrats do, but at least one libertarian think tank recognizes that copyright interferes in a free market (PDF) and that its coercion on users should be minimized.

When added to reports that FOX is censoring guests, it leads one to ask: Is this a democracy or a puppet show?

I see people from the Cato Institute one to two times a day on Fox news.

Also, look at these interesting articles hosted by fox news (the top 3).

IMO FNC is probably the 2nd best cable channel for any 3rd party (with C-Span dominating the 1st place spot).

He's saying the solution to the problem is to spend Social Security money on Social Security, and not other government projects.

That won't solve the problem either for the long term. Social Security surplus ends in 2018, and even if all of the money from the "Trust Fund" were recovered, Social Security runs out of money in 2042.

There is at least $1 trillion already in the "Trust Fund," which means in the 2030's even if no more Social Security surplus is spent, the Federal Government will have to start moving money from the general fund to Social Security to pay off bonds. Which is basically the same as saying Social Security runs out of money.

Here is an alternative that moves to a half-private solution.

I am now finished with work.

I agree. But some of President Bush's programs seem more classically liberal in nature than following the ideal of "personal responsibility".

Hmm. Equality of opportunity. I found an interesting article that argues not for Equality of Opportunity, but for Freedom of Opportunity. By using the phrase Equality of Opportunity your are assuming that someone (the government, I presume?) will be defining what is "equal".

Even so, I can't just trust a random web site from someone who may be more libertarian than conservative. So, with some reservations, I'll give you the equality of opportunity line as a "conservative value".

And exactly how does that differ from what a "liberal" believes?

OK. But again, is that "conservative value"? That's just basic economics. It is accepted that small business provides most of the jobs in this country. How can that be a "conservative value"?

While there have been economic arguments in favor of tax cuts, I still do not understand how those tax cuts work in balance with huge budget deficits. Under budget deficits, someone has to pay, eventually. And, making our children pay is not a "conservative value".

I would disagree that is a conservative value. Why? here and here. Also, AFAIK, the first President to try to spend his way out of an economic downturn was FDR. Not exactly a conservative icon.

Powell's sound bite certainly doesn't stand up under scrutiny. However, neither does your claim that the US military occupies "the entire island of Okinawa"--it's more like 20%.

As to whether the US needs the ability to project military power, you might be interested in this Cato Institute briefing, whose summary states "The real issue is what the United States commits itself to defend--and whether it is actually willing to incur the costs and risks required to fulfill such commitments."

Sweden has dramtically changed since the 60s & 70s. In the index of economic freedom, Sweden comes =22 of 123 countries, the same level as Taiwan.

The ACLU and the Cato Institute are both fighting this. When you find both of those organizations on the same side, you know something bad is going on.

But the flag fringe issue is bogus.

The tech industry crash might not have been caused by Clinton, but it started on his watch.

I'll agree with you on this point. But there are smart things you can do, as president, to minimize the impact of such a crash, and then there are dumb things you can do that will only exacerbate the situation.

Farm Subsidies keep farmers afloat; or at least the large corporate farms that buy out the independent farmers. There are many ways to artificially create high demand other than cutting taxes or increasing subsidies. China, Korea, and India all have booming tech sectors. Part comes from the lower standard of living, but some also comes from the vague tech future in America. Every day people find new ways to stifle innovation (softwre patents, DMCA, etc) The same laws that protect corporate America also harm the jobs that they create. Imagine you are a tech firm. How will tech laws change if Kerry wins? How about if Bush wins? Does India or China seem more stable?

I guess a lie as good as the truth sometimes huh?

Al Franken, is that you?

Actual link about union violence #1
Actual link about union violence #2
Actual link about union violence #3
Actual link about union violence #4

Liar.

Mr. Badnarik,

I have several questions.

