Slashdot Mirror

It would be interesting to see the same study from a well-known bastion of left-wing thinking performed in Europe.

Neglect for music and art has more to do with funding than any desire to cram more stuff in. There are schools where they can't even afford basic supplies like paper. How are they going to have instruments that students can use (as most can't afford a personal instrument) or art supplies such as canvas and paint if they can't afford even more basic supplies?

Where do you get the idea that "they can't even afford basic supplies like paper?" From the school board (who may have intentionally under-budgeted for visible items such as paper) and teachers who have a vested interest in making it sound like the schools are destitute? Throwing more money at the problem will not fix education.

The Clintons are not a "wealthy right-wing family" by any stretch of the imagination

The are the most successful right-wing family in the United States, far beyond the Bush's. Clinton passed corporate trade laws, deregulation and the gutting of welfare that Reagan could have only dreamed of. Monica Lewinsky is the reason your Social Security benefits weren't blown up in the 2008 economic collapse, as Bill wanted to privatize it long before Dubbya wanted to.

As for Hillary, she exported fracking to the world, loves corporate trade, starting a new cold war with Russia, and has ever met a regime change or regional conflict she didn't love, or a brutal dictator she wouldn't sell arms to, as long as they play ball with "American interests".

Hillary is so far left she has a self-avowed socialist for a running mate.

In some other planet where she picked Sanders to be her running mate, rather than colluding with the DNC to cheat him out of the primaries? Tim Kaine is another pro-corporate shill who loves right-to-work laws and could easily appoint a pro-life justice to SCOTUS, if he were to become president.

Y'alls need to ignore party labels and speeches and look at what politicians do.

Markets need anti-monopoly regulations to exist, and fraud protection (and, of course, protection from threats, etc.).

So we're not really talking about libertarians at all, are we? Because they have made it clear in no uncertain terms that they don't believe in the need for anti-monopoly regulations to exist.

http://www.cato.org/publicatio...

Most inherit it.

Not even close. Maybe 20% tops, depending on how you ask the question. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-1-percent

You might want to rethink civilians ability with firearms with respect to police.

"In fact, gun owners mistakenly kill about 30 innocent persons a year, one-eleventh of the number killed by police"

There also have been numerous cases where officers have had their weapon taken from them and sometimes killed with it. Yet I don't see the usual screaming from the anti-gun crowd that cops should be subject to the same restrictions they demand upon the public, despite making the same blunders that the anti-gun crowd vilifies the gun owners for.

For example, you claim that SCOTUS did a number of unanimous rulings against O. Other than his appointing a person during what should have been a congressional recession (but GOP was pulling a stupid action), what other unanimous SCOTUS rulings were there?

Well, here's an answer to that.

While we're still in the part of the Court's term before the decisions start flying fast and furiously, I thought I'd present the latest update on where we stand with respect to those unanimous losses, where President Obama doesn't even get the votes of the two justices he appointed. Here are the stats:

• In the first 6.5 years of Obama's presidency (January 2009 to June 2015), the government lost unanimously at the Supreme Court 23 times, an average of 3.62 cases per year.
• In all 8 years of George W. Bush's presidency, the government lost unanimously 15 times (1.875 cases per year).
• In all 8 years of Bill Clinton's presidency, the government lost 23 times (2.875 cases per year).
• In other words, Obama has lost unanimously twice as often as Bush and 1.5 times as often as Clinton. Obama also passed Bush's 8-year total in less than 5 years.
• The Justice Department's unanimous loss rate from 2012 to 2014 was especially bad - 13 cases in 30 months - almost three times Bush's overall rate and almost twice Clinton's (and that doesn't count amicus litigating positions with unanimous losses).

Another indication of the aggressiveness of the Obama administration is the high portion of losses at the Supreme Court. Obama's administration loses ten percent more of their cases than the next least successful modern (since Truman) president, Kennedy.

Some of these cases were so callous and disregarded existing law so badly that one wonders why, upon reading of the case in the morning newspaper, Obama didn't start firing people. For example, Sackett v. EPA is breathtaking in its attempted increase of government power. The EPA actually claimed in this case that the Sackett family, who had started to build a home on land that the EPA deemed to be wetlands, did not have standing to sue the EPA until they paid a large fine and reversed construction on the site.

Trying to find the reports I was looking at. Slashdot carried an article several months ago about Uber getting hit up in California because, across the whole state, they've had 25 assaults on passengers in their entire operating history; I did a bunch of research on the topic then, and concluded that Uber isn't specially safer, just not specially more dangerous. A lot of comments had horror stories about how taxis are so constantly dangerous to passengers, but that's the same kind of wargarble on the other side.

