Slashdot Mirror

An article at Cato.org tells that yes, the ice cap has been shrinking during periods of global warming. But surprise, surprise -- it has also been shrinking during periods of global COOLING. Therefore, any cause/effect relationship has been disproved.

An article at Cato.org tells that yes, the ice cap has been shrinking during periods of global warming. But surprise, surprise -- it has also been shrinking during periods of global COOLING. Therefore, any cause/effect relationship has been disproved.

Here are some supporting links:

Best Campaign-Finance Reform Is No Limits

Meaningful Campaign Reform Needed

No statistical relationship over time between campaign spending and public trust in American government

Three Myths About Enron and Campaign Finance

Term Limits and the Need for a Citizen Legislature

Here are some supporting links:

Best Campaign-Finance Reform Is No Limits

Meaningful Campaign Reform Needed

No statistical relationship over time between campaign spending and public trust in American government

Three Myths About Enron and Campaign Finance

Term Limits and the Need for a Citizen Legislature

Here are some supporting links:

Best Campaign-Finance Reform Is No Limits

Meaningful Campaign Reform Needed

No statistical relationship over time between campaign spending and public trust in American government

Three Myths About Enron and Campaign Finance

Term Limits and the Need for a Citizen Legislature

Here are some supporting links:

Best Campaign-Finance Reform Is No Limits

Meaningful Campaign Reform Needed

No statistical relationship over time between campaign spending and public trust in American government

Three Myths About Enron and Campaign Finance

Term Limits and the Need for a Citizen Legislature

Here are some supporting links:

Best Campaign-Finance Reform Is No Limits

Meaningful Campaign Reform Needed

No statistical relationship over time between campaign spending and public trust in American government

Three Myths About Enron and Campaign Finance

Term Limits and the Need for a Citizen Legislature

It sounds like a good idea to fund technology that will improve our lives, but when the government uses public money to fund research that will eventually lead to large private profits by paying for the financial risk of researching the technology, it is corporate welfare.

You may like the technology, but corporate welfare is a huge drain on the treasury that only makes the rich richer, borders on socialism, and forces the taxpayer to take the fall for technology that won't work for private businesses.

More information on corporate welfare can be found here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb105-9.html

http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm

I'm sorry to see that so many /.ers can't see the economic reasons for keeping government out of private markets whenever possible. I'm not saying the German government is any worse than say, the American or Canadian government. I'm pointing out that in this one case, you've got a nation-state building something it plans to distribute freely that will compete with products that private market workers and investors are making a living from.

Read one of Friedman's speeches on market distortions for a good view of this.

Hopefully this won't become a reason for users to roast banthespam over a slow grill.

Legislation has everything to do with markets, free or otherwise, indeed no market (free or otherwise) can exist in a complete vacuum of legislation and function coherently (if you really need it spelled out for you, consider any number of ungoverned lands as well as the behavior of the black market itself. Lack of regulation means lack of laws for a court to interpret, i.e. a lack of jurisprudence and the rule of the gun, libertarian myths of anarchistic utopia notwithstanding).

Libertarians support the rights of the individual and believe that individuals bring government into existence in order to protect and secure these rights. Fundamental to libertarian philosophy is respect for the rights of others. Libertarians argue that government should be small and limited to protecting and securing individual rights. Government should not interfere with commerce unless there is fraud.

In regards to issues involving copyright you will find great debate within the libertarian community on this subject. One book that you may find interesting is Copy Fights.

No campaign finance law has ever succeeded in keeping money and big money corporations out of politics. People seem not to care about their individual rights and do not defend them. It is easy for politicians to pass and enforce laws that infringe on individual rights when no one stands to oppose them.

So are there any examples of a pure free market economy in the world? If not, which countries qualify as the closest to pure?

According to the "Economic Freedom of the World" report from the Cato Institute, the most free economies are Hong Kong and Singapore, followed by the USA, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, and Switzerland.

It should be noted, of course, that economic freedom is different depending on where you are. For example, the UK has introduced private alternatives to their old-age pension system, whereas meddling with Social Security in the US is still the "third rail" of politics.

Western European countries generally ranked high in all areas except size of government and labor market regulation.

