Slashdot Mirror

On what basis?

Property damage.

Who is going to enforce any judgements?

The government. Unlike retirement, healthcare, education, and the like, enforcing law actually is the government's prerogative even according to Libertarians.

But for the Executive to enforce the judgement, the Judiciary would need to first render it. Because separation of powers...

Creation of FCC — pushed by an authoritarian President beloved by contemporary Fascists — was Congress abdicating (some of) its powers to the Executive.

Having an FCC to regulate communications is Fascism

Yes, having government control interactions between private entities is an element of Fascism. Not surprising, the FCC happened, when Fascism was hot, introduced by an authoritarian President beloved by contemporary Fascists.

Sure thing bud

I'm not your "bud" — you should not even dream about any kind of familiar affiliation, or you may be overcome by suicidal disappointment upon waking up...

Every historian classifies fascism as right-wing.

That's just not true. But even if it were true — and you are offering no citations — it does not help you. Because now you have to define "right wing"... Meh...

Don't take it up with me - it's settled history.

Appeal to Authority.

That is not fascism, those are the tenets of the Nazi party

Whether they are from actual Fascism or not, you are spot-on regarding them being tenets of the Nazi party. And of the Democrats...

And both have very populist and actually good ideas.

Voila, ladies and gentlemen! The same Democrat, who started the day firmly rejecting Nazism as the greatest evil, ends the day admitting, he likes the Nazi ideas... I'll leave it at that...

Nazis were not leftists

In denial much? Here:

• 
  
• 7. We demand that the State shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
  
• 10. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work.
• 11. The abolition of incomes unearned by work.
• 12. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.
• 13. We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
• 14. We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
• 15. We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.
• 16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class
• 18. We demand the ruthless prosecution of those whose activities are injurious to the common interest.
• 20. The State must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education ... We demand the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.

The common interest before self-interest.

Ringing any bells? American "Progressives" adored Hitler in the 30-ies...

It's not the cash-cow speed traps and Officer Dickweed hiding behind your neighbor's azaleas with a laser gun that I'm worried about. It's the mindless, shoot-first cops that are determined to become a leading cause of death to unarmed civilians despite supposedly safe weapons.

Maybe cops need a sensible, community-minded mission in a media friendly format? "Serve and Protect", maybe, or "We're tackling real criminals now instead of the harmless pot smokers".

We have plenty of reasons to hate cops, from racially-motivated shootings to blatant theft and rage murder, these incidents happen many thousands of times every year. If they want to change I'm all for it but in the meantime let me know where these trigger happy fuckers are so I can avoid them. I believe believe in personal safety, freedom to possess property and the inviolable rights of every human being. That's why I feel justified in helping highlight gang members with badges on Waze. Think of the children (AKA collateral damage) please folks.

"Why do people quote this like it were gospel."

Not Gospel. History. People quote it because it has time and again proven to be historically accurate. People who trade freedom for security well end up getting neither. That's just the way it works.

While not directly related to the quote, here is an excellent description of the basic problem we are discussing in this topic.

---

http://www.fff.org/freedom/0498d.asp Is a good read on U.S. sugar tarriff, this has been ongoing for a lot longer then the 1980's, or even 1880's.

First, You left a few things out when you only mentioned 3 nations. I can mention more than 3 counter examples:

Norway has Western Europe's highest gun ownership rate and the lowest violent crime rate. (http://gunowners.org/op0746.htm)

Mexico's strict anti-gun laws (compared to Texas) correlate to Mexico's higher violent crime rate.

Washington, D.C. has stricter gun control laws than does Virginia, which correlates nicely to the higher crime rates in D.C.

Second, gun deaths is the wrong statistic. Gun deaths measure every gangster shot dead by a cop. Only a delusional psychopath could confuse a rapist with an innocent victim. Try measuring the violent crime rate, and correlating that to gun ownership. You will get much more useful data. FFF has some great data on cities murder rates compared to their gun control laws: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

Third, Your numbers are for the entire USA, which includes places where guns are not available (e.g., New York City, California, etc.)

If you look only at murder rates in the places where guns are commonly carried, you get a very different picture of the USA.

there is close to 0 public support for another war

Not true. Americans are sick of *some* wars; 75% of Americans support withdrawal from Afghanistan by Obama's timetable or earlier. But... 70% of Americans believe Iran already has nuclear weapons, and 58% of Americans say they support U.S. military attacks on Iran. The Young Turks: Can we stop a war with Iran?

5000 or so dead soldiers

6,300 U.S. soldiers killed, 46,000 U.S. soldiers wounded, estimated hundreds of thousands of civilian dead, and $3 trillion of public money given to "defense contractors".

And now Iran is being blamed for 9/11: U.S. District Court Rules Iran Behind 9/11 Attacks (December 23rd 2011)

How convenient. After 2001, 44% of Americans believed that the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi, and 70% of Americans believed Saddam did 9/11. In fact, not a single one of the hijackers were Iraqi, and secularist Hussein and Islamist bin Laden were known to hate each other. It was all a lie. Even now, after the whole argument has been completely discredited time and again, including by the CIA, 41% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11. But now Iran did it, so we have to attack them.... omg..

I can't believe people are falling for this again...

Your tax dollars are being wasted on way or another. I would rather my tax dollars support saving the life of a moron who didn't wear a seatbelt than my tax dollars being wasted to enforce a law that infringes on people's freedom to take a stupid risk.

Yes. And even as bad as the theoretical improvement outlined above would be (requiring one person to subsidize another's health care), it's nowhere near as bad as the status quo, which is this: those who "infringe" on these laws (whether they actually harmed anyone or not, or cost you a single dime) are targeted for "enforcement", thus having dollars siphoned out of their pockets by the millions daily by corrupt judges to support corrupt police departments, who then turn around and spend that cash to stockpile assault rifles, body armor, and other tools of oppression, while hiring juiced up control freak ex-soldiers, fresh from the hell of Iraq, ready to inflict suffering and exert control on people's lives.

All of which come in handy when storming in someone's house at 3AM on a no-knock raid, shooting the dog (a very aggressive Pomeranian) and humiliating the wife, then systematically destroying their lives by outright seizing their house, car, and all other valuable possessions, just for being accused (not convicted--accused or even acquitted) of a drug-related "crime", such as allegedly planting seeds and sprouting a common plant that has lived in harmony with mankind since the dawn of civilization. This is assuming they don't somehow "find" a bag of weed in your house and some scales while you were pinned down on the floor struggling to breathe, thus sealing the case against you. Hope you got a few tens of thousands for lawyer fees stashed away in buried mayonnaise jars or in an offshore bank account, if you expect to ever see your kids again.