(1) As a Republican-turned-Democrat-turned-very-briefly-Soc ialist-turned-Libertarian-turned-libertarian (all changes occurring throughout my undergrad years as a Comp. Sci major, Economics minor), in the 2 years since I've become a convert to the libertarian mindset, (specifically to Milton Friedman's very-rational, very-reasonable brand of libertarianism - I am a diehard Friedmanite), I've seriously considered starting a Libertarian organization at my university. But I am faced with the realization of a few problems:

1) It is difficult for me personally in good conscience to found a big-'L' Libertarian organization which would promote the Libertarian Party, a party which I have always seen as having at least 2 distinct problems:
A) The "Ralph Nader Effect." No matter the few advances the LP makes, it is not going to be very effective. Nor has the LP ever been effective; the highest popular vote for any LP Presidential was for Ed Crane, back in 1980 -- and he received about 1% of the popular vote. Even Socialist Eugene Debs did better during the 1912 and 1920 elections (6% and 3.2%, respectively, the latter of which he received while sitting in jail).

Love it or hate it, the LP is a 3rd party, and no 3rd party in the 228 year history of the U.S. has ever had any real significance. Ross Perot ran as an independent, once winning some 18% or so of the popular vote. But he was pulling votes from the left and right, so he wasn't blamed for "stealing" votes from the GOP or Dems (as though by rightful barony they should be given those votes).

And where is Perot now? Sitting on an oil rig somewhere, surely still listening for that "giant sucking sound" he thought he heard with those big ears.

B) The extremism and Randian doggedness to stick to principle. Love it or hate it, politics in a democracy is necessarily a game of compromise, because the votes of a diverse set of individuals remove the extrema of points from most actions in government. The LP takes a no-compromise, highly-principled stance on all its issues; this makes working with the LP in a practical sense rather difficult. This problem, I believe, contributes strongly back to problem A.

2) The LP is filled with nuts, and I'm sorry, but to be bluntly honest, you fit that stereotype like an expensive suit. Who else but a big-'L' Libertarian would be caught dead saying they would blow up the U.N. building on their eighth day of office, or avoiding registering for a driver's license?

Look, I agree with your principles 100%. I agree we should keep the U.N. at arm's-length and not let them make any decisions whatsoever about the direction of this country. And I agree that driver's licenses shouldn't require a fingerprint or SSN; nor should they have a barcode or really any other identifying info besides one's name, DOB, and license expiration date. But let's be serious -- these things exist whether we like them or not, and unless you take the issue to the courts, they are not going to be changed anytime soon, and childish daydreams of blowing up the property of those we don't like and running from the cops don't help your case in the eyes of most of the public.

Hence, do I want to start an organization promoting people whose intentions and general views I sympathize with very strongly, but the principles of which I realize cannot reasonably be fulfilled without compromise? Why, as a rational user of my time, should I waste my time starting such an organization in that case?

Mr. Badnarik, it is in my view that organizations such as the Cato Institute and The Economist magazine, and Reason magazine do a vastly-superior job of promoting libertarian philosophy than the LP ever has. Why should I start an organization which p

Ahem

I guess it's time to learn to juggle!

He knowingly makes false statements and claims them to be fact. He also distorts what others say by making up invalid contexts for actual statements people make.

Where?

This allegation is made all the freaking time, and usually by people who haven't seen the movie and get their marching orders from the government propaganda channels on the AM band. So tell me -- in your own words, please -- where in F9/11 did Moore do what you accuse? Example: Moore claims that Bush sent only 11,000 troops to Afghanistan, less than the number of cops in Manhattan. Is this true or false? Or perhaps you're disputing the claim that Bush gave $43 million to the Taliban to get them to perform 9/11. *Cough* I mean to stop growing opium.

Are voucher systems somehow the silver bullet

They sort of are.

The real silver bullet is an effective system of negative feedback. When the schools do a bad job, they need to be punished, and when they do a good job, they need to be rewarded. A simple idea.

Simple, yes, but hard to do in real life. Teachers' unions, educational bureaucracies all the way up to the federal level, politicians making promises... all of these things can complicate the school system to the point where incompetence isn't punished, nor excellence rewarded. And attempts to use standardised tests to guarantee that kids are taught well, just mean that teachers will wind up "teaching the test".