Life expectancy is higher among more economically free nations, and they also enjoy higher levels of income and faster levels of growth. The poorest 10% earn much more income in economically free countries.

The bottom five nations in terms of economic freedom were the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Myanmar, Guinea-Bissau, Algeria and Ukraine. However North Korea and Cuba were not included in the report since their data is not available.

The Cato Institute did an analysis of drug legalization back in 1989. Their conclusion was, among other things, that if currently-illegal drugs were legalized, fewer people would die from drugs each year-- counting tobacco and alcohol as drugs-- because heroin and cocaine have lower death rates than alcohol and tobacco, and if they were legalized, people would likely give up alcohol and tobacco in favor of them. Oh, and the death rate from marijuana is so low as to be statistically zero.

Don't take my word for it-- read it for yourself.

If your job is working with computers, then the stuff coming out of Washington should terrify you. They could severely limit the amount of growth in the computer field with some of these proposals. Eventually, that means it will be likely that you will have to find a new career doing something other than coding. I mean, we all have to eat. Even if you don't love working with computers for their own sake, you should at least consider the monetary aspect. (I know, we are all supposed to live on our love of coding and manufacture things like food and clothes out of our good intentions.)

Technology and politics always go together. New technology always shakes things up and creates chaos. In authoritarian societies, this chaos can lead to revolution and counter revolution, to bloodshed and mayhem. In democratic societies, the change is still unpleasant. Politics is never easy, it's never quick. What this article is saying is, "let's just stay in our ivory towers and wait for the storm to blow over?" Maybe he believs that technological revolutions can't be stifled by a concerted effort of politicians. How many time do I have to cite this article, UNNATURAL MONOPOLY: CRITICAL MOMENTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BELL SYSTEM MONOPOLY, on the telephone monopoly before people like Declan McCullough get it?

Recently I have been reading a great book about politics. It's called Means of Ascent and it is about a ruthless, brilliant politician named Lyndon Baines Johnson (and to a lesser extent, to his opponent in the first Senate race LBJ ever won, Coke Stevenson).

Johnson was brilliant at using money and technology to get his message out to the voters (his message mostly being about destroying Coke Stevenson's reputation in the State of Texas). How did Johnson use technology? Well, he used the radio much more effectively than previous Texas politicians. He also used the helicopter to go from speech to speech. The book makes a point that this kind of campaigning was extremely effective. (Of course, Johnson still had to turn to what I will euphemistically call "machine politics" in the end, but even that wouldn't have been effective without using the gains he had gotten with his effective use of technology. Even with the machine politics, wiretaps were very helpful to the Johnson campaign.)

However, the main thing that the story of Johnson and Stevenson impressed on me was that Stevenson's problem was that he refused to "sink to Johnson's level." He refused to defend himself against Johnson's charges (some of which, like suggesting Stevenson was a Commie stooge, were clearly absurd if people thought about them), and point out problems with Johnson's own record himself. He felt he was above all that.

Well, in the end Johnson went to the Senate and Stevenson didn't. That's what happens when you give up a political fight before you've really lost it.

This may very well be taken as Flamebait or Offtopic, but I can't resist sticking my nose in here. Public Libraries are _public_ places, owned by the _government_.

1. While this is often true, so what? The rest areas in national parks are also owned by the government, but that doesn't mean they have the right to put webcams in the latrines.
2. Further, it isn't always true. Lots of private universities have libraries; there are a number of privately-owned museums with libraries attatched.
3. Finally, while it is true your bog-standard municipal library is owned by `the government', it isn't owned by the federal government; it's generally a service of the municipal government, paid for by municpal ratepayers. Why exactly, again, does the FBI have the right to get any information at all from the library just because both the FBI and the municipal library are owned by `the' government?

That ought to give pause to people of goodwill from all across the political spectrum-since those are the telltale signs of societies that are unfree.

This may very well be taken as Flamebait or Offtopic, but I can't resist sticking my nose in here. Public Libraries are _public_ places, owned by the _government_.