I hope nobody reading this thinks I'm exaggerating. All of the above has happened, tons of times, and only continues to escalate. I could put in a lot more links, to various stories I remember seeing on the news, but I would rather spend my time stocking up on supplies for the upcoming potential World War than educating some slashdot readers who are presumably still clueless (in this day and age?) about the goings-on of our police state. As much as I despise them, seatbelt laws are actually the least of our nation's concerns right now.

Exactly. For those in the US anyway, our country is founded on the model of negative reciprocity and a Natural Rights Republic (Bastiat would later lay a solid philosophical basis for these by deriving the rights of the government from the natural right of self-defense).

Read down the Bill of Rights, and the government:
may not prevent your speech
may not interfere in your religion
may not restrict the press
may not restrict the ownership or bearing of arms
may not quarter soldiers in private homes
may not search you or seize your assets without a warrant
may not take your liberty or property without due process of law
etc.

even your "right to a trial by jury" is a euphemistic way of saying:

the government may not cage you without peer approval.

The idea of positive rights (that you have a right to something) is a false one because it necessarily involves taking labor and goods from others, which violates their rights. No true right exits that infringes the rights of others.

You don't have a right to food, because taking food from farmers (or money form others to pay the farmers) violates their rights. But you have a right to grow your own food without interference (or buy whatever food you want).

You don't have a right to healthcare because the government can't enslave doctors and take hospitals. But you have a right to seek whatever kind of healthcare you desire.

You don't have a right to be given a gun to protect yourself, but you have a right to own and bear one without interference.

Now, the current government is operating illegally (ever since FDR accepted the Supreme Court's surrender in 1937) so actually the government does now say that you don't have a right to grow your own food without their permission (Wickard v. Fulburn), you don't have a right to bear arms (Miller), you aren't free from search and seizure (Sitz v. Michigan), you don't have a right to be kept out of a cage without a jury (Korematsu), you don't have a right to seek the healthcare you desire (FDA) and various government entitlement programs trample all over the rest of it. But just because your rights are being violated doesn't mean they no longer exist.

A 'right to Internet access' would involve taking from others to give to you, so it can't be a right. But you should not be prevented from accessing and using the Internet however you want.

Simple things like PUC laws that prevent Internet co-ops from forming are therefore illegal, and as are more grand plans like SOPA. Good luck trying to hold the government to its own rules, though - in the whole congress, there's only one guy who even really believes it should. Fortunately, he's running for President.

Educate yourself: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0598d.asp

In 1984, Congress explicitly sanctioned the granting of local cable monopolies. Between 1987 and 1990, nine states granted existing local franchises de facto monopoly rights in their markets. The 1984 cable act also banned telephone companies from offering cable television service, thereby protecting thousands of local cable monopolies from a natural competitor.

Largely as a result of the local monopolies, cable bills rose twice as fast as inflation in the late 1980s and early 1990s. (In the 65 cities that permitted two or more cable companies to compete, prices fell 20 to 25 percent.) Congress responded in 1992 by enacting the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act. The act's statement of policy declared Congress's intent to "promote the availability to the public of a diversity of views and information through cable television ... and ensure that cable television operators do not have undue market power vis-a-vis video programmers and consumers."

While the 1992 act liberally praised competition, the act "eliminated damage awards against cities that refuse to issue competitive franchises," as Hazlett noted. Thus, local governments have nothing to lose from granting monopolies to favored cable companies. Congress perpetuated an earlier prohibition on telephone companies offering cable service, thereby preventing the provision of a greater "diversity of views."

The 1992 cable act responded to cable monopolies not by removing the barriers to competition but by increasing politicians' and bureaucrats' power to dictate how monopolists must behave. The act required the FCC to regulate local cable companies' monthly fees. The FCC responded in May 1993 by issuing 475 pages of arcane provisions to regulate cable pricing and promised to issue additional regulations to further clarify permitted pricing policies. Almost all of the 475 pages of regulations were "necessitated" by local and state governments' decisions to give cable operators a monopoly. Once the politicians gave cable operators monopoly control over their cable customers, the politicians naturally felt entitled to exercise control over the cable companies. First the government creates unnecessary monopolies, and then it issues hundreds of pages of unnecessary rules to try to make the monopolies serve the public interest — as such public interest is perceived by politicians and political appointees.

At the risk of bringing up Godwin's law, I will point out that Hitler was elected into office.

No, not really.

The economic system does not encourage greed. It's about economic freedom without a government dictating how you should spend/invest your money. that's free market and free market != capitalism

False. After his capture Revere told the British that the country was raised against them. Not one word about taking away the colonist's guns.

And while it is true that "you can't take their guns" is a reasonable inference from "they are ready and waiting for you", it is also a reasonable inference that "you can't take their trousers" or "you can't quarter soldiers in their homes", but for some reason you don't mention either of those, nor the dozens of other things you could reasonably infer from what Revere reported telling them, which was not "you can't take their guns" but "the country is raised against you."

If you've watched the movie Braveheart, you would know that the English had previous experience with opponents without trousers. The lack of trousers, while offense to the eye at times, does nothing to prevent infantry action and close combat. Weapons are the thing, specifically, guns. An armed and ready population is a very different thing than a lone family asleep in their beds as far as the prospects for retaining their arms - a very real concern.

Gun Control: A Historical Perspective, Part 1

Between 1768-1777, the British policy was to disarm the American colonists by whatever means possible, from entrapment, false promises of safekeeping, banning imports, seizure, and eventually shooting persons bearing arms.

By 1774, the British had embargoed shipments of arms to America, and the Americans responded by arming themselves and forming independent militia companies.

On the night of 18 April 1775, General Gage, Governor of Massachusetts, dispatched several hundred soldiers of the Boston garrison under the command of Major Pitcairn to seize the arms and munitions stored by the illegal colonial militias in Concord.

When Pitcairn encountered the Minutemen on the Lexington common blocking his way, he demanded that they throw down their arms and disperse. Although willing to disperse, the Minutemen were not willing to surrender their arms. The rest is history.