This one isn't strong enough. It makes a lot of logical arguments and carries some data (passenger assaults on drivers), but not the data I want (driver assaults on passengers). Still, the argument that fingerprinting might possibly carry more than 7 years of non-conviction arrests while Uber's background checks get all of that data *except* the non-conviction arrests is ... telling (what, not guilty, but not *really* innocent because you *did* get arrested some 20 years ago, even if the judge decided you didn't commit any crime? They're going to ban you from driving Uber for that? That's a lot of grasping for straws).

A Chicago study says taxi crimes went down when Uber entered the market; I think they just shifted taxi service to Uber and didn't count Uber crime. New York reports a rise in taxi cab sexual assault reporting, I think because people are chattering about how possibly dangerous Uber/Lyft might be and now are primed to be more vocal about getting groped in a taxicab. I also found a newspaper with the 2016 headline, "New York taxi drivers banned from flirting with or ejaculating on passengers" ... ... wtf?

This is impossible today. If you put "taxi assault statistics" into Google, you get 16 pages of highly-political, heavily-biased pages about Uber/Lyft, and how taxis *must* be safer because of insurance or background checks, or how Uber *must* be safer because it has *better* insurance or background checks (and tons of technology tracking everything that happens). Most studies are localized, not nationalized, and so you come across Chicago and Detroit and New York and "our city police don't specially-track who was committing a crime, so we can't know how many taxi drivers actually assault passengers". News outlets aren't particularly invested in settling the dispute, either, because it creates fear and draws eyeballs.

Great. Now I have to wait for both some institute to publish statistics *and* the news to latch onto it and make it popular so it doesn't vanish into the black hole of shit-you-can't-find-on-the-Internet.

Back on topic, I don't actually know how much damage the education funding cuts from Reagan onwards did but it looks like a hell of a lot. More typos in newspapers etc may just be due to staff cuts but the end result is hard to distinguish from idiocracy.

And what cuts were those? The US spends vast amounts of money on education. Typically around 1/2 of all property taxes go to local education. That's in addition to federal education spending

Many will dismiss the link because it comes from the Cato Institute but they got the data from government sources. You're right that education sucks in America but it's not for a lack of spending.

http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

http://object.cato.org/sites/c...

Note: You may be surprised to learn that both Milton Freidman and Frederick Hayek endorsed the above plan.

http://www.fljs.org/files/publ...

"de-regulation?"

Economically significant regulatory rules are those that, among other things, "Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities..." (Executive Order 12866)

Clinton issued a total of 361 economically significant rules and Bush issued 358. As of the end of January 2016, Obama had 393 with another 47 on the drawing board (Obama's Midnight).

Obama has been issuing 55 economically significant regulations per year of his administration. Clinton's and Bush's record aren't much better. Over-regulation is a more likely culprit or reduced productivity.

On your other points, I can't recall how unions have contributed to productivity nor how greed necessarily decreases productivity.

http://www.cato.org/publicatio...

Can't find anything to substantiate the $75K figure. . .

Consider what the effect of the ruling actually is. It makes it so that police can turn any regular warrant into a no-knock warrant - I mean, they might as well 0.1 seconds for all anyone cares. And even if it's too short, so what? The evidence is all admissible, and otherwise Scalia says that officers will receive such reprimands as issued by the police department... which, you guessed it, is none.

http://object.cato.org/sites/c...

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

And if you don't see a problem with no-knock warrants in general, I would suggest reading about some SWAT horror stories that result from that. And - since you're a Scalia supporter, and hence a purported "originalist" - look up when no-knock warrants first appeared.

This from the conservative Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/blog/no-am... http://www.cato.org/blog/why-s... Nothing to see here, move along...

This from the conservative Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/blog/no-am... http://www.cato.org/blog/why-s... Nothing to see here, move along...

You would be wrong. As someone who spent a fair amount of time in Belgrade during the troubles there in the '90s, I've seen first hand how black markets work. They use currency (govt) and weights and measures (govt) and almost certainly local police are involved (or they couldn't function)

The criterion for a free market is that people conduct business transactions voluntarily and without having terms or conditions imposed on them by others. How does the voluntary use of government currency and the voluntary use of government weights and measures make the market non-free?

As for police involvement, you're engaging in circular reasoning: you assume that police are necessary for markets to function, then infer that police were "almost certainly involved", and then use that to argue that government is necessary for markets to function. In fact, police are not necessary for markets to function; many markets function perfectly well without police, laws, or a legal system to back them up. Reputation and repeat business are sufficient in and of themselves to make sure people live up to their commitments.

But it's a quote about something that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you still can't offer a single instance of a "free market".