1. While this is often true, so what? The rest areas in national parks are also owned by the government, but that doesn't mean they have the right to put webcams in the latrines.
2. Further, it isn't always true. Lots of private universities have libraries; there are a number of privately-owned museums with libraries attatched.
3. Finally, while it is true your bog-standard municipal library is owned by `the government', it isn't owned by the federal government; it's generally a service of the municipal government, paid for by municpal ratepayers. Why exactly, again, does the FBI have the right to get any information at all from the library just because both the FBI and the municipal library are owned by `the' government?

That ought to give pause to people of goodwill from all across the political spectrum-since those are the telltale signs of societies that are unfree.

I haven't seen a free market argument yet that would work in the arena of such a unique and finite community owned resource I'm always open to new economic ideas, let's hear 'em.

...the government could just tattoo his eleven digit number on his arm.

The National ID Card: It's Baaack! by Stephen Moore

The ID card is hardly a novel idea. The concept once surfaced in a Reagan cabinet meeting in 1981. Then-Attorney General William French Smith argued that a perfectly harmless ID card system would be necessary to reduce illegal immigration. A second cabinet member asked: why not tattoo a number on each American's forearm? According to Martin Anderson, the White House domestic policy adviser at the time, Reagan blurted out "My god, that's the mark of the beast." As Anderson wrote, "that was the end of the national identification card" during the Reagan years. H.R. 231 is proof that bad ideas never die in Washington; they just wait for another day.

Here is one argument that addresses the costs of sustaining the post office monopoly. Also see this one.

The post office is nothing but another example of failed socialism, and should be phased out and replaced with market solutions which offer an incentive to deliver (pardon the pun ;). The answer is to allow the market to supply the demand by voluntary means, instead of by coercion (the tool of government).

"Our federal government's 15-year industrial policy to make sure the conversion to HDTV is complete by 2006 looks more like an impending train wreck with each passing month."

"What went wrong? A lot of things are to blame but ultimately it comes down to a federal industrial policy that substitutes bureaucratic mandates for the wisdom of markets and the desires of consumers."

"There are no easy escape routes from this industrial policy mess. Perhaps the best solution would be to cut our losses and allow the broadcasters to keep what they've got, and more importantly, to sell it as they wish. This option would be difficult for some to swallow because the broadcasters would be getting away with murder. But it would achieve the important goal of freeing the spectrum they're hoarding by encouraging them to sell it through private auctions to those who value it more highly. And it would get the feds out of the business of micro-managing the television industry."

"Congress should have auctioned off this spectrum back in the mid-1990s and let the chips fall where they may. HDTV would probably have emerged, but through other means (satellite or cable), and other wireless providers would have snatched up the spectrum at auction and put it to better use. As it stands now, we're left with the mother of all industrial policies, and few pretty TV pictures to show for it." (more...)

It's concievable that if America put price ceilings on it's medicines, the state of the entire world's medicine would be hindered

This is happening right now. Once $200 billion in Federal benefits are given US seniors, the next step will be Federal ceilings on drug prices (this is what has happened in every other country). Maine and Vermont are already looking into drug price ceilings.

check this out

To paraphrase P.J. O'Roarke, its not like the economy is a pizza and if I have too many slices you're left with just the box. If economics were a zero-sum game like that, then more immigrants would mean less jobs. Since, in fact, immigrants must spend their money on services and products made by natives, they create as many jobs as they fill.

Stephen Moore at the Cato Institute did an interesting study about the H1-B issue:

"...every additional high-tech worker brings to the United States about $110,000 of free human capital. An additional 50,000 H1-b immigrant visas is the equivalent of a $5.5 billion transfer of wealth from the citizens of foreign countries to the citizens of the United States. High-tech immigration is like reverse foreign aid."

good point on the definitions. A few notes back though:

The CIA does not consider the US a democracy NOR a democratic republic. this , we are in fact a federal republic.

Democracy is actually a system of mob rule. This was one thing that even James Madison decried in the Federalist Papers.

I will say this, however, that lately the US is becoming more and more of a democracy when special interest groups with the most money (the biggest mob) bend the ears of the politicians.

You see, in a democracy, the rights of the individual are superceded by the rights of the larger group (the mob). What happens when the mob is made up of luddites? Computers and coffee machines become illegal and we are all out of work. In a republic, my right to work and make a living supercedes your personal beliefs on technology as long as it doesn't infringe on your right to hold that belief.