Three days after the British retreat from Concord, General Gage refused to allow Bostonians to leave the city without depositing their arms and ammunition with a Selectman at Faneuil Hall, to be returned at a suitable time after their return. When the citizens of Boston foolishly complied, Gage seized the arms and refused to permit their owners to leave the city. ("Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms," July 6, 1775.)

Nobody had to say a word about taking the colonist's guns - it was British policy. How else do you think they were dealing with the rebellion?

Surely the reasonable inference isn't: the British will crush the rebellion and take away arms, everywhere but here?

Yes, they are confiscating evidence, and taking ownership. These laws have been on the books for around 20 years and bypass trial.
So, I ask again, why is this news? Because it's comic books?

Here's an interesting opinion piece from 1993 (18 years ago):
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093c.asp
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1193c.asp

Yes, they are confiscating evidence, and taking ownership. These laws have been on the books for around 20 years and bypass trial.
So, I ask again, why is this news? Because it's comic books?

Here's an interesting opinion piece from 1993 (18 years ago):
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1093c.asp
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1193c.asp

Silly rabbit, laws are only for plebs, not people/goverment with money/power.

The government will either go with:
A) State secret and demand that its dismissed.
B) State that the people who could defend it are too busy to go to court and their for it needs to be dismissed
C) Get a retroactive FISA warrant.

Did you read the article you posted to? It points out that the numbers are wrong and wrongly used and then points out why the comparison to the US wouldn't make sense anyway.

I could see linking to the email as support of the idea of gun control. I could see to linking to a rebuttal of the email as support of gun ownership. I fail to understand the point of linking to an email analysis where it is pointed out as having no reliability.

I've read quite a few good articles on both sides of the argument over gun control vs. ownership rights. Try these instead:

• http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp - shows gun control not working
• http://www.guninformation.org/ - explains how gun control is effective and what is wrong with opposing statistics
• http://usliberals.about.com/od/patriotactcivilrights/i/ProConGunLaws.htm - examines the legal history with some bias toward gun control
• http://libertariananarchy.com/articles/the-case-against-gun-control/ - presents logical arguments supporting gun ownership rights (I hesitated to include this even more than the article above due to its source, but it really is well written)

If you really wanted a link using the numbers snopes points out as unreliable, you should have used: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

Personally, my opinion is that freedom is more important than safety. Whatever the statistics, whatever the arguments are about crime rates, murder and preventative defense, I believe that an individual has a right to any reasonable self defense they choose. Freedom absolutely does cost lives, but I believe that even as tragic as they can be, preventing them by restricting legitimate freedoms is worse.

Presumably, you want your government (whatever government that might be) to have strong diplomacy and the ability to influence its region of the world.

I've posted this before, but it's worth repeating. Thomas Jefferson quotes on Foreign Policy. Replace "Europe" with "the Middle East" (or, indeed, most regions of the world) and the sentiment is the complete opposite of current U.S. foreign policy.

"We wish not to meddle with the internal affairs of any country, nor with the general affairs of Europe. Peace with all nations, and the right which that gives us with respect to all nations, are our object."

"I have ever deemed it fundamental for the United States never to take active part in the quarrels of Europe. Their political interests are entirely distinct from ours. Their mutual jealousies, their balance of power, their complicated alliances, their forms and principles of government, are all foreign to us. They are nations of eternal war. All their energies are expended in the destruction of the labor, property and lives of their people."

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations--entangling alliances with none, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."

The last quote is particularly telling. Current U.S. foreign policy has allied and entangled the United States with dictatorial monarchies throughout the Middle East. Why is it that unelected Kings urge one of the most powerful nations on Earth to bomb and invade a Middle Eastern country that poses no military threat to North America? And the right-wingers lap it all up. In one hand they wave the Constitution, and decry anything that the government does which isn't explicitly listed there. Does the Constitution of the United States say that one of the responsibilities of the Federal government is to meddle in the affairs of other nations? Did the Founding Fathers envisage that this would be one of the main responsibilities of the government of the United States? Did they even give the President the power to start a war?

"[The President's power]. . . in substance much inferior to it [The power of the British King]. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the land and naval forces . . . while that of the British King extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies; all of which by the Constitution would appertain of the legislature."

Oh really? What about this?

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=206&issue=007

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?id=432&issue=007

(Carry permit holder and NRA member)

First off, your original list doesn't quite make sense. Force didn't/hasn't removed several people on your list, many historically famous butchers are conveniently missing (Americans?, Royalty?, the Church?), and in the case of Castro and the U.S.S.R., the threat of force nearly ended the world.

Despite all that, I do agree that force is sometimes necessary to stop more suffering. However, it's rarely the case that war couldn't have been prevented beforehand through a bit of moral thinking. Obviously, that means no military aid to nations with a bad track record, such as Israel or Colombia. This also means you don't exploit the rest of the world, creating a perfect vacuum for a warlord to rise to power. The Vietnam war was mainly caused by the grueling poverty imposed by French imperialism, for example. And you certainly don't shake hands with those warlords once they gain command. We could make a similar list here, rivaling yours, the difference being of course that we are partially responsible for the suffering caused by these monsters through our aid and military support. Often these support mechanisms directly cause the exact type of dictator you are using as justification of war, taking the Taliban, Hussein, Indonesia, and Batista, for example. Perhaps some of these dictatorial regimes could be avoided by more carefully choosing our relationships with the rest of the world. Simply boiling down foreign policy to "useless talking" and "invasion" is a gross oversimplification that makes you sound like a warmongering idiot.