I have offered several instances; if you don't understand them why they are free markets, that's your problem. But you haven't explained why this is even relevant. Can you offer historical instances of societies with gender equality? Historical instances of societies that have eliminated economic inequality? Nationally recognized gay rights and gay marriage? Would the lack of historical precedent convince you that those things are bad ideas?

Good, then offer some examples of safety and measurement standards being "provided" (and by this, I assume you mean "enforced") without government.

That question is rife with several logical fallacies.

In any case, I'll just refer you to the literature, for example http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/p...

Rothbard's "For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto" also has a pretty good explanation of how these things work, and provides ample historical precedent.

http://www.cato.org/events/adm...

Listen to Bruce Schneier make this important point:

http://feeds.cato.org/~r/CatoD...

Our schools are not underfunded. They're over-administered.

-jcr

You are going to have to provide some evidence that "the left" has moved farther to the left.

Where did I say it had "moved further to the left"? I said the "American left" has abandoned "free markets, freedom of association, and individual liberties". In fact, I think the American so-called "left" has actually moved more in the direction of fascism. Of course, in practice, and from a libertarian point of view, fascism and socialism are pretty much equally bad: both deny individual liberties, individual choice, and free markets. That is, from a libertarian perspective, it really makes little difference whether Democrats have "moved left" or "moved right". What matters is that Democrats have become a lot more statist and a lot less liberal. Republicans have simply stuck with their theocratic leanings, but at least some minority faction of Republicans still pays lip service to the benefits of free markets and capitalism.

Political positions are multi-dimensional. If you need a simple space to imagine this in, use the 2D space from the "World's Smallest Political Quiz":

http://www.theadvocates.org/qu...

Most of the policies currently being advocated by the mainstream Democratic candidates are similar to ones advocated by President Regan:

You're absolutely right. And libertarians like neither Reagan, nor Democrats that channel Reagan.

http://www.cato.org/publicatio...

Even the Affordable Care Act was a much more right-leaning approach to healthcare reform than what the Clintons were trying to achieve current the Bill Clinton presidency.

From a libertarian point of view, the ACA is just as much of a disaster as single payer health care would have been. Note that neither the Cato institute nor other libertarian publications had anything good to say about it.

http://www.cato.org/bad-medici...

If the ACA were "more right leaning" and libertarians were "right leaning", they would have to say something good about it, no? Of course, the way Democrats get out of that logical conundrum is simply to attribute the well-deserved vitriol libertarians and free market types heap upon the ACA to racism and partisanship.

You are going to have to provide some evidence that "the left" has moved farther to the left.

Where did I say it had "moved further to the left"? I said the "American left" has abandoned "free markets, freedom of association, and individual liberties". In fact, I think the American so-called "left" has actually moved more in the direction of fascism. Of course, in practice, and from a libertarian point of view, fascism and socialism are pretty much equally bad: both deny individual liberties, individual choice, and free markets. That is, from a libertarian perspective, it really makes little difference whether Democrats have "moved left" or "moved right". What matters is that Democrats have become a lot more statist and a lot less liberal. Republicans have simply stuck with their theocratic leanings, but at least some minority faction of Republicans still pays lip service to the benefits of free markets and capitalism.

Political positions are multi-dimensional. If you need a simple space to imagine this in, use the 2D space from the "World's Smallest Political Quiz":

http://www.theadvocates.org/qu...

Most of the policies currently being advocated by the mainstream Democratic candidates are similar to ones advocated by President Regan:

You're absolutely right. And libertarians like neither Reagan, nor Democrats that channel Reagan.

http://www.cato.org/publicatio...

Even the Affordable Care Act was a much more right-leaning approach to healthcare reform than what the Clintons were trying to achieve current the Bill Clinton presidency.

From a libertarian point of view, the ACA is just as much of a disaster as single payer health care would have been. Note that neither the Cato institute nor other libertarian publications had anything good to say about it.

http://www.cato.org/bad-medici...

If the ACA were "more right leaning" and libertarians were "right leaning", they would have to say something good about it, no? Of course, the way Democrats get out of that logical conundrum is simply to attribute the well-deserved vitriol libertarians and free market types heap upon the ACA to racism and partisanship.

No. Freedom units are clearly metric units.

http://object.cato.org/sites/c...

Add to that the current satellite data shows no statistically significant warming for 18 out of the 65 years that anthropogenic warming was even possible

What you're talking about has already been debunked. Hell, even the Cato Institute doesn't agree.

It is important to recognize that the central issue of human-caused climate change is not a question of whether it is warming or not, but rather a question of how much.

To be honest, I still find it amazing how you deniers will latch on to one single study and ignore hundreds of other ones.

Are you saying the final, literal number of euros spent by the Greek government decreased each year?

Because if you were saying that you'd be wrong.

http://www.cato.org/blog/looki...