I know that's a bad example but it's the best that I could come up ATM. A democracy is a terribly unstable beast. The whims of the people are more fickle than the winds of the four corners.

I've attached some links at the bottom. Some of these come from religious websites but it makes a valid point none the less. Note that I don't endorse any of the religous links posted. I could care less. Thomas Jefferson said once (paraphrase) "If a man believes in god or does not, what does it matter to me? It neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg." Another of the links is to the Cato Institute (disclaimer: an organization which I wholly support)

Some Links:
1
2
3
4

"Several years ago, Congress imposed a cap on the maximum tax-deductible salary for corporate managers. This caused a shift to incentive compensation, particularly stock options, which provided an excessive incentive for corporate executives to attempt to boost the stock price in the short run rather than long-run earnings."

"In addition, both the federal and many state governments have restricted the ability of those who are dissatisfied with the performance of a given company to engage in a hostile tender offer to take over the company. The threat of hostile tender offers served as a discipline on corrupt and incompetent management groups."

• does anyone actually believe the Russian promise to fund 30% (6 billion +) of the mission? Given their record with the ISS and the sorry state of their economy, I highly doubt it.

Does anyone believe the US promise to fund $14.5 billion of the ISS? Given their record with the UN and the sorry state of their economy, I highly doubt it.

Oh, plus Bush has already reneged. Perhaps if we renamed it the "US Anti Terrorist Orbitting Death Platform" it could get funding under the current climate.

Enough with the petty bitterness. Instead of casting stones at Russia for doing what we won't, why not spend some energy exhorting your elected representative to support, or if you prefer, to compete with them. If you're looking for suggestions as to where we could get the money from, how about a reform of tort law that cost $82 billion a year. Back in 1990, that is. Want to bet that it isn't $100 billion a year now? We could fund a Mars mission easily if we just stopped parasiting off of ourselves and start looking outwards instead of inwards.

Yes, p2p, and the entire digital realm for that matter, is great for avoiding the zero-sum problem of most markets. However, this doesn't mean it's alright to take other peoples work and do what you will with it.

You can throw all of the NHTSA and IIHS stastics at me that you want. However, these are not and never will be impartial statistics.

These are the people who have been cramming the "speed kills" crap down our throats for years. I'll direct you to the Cato Institute for more accurate statistics. Specifically, NHTSA has not lived up to its airbag promises. See here too. Also, while I don't have any links, and am no longer a member, I'm sure that the National Motorists Association has information contrary to the NHTSA and IIHS data.

NHTSA is a Federal Government orginization and will never be impartial. Their entire existence depends on their never backing down on their ideals -- even if they're proven wrong. If they turn around and say that they over-regulated and its costing the American consumer more than its saving them -- the orginization goes away and everyone there loses their job. Sure -- when NHTSA started out, they may have had good intentions. But it got out of control -- and when most of their reports were discredited, they didn't not rebut the negative feedback...they responded with more data -- this time the data was statistically insigificant or misleading. Take the national 55 MPH speed lmit. NHTSA (and IIHS) predicted anarchy on the road then the nationial 55 MPH speed limit was repealed in 1996. When they were wrong, their 1998 report to congress did not reflect that. Instead of showing the decreased deaths per million miles travelled, they showed a trend of increasing percentage of fatalities on interstate highways (1% of highway fatalities) vs a decrease in non-interstate (99% of fatalities). In any case, it is very similiar to the DEA and ONDCP. Do you remember how Barry McCaffrey (former drug Czar under Clinton) responded when asked if it would help our country to switch to a drug policy closer to the Netherlands'? He lied! He said that soft and hard drug abuse was higher than the US per capita across the board...in kids and adults. This is the exact opposite of thr truth. Government orginizations can/have/will skew facts and obscure data just to stay alive. NHTSA is a prefect example of this type of big-government thinking.

Outside of this argument -- do you actually believe that I am not mentally capable of deciding weather or not I should have an airbag in my car? What about seatbelts? Motorcycle helmets? Pot? Alcohol? Cigrettes? Prescription drugs? Pornography? Now tell me, where does it stop???