The best way to avoid war is to not help cause it in the first place. For example, let's take the war in Iraq. Had we not supported Saddam militarily throughout the eighties, he wouldn't have had the capacity to to invade another country. We could have prevented all of this by simply not selling arms to a dictator. The U.S. not only sold Saddam weapons, but they also helped Saddam develop his chemical and biological weapons programs in their crusade against Iran. I would assume that to someone who expresses so much reverence for freedom, you would understand the concept of not aiding those who legally despise it, i.e. dictators. Explain to me then, why Saddam was a former ally? The U.S. was pretty quiet when Saddam was using chemical weapons on his own people and the Iranians, despite the fact that it is explicitly forbidden internationally as a war crime. We certainly knew about it, so where was the outrage then? After the first war Bush I suggested that the Iraqi people overthrow Saddam, but in an ironic twist of fate we gave absolutely no aid to the Iraqi people to achieve such a task, after heavily funding the mess in the first place through Saddam. Instead of helping the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam, we punished them with brutal sanctions we knew would do nothing to the Iraqi elite, but would have horrible consequences for the rest of Iraq. When half a million Iraqi children died due to sanctions, the fact that most of Iraq's water treatment facilities were intentionally destroyed, and there was a dramatic increase in infectious disease, people like you turn around and blame Saddam! Before you go off about the Oil for Food program, keep in mind that is wasn't initiated until 1996 - by which time the damage was done. The Pentagon admitted that one of their goals in the first Gulf war was to disable Iraqi society at large, rather than concentrate solely on military targets. They have also admitted that one of their goals was to make living conditions so unbearable to the Iraqis that they would overthrow Saddam out of desperation. In addition to destroying Iraq's underlying infrastructure, the U.S. fought to keep humanitarian goods, which had no military use, out of Iraq. Sounds pretty fucking sick and sadistic to me. If this is how you bring "democracy" to the rest of the world, you can definitely count me out. Explain to me again how this use of force was supposed to prevent human suffering and uphold freedom?

From the FFF website: "for well over a century, the American people said "No" to such anti-free-market government policies as income taxation, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, immigration controls, economic regulations, drug laws, gun control, public schooling, and foreign wars...The time has come for us to reevaluate our relationship to our government — to repeal, not reform, these immoral and destructive government programs"

None of that changes the facts of this matter, but like you, I'm not very happy about the company I'm keeping right now.

So did the US. Don't believe me? The US protected the bombers of Cubana Flight 455, who included CIA operatives, in 1976. The year before, in 1975, the US supported Indonesia's invasion of East Timor, in which 200,000 East Timorese were massacred. In 1973 the US supported Gen Pinochet's overthrow of Chile's democratically elected government in a coup d'état Thousands of people disappeared afterwards. The US has a history of arming and supporting repressive regimes with large human rights violations.

Heck, at the same tyme the US was supporting Saddam, the US was also arming Iran, who he was fighting against. If the US had allowed democracy in Iran, instead of aiding the overthrow of Iran's elected government and installing the Shah in a dictatorship, there would not have been the revolution in Iran in 1980.

As far as Iraq goes, we had a treaty in place that allowed us to investigate them at will and they broke that treaty.

What treaty was broken and when? After Scott Ritter came out and stated Iraq had no significant WMDs the Neocons in Bush Jr's admin had to besmear him for not supporting their lies.

As for breaking treaties, the US has broken many treaties. I can think of 2 treaties Bush Jr broke or tried to break. With Starwars he was breaking the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia. In trying to locate the permanent nuclear waste disposal site at Yucca Mount he would also have violated the Treay of Ruby Valley which granted the Western Shoshone Yucca Mount and the surrounding land. The US broke a number of treaties with the Sioux. When Andrew Jackson forced the Cherokee to march on the Trail of Tears he broke a treaty when the Cherokee.

The US also supports Israel who has consistently disregarded UN resolutions, there was an uproar when VP Biden went to Israel and they announced more settlements in occupied territory.

the point was to keep Iran's military in line.

Why then did Reagan administration officials sell weapons to Iran in the Iran-Contra Affair? Quite simply they were supporting a number of different sides who were repressive.

At that time there was also a threat by the Soviets against northern Yemen (after they invaded Afghanistan) and Iraq was prepping to fight with Saudi Arabia to defend against them.

Afghanistan was the Soviet's Vietnam. And the same Muslims going there to fight would have fought for the Saudis as well, heck a lot of Saudis went to Afghanistan. After Saddam's invasion of Kuwait al qaeda offered to protect Saudi Arabia against Saddam. They would have caused the Soviets trouble too.

By the way, the USA did NOT give Saddam chemical weapons. Did you just make that up?

• How Reagan Armed Saddam with Chemical Weapons
• Reagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein
• Where Did Saddam Get His Chemical Weapons?
• Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
• How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
• Congressional Record: September 20, 2002

The US murder rate is awfully hard to break down. It includes areas like the communistic Washington D.C, where pistols have been completely illegal for decades. It also includes Texas and other states, where everyone owns a weapon. Those who are really interested in statistics might want to compare Washington D.C, New York City, Boston, or Maryland to a more gun friendly, western city.

Those of you in Europe who want to lump US crime statistics all together might want to remember that the US is almost as large as Europe. Do you lump crime statistics for Copenhagen together with those for Danzig, or Rome?

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

Vermont has the least restrictive gun-control law. It recognizes the right of any Vermonter who has not otherwise been prohibited from owning a firearm to carry concealed weapons without a permit or license. Yet Vermont has one of the lowest crime rates in America, ranking 49 out of 50 in all crimes and 47th in murders.

The proponents of gun control do not publish these sort of facts. They cherry pick very select statistics that seem to say what they mean for them to say. The published statistics never go into any meaningful history of the laws, or follow up on them.

*sigh*

Human nature rules here. Even scumbags have some degree of self preservation interest. They are FAR MORE likely to rape, rob, and/or kill a woman they KNOW is unarmed, rather than risk tangling with a woman who MIGHT have a Baretta in her purse. Think about it. The next time you're at a shopping center, try to imagine walking around slapping adults. Target your victims. Do you pick them based on their apparent ability and willingness to fight back?

Criminals do the same.

You know, the reason that people are so non-offensive about the holidays is purely capitalist and doesn't come from the evil left. They don't want people to be fighting over religious beliefs, because if they do, they buy less crap.

That has nothing to do with public schools though, does it?

I agree, corporate "Christmas" is just to make money. Whether or not you *cough* buy in *cough* to the profit/money-driven Christmas holiday stuff is up to you, the individual. I'm not really that concerned about them. Unless the government mandates ACME Widgets Inc. to say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas for discrimination reasons. If ACME Widgets Inc. decided that on their own, that's fine. I think it's stupid, but it's their choice.

No hypocrisy intended; I was writing a long post late at night with constant interruptions. It was left out by mistake, not ignorance.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0210e.asp

Above is a good place to start. They make reference to a number of other resources that make for further reading, ranging from detailed statistical analyses, to historical references and news articles.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle

If you would prefer being snarky over maybe looking at things from more than one point of view, that is your choice. It never hurts to learn more about something.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are misusing the term "fascism" so egregiously that your entire post is worthless.