Talk to me about "austerity" when any government actually spends less whatevers in a given year.

Everything else is just people agitating about not getting their free stuff, which apparently, somehow, they have a civil right to.

If you do a little research into historical fact, instead of repeating politically motivated propaganda, you'll find that environmentalists are the least politically effective group ever, and have accomplished literally nothing since Nixon was in office. You are scared of a Rush Limbaugh invention green boogeyman.

EVERYTHING that goes on in the nuke industry is driven by one factor: economics. It has never been possible for privately owned terrestrial nuclear power plants to make a profit. NOT EVER. This is an independently verifiable stone cold FACT. Only socialist or communist regimes can make nukes profitable; you have to have big-government intervention to make it work.

Myself, I don't like them because militarily they are retarded. Centralized power generation on that scale? Don't plan on winning any wars that include guerrilla action or high-altitude bombing... be prepared to be a state that begs for mercy on its knees!

If you do a little research into historical fact, instead of repeating politically motivated propaganda, you'll find that environmentalists are the least politically effective group ever, and have accomplished literally nothing since Nixon was in office. You are scared of a Rush Limbaugh invention green boogeyman.

EVERYTHING that goes on in the nuke industry is driven by one factor: economics. It has never been possible for privately owned terrestrial nuclear power plants to make a profit. NOT EVER. This is an independently verifiable stone cold FACT. Only socialist or communist regimes can make nukes profitable; you have to have big-government intervention to make it work.

Myself, I don't like them because militarily they are retarded. Centralized power generation on that scale? Don't plan on winning any wars that include guerrilla action or high-altitude bombing... be prepared to be a state that begs for mercy on its knees!

Doesn't happen that way, the protected monopoly does not allow you a choice.

Thankfully, it is not quite a monopoly — several corporations compete in my area, and contrary to constant whining on /., my area is not uniquely competitive. Granted, it is not a properly free market either, but the solution is to free it, not make it a full bona-fide monopoly the way public highways already are.

Only a public utility can provide that.

Bullshit. "Public utility" is a monopoly. And that it is government run only makes it worse. Your argument is exactly the sort of moronic but seductive thinking, that gave rise to AT&T's monopoly and the cable TV-monopolies after that. Those monopolies are — officially — no more, but the monsters they created are still with us today well-entrenched.

But, like I said, 100 years of failure mean nothing to you...

You know what's sagging US productivity? Bills. Bills like forced car insurance and forced Obamacare purchases. People don't give a fuck when you take too much from them, and even if they do, they don't have anything left over to spend it spurring the economy, because they already exist in a financial box of a hamster wheel of paycheck to paycheck over housing cost, insurance, taxes, utilities minimum charges, high transportation costs, all pitted against draining the incentive or excitement to make that dollar. Like a dude I heard making $14/hr at a hospital quit, saying on welfare he could live better - housing paid, food paid, had a ton of free time, etc. Meaning he had a hard time making ends meet, so why should he strive? It's like this page says it I been citing forever, http://www.cato.org/publicatio... people starve and die off if they are forced to work for the collective, but if you let them work for themselves, they become productive overnight, creative, happy. Handing your earnings over to some other private party is even worse than working for the collective. That's right, I'd rather pay taxes if I had to choose between universal healthcare based on a fairly levied tax, than what this Obama bullshit is trying to pull on my budget, pay profits into some private force gambling policy scam artist insurance lowest lifeform that ever crawled on the surface of this planet agent is forcing onto me at arbitrary prices and profits, at costs that will ultimately tend to trump my single biggest budget item, which is also bullshit, called the housing cost pyramid scheme everybody is guilty in participating in these prices disconnected for reality the only thing mattering is the next guy willing to give double, like, buy a house for 30K, live in it for 5 years, sell it for 80K, live in it for 5 years, sell it for 120K, live in it for 5 years,sell it for 160K, all spiraling out of control which was the norm in the 90's and 2000's, and even today it's still insanity on how much housing should truly cost. The land value yeah, but the house on it? Come on. Contractors buy a lot for 30K, put a house on it and sell it for 240K. What the fuck? I personally built a small dwelling building with mud and straw bricks in my teens with 3 other guys in about 2 weeks. Don't fucking tell me a house is so frigging 30 years worth of effort worth of a value. What's happening is the housing code corruption bullshit. You ever go to a city department housing permit office, they rape you in the ass with fees, and pretty much contractors and the officials who know each other over 30 years and play golf together they got their little gang or thing going, just like defense lawyers, prosecutors and judges got their own little legal mumbo jumbo we carved out this piece of the world for ourselves and we control and abuse it and punish dearly those that try to cut us out of our money and "self represent" in court when they can't find a lawyer they can trust, nor one that's inexpensive enough, and court proceedings should be plain english not this concocted up legal double meaning subject to misinterpretation twisting and distorting games of language, these fuckers all feed off of ambiguities and they got their toolbox of perversions of language to fight, not against each other, but against the customers that pay the judge, defense and prosecutor, so they can keep making their money. Ultimately that's what it's all about for lawyers, justice shmustice, where my money at. Same with doctors, that are great friends of Obamacare, telling you shit like I'm an expert, I can make people sick and you gonna beg to die. Because of fucking with my money. Corruption running rampant everywhere, local government departments, courtrooms, federal politics, and they are like what's more natural, duh, you pat us on the back we pat you on the back, campaign contributions can get you some pork barrel or some corrupt motherfucking laws like Obamacare passed that drain