-Turkey

You can throw all of the NHTSA and IIHS stastics at me that you want. However, these are not and never will be impartial statistics.

These are the people who have been cramming the "speed kills" crap down our throats for years. I'll direct you to the Cato Institute for more accurate statistics. Specifically, NHTSA has not lived up to its airbag promises. See here too. Also, while I don't have any links, and am no longer a member, I'm sure that the National Motorists Association has information contrary to the NHTSA and IIHS data.

NHTSA is a Federal Government orginization and will never be impartial. Their entire existence depends on their never backing down on their ideals -- even if they're proven wrong. If they turn around and say that they over-regulated and its costing the American consumer more than its saving them -- the orginization goes away and everyone there loses their job. Sure -- when NHTSA started out, they may have had good intentions. But it got out of control -- and when most of their reports were discredited, they didn't not rebut the negative feedback...they responded with more data -- this time the data was statistically insigificant or misleading. Take the national 55 MPH speed lmit. NHTSA (and IIHS) predicted anarchy on the road then the nationial 55 MPH speed limit was repealed in 1996. When they were wrong, their 1998 report to congress did not reflect that. Instead of showing the decreased deaths per million miles travelled, they showed a trend of increasing percentage of fatalities on interstate highways (1% of highway fatalities) vs a decrease in non-interstate (99% of fatalities). In any case, it is very similiar to the DEA and ONDCP. Do you remember how Barry McCaffrey (former drug Czar under Clinton) responded when asked if it would help our country to switch to a drug policy closer to the Netherlands'? He lied! He said that soft and hard drug abuse was higher than the US per capita across the board...in kids and adults. This is the exact opposite of thr truth. Government orginizations can/have/will skew facts and obscure data just to stay alive. NHTSA is a prefect example of this type of big-government thinking.

Outside of this argument -- do you actually believe that I am not mentally capable of deciding weather or not I should have an airbag in my car? What about seatbelts? Motorcycle helmets? Pot? Alcohol? Cigrettes? Prescription drugs? Pornography? Now tell me, where does it stop???


-Turkey

You can throw all of the NHTSA and IIHS stastics at me that you want. However, these are not and never will be impartial statistics.

These are the people who have been cramming the "speed kills" crap down our throats for years. I'll direct you to the Cato Institute for more accurate statistics. Specifically, NHTSA has not lived up to its airbag promises. See here too. Also, while I don't have any links, and am no longer a member, I'm sure that the National Motorists Association has information contrary to the NHTSA and IIHS data.

NHTSA is a Federal Government orginization and will never be impartial. Their entire existence depends on their never backing down on their ideals -- even if they're proven wrong. If they turn around and say that they over-regulated and its costing the American consumer more than its saving them -- the orginization goes away and everyone there loses their job. Sure -- when NHTSA started out, they may have had good intentions. But it got out of control -- and when most of their reports were discredited, they didn't not rebut the negative feedback...they responded with more data -- this time the data was statistically insigificant or misleading. Take the national 55 MPH speed lmit. NHTSA (and IIHS) predicted anarchy on the road then the nationial 55 MPH speed limit was repealed in 1996. When they were wrong, their 1998 report to congress did not reflect that. Instead of showing the decreased deaths per million miles travelled, they showed a trend of increasing percentage of fatalities on interstate highways (1% of highway fatalities) vs a decrease in non-interstate (99% of fatalities). In any case, it is very similiar to the DEA and ONDCP. Do you remember how Barry McCaffrey (former drug Czar under Clinton) responded when asked if it would help our country to switch to a drug policy closer to the Netherlands'? He lied! He said that soft and hard drug abuse was higher than the US per capita across the board...in kids and adults. This is the exact opposite of thr truth. Government orginizations can/have/will skew facts and obscure data just to stay alive. NHTSA is a prefect example of this type of big-government thinking.

Outside of this argument -- do you actually believe that I am not mentally capable of deciding weather or not I should have an airbag in my car? What about seatbelts? Motorcycle helmets? Pot? Alcohol? Cigrettes? Prescription drugs? Pornography? Now tell me, where does it stop???