Perhaps, Mr. Coward, O Knowledgeable One, you would be so kind to enlighten us. I doubt very much you have any idea what fascism is about.

This just might possibly enlighten you if you give it a chance: The Real Threat of Fascism

"Fascist dictatorships were borne to power in each of these countries by big business, and they served the interests of big business with remarkable ferocity. These facts have been lost to the popular consciousness in North America. Fascism could therefore return to us, and we will not even recognize it. Indeed, Huey Long, one of America's most brilliant and most corrupt politicians, was once asked if America would ever see fascism. His answer was, 'Yes, but we will call it anti-fascism.'"

And this: From the New Mercantilism to Economic Fascism

"Under fascism, business enterprises were organized into state-mandated cartels. The cartels, under government supervision, specified what would be produced, how much each cartel member could produce, at what prices they might hire labor and resources, and for what prices they might sell their output on the market."

And this: Government's Current Role in Business the 'Route' to Fascism

"A textbook definition explains that fascism embodied corporatism, which is an economic structure controlled by the government. Sowell said that's exactly what is happening in some sectors of the U.S. economy:

"Beck: So what route is that again?

"Sowell: That the private people still own the businesses but the politicians tell them what to do.

"Beck: Right, but isn't that, I'm trying to remember, that's uh...

"Sowell: That's fascism.

"Beck: Yes, I was going to say, I knew it was a bad one. And I was going to say, I think that's fascism.

Try not to fixate on whether the state controls business, or business controls the state. The easy tell of fascism is that the state and business are IN LEAGUE, and that they are conspiring off the books and for mutual benefit.

Long work weeks and child labor disappeared due to increases in productivity due to mechanization, not due to government say-so. If the government could simply change things by saying the word, then we'd all be billionaires, wouldn't we? Of course, we can't, because that would either simply kill off all business, or drive prices up by a factor or several million. Understand that child laborers in the free market were not slaves, but were working because their families didn't make enough to survive. Without those jobs, their families would have starved to death. Those cases that you tend to hear of where children were horribly abused were where they had no real protectors (ie parents). In those cases, it was the very government that you want to give more power and authority to that forced those children into the workhouses. http://www.fff.org/freedom/0999f.asp Those who lived with their parents were not abused so badly as socialists would have you believe.

The fact is that it was the very government intervention you champion that created the monopolies you rail against, and continue to do so today (although now it is more like duopolies or some other multiple of oligopolies). By creating regulations that apply to all members of an industry, you find that it increases the costs associated with operations in a disproportionate amount on the smaller companies. In effect, regulations CREATE monopolies. This is why Walmart has recently been pushing for a health care mandate for all businesses, as it would drive their smaller competitors into the ground. In a free market, a company is free to "price fix" or "dump" goods on the market, but in doing so, they only create opportunities for new businesses to rise up and take over their market. Why do you think Microsoft is losing market share? Because the government said they have to?

Also, you should understand that in 100 years, Britain went from being a backwater to being the preeminent world power due to industrialization, and her citizens standard or living was raised from that of serfs to that of a middle class. The same thing happened in the US, and the same thing is happening in China. Workers aren't weak little people that need protection from greedy, evil capitalists in top hats and monocles, they are the people who will rise through the ranks and join those at the top through hard work, and the sacrifice of small pleasures now for great riches later. Or at least, they would have, if our government hadn't created an artificial divide between labor and management, and raised dozens of barriers to such social mobility, and made it more profitable to become a union leader than a manager in a factory.

But then, I suppose you thought prohibition was a good idea as well? They are the same concept, just taken to different extremes.

Truly, the so called "liberal" is the greatest enemy of society. In pursuit of a "living wage", he destroys jobs, cutting off the careers of entry level workers before they can begin. In pursuit of social harmony, he clamps down on speech. In pursuit of woman's rights, he makes slaves of women. In order to fund his "projects", he steals savings away from everyone. In pursuit of safety, he abducts people in the night away to months or years of torture. Make no mistake, these people don't limit themselves to one party, but they exist everywhere that a man would sacrifice for his future and produce for his neighbors, in order to steal from him, and make themselves fat and rich. They exist throughout both major political parties, simply because they are the ones that people vote in, because the people have realized that they can vote money away from those who have it, and give it to themselves. They have existed since the first man made the first tool which was useful for production. They caused Rome to fail and they spawned that abhorrent system known as Feudalism. Whenever their policies create problems, they claim that they just didn't

Afterall the government can't put into action an elaborate conspiracy against the people if we do our jobs and monitor them, that is kind of the point of a democracy.

Germany was a democracy in 1933, when Hitler was effectively voted into power. Shortly after he was voted in, a large series of government buildings were set to fire by communists (aka 'terrorists'), allowing him to get passed a decree entitled "For the Protection of the People and the State", suspending the German constitution. It got worse after that - read about it here. Sound familiar?

That said, India is nowhere near as far along the SS trail as America (and I say that as an American.)

I seem to have struck a nerve, so be it, I think I am in better company as regards what happens once you have a large permanent standing army, rot, corruption then tyranny and dictatorship set in, and human misery knows no bounds then. Here's a few quotes:

James Madison: "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." and.."A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."

Patrick Henry: "A standing army we shall have, also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny; and how are you to punish them? Will you order them to be punished? Who shall obey these orders? Will your mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?"

"[The Declaration of Independence] listed the colonists' grievances, including the presence of standing armies, subordination of civil to military power, use of foreign mercenary soldiers, quartering of troops, and the use of the royal prerogative to suspend laws and charters. All of these legal actions resulted from reliance on standing armies in place of the militia."

source: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0409a.asp

General Smedley Butler: "War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism." source: http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm

General and then President Dwight Eisenhower: "Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence

As for the war, your just showing your ignorance. The war was needed back when Clinton was president

Now you're showing your ignorance. War wasn't needed, Iraq had no WMDs when Bush invaded. When Saddam did have WMDs as presidents both Reagan and Bush Sr supported Saddam. Back then he could use WMDs against anyone and it was alright. Iran? Check. Kurds? Check. Marsh Arabs? Check. It was only after Saddam invaded Kuwait, a sheikdom not a democracy, when the support stopped.

Having said that many people don't know why Saddam invaded Kuwait. Why did Saddam order the invasion of Kuwait? Because Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi oil fields.