The competitor here was taxpayer funded. That's the closest thing we'll ever see to immortality: When they fail, they don't go bankrupt, they get increased funding.

But let's assume EPB didn't engage in rent-seeking, the same article you link to describes how predatory pricing is almost entirely hypothetical:

Obviously, predatory pricing pays off only if the surviving predator can then raise prices enough to recover the previous losses, making enough extra profit thereafter to justify the risks. These risks are not small.

However, even the demise of a competitor does not leave the survivor home free. Bankruptcy does not by itself destroy the fallen competitor's physical plant or the people whose skills made it a viable business. Both may be available-perhaps at distress prices-to others who can spring up to take the defunct firm's place.

Further, the threat of litigation discourages entry into the market and price competition.

The term predatory pricing comes from the time when massive consolidation of railroads and oil was driving down prices. Smaller competitors sought reasons to stop it.

The price increases never came, of course. Same as computers today.

Well it's like this. 1984. No matter what the lawbooks say, people are gonna get spied on regardless, whether officially and unofficially. When it's done unofficially, people get caught with greater missteps because they don't excpect to be spied on as much. When it's done officially minor infractions can be abused more, but people behave a bit better, and hide their true intentions and thoughts better, to protect themselves, which in turn leads those in charge thinking there is no unrest, no unhappiness over putting the pedal to the metal and squeezing the public a little harder, for more taxes, more power taken from them into the hands of politicians, until the whole thing goes through a cascading ripple, like an Earthquake that the longer it waited the bigger the damage, and I be doing everybody a service bitchin here putting my own personal safety and well being at risk, just to let the powers know, that oh no, the people are not happy, and you cannot push harder and infringe on liberties more without actual thoughts and consequences, so please watch your step because nobody is stupid, they are only careful because they have children to raise and protect, but without exception, for instance, when I bought employee offered health insurances, you can see it through the crack just how unhappy they are over the insurance scam artists scheming them outta their money, and I personally would never get the full spectrum of the lowdown then they have to go through, so I'm like a seismograph, always swinging way out on the other side of the teeter totter trying to balance with my minuscule weight the imbalances that happen, and I could spend my life and time worrying about myself instead, like everybody else does, but it's like I'm the one who can most afford to risk my personal well being over this, and I got it as my job to do the bitchin, and I try to do a damn good job at it and make those who have to read it sweat a bit, and think more careful about what they are about to do, such as increasing penalties for not buying Obamacare, which is coming, increasing taxes on the working class, and giving tax breaks to the super rich, ya know, the simple stuff, like, what is new in history? Exploiters vs. exploitees, that pretty much sums up human activities through the ages, however Marx had it wrong with Communism in the Communist Manifesto, and Washington and Jefferson had it right with liberties and private property, but in that, private property for everybody, not for a select few 0.1% cream of the crop. Just like the article at http://www.cato.org/publicatio... says it that shows clearly that people die under communism from lack of giving a fuck, and only if they can work for themselves do they care. That is, even when they work for the collective where everything comes back to them they loiter around and ultimately die off, let alone when they have to work for another guy and hand over everything, like a nobleman of feudal lord. Washington and Jefferson and the rest of the founding father's ideal was the yeoman farmer, the small property holder, as the backbone of the democracy, where everyone equally owns private property and there is a dominant middle class, to ensure that equality, but here come the ex nobilis old world order gang that have succeeded encroaching themselves in every aspect of the power structure, government, intellectual property holding firms, extending limits of what constitutes property - like I bought some bird seed sunflower seed at walmart, and i'm thunkin bout i should plant some and grow some, but here come the Monsanto suits, and according to their genetic analysis they own the concept intellectual property in that seed, and I must cease activities and destroy all the sunflower stalks, unless I can pony up X amount they pull out of their ass to compensate them for their intellectual property in it. And to that all I got to say is how the fuck would i know what genes it has, for all i know you'r

I'm too lazy to add anchor tags, but here are some references for you.