-Turkey

Here's a good article which explains why the Kyoto Protocol is a bad idea and the US was wise to stay out of it.

If you're not voting Libertarian ...

Ahem. Just to introduce some complication here, there was just a news release about this where the (Libertarian) Cato Institute has "no serious problems":
(this is not false, it's honest-to-god what they said)

May 30, 2002

No Problem With New FBI Surveillance Guidelines, Scholar Says

WASHINGTON--The Justice Department is expected to announce today new guidelines giving greater latitude to FBI agents to monitor Internet sites, libraries, and religious institutions without first having to offer evidence of potential criminal activity. Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute and a former Justice Department official, had the following remarks:

"As reported in the press, the new FBI surveillance guidelines present no serious problems. Especially under post-September 11 circumstances, law enforcement monitoring of public places is simply good, pro-active police work that violates the rights of no one. The same is true for topical research not directly related to a specific crime, which the new guidelines will permit.

"Depending on how the work is conducted, there is always the potential for abuse, of course. But unless the new latitude leads to significant abuse, that potential should not preclude officials from taking an active role not simply in prosecuting but in preventing crime as well."

There's been quite a trend about this generally, with many hardcore, cap-L Libertarian pundits. saying similar things overall. It's been almost amusing to watch. No atheists in foxholes, and no paens to personal responsibility in the face of suicide terrorists (not all have had "foxhole conversions", but quite a few).

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

can DEMAND that they take a billion or so dollars and move them from Defense Spending to Education spending

Look, putz, haven't we given the failure called the Department of Education enough money? Maybe that billion dollars shouldn't go to the military (it should, however) but just throwing it away in the Dept. of Ed. trash can isn't going to help the illerate kids in inner city hellholes. Oh, and btw, the Dept. of Ed. is actually unconstitutional anyway. Check it out for yourself.

That billion dollars you speak of should go from the DoD budget to state education programs, which are actually legal.

What? Smaller federal government? I must be some sort of Nazi, right? I mean, federalizing the airport baggage screeners made air flight so much safer, and at a much better cost too! (hint: both are incorrect.)

Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments in The Development of The Bell System Monopy

Later decided that they changed their minds and broke it up, and this is supposed to give me some faith that government can do good? What about all the damage government did to telecommunications in the mean time? (The Bell monopoly was enforced by the SSSCA's of its day. There was a time when you needed AT&T's permission to hook up a modem The Origins of Tymnet.)

I should point out that I am not an anarchist, protecting people from fraud is one of the police functions that a government should do. However, just because government occaisionally does it's proper job doesn't mean I want it to expand into other areas like controlling what I eat, drink, read, write, and spend money on.

For every good use of government, it seems, they throw up an SSSCA or DMCA. Be aware of the government's culpability in the whole Enron fiasco, Myths About Enron, which they have managed to successfully hide in most of the mainstream media.

Criminals will always use guns. Period. Whether they are illegal or not.
I, for one, will defend myself if they try to kill me. You do what you want. I, however, know what restrictive laws do to my safety:

If gun makers reduce the supply of firearms sold to suburban dealers, the market price of guns will rise. Consumers with the most "elastic" demand -- those who are most sensitive to price changes -- will reduce or eliminate their purchases. And the evidence is clear: Price-sensitive consumers tend to be law-abiding citizens. By contrast, criminals' demand for firearms is highly "inelastic": Crooks are willing to pay inflated black-market prices for their guns. Perversely, by restricting the legal supply of guns and raising their price, plaintiffs would put more weapons in criminals' hands and fewer in the hands of honest citizens. -(Cato Institute Report)

John Daly's massive clearinghouse, Still Waiting for Greenhouse
An article by MIT meteorology professor Richard Lindzen.

There's lots more, but others might want to play.

You want to get informed about the real costs of taxation.

Start with something from the CATO Institute. You can find detailed and accurate accounts of the "hidden" taxation you're subjected to. In particular, the amount the government garnishes off your wages by forcing the employer to cough up money for employing you.

Then check out this Sales Tax Rate table. There are only five states that don't charge a sales tax. All others do: it may be a hidden tax. And I'm not entirely sure that the five oddballs aren't using some sort of skullduggery to tax the wholesale sale of merchandise; if so, that tax just gets passed on down to you, the consumer.