Falcon

""Civil Disobedience" is Thoreau's extremely personal response to being imprisoned for breaking the law. Because he detested slavery and because tax revenues contributed to the support of it, Thoreau decided to become a tax rebel. In July 1846, he was arrested and jailed.

"Ralph Waldo Emerson visited Thoreau in jail and asked, "Henry, what are you doing in there?" Thoreau replied, "Waldo, the question is what are you doing out there?" Emerson missed the point of Thoreau's protest, which was not intended to reform society but was simply an act of conscience. If we do not distinguish right from wrong, Thoreau argued that we will eventually lose the capacity to make the distinction and become, instead, morally numb."

- http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0503e.asp

The journalists who are jailed felt telling the truth & standing by their morals was more important than freedom. Even a good form of government is "liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it." Moreover, even if a government did express the voice of the people, this fact would not compel the obedience of individuals who disagree with what is being said. The majority may be powerful but it is not necessarily right.

Perhaps the best description of Thoreau's ideal relationship occurs in his description of "a really free and enlightened State" that recognizes "the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived."

http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0900e.asp "When Congress enacted a law in 1982 that created a drug czar, President Reagan scorned the provision: "The creation of another layer of bureaucracy within the Executive Branch would produce friction, disrupt effective law enforcement, and could threaten the integrity of criminal investigations and prosecutions.⦠The so-called "drug Czar" provision was enacted hastily without thoughtful debate and without benefit of any hearings." and... "In recent years, Americans have also been blessed with a "health-care czar" (Ira Magaziner in 1993), an "AIDS czar" (various political appointees since 1993), and endless local "zoning czars" and "land-use czars." But no matter how many czars are appointed, it is never enough. A government advisory panel in 1998 called for the appointment of a "food czar" to "oversee the patchwork of food safety regulations." Technology overpowered another corrupt industry. Give it up already.

Who is a terrorist that can end up at gitmo, etc? "Under the Constitution, a jury makes the determination, both for foreigners and for Americans accused of terrorism. But under the "wartime" powers assumed by the President and the Pentagon, they make the determination".

So to answer your question it's current King George and the guys with guns.

The US isn't totally fascist - yet. But the gov't sure is working on making it so.

We currently have our emails read, our phones are wiretapped without warrants, habeas corpus has been revoked for non-citizens, U.S. citizens could be tossed into Gitmo if they're deemed a terrorist. Waterboarding was a reason to execute a few japanese in WW2 for crimes against humanity but we say it's not torture.

Oh yeah, let's not forget about the executive branch failing to follow the laws such as the Federal Records Act, Our Energy policy was set in secret - we don't even know who attended the meeting. Let's not forget that Bush and Cheney's friends have made untold millions off the latest war.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience ... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic process." -- President Dwight Eisenhower, farewell speech to the nation, January 17, 1961

A more fascist gov't makes it easier to make money and gain power for those in control and that's what we're seeing. No tin foil hat needed for such blatant examples.

Its not like "alternative energy" is some issue that only enviromentalist hippies care about. Republicans want it too

That's why Republican Reagan increased alternative energy funding? Oh that's right he dropped it like a hot potato. I bet if he had kept Carter's work going we'd be a hell of a lot closer to being energy independent.

dependent on a lot of unstable governments

That explains why Reagan and Bush Sr opposed Saddam, except they both supported him. Heck Reagan even armed Saddam with those WMDs Bush Jr invaded Iraq for. And I'm still waiting to see them. However I doubt I will because he used them while Reagan supported him.

Falcon

"Believes he is appointed by God - check"
Cite this ... you know, just give me a Bush quote that supports this in any way ...

http://www.slate.com/id/2106590/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/nov/02/usa.religion

"Believes he is absolute ruler - check"
See above. Also, just what has he ever got done without congress.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0604b.asp

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/02/bush-commutes-libbys-sentence/

So. How would have Kerry ( or Obama ) handled Iraq...

Really quite irrelevant to the question of Bush, but... Iraq was nothing to do with 9/11, and invading the country has solved nothing and given the US a whole raft of problems in the mideast which are now just going to get worse. It is an attempt to dominate the mideast by force, which the US has neither the patience, the budget, nor the military might to do.

I've usually found ./ to be populated with people who are a step above the median in intellegence. Why don't we see many people taking the long term view,

I don't believe political disagreements have anything to do with intelligence. Osama Bin Laden is intelligent, that doesn't mean you have to agree with him.

Perhaps the world you want to live in is dominated by Christian Fundamentalists, whom Christ would have disowned - I'd rather not live in that world.

The US has helped, and continues to help, to prop up the festering cesspool of little dictators in the mideast - they backed Saddam in the 80s, backed the Iranian coup before that, and currently back Pakistan, Saudi, Israel, and many others with military and monetary assistance. If you want to address those issues, I suggest you look to your own countries current actions in backing undesirable regimes worldwide.

We have limited radio spectrum, allowing anyone to broadcast will cause collisions, either accidentally or on purpose.

But with technology radio stations can be a lot closer together allowing more stations to broadcast in a given area.

Jamming a station that disagrees with you?

"During the 1920s, such a common-law-based order in radio was emerging, with spectrum rights being traded and some court decisions recognizing a right against interference. Unfortunately, the free-market, common-law regime that was beginning to break through the crust of federal regulation was strangled in its cradle by the 1927 Act, which eliminated all individual rights in the radio spectrum. Henceforth, the Federal Radio Commission (later renamed the Federal Communications Commission) would assign frequencies, and naturally politics would play a leading role."

"During the 1920s, the courts were working out precisely such a system of homesteaded private property rights in airwave frequencies. It is because such a private property structure was evolving that Secretary of Commerce Hoover pushed through the Radio Act of 1927, nationalizing ownership of the airwaves."

Then it comes down to who can afford umpteen gigawatts of broadcast power. Pretty hard for the common person to compete.

Have you ever heard two different people trying to talk on radios using the same frequency? I have and it was sometimes hard to make out what was being said by either party. Now if they both had been selling ads and I was a potential advertiser I never would have advertised on either one. Playing music would have been even worse. Two, as was done before the FRC, Federal Radio Commission, renamed the FCC in 1934, the courts were recognizing a right against interference. "During the 1920s, the courts were working out precisely such a system of homesteaded private property rights in airwave frequencies. It is because such a private property structure was evolving that Secretary of Commerce Hoover pushed through the Radio Act of 1927, nationalizing ownership of the airwaves."