The UCDavis study is the best description of this -- when actually tested in scenarios designed to expose false positive results, that's EXACTLY what happened -- the dogs alerted in every place they shouldn't have and where the handler was given cues that the dogs would alert, the dogs were MORE likely to alert.

This is a huge problem with using dogs. It's not that dogs aren't good at sniff detection, its that dogs are so inclined to please their handlers that even when the handlers aren't purposefully lying they are still signaling their dogs that they should find something. So how do you separate out the dog actually sniffing out drugs versus the experienced profiling of the handler who expects their target to have drugs, gets a false alert from the dog and then discovers drugs from a hand search?

I don't think we CAN know if it was a legitimate signal from the dog or just the officer's experience that $Socialtype or $MinorityMember is very likely to have drugs.

It gets much, much worse if you take away the assumption that the cops/handler are 100% honest all the time. Do you really think that there isn't even some deliberate dishonesty with dogs? The worst outcome for the cops has been "well, the dog knows you had something in here but since I didn't find anything I'll let you go". The best outcome for the cops is that they get away with an illegal search that results in an arrest and conviction based on a dog's behavior that is beyond question, because, you know, dogs are so good at sniffing and its "a well established tool in our legal system and for good reason."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/w...

http://www.cato.org/blog/cleve...

Indeed. Now not everyone thinks the Cato Institute is a reputable source, but you have to admit this is thought-provoking: http://object.cato.org/sites/c...

Reasoned rebuttals, please. And if you invoke either of the two major parties, I'll ignore you.

You have, in the US, a right to an equal opportunity.

Except unions — such as by defending the incumbent workers — contribute to inequality, rather than fight it.

If Tata's workforce — 95% South Asians according to TFA — unionized today, would that be helping other races make satisfying careers in the company?

Conservatism is not Libertarianism. Why I Am Not A Conservative is a chapter from F.A. Hayek's book "The Constitution of Liberty."

That no one has died yet as a result of swatting suggests that they're largely doing their jobs.

http://www.cato.org/raidmap
http://www.sott.net/article/266876-Swat-team-shoots-innocent-man-22-times-in-front-of-his-family-case-settled-in-the-millions
http://www.policestateusa.com/2013/misidentified-man-killed-when-swat-team-started-his-house-on-fire/
http://www.businessinsider.com/9-horrifying-botched-police-raids-2012-2?op=1
http://www.mintpressnews.com/video-swat-team-kills-innocent-man-drug-raid-found-just-2-marijuana/200738/
http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/A-costly-SWAT-raid-gone-wrong-4303215.php
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/10/swat-raid-casualties

A recent alternative to electoral or judicial challenges sounds quite intriguing. No doubt a little sober reflection and discussion will remove some of the charm, but it has potential.

Massive civil disobedience, with support that reduces the risk to the disobedient. This particular proposal is said to be more appropriate for some situations than others, but even so, yeah, let's give it a try. (You first.)

Here's a podcast by the proponent: http://www.cato.org/multimedia...

This research clearly shows, the comments must be regulated — to ensure, only the certified experts are allowed to express opinions, and that all different points of view are fairly represented. The current so-called "freedom" is, obviously, putting us in danger — and it is over-rated anyway.

To keep the "playing field" level, the hitherto unregulated online news-sources (which also attract the most dangerous comments) shall be subjected to the same rules as TV-broadcasters, thus shutting down the smaller and annoyingly quirky ones among them. The respected (and, incidentally, government-supporting) establishments will thus be (smartly) helped.

Dissemination of information deemed incorrect by the benevolent and omniscient regulators, or failures to represent all points of view fairly, shall lead to the withdrawals of certification and any other licenses — easy to achieve without much fuss because a license, by definition is a permission granted by the Executive, and can be withdrawn (or not-renewed) without having to convince the skeptical Judiciary. Anybody talking about the First Amendment shall be ignored (and put on a watch-list) as a fringe crazy — this is not the 60-ies, you can not protest like that .

Regulation on slashdot hasn't worked for sometime now, though. The level of group think here is astounding. Every now and then I see a 10+ year old article on "This day on Slashdot" and notice just how much better the comments use to be on Slashdot compared to all the +5 insightful one-liners we get these days. Clearly, the mod system hasn't scaled well. Something new needs to be thought up.

This research clearly shows, the comments must be regulated — to ensure, only the certified experts are allowed to express opinions, and that all different points of view are fairly represented. The current so-called "freedom" is, obviously, putting us in danger — and it is over-rated anyway.