The best thing you can hope to do is to allow parents to move their kids around to the best schools. This will not, itself, fix the problem instantly; but it will introduce an element of feedback into the system. Over time, this will inevitably force the schools to improve.

If a restaurant has poor food, people will take their business to other restaurants. It doesn't matter what kind of union the cooks have, it doesn't matter what kind of promises politicians might have made, etc. If the customers vote with their feet, the better restaurants will prosper and the worst ones will have to close. The same thing would happen with schools, but it would take longer (people eat several meals per day, but they would probably leave their kids in any particular school for at least a few months before deciding to move the kids somewhere else).

I have debated this issue in the past with some people who claimed that parents must not be trusted to choose schools for their kids. That's lunacy. There will be a few bad parents, but by far most parents really want what is best for their kids. The parents and kids together are the best judges of how well a school is serving them.

Note that middle-class and upper-class parents already have some freedom to pick schools; I know my parents, whenever we moved, would carefully consider what the schools were like, and they would only move someplace where the schools were decent. The poorest people, who are trapped in the bad part of town (no money to move somewhere else), those are the ones who really want school vouchers.

By the way, public school systems spend a lot of money per student. The vouchers are generally for less than the public school system would have spent on a student. If a student takes a $3000 voucher and goes to a private school, that is usually a net profit for the public school. In my state, the average per-student spending is $9,454 per year.

For more on vouchers, click here: http://www.cato.org/research/education/vouchers.ht ml

steveha

Each state is responsible for public education within its own borders.

How do you explain that even though they get no tax subsidys, most private schools spend LESS per kid then the Public schools do?

Check this out

That article was talking about vouchers and the 3000 (only half of what it costs the public district which means the district KEEPS HALF!) voucher would almost PAY for MOST private schools. Sure, they are not the expensive primary equivalent of Yale, but most are better then 80 percent of the public schools.

Oh, and when I was in school, besides the Iowa tests, there was no state required test. The minute one was added, actual teaching went out the window and everything that students are being taught were about the tests. The test should TEST your knowledge not have your knowledge be the test.

" US are very too dumb, they will elect Bush and they stress, it's very funny!"

" US are very too dumb . . ."
This part of your sentence does not translate well. The flaw in your grammar could, with a little allusion, be extended so that YOU (plural) are ignorant also.

" . . .they will elect Bush and they stress , , ,"
The 'each and several states' send delegates to the appropriate state capitols in the second week of December. These electors will cast their votes for President and Vice President. http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm
Individual citizens will vote of course, but the popular vote in a presidential election is only a barometer for the electors to gauge the political atmosphere. Additionally, many/most of us will not vote for Bush.

" . . .it's very funny!" The word you're looking for is "ironic", perhaps "sardonic". George W. Bush being president has been anything but funny.

Maybe you'd like us to vote for isolationist Pat Buchanan?
See: https://www.cato.org/dailys/12-22-99a.html

The Cato Institute has a paper that covers the 'loser pays' idea among other things. The paper mentions how to guard against certain problems with a 'loser pays' systems. For example, insurance could be available to cover certain costs incurred in a case.

There are two parts to "predatory pricing" and both must exist for there to be "predatory pricing"; the first part involves selling a product below what competitors are able to charge for their products, with the intention of eliminating the competition , the second part is the intention to raise prices after the competitors are gone. I believe that it would be very difficult to prove the that Suse or Red Hat are doing the first part, it would be even more difficult to prove the second part. It likely would be impossible to prove if Suse is considered to be a competitor of Red Hat. The CATO institute has an interesting view of predatory pricing http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169es.html/

Despite the incredible importance of this research - not to mention basic research in general - it was dismissed as a boondoggle and sandbox for particle physicists.

More reading: Science and Patriotism run amok in Texas

No more summer vacation. http://www.cato.org/research/education/articles/ca nsumvac.html

The rich already support the poor by paying nearly all the taxes which are then used to fund programs to 'help' the poor. And for those who think it's mostly spent on defense, check this out.