Citing Ronald Coase's path-breaking work, Walker argues that it would have been far better to have allowed broadcasters to stake their claims to frequencies and then to have protected their frequencies against interference through tort law, much as a homesteader would sue to stop trespass on his land. During the 1920s, such a common-law-based order in radio was emerging, with spectrum rights being traded and some court decisions recognizing a right against interference. Unfortunately, the free-market, common-law regime that was beginning to break through the crust of federal regulation was strangled in its cradle by the 1927 Act, which eliminated all individual rights in the radio spectrum. Henceforth, the Federal Radio Commission (later renamed the Federal Communications Commission) would assign frequencies, and naturally politics would play a leading role.

Yeah right. You'd have better luck arguing about Iraq being to enrich Bush's contractor buddies. We could have done Iraq very much differently and gotten the oil cheaper, safer, and more reliably if it had truly been about the oil.

As you say, Iraq isn't all about oil. It's also about making defense contractors like Blackwater and all the mercenaries they employee rich too. At the same tyme they avoid any prosecution for human right violations and other crimes. The US has been doing this for years, in Columbia contractors are used to spray herbicides on coca fields, but a lot of it is sprayed on villagers food crops. It would of been cheaper to just let Saddam run Iraq like he did in the 1980s while the Reagan and Bush Sr admins supported him. Back then he was spraying Kurds and March Arabs with chemical weapons, he gassed Iran, and did a bunch of other nasty stuff but the US's support only ended when he invaded Kuwait, a Sheikdom not a democracy.

This is also a false attack in the part that oil is a trivial source of electricity in the USA - Coal is #1, followed by Natural Gas, Nuclear, and hydroelectric. Petrochemical production is 1.6% - Mostly from standby generators.

But what effects one energy sector effects others as well. I don't understand it but someone else shared a link explaining, now I can't find it.

Name an electricity provider that gets 'billions' in subsidies other than solar/wind.

1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - FEDERAL
   "USA, FEDERAL, Annual. (Multiple fuels). Green Scissors: Cutting Wasteful & Environmentally Harmful Spending. 2004 report. 2003 report. 2002 report. Summaries of wasteful government programs, including many in the energy area." "Subsidies evaluated worth $37 - $64 billion per year to U. S. energy sector."
2. Energy Subsidies How do energy subsidies distort the energy market?
3. Energy Policy Act of 2005
4. Ten most distortionary energy subsidies
5. No Need for Energy Subsidies
6. "Reforming Energy Subsidies"[pdf]
   In the United States, for example, renewables and energy conservation together receive only 5per cent of total federal energy subsidies, according to studies carried out by the Government in 1999."
7. Running On Empty: How Environmentally Harmful Energy Subsidies Siphon Billions From Taxpayers
   January 31, 2002
8. Federal Energy Subsidies
9. "Energy Subsidies: Lessons Learned in Assessing Their Impact and Designing ..."
10. "Energy Subsidies: A Call for Better Data"

I hope that's enough for you.

Freedom to Fascism is full of the same nuttery that Griffin's book it. May I be blunt? You conspiracists are all nutbags. As in a burlap sack full of pecan halves. You have make Griffin, Russo and Banister high priests in your religion, a religion based on faith and half truths, rather than on facts, logic and rationalism. I've posted some debunking links up above, go read them if your religion allows you to.

Russo keep asking throughout his movie, "show me the law". I went looking for that law, and it took me all of five seconds to find it! Here it is: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode26/usc_sup_01_26.html! Here's a link debunking Russo's film: http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm. An even better link debunking the tax deniers, from a solidly libertarian perspective, is this: http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0608b.asp.

If you notice my sig, you'll see that I support Ron Paul also. But please note that Ron Paul IS NOT a conspiracist. He IS NOT one of you. He is not a Truther, not a tax denier, and not a jekyllite. He wants to get rid of the IRS, NOT because it is an evil conspiracy, but simply because it is evil.

Since the Wikipedia link directs to Norway:

Norway has indeed come a long way since 1905.
Norway has its say somewhat socialist sides, but the socialist sides has often been
a restriction to development.
At times it was not unlike what you would find in Great Britain after WWII.
A welfare state certainly makes for better sleep if you truly cannot fend for yourself.
But the regulations on say telephone services experienced up until deregulation
were unneeded and costly to society and were a burden on economic development.
Norway has had and has a large merchant fleet and a very long coast.
Like England, Belgium and Netherlands the connection to the sea has been and is a blessing.
It facilitated trade and other interactions with other nations at an early time.
(Really early on not all these actions were seen as wholly blessed :-)
I would like to see Norway as having a social market economy of sorts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy
Not unlike many other nations.

For those who would like to study closely the practical sides of economy I would recommend
to have a look at Germany after WWII.

In the eastern part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_German _Democratic_Republic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_G ermany

In the western part of Germany they had the fortune of brilliant economic leadership.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Erhard
Most notable was Ludwig Erhard.
"On June 20, 1948, the Deutsche Mark was introduced. Erhard abolished the price-fixing and production controls that had been enacted by the military administration. This exceeded his authority, but he succeeded with this courageous step."
The price controls remained for a while in the sectors controlled by France :-)
Ludwig Erhard was a Libertarian in a conservative party led by Konrad Adenauer.
He understood the limitations at hand in a war ravaged Europe.
It was not an easy task for an economist who was not a politician to fight for the free market.
When Erhard left office in 1965 unemployment was less than 1%.
I think that speaks for itself.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/lo/count ries/de/de_economic.html

http://www.ludwig-erhard-stiftung.de/
has a book in PDF format for those who understand German
http://www.ludwig-erhard-stiftung.de/ (Down on the page)
The title is: Prosperity through Competition (Wohlstand für alle)

Too bad that IRAQ has no such genius:
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0312d.asp
If you do not deregulate the poor will suffer the most.
Like it or not.

Planned Economy is a Prussian invention intended to be used at times of war only.
Communists, Fascist and Socialists like planned economy because it gives THEM more control.

Communism and fascism will always go bankrupt.
Socialism will have low growth and always balance on the edge of going bankrupt.
2 Democratic nations will never start war against each other.