To keep the "playing field" level, the hitherto unregulated online news-sources (which also attract the most dangerous comments) shall be subjected to the same rules as TV-broadcasters, thus shutting down the smaller and annoyingly quirky ones among them. The respected (and, incidentally, government-supporting) establishments will thus be (smartly) helped.

Dissemination of information deemed incorrect by the benevolent and omniscient regulators, or failures to represent all points of view fairly, shall lead to the withdrawals of certification and any other licenses — easy to achieve without much fuss because a license, by definition is a permission granted by the Executive, and can be withdrawn (or not-renewed) without having to convince the skeptical Judiciary. Anybody talking about the First Amendment shall be ignored (and put on a watch-list) as a fringe crazy — this is not the 60-ies, you can not protest like that .

There a dozens of examples of innocents losing their lives at http://www.cato.org/raidmap

Don't like libertarian nutters, then how about some left wingers with basically the same story (and a book to sell of course): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

That's from Radley Balko, a pretty well-known libertarian journalist. He's at the Washington Post now.

There a dozens of examples of innocents losing their lives at http://www.cato.org/raidmap

Don't like libertarian nutters, then how about some left wingers with basically the same story (and a book to sell of course): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

when did we become a nation of wimps?

It was all downhill since we decided (contrary to the Founding Father's advice and implorations) to make it the government's responsibility to take care of "the most vulnerable". The list of "vulnerable" has been increasing since and the number of the benevolent and caring government officials needed to take care of them has been increasing along with it. As has been the "caring" class' voting power — while you were kept focused on the "military industrial complex"...

The lost "War on Poverty", for example, has cost $22 trillion — three times more than all of America's military wars combined (inflation-adjusted). If the overhead costs (pay and other expenses of the government officials doing the wealth-redistribution) was at the idealistic 23% of that, we paid them about $5 trillion dollars over the 50 years.

If it is acceptable for 15% to remain on the dole, is it really that much of a stretch, that the 100% need to be told, when to stay home a few days (weeks, months) per year?

You mean after a left wing piece of legislation was pushed down their throats without any actual negotiation, using parliamentary tricks? The only negotiation on Obamacare was with conservative democrats, and sometimes the straw republican in Obama's head. I'd give him some credit for the straw republican being based on things like something the heritage foundation wrote, except itwasn't actually similar to obamacare. The actual republicans then in office got nothing out of it. Why would they bother trying to work with someone who's public attempt to supposedly negotiate comes down to "I won"?

The democrats tried to have everything their way. Turning around and banning a practice they started because they didn't like the results didn't do them any favors in the long run.

Obamacare is the first major program to ever be passed on strict party lines, with a minimal majority, using whatever means available to bypass resistance from the opposition and ignoring generally unfavorable public opinion.

Hysteria, eh? Well, let's just drag a few facts out. Here we go:

o Straight-up misconduct

o Botched paramilitary police raid data

o Judge, jury and executioners in blue: The death penalty -- without a court

o Warrants "not required" data

o Seizure of property without warrants details

o $2.02 billion dollars in cash and property seizures for/in which no indictment was ever filed

o Other illegal horrors

Just a little information -- what we know -- showing our government at work, cavreader. Now, I don't know how you will characterize this information, but I know how I do: Directly and unequivocally indicative of a systemic breakdown of respect, regard, and understanding of liberty and justice that extends broadly across all areas of law enforcement.

Now, you want to talk nonsense about legal protections in a system where the vast majority of defendants are pressured into plea bargains against a completely uneven scale full of extra charges, almost certain financial ruin, threats of extended incarceration, and outright lies from the police and prosecutor, where the police don't have to defend anything in court -- and which can be, and at times have been, followed up by ex post facto laws increasing punishment after conviction -- fine. But don't expect me to take you seriously, because you obviously don't have even the slightest idea what you're talking about.

Here's a non-political look at oil/gas and taxes from the perspective of an investor.
http://www.investopedia.com/ar...

Here's one from the Cato Institute (I.e. the Kochs)
http://www.cato.org/publicatio...

This is why there are millions of independent pizzerias, and only a small handful of cable/cell/broadband/media companies (in the US)

There are still more than one of those usually. And the reason we have so few is the earlier government regulation which established the monopoly, and the remaining local regulations, which continue to favor the incumbents even after the federal laws have been amended/abolished.

But even those sucky big-cable monsters, are still better, than what government would've provided — if USPS, Amtrak, and NYC's traffic are any indication...

They believe being "compelled" to carry traffic with the content of which theydecide to disagree is a violation of their first amendment rights.

If you're like me, you flat-out rejected that statement, on sight. Right? There is simply no way that statement isn't some overhyped overheated drama? Clickbait or karma whoring or somebody nursing a grudge?

