Slashdot Mirror

Abortion, for example - people will argue until the end of time whether it should or shouldn't be allowed, and there is no real objective truth to be had there because it is a strictly moral question.

I'll admit abortion is a hairy issue, but the idea that there can be no objective truth in moral issues in general is bogus. Given the obvious and reasonable axiom of self-ownership (and if you don't own yourself, who does? and if other people don't own themselves, but you claim to, on what basis do you base your claim?), some very basic and irrefutable principles of morality are easily derivable, giving us a system on which all can and should agree, regardless of religion (or the lack thereof) or any other philosophy. Anyone violating this (which includes all politicians) is in fact immoral and violating the principle of self-ownership.

Regardless of your source of morality, pretty much everyone agrees with the principle of self-ownership and argues for what is "right" and "wrong" based on it: a violation of rights is a violation of the principle of self-ownership. While religions differ vastly on theology, almost all religions agree at the core on the basic morality of these rights, and non-religious people also accept their own self-ownership and the rights of other people based on their own self-ownership.

The really important things in morality are not hairy or ambiguous at all.

Should online journalists receive the same rights as traditional reporters?

That's easy. Journalists should receive no special rights at all that other people don't have. There should be no statutory distinction at all between a journalist and a person. And then it becomes clear that bloggers are just people, with the same rights as everyone.

And what rights does a person have in this kind of case? Well, unless you and I have some kind of agreement to the contrary, I don't owe you anything other than to respect your rights. If you want me to keep something secret, require me to sign a non-disclosure as a condition of knowing it.

Those bastard French people are trying to take away our freedom by taking restrictions out of DRM!

DRM is a right of companies. If you make DRM illegal, you're taking away liberty (I use that term because "freedom" is no longer correctly associated with it).

It's laws that make breaking DRM a crime that take away liberty, NOT DRM. After you buy something, being able to do what you want with it legally is a liberty (it's called personal property). However, if it's HARD or impossible to do it, that's YOUR problem and you shouldn't have bought a product with DRM in it.

For instance, building a mote around your house on your land is a liberty. Not having the man-power to do so has nothing to do with liberty.

Similarly, breaking DRM is a liberty. Not being able to do so also has nothing to do with your liberty.

Again, I'm using the term "liberty" because it refers to a specific concept. See THIS video.

Oh, I also use it because I'm a libertarian.. but that's neither here nor there. As a libertarian, I think the DMCA and similar laws should be repealed. However, I also would strongly dissapprove of a law like the french one mentioned in TFA instituted in the US.

If I remember correctly, the French government is setup the reverse of ours: The liberty the French enjoy are considered a gift from the government, as they're technically a police state. In this country, the liberties the government takes away is usually against our constitution. Read it sometime, it doesn't say you have any liberty, it says that the government isn't allowed to TAKE your liberty.

Yes.

No political philosophy can be accurately described in a two-sentence soundbite, especially not one that describes Libertarians as the only ones who really support "freedom".

Libertarians may not be the ONLY ones that support freedom, but they are the largest party that does. Democrats and Republicans certainly do not.

I urge you to read the Libertarian Platform. You will find that the platform doesn't just use the word "freedom" alot, the entire platform is built upon the philosophy of liberty with no exceptions or asterisks or addendums. Libertarians call themselves the "party of principle" because they are unwilling to let go of a single ounce of freedom or to succumb to the fickle demands of lobbyists, corporations, or special interest groups. I respect Libertarians for their unwavering ideals, and regardless of their ability to win major elections (mostly due to suppressive, anti-free-speech campaign finance laws), I will always vote for them because I'd rather vote for something I believe in and lose the election, than vote for something I didn't believe in, and lose my self-respect.

Almost no one. Libertarians are the only party that actually believes in restoring all of the rights republicans and democrats stole long ago (and continue to steal). Libertarians are the only group that believes in the philosophy of liberty and don't waver from its principles when facing difficult scenarios.