In Canada, at least, those taxes are up front and in the open, so that we know what the amount is and whether it gets changed. If the tax were hidden, it could go up and we'd never be told.

I totally agree with you. In business, the market leader gets 80-90% of the market while everybody else in the industry struggle for the 10-20%. It's a fact of economics, not just the internet.

Let's put it this way. If I said, name an auction site, the majority of you will name Ebay. If I asked a random person on the street a ISP, a majority (unfortunately) would name AOL. If I asked you what IM system you use, a majority would say AIM.

Unlike other industries, the internet and technology in itself benefit from increasing returns. The fact that the number 1 player is 10x better than the number 2 and the number 2 is 10x better than 3 and the fact that capital was pouring in at a significant rate was the fact that the .COM bursted early last year.

However, the future looks bright from here on out. There are signs that the industry is coming back as more and more VCs are willing to put up the money and bigger money than in the last 6 months.

Treat our communications infrastructure the way we treat highways: a publicly funded transportation system that all users and providors use under the same conditions and restraints.

A few years playing bitch to bubba will make even the most arrogant CEO rather compliant.

Who Let the Dogs Out at Scientific American? by Patrick J. Michaels.

It's just another perspective.

Two glaring omissions reveal your political bias. What about Somalia and Bosnia?

Oh, those, while more recent and larger in scale than most of the actions you listed, were brought to us by the Beloved Clinton.

Please see http://www.cato.org/dailys/8-11-97.html but to summarize he said that we would be out of Bosnia in one year on Nov 27, 1995. I spent Christmas of '96 there. I undersand that one year was an estimate, but there was no end in sight at that time. The kindest interpretation I can come up with is gross incompetence. An out-and-out line seems more likely. AFAIK he never fully withdrew troops. (See http://www.cnn.com/US/9511/bosnia_speech/speech.ht ml for the full transcript.)

If you are actually trying to achieve any credibility don't act as such a blatant partisan.

-Peter

Every time there's a report about the state of Canadian healthcare, it seems to come from some right wing "thinktank"--why do they call them that?--that has a vested interest in bringing down the system, so they can put a for-profit system in its place.

• ending the war on drugs.
  
• ending censorship in Canadian media.
  
• halting corporate welfare.
  
• keeping government regulations out of cyberspace.

We had peace, now war.

So, it's Bush's fault that after the Cold War was over, the then-President squandered the opportunities presented and now Clinton's chickens are coming home to roost?

We had budget surpluses, now budget deficits.

Yes, I definitely think that Bush should take a harder line with the Democrat's desire to spend more money. Glad to see you agree.

We had a 'peace dividend,' now we have the largest military budget.

That peace was handed to Clinton by his predecessors, and because he let things fall apart during his term, now money has to be spent fixing what he let rot.

Have you spoken to anyone in the military lately, by any chance? I have a couple of friends who were in, and for the last 6 years or so was able to hear about how badly things were deteriorating -- inadequate maintainance for aircraft, personnel leaving because being sent around the world to serve as Clinton's ad agency left them too little time to spend with their families, that sort of thing. Don't blame the janitor for the expense of cleaning up the mess.

We had a strong economy, now a recession.

I hate to break it to you, but the stock market took a nose dive in response to a certain court ruling in 1999, in a case prosecuted by the Clinton administration, and it hasn't recovered since. The Microsoft ruling turned what would have been a gradual die-off amongst the dotcoms into a mass meteor-and-dinosaurs extinction event. So now instead of going from "You're on the Internet? We don't need to see your business plan, here's some money!" to "Ahem. Let's look at that business plan," we've gone to "You're on the Internet? We don't need to see your business plan, go away!" But I suppose sticking a pin in a balloon is more fun than letting it deflate.

We had a fair tax system, now a tax system favoring the rich.

What universe do you live in? The tax cuts (what little there are of them) have barely gone into effect.

We had an 'Alaska,' now we have a 'Drilled Alaska.'

Not yet, unfortunately.

We had a blow job scandal, now we have a 'jobs' and billions of $ scandal.