And not to forget: www.mises.org.
Ludwig Erhard studied under one of the students of Ludwig von Mises.
Further read:
http://www.mises.org/TRTS/

But I think what the GP is refering to is that even with inflation, the $20 bill will ALWAYS purchase $20 's worth of goods. In the case of a CD containing music, when it is first released, and assuming it is someone currently popular, it may sell for £15+ (in the UK). Give it 6 months or more and you will likely find it selling for £10, and another six months and it might in the Woolworths bargain bin for £5 or less!

>>It's rather assinine to attempt to conflate counterfeiting of ANY consumer product and money.
>Why? Money isn't real either - you can't walk into a Federal Reserve Bank, for example, and redeem it... so, by definition it has no inherent value, only that which we ascribe to it.

It certainly used to be the case that bank notes would state "I promise to pay the bearer on demand ...", and this used to refer to gold (maybe that was just in the UK?). The idea was that cash would only be printed to cover the value of the gold reserves. I believe this is no longer the case after a "run on Gold" starting in the '60s ... from the article ...

On August 15 (1971), with only $2.23 in gold available to redeem every $100 of U.S. paper promises, President Nixon declared international bankruptcy by closing the gold window. After that Sunday, as former Congressman Ron Paul and Lewis Lehrman have explained: "There were now absolutely no checks on the ability of the United States to inflate." And inflate the Fed has. By all measures, the money supply has increased by 400% since 1971.

Your comparison with the FBI fails, because under no circumstances would they steal the station's equipment and land.

Like hell it is. Educational expenditures have never been higher, even on a per-capita basis. We spend more on education than almost any other country, and get less for our money than almost any other country.

What's more, the school districts that spend the most, like the District of Columbia, tend to be the shittiest at actually educating their inmates.

This country needs to spend less, not more, on our schools.

We need to get rid of bloated administrative overhead.

We need to increase class size, get rid of computers and other distracting frippery in the classroom, and jettison all attempts at building "self-esteem" among little delinquents who don't deserve a particle of it. Let them earn self-respect on their own, through hard work with plenty of drills and rote memorization.

We need to bring back paddling, dunce caps, and shame.

We need to abandon "mainstreaming". Students with severe behavioral problems are causing terrible disruption of classes. They belong in segregated classes and schools. Tough shit for them, but they can't be permitted to ruin the whole educational experience for everyone else. No more social promotions, either. Either pass the requirements, repeat the year, or get the fuck on with your life of digging ditches.

We need to break up the cartel that controls education. Someone with a degree in math or business is far more qualified than the dregs and losers and nitwits that the typical College of Education churns out. He shouldn't have to sit through months of educrat babble and bilge in order to teach in a school. Teacher licensing is nothing more than rent-seeking and featherbedding and guild-gilding. Tenure should be totally abolished. Vouchers should be implemented nationwide. Worthless teachers and administrators should be hounded out of the profession. Worthless schools should be boarded up.

Most of all, we have to CRUSH the teacher's unions. These lazy, stupid, greedy lard asses put the education of our kids about tenth on their list of priorities, far behind fattening their bloated salaries, gold-plating their lavish pensions, padding the length of their 3-month summer vacations, salting the calendar with "inservice" junkets, diverting public money to shiftless in-laws and mobbed-up vendors and left-wing non-profits, and working the phone banks for whichever Democrat makes the most promises to shovel even more taxpayers' money onto the gravy train.

-ccm

Sugar has long been a highly subsidized crop. With all that's happened for corn since we decided to make ethanol a national strategy, perhaps we can justify keeping crazy sugar subsidies so we can power computers.

Yes, they could, just raise the interest rate, and it's done. Oh, but then of course there that little trade-off between inflation and employment thing. And of course an economy without inflation would mean an economy where Aggregate demand remains the same, since inflation after all is the result of a growing demand for liquid money, with an ever increasing economy, that would result in generalized poverty... GREAT idea!

Your linked article even says that the Phillips Curve has largely been discredited, and that economists that do use it are known to fudge their numbers to get it to work. So basically, that means they're making it up as they go along. GREAT idea! Then you can just embrace the status quo and shrug your shoulders if something goes wrong. Color me unimpressed.

Why would anyone want inflation? This means that people _have_ to keep investing their capital in order not to lose money... It would be much easier for everyone if inflation didn't exist...

Ah, you're far too trusting. Yes, inflation is bad for everyone, but those who know about it and control it are able to minimize the damage, or even benefit from it.

Think of it like a game of King of the Hill. Pouring icy water on the slopes hurts everyone, but it hurts those at the bottom the most because they don't have their footing yet. The people at the top of the hill are already in a good position, so they are able to use the discord caused by the icy water to their advantage. Obviously, inflation is icy water in this analogy. The rich knew it would sting, but they also knew it would hurt the poor the most because the poor don't have any extra money left over for investments, stock portfolios and the like. When you're struggling to make ends meet creeping inflation is the least of your worries, but it will still hurt you in the long run.

[insert inaccurate history lesson]

Your history lesson is a complete joke. You seem unaware that, first off, the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression. Milton Friedman is one among those questioning the Fed's role in that debacle. And then, as the country languished in agony, the Fed and its instruments in government, including Roosevelt, used the moment to get us off the Gold Standard. Why? So he could use inflation to stimulate the economy!! In fact, Roosevelt issued Executive Order 6102, which confiscated every American's gold! Read up on it if you don't believe me. It's referenced in the second linked article. Also, as that article makes clear, it wasn't until 1971 that the gold standard was totally banished, but that was just so we could keep inflating the money supply.

Now, noone in the world has the gold standard anymore, so if the US would bring back the gold standard, either the dollar would fluctuate like a madman with the course of Gold or basically anyone in the world would be freely allowed to arbitrage over the Dollar/Gold deal.

Because our economy is basically ruined already trying to bring back the gold standard without adequate control would indeed result in chaos. But allowing runaway inflation to continue indefinitely is also insane. I say we make the painful fix for our children's sake.

Hmmm, how exactly again is inflation government theft? Inflation comes from an increased demand of liquid money from the private sector... The government doesn't win a penny out of it...

Well, technically, the private bankers are the thieves; they're just using the government as the bagman. However, your definition of inflation is incorrect. I think you're thinking of liquidity or something else. Here's a simple definition from Wiki:

"In mainstream economics, inflation is a rise in the general level of pric