To the contrary, all available evidence shows that Malthus was mistaken to extend his results to humans. Julian Simon, the Doomslayer, proved the folly of applying Malthus to human population.

advances in technology over the past 150 years or so have simply forestalled what is otherwise inevitable.

More than mere forstalling, advances in technology have radically improved the quality of human life with no end in sight.

stop creating new North Americans / Western Europeans).

Your prayers have been answered, at least in Europe (and Japan). The U.S., though, is projected to see about a 50% population growth over the next 30 years.

Everyone complained about the airlines getting bail-outs of government money. Well, now they're really going to need them.

Hopefully, on the positive side, now that everyone with half a brain has decided to stop flying in protest, I'll be able to get those cheap seats to Cancun! Viva La Dumbass!

The free market has provided a better solution than what government proposes (as it always has). It is called insurance.

If you drive faster than you should, you may notice your insurance rates go way up (or entirely lose insurance). This is what protects the general public from crazed drivers overall -- fear of long term problems if they should crash too often and see their rates go up.

Fast driving isn't the problem, it is fast driving in circumstances that warrant caution. Law will never be the solution -- and in many cases the speed law is only there to provide incentives to the friends of government, not to protect the overall public. Speeding laws came out of mercantilism; capitalism provides for a much better solution.

If I recall correctly, it is Israeli intelligence which uses torture to get information. Cf. http://www.free-market.net/forums/main0203b/messag es/838491397.html, http://web.mit.edu/cis/www/mitejmes/issues/200105/ br_asmar1.htm, http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/aireport/ar98/mde15.h tm.

You can promote socialism all you want, but you cannot discredit an economic system that doesn't exist.

free-market.net

As a "rampant free market ideologue" (Libertarian), I will be the first to point out that you have confused the meaning of free-market economics (i.e. capitalism), which implies the absence of government interference (coercion) in the market, with a hypothetical regulation, imposed through coercion, which happens to favor one particular group over another. Capitalism does not necessarily imply profit but only the absence of coercion in the market. Free market economics is grounded in voluntary cooperation, not coercion (which is the definining prerequisite of any government). Hence, open source software falls squarely into the category of free-market enterprise, and in fact, to a greater degree than any software vendor which relies on patent law to sustain a business model. (Patent law, you may be surprised to know, is contrary to the true principles of free market economics, because it is derived from coercion.)

See free-market.net if you are interested...

*bzzzzttt* wrong. try again.

When you said "eggregious" (sic) I think you meant "misleading" or "imaginary." They've made attempts at privatizing only parts, capped prices and haven't increased production. Capping prices has got to be the single worst thing you can do. Read this and this if you're interested in the truth behind CA's pseudo-deregulation.

You need a strong regulatory government to preserve free trade and competition, because the market naturally tends toward consolidation.

What the hell medication are you on? Trade is not free if you're regulating it strongly. It's like saying having a strong police-state results in the preservation of freedom. Beyond that odd statement, it seems like you're advocating the subsidy of failing/failed companies.

I think nationalization is the only intellegent way to go, since there is at least some accountability.

We don't need an Amtrak-like phone system. Two reasons: quality of service and innovation. Can you fathom a government beurocracy voluntarily giving up it's livelihood because the market demands have changed? Amrak is still going, even though it's losing money hand-over-fist and ridership is shit. Everyone's flying or driving or using Greyound... it's pointless.

This is exactly why I'm a Libertarian.

I don't think it'll take lots of money to out-do what the RIAA gives musicians. What it WILL take is a new way of looking at how-to-get-paid (and how-to-pay) that can eliminate the bottleneck between artist and consumer. (Yes, as always, I have a financial interest in a certain way to do this.) It shouldn't take a giant corporation's help to let a musician ask for money (either tips, or pay-per-download) because our side doesn't have layers of management who require (as Courtney Love puts it) all those trips to "Scores."