What would be wrong with returning people to their homeland?

The rich already support the poor by paying nearly all the taxes which are then used to fund programs to 'help' the poor. And for those who think it's mostly spent on defense, check this out.

What would be wrong with returning people to their homeland?

So what?

This means nothing, they change nothing and make no concrete recommendations. The merely recommended a "set of principles" with the goal of "avoiding being tied too closely to past practices"

Speaking of real change check out: On Drawing Lines in Copyright Law
about copyright, RIAA and the cirsumstances leading to 321 Studio's "Death of a 1000 Paper Cuts"

And New Mexico almost passed a law requiring all vehicles to be equipped with ignition interlock devices requiring the driver to test their breath every 10 minutes, regardless of the driver's record!!!

Insurance companies offering discounts for safe drivers is okay with me, even if it involves using tracking technology, but what about the state going after drivers before they even pose a danger to others?

>I'd like to see the executive stock options have some kind of clause that forces the buyers to hold onto the stock for a long time

Yeah - it's called capital gains tax

The capital gains tax is different from almost all other forms of federal taxation in that it is a voluntary tax. Since the tax is paid only when an asset is sold, taxpayers can legally avoid payment by holding on to their assets--a phenomenon known as the "lock-in effect." Today there is an estimated $7.5 trillion in unrealized capital gains that have not been taxed. Over the past 40 years the appreciation of capital assets has outpaced realized capital gains 40-fold. That suggests that a capital gains tax reduction has the potential of "unlocking" hundreds of billions of dollars of stored up wealth.[11]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-242.html

The most controversial provision of the Republicans' tax reduction package to be voted on later this fall is the proposal to cut the capital gains tax. The Contract with America proposal would provide a 50 percent exclusion for capital gains, lowering the top effective tax rate to 19.8 percent, and index capital gains for inflation. Opponents charge that those changes would provide a huge tax cut for the rich and substantially reduce federal tax revenues ...so the idea is to lessen the pressure to hold investments after they have appreciated by reducing the tax penalty.

As far as providing jobs, military spending is a much worse investment than other federally funded programs. For example, $1 billion spent by the Pentagon on weapons, supplies and services generates 25,000 jobs. However, the same $1 billion would create 30,000 mass transit jobs, 36,000 housing jobs, 41,000 education jobs, and 47,000 health care jobs.

It's not like Clinton signed the DMCA into law, or anything.

Even if then-President Clinton didn't want the DMCA and the Bono Act to become law, he could not have stopped them, as both the House and the Senate passed the Bono Act and the DMCA by voice vote. Under the Constitution for the USA, a presidential veto has little if any hope of beating a voice vote, as it takes 81 percent in favor to pass a law by voice vote (that is, one-fifth to force a roll call) but only 67 percent to override a presidential veto.

The vague hope lies in us somehow electing a third party or non-politician politician.

What you want in this case is a member of a small-government party such as the Libertarian Party in the USA or a foreign counterpart. You might want to read the Cato Institute's position on copyrights and patents.

We've got the same chance as a paper dog chasing an asbestos cat through hell.

All political parties take time to get a foothold in government. To get more libertarians into an elected federal office, start at the level of the legislature.

Firearms turn ordinary people into extaordinary killers in the same way that keyboards turn ordinary people into extraordinary coders. Not at all.

If you ban a particular class of firearms because they're Evil [lightning flashes, horses whinny], criminals will just use something else. The Boston Strangler used various articles of clothing. Good luck banning that.

Check out this. You might not agree with their conclusions, but perhaps you might understand their point of view.

If you take firearms away from criminals, criminals will find another way to perform crime. The root problem isn't the tool, it's the criminal. Our society should focus on making less criminals, rather than changing thier methods.

banning firearms to reduce crime is like banning napster becuase people trade ripped .mp3's. Perhaps you can see how well that worked, or, perhaps, you're not comming at this issue rationally but emotionally.