Enron expected their campaign contributions to get them help. They got none. Which is as it should be. As for the employee's 401Ks, anyone who sticks all their money in a single basket like that (and they WERE able to take whatever they put in out, just not Enron's matching stock) deserve what happens to them.

We had liberties, now we have virtually none.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

I'm not happy with some of Bush's response to the terrorist attacks either, but do the words "Communications Decency Act" ring a bell? Digital Millenium Copyright Act? Phil Zimmerman? Carnivore?

And since I presume my words won't carry much weight with you, go here at the Cato Institute and see what ACLU president Nadine Strossen had to say about Clinton and the rule of law.

Well usually Roblimo takes the highest-moderated comments and sends them to me, but I guess this will do.

1. In 1983, the GNU Project was first announced. One of its main goals was ownership of my anus. Being a man of the heterosexual persuasion, I was forced to go underground to avoid falling prey to Richard Stallman's anal invasion.

2. You probably read that on the Baseball Prospectus. Much like Slashdot, they are devoted to promoting the homosexual agenda through lies.

3. Once David Glass sells the Royals and the whole front office gets fired for gross incompetence, I'll have all the time in the world.

4. To cite either of those texts would violate copyright laws such as the DMCA and SSSCA which I and all law-abiding Americans hold very dearly.

5. Trick question, you aren't wearing pants. But your dick doesn't look big at all.

6. With a little investigation, anyone can realize that as long as Enron held to the good solid Christian values of Texas, they had a strong business. However, in the midst of the late 90's boom, they fell prey to the dark machinations of VA (Vaginas Away!) Software, Slashdot.org, and Apache. It was only a matter of time.

VA Software executives have been photographed frantically applying for MCSE classes, but most certification schools do not accept used condoms and old pizza boxes as payment. The writing is on the wall.

7. If by "that" you mean CowboyNeal's shriveled cock, forget it. I have enough karma already.

8. Everything was going well in China until Linux came along. Will they ever turn around and behold the warm sun of capitalism?

9. You're lucky I only have one question left.

10. In today's Washington Post Classifieds, I noticed an ad from a gentleman in Michigan who seeks some sort of Sodomite rendezvous. Clearly this man has visited the "Geek Compound" and tasted its dark delights. One can only assume this man supports the Kyoto Protocol and other anticapitalist government programs, and has not read The Kyoto Killers.

Now, I'm off to put on my full-body armor and watch Chuck Knoblauch practice his throwing.

According to this article no private entity can deliver a package or envalope for less than $3 or twice the cost of a first class letter.

Excuse-me, the industry was reregulated, not deregulated.
http://www.cato.org/electricity/electricity.html

Stephan

Or you could read The Antitrust Terrible 10: Why the Most Reviled "Anti-competitive" Business Practices Can Benefit Consumers in the New Economy. Note that the 8th section in the PDF deals specifically with tying and bundling. Enjoy!

You're right. I'd say that the mass media are more "democratic" today than they've ever been in the last two centuries. William Randolph Hearst and pals controlled everything you read a hundred years ago, and through most of the twentieth century, you had three TV networks or nothing.

Today we've got any number of socialist news sites, right-wing commentary, plus access to everything AP and Reuters put out. Every think tank has the means to get their message to a worldwide audience.

And yet, with all this, people still complain that the media aren't state-controlled enough. And these are the same people who complain that the state is run by Big Evil Corporations. (I'm not saying it isn't.) But if the state runs the media, and the BEC's run the state, how is that a good thing?

I would start with The Antitrust Terrible 10: Why the Most Reviled "Anti-competitive" Business Practices Can Benefit Consumers in the New Economy and The Government's War on Mergers: The Fatal Conceit of Antitrust Policy, because it is a common misconception that antitrust is even needed. More analysis is found here, here, and these two links. In short, antitrust and monopoly-busting tactics do more damage than good.

I would start with The Antitrust Terrible 10: Why the Most Reviled "Anti-competitive" Business Practices Can Benefit Consumers in the New Economy and The Government's War on Mergers: The Fatal Conceit of Antitrust Policy, because it is a common misconception that antitrust is even needed. More analysis is found here, here, and these two links. In short, antitrust and monopoly-busting tactics do more damage than good.