For an example of what I'm talking about, see www.radsfans.net (and hopefully others soon). I again offer anyone here a small click of e-gold (not much, but enough to test) so you can try it for free. I want programmers to use e-gold, so please take advantage. Thanks.
JMR

(I speak only for Jim Ray, nobody else wants to admit this stuff anyway.)

Of course, drug prohibition also makes for a much worse problem than drug use ever could, creating a society based on crime (with many people in prison), as demonstrated by alcohol prohibition in the 1920's and it's ultimate result: organized crime. And this is only the beginning, if you care to do some reading.

Check out some of the links on the right sidebar of this page.

Ok.. I've attemped to defend my position for over 40 minutes now and I've been bailing out the Titanic with a teaspoon..

I've made arguments against so many socialist in that last 40 minutes you've exhausted me...

If you disagree with me please read through my thread and read some of my responses...

If you still don't agree with me and wish to learn more on my position here is a list of reading materials if you are intrested.

Libertarian Party
The Mises Institute for Libertarian and Classical Economic Studies
Free-Market Network (Libertarianism & Economics)
A Little Bit Crazy Libertarian Lew Rockwell

Why not? you just spent ~$60 (15B) to bailout the airlines, and you didn't even notice did you.

I get annoyed by critics (and news outlets which seem to me to be slightly liberally biased) who use the term bailout to imply that we gave the airlines $15 billion. What most fail to mention in their rhetorical flourish is that two thirds of that amount is funny money that hasn't been spent- it was "loan guarantees". I dunno, given the circling financial vultures ready to peck airline companies to death by shutting off their lines of credit given materially adverse circumstances, it seems like a reasonably prudent measure to me.

As for the $5 billion, my $20 as you say, I don't begrudge it. We did shut down all the airports in the country in the name of national security for four days or so, right? While one critique I ran across put the four-day cost to airlines at $1.2 billion, I'm sure if airlines (like our local gas stations) had raised prices post-disaster my ticket home for christmas would have gone up a lot more than that. It seemed the same as usual.

--LP

Quoting from http://www.e-dinar.com/en/main_parts/6/6_advantage s.html:

Only halal exchange and payment system in the world.

Instant payments (no delays)

• occur in real-time
• are private (encrypted transactions)
• no bank as intermediary
• no constraints by local authorities

--the very un-halal mdecerbo
who didn't know a dinar was anything but the battered Yugoslav currency,
and wondered who the heck would want an electronic one.

E-gold started out nice, but they rewrote their contract so you can't actually get your gold unless you're their gold-dealer.

1) they only trade in big, hideously valuable bars, 2) they reserve the right to only deliver orders of a certain minimum number of bars (which they can change at their discretion)

It's fiat money, folks.

E-gold does not guarantee to ever give you what's yours.
--

You could at least credit this document..

I don't want to be a KH, but it can't be left this way.

Gold in this context is a currency, like any other, except that its value relative to other currencies isn't easily under the control of any one government - rather, it's manipulable by _many_ entities (note what happens when, for example, a large central bank announces it's going to be selling part of its gold reserves).

It's not subject to inflation per se - but in a world of multiple, competing currencies, in which few things people are interested in buying are priced in gold, it's hardly a rock solid store of real-world value. Look at, say, this chart, best I could come up with in 10 seconds on Google :-) - finding a comparable chart for USD inflation is left as an exercise for the reader - but note that USD inflation peaked during the periods between points 3 and 5 on the graph - coincident with a spectacular decline in the gold price. Gold was US$296 in 6/1982 (in 1982 dollars). It's slightly under that now I think. That's in 2000 dollars. What was that about inflation again?

In an environment where gold (or some other designated commodity) were the standard currency that everyone used, e-gold might make sense. But as things stand now, where everything you want to buy is priced in dollars (or Euro or pounds or yen etc.), the friction of buying and selling e-gold and the metal storage costs make e-gold impractical.. and the stuff about gold being a valid inflation hedge and it not being subject to government manipulation is IMO hooey (see above).