Congress should reject proposals to ban new technologies or business models to solve copyright problems (examples include file sharing, copy protection, and "collusion" among creators);
reject proposals to impose new technologies or business models to solve copyright problems (examples include federally certified copy protection standards and compulsory licensing);
Phase out compulsory licensing for all communications content industries and avoid extending it to future services such as online downloading and streaming; and
take the constitutional principle of "promot[ing] the progress of science and useful arts" seriously, but don't extend copyright protections far beyond reasonable terms.

The "Napsterization" of just about everything digitizable - books, music, movies, and, of course, software itself - has brought copyright issues to the forefront as never before, reenergizing the debate over questions such as the following:
Why do we protect intellectual property at all?
Do we really have "property rights" to our intangible creations the same way we do to our homes or the land on which they rest?
Are there more effective market-oriented ways of encouraging artistic creation and scientific discovery than through the use of copyright and patent laws that protect a limited monopoly?

Those questions are hardly new, of course...

I reckon the libertarian party is a lot more likely to eliminate unnecessary expansions of government than the greens or any "left wing" group.

Not when it comes to intellectual property. Go to their webpage (or the the Cato Institute) and look up their position. Remember that idiotic Rand Institute article on the subject? I realize that Libertarians are different from Randians are different from the Rand Institute, but it's only an exaggerated case. They are so obsessed with the sanctity of property that they can't see that IP is 100% a government invention. (And that's ok, but it's counter to most other Libertarian ideals.)

Many Libertarians don't feel that way, I'm sure. But it's not the party line.

But I see no reason to expect that the Greens are better. Most Americans fought over who had an idea first in kindergarten, and have never grown out of it. Everyone I speak to about the issue thinks of things almost like the French system: Artists have moral rights over their works, and it is wrong to infringe on them.

Google isn't bearing easy fruit, so I don't know what the Green position is. I see this, which is promising. Iduno. That's a reason to think that maybe the Greens are better.

I am sure there are pr0n websites with backend databases more relieable [sic] than what the government is using.

Now we understand why John Ashcroft is so hot to shut down those porn sites.

It's not just that he hates porn, he wants to seize their databases!

(After all, under civil forfeiture provisions, you don't even have to get a conviction. Some real horror stories here: click this link to learn about the couple who lost a house and two cars on the mere allegation that they stole some inexpensive clothes.)

Worst front page slashdot post ever.
News for nerds?

Oh well.

Whatever your opinion of the Iraq war, Moore isn't the most reliable source of information:

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20021119.html
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
http://www.politicalusa.com/columnists/schlussel/s chlussel_014.htm


If anyone cares to read some REAL research and analysis from an anti-war perspective, why not try the Cato Institute? http://www.cato.org/current/iraq/index.html


Taking Michael Moore seriously is like getting all your news from Kurt Loder and that "Sway" guy on MTV.

There was an interesting exchange between the Competitive Enterprise Institute which claims Linux is unsuitable for government, business use and Julian Sanchez from the Cato Institute, who thinks government should consider OSS if it fits their needs.

The Cato Institute provides a useful list in their amicus brief.

Many states have enacted that a police officer "may demand" the name of a Terry-stop suspect, but provide no explicit criminal penalties for refusing to acede to that demand.

The Cato Institute provides a useful list in their amicus brief.

Many states have enacted that a police officer "may demand" the name of a Terry-stop suspect, but provide no explicit criminal penalties for refusing to acede to that demand.

Reunite Church and State?
Maybe the government should give funding to churches. Do you think they also fund mosques ?

Hold citizens with[out] trial or bail?
Hmm, even the CATO Institute seems to think this is a bad idea.

Nation building without proper cause?
Well, the US gives lots of money to Israel. As for Iraq and Afghanistan: you call that building?!?!

Tax breaks that only benefit the rich?
Here's what Paul Krugman had to say on the subject.