By denying Internet service providers their editorial discretion and by compelling them to convey content providers’ messages with which they may disagree, the Order violates broadband providers’ First Amendment rights

yes, they would kick out people paying them lots of money to get in. There certainly is no incentive in a pure capitalist university to keep rich well paying people enrolled.

Correct - aggregate reputation is more valuable than individual tuition payments. It's simply a matter of maximizing value. Western universities kick out tuituion-paying students all the time, for many reasons.

That would imply that the university would also be honest.

It doesn't have to be intellectually honest (my god, saying this about a "university"). It can merely value the increased revenue (assign bonus targets if greed is the only available motivator). Though we ought to hope for more.

Did you know that in America most private schools are worse at educating students than public schools?

This article isn't about America - corruption, violence and bribery isn't how grades are determined here. India has different problems and requires different solutions.

Are you aware of the self-organization of private schools in India (and other poor countries) that parents prefer? Even very poor parents find a way to pay for their children to avoid the government schools there (the schools are very cheap by Western standards).

Have you heard Malala Yousafzai talk about government schools in the region? It's a disaster from top to bottom.

Britain, France, and the US are all nuclear power states that have armies equipped with the most modern weapons systems. Why are they still fighting the Taliban after 13 years? How is it that ISIS defies them?

Is it possible that there are factors that you aren't considering? It would seem so. Not even the apartheid state of South Africa which was a nuclear state for a period of time was ultimately willing to use nuclear weapons on its own people.

The dismissive statements that the two of you have made take no recognition of the facts of the matter. Do you think that the Swiss government could impose a tyranny on the Swiss? Hardly. Nearly the whole of the army is composed of reservists that keep arms at home. Israel? Once again, unlikely. The US? Unlikely, at least in a coup. Half of the total combat power of the US military is in the reserve forces composed largely of state militias. Much of the support is also in the reserves. To that you add the factor of the unformed militia which is legally defined as:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

  (b) The classes of the militia are—
  (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

  (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So you see, those weapons are in the hands of the unformed militia which is responsible to defend the US Constitution again all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is a very useful addition to the state militias.

The case in many European countries is not as favorable. About 100 years ago in Britain free men and women owned large numbers of firearms, and bobbies pursuing criminals could appeal to the public for aid or arms. Those days are long gone, as is the mentality. The right of even self defense against attack has become endangered in Britain.

It appears to me that you aren't successfully identifying what is foolish, and there is plenty of that going on in Britain.

I think his arguments that lower growth leads to greater wealth inequity are very persuasive. He has posted his very extensive research on his website

The difficulty with his argument (at least, that particular argument) has been the quality of his numbers. If his numbers are correct, then his argument follows naturally. However, getting the data has proven difficult. This one seems especially serious, imo. Tax returns are obviously not a good source for data on total wealth.

It got so bad that soon Piketty told people to disregard his own numbers, and use Zucman-Saez's numbers instead.

The rest of us believe that telecom is, was, and (for the foreseeable future) always will be a *natural* monopoly

Natural monopoly is a myth. A myth very convenient for and thus perpetuated by the government officials of various levels as it gives them undue power, but a myth nonetheless.

You can't have meaningful competition for building roads and sewers and power grids

Yes, you can. Tokyo has competing subway lines — why can't New York City? Your GPS is likely to show you several options for any route of appreciable lengths — why can't those different roads be privately-owned and compete?

For example, to leave New York you have many options (most of them requiring payment on top of the taxes) — why can't those bridges and tunnels be privately owned and compete with each other? Maybe, their new owners will consider high traffic a profit opportunity, rather than a burdensome nuisance — and seek to attract more drivers by innovation of both toll-collection and road-maintenance... I dunno, it works for supermarkets... Heck, some private (and disgustingly profit-driven) concern may even undertake building a new tunnel (or a bridge)...

it will always be vastly more efficient for a single entity to install and manage that physical data network, at least at the local level

Really? Why not? In the 20ie we had competing telephone companies — each running its own wires to buildings. Today Google is laying down its own fiber — to much rejoicing on this very site — and AT&T is planning its own alternative, despite your claims of it being "inefficient". Various markets have competing coax-cable providers already. The actual cable-laying is just a (small) part of providing Internet service... Though in theory a monopoly ought to be easier — and thus cheaper — to operate (in any market), in practice any benefit is quickly consumed by the inevitable arrogance of such providers and the concomitant drop of quality and rising end-user prices (any wins in the monopoly provider's costs are compensated for by their fattening up the profit-margins).

We should have made this transition decades ago, but for a variety of reasons didn't

Oh, it is not a "variety" of reasons — but a single one: our government followed that myth of "natural monopolies" and granted cable-TV providers monopoly rights in their respective markets. That law was rescinded in the mid-1990ies, but the damage was done...