I was talking about this with people at a conference I was at earlier this year... as I recall, I think what I said was e-gold would make more sense if the e-gold marketplace itself were open - so that the buying, selling, and storage or metal was handled by multiple competing companies, rather than the one gold firm that was behind e-gold. I can't check the site to see if the market has been opened up - I doubt it given the absurd spreads they were charging. With real competition spreads (the difference between buy and sell) might go down and using e-gold as an exchange medium behind real-world transactions would start to make sense. I still wouldn't use it unless there was a way to, say, earn interest on my idle cash, er, gold, and do other things I can normally and easily do with dollars. 'Till then, I think it's just for the gold bugs.

There is, or used to be, a great, and active, discussion section on e-gold over at Free-Market Net.

Inexchange costs: somewhat painful. As for outexchange, the SOP is to calculate payments as the amount that could be outexchanged, so it makes more sense to look at all the exchange costs as inexchange costs. But re. storage: 1% per year? That's nothing. Your money shouldn't be sitting there that long anyway.

All in all, if you're careful and willing to wait a while for your deposit to get in, you'll lose maybe 5-7% between putting money in and getting money out. The nice thing is that 5-7% holds no matter whether you're transferring pennies or thousands. Of course, that's assuming the precious metal market doesn't go nuts (of course it could go either way, but in the long term... well, asteroid mining can't help the price of gold much). Also, if you're in a rush, or you're lazy about shopping around, you can expect to lose closer to 15% through the transfer. Ironically, the best combination of price and convenience comes from funding your e-gold account with PayPal!

I think it's a pretty good deal if you want to send nickels and dimes all over the place, and you never keep more money in it than you are willing to lose. I think a fair assumption of risk is that your account will zero once every 2 years (yes, I pulled that number out of my hat; more below), at least unless they make some major changes to their security model. No big deal for a micropayment account, as long as you keep it in mind.

Obviously, I don't think much of the security. You have to remember that these people don't know you. With a bank, you go and create an account face-to-face, they have all sorts of nice meatspace backups and redundancies to make sure you are you when you go in to do something with your money. With something like e-gold, if you have the password, you must be the right person, and your account can be emptied, laundered through an anonymous e-cash system like digigold, and safely in the account of the thief in an eyeblink. You might be able to get your money back, but only if you could prove you didn't transfer it.

I also don't like the way they've eroded the legal foundation of e-gold. They keep talking about replacing the user contract, and they've got a clause which allows them to make any changes if you don't object within a week of them posting it on their website... whether you read it or not within that time. They made a big deal about the "unconditional right of redemption", which was your only last-ditch guarantee: if everything goes wrong, you can always have the metal in your account (having the cash value sent to you is not a guaranteed service; they have no contractual obligation to provide any service but that of returning your gold). In the proposed changes to the contract, they changed it to "conditional right of redemption", and they only have to give you your gold in neat bar-sized increments. Since a gold bar is worth something in the region of a year's pay, obviously this isn't a lot of help to the typical user. In the past, they dealt in coins, right down to silver coins worth under $20, so you could redeem practically any account. If the system ever becomes so insecure that everyone wants out, and nobody wants any e-gold, there's no guarantee that you'll get your money out. Basically, under the new plan, the emergency escape clause only works as long as there isn't any emergency.

It isn't secure, it isn't terribly convenient, and it isn't really cheap, but it works, it works all over the world, and it works now (that is, at least when the servers are up :) ).

Here's an e-gold discussion forum that goes way back. It covers the good, the bad, and the ugly of e-gold, with tasty sprinklings of marketroidese and paranoid ranting.

--------

Ah but there's an important distinction to be made - objectivists would probably say that there is only one true way when reason is being used, while libertarians say that intelligent people can differ, but they're not necessarily using reason. For example, libertarians support drug legalization (or at least decriminilization) just like most of us, but I don't think that they'd say that an individual's decision to use drugs is based out of pure reason per se. Libertarians would support freedom of religion staunchly, where religion has little to do with reason, etc.

The reason for this dichotomy is that libertarianism is all about one thing: freedom. Libertarians support drug legalization because drug criminalization hurts freedom. It is, at its core, paternalistic like manditory seatbelt laws (you can't hurt anyone *else* because you don't wear *your* seatbelt). And its secondary effects are devistating to liberty: random drug tests and stops, assest foriture laws, and worst of all, selective enforcement (hmmm...I wonder if more blacks are in jail for drug use because more blacks use drugs, or because cops are racist?)

In this way, libertarians are sort of like RMS: software/people should be free because it's right, not because it's practical. You can even draw analogies to the "open source" libertarians -- they champion the economic benifits of freedom. Others are more purist and simply believe freedom is a reason in and of itself.

An aside: I love the "just like most of us" part of your reply. I hope it's true -- the drug war has to be the greatest crime against freedom in America in the last 100 years. We have one of the largest prision populations in the world, something like 1/3 of black males can't vote because they have felony drug convictions, the 4th amendment (no unnecessary search and seizures) is being trapled on. If you're interested in this, check out Peter McWilliam's book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (which is not actually libertarian), and read what happened to him because he published it: forahero.com, "Spotlight on Peter McWilliams"

Woz and the rest of the people who started the personal computer revolution should be no less celebrated than say, Christopher Columbus.

For you to even suggest what we are "moving towards" is a "command economy" from what we've seen here is a pretty sad little knee-jerk. Have you've studied much history, let alone economics? Would you know what a command economy sounds like if you were getting spanked by one? Have you any idea the details of what Microsoft had to do to get themselves in the position they're in?

Why yes, I've studied just a wee bit of history (mostly U.S.) and economics ;)

My feeling that we're headed in the direction of a fully state-controlled economy comes from my observations over the last 12 years, the historical record of the U.S. before and after the 1930's (the period when statist economic policies exploded) the recent resurgence of antitrust enforcement, and from listening to C-Span every day on the car radio.

Most of all, this irks me because monopoly law is so basic. The fact of the matter is, capitalism screws up. It's logical for it to be screwed up. It follows easily that consolidation of wealth and mergers across interests will progress until they become self-sustaining. The more consolidated a marketplace, the less incentive there is to compete, and the easier it becomes to fix prices, with or without explicit collaboration. In many situations it's possible to end up with a single dominant entity controlling an entire market, with barriers to entry which are too forbidding for anyone to challenge. In these cases, the only thing between you and economic, technical, and social stagnation is a well-organized democratic government. The state where competition benefits "consumers" is, in many industries, a transitory accident.

This is a misconception about capitalism that was first propagated by Karl Marx, and has become very popular in the U.S. during the last 75 years.

Consider that consolidation is not always bad. Sometimes it brings with it economies of scale, which can lower price and increase quality for consumers.

Alan Greenspan wrote once in a piece called 'Antitrust' that if entry into a given field of production is not impeded by government regulations, franchises, or subsidies, "the ultimate regulator of competition in a free economy is the capital market. So long as capital is free to flow, it will tend to seek those areas which offer the maximum rate of return." Investors are constantly seeking the most profitable uses of their capital. If, therefore, some field of production is seen to be highly profitable (particularly due to high prices rather than to low costs), businessmen and investors necessarily will be attracted to that field; and as the supply of the product in question is increased relative to the demand for it, prices fall accordingly.

In other words, when capital is allowed to flow freely, even a large conglomerate that has 99.9% market share cannot raise prices with impunity, or VCs and potential competitors will start eyeing that market as a profitable one and will move in to take a chunk of it.

Captialism is not a panacea. Nothing is, besides collective intelligence. Reactionary belief in capitalism as somehow stronger or more productive a force than democracy shows a failure to understand what makes trouble for democracy in the first place.

What greater manifestation of