Dismantle the EPA and let Corporations write Enviro Laws?
It's called the "Clear Skies Initiative", probably because it clearly pollutes the sky. There's also Cheney's Energy Task force, but I can't give you supporting evidence because it is being withheld, even from the Government Accounting Office.

Create a Police State where you can spy on cizitens with impunity?
We're reading about this right now.

1. "Humans are the active agent, having ideas that they use to transform the environment for human purposes. . . . Resources are
2. not fixed and finite because they are not natural. They are a product of human ingenuity resulting from the creation of technology and science." -- resource economist Thomas DeGregori, quoted here (pdf), on p11.

I don't think they've figured this out yet. Just look at the new regulations coming out of Brussels on a regular basis: the Cammembert cheese fiasco; a British shopowner fined--and his scales seized--for using pounds and ounces instead of metric ("Quick, we must save the people from these unscrupulous shopkeepers!")....

And those bureaucracies sure are expensive (they need the money to pay for the cost of printing the rules & regulations)! They're paying for it (literally) with high personal taxes: "In the US the theoretical Tax Freedom Day is on 11 April, while in the euro zone it is 28 June...." At least they've figured out that all wealth comes from individuals and have started reducing some corporate taxes.

This had a funny odor, and sure enough, Rep. Billy Tauzin of Louisiana is involved.
See this article for more info.

I tend to agree with your remarks regarding libertarianism, especially since I'm going to a state supported college right now, on Federal loans and grants! And I've received unemployment in the past, and food stamps, etc., etc. Oh, yes - I'm driving around on Federal and State highways, in a truck that is subject to Federal standards, when I don't take the bus, which is partly paid for by a tax on local business and partly with Federal support.

I don't consider myself Libertarian, although most of the folks here where I live on the Left Coast consider me a reactionary neo-fascist conservative. I've taken the tests, and come out as Centrist every time.

The Libertarians do have a point. Frederick Bastiat, a primary source for the libertarian philosphy, noted that law is "the collective organization of the individual right to lawfull defense." ("The Law", translation pub. 1998, Foundation for Economic Education - I was kindly given my copy by The Cato Institute - I looked for it on their website but found it in every language except English.) He argues that, since government is given the right to govern by those who are governed, the government cannot have any rights not given to an individual. Since an individual cannot lawfully use force against another person to get his way, neither can the government. This reasoning has merit.

Pragmatically, Libertarians argue that all these great services could be done without the government's intrusiveness, and that theft by government pervert's the individual's moral sense, encouraging private theft.

In my (prgamatic) view, "the thief you will always have with you". Those who seek to exploit or control others (for noble or ignoble reasons) will gravitate to whatever system is dominant, so the system has to continually evolve. In the late 1800's private enterprise was seens as the salvation against government corruption; in the early 1900's professional bureaucratic government was seen as the salvation against the greedy robber-baron capitalists. The tension between private and public institutions can act as a tool to prevent either from getting too blatant.

If the government can do whatever it wishes within its own borders.

This is where we disagree (and where that slippery slope begins) -- what the gov't can do is limited by (at least) the Constitution (I assume we are taking about the USA here). Or do you think the Gov't can arbitrary decide to, for example, throw in jail (or execute) people who want to, say, trade in the currency other than the official state currency? (It is an actual example, back in the old Soviet Union in 80s one could easily get a jail sentence for keeping/using USD, and people were accused of "economic sabotage" and executed for not much more than that). Do you REALLY want to give your Gov't that "right"?

Suggesting that a government doesn't have any rights beyond military and police is ridiculous.

Yet, some not too stupid people suggest just that.

Anyway, maybe you will find some of this more relevant to the current discussion.

Paul B.

We're not all bleeding heart liberals you know. Some of us actually have some common sense.

Please see this article in the Spring 2004 Regulation magazine which states:

There is not, and never has been, an oil crisis or gap. Oil reserves are not dwindling. The Middle East does not have and has never had any "oil weapon"...There is no indication that non-opec oil is getting more expensive to find and develop. Statements about non-OPEC nations' "dwindling reserves" are meaningless or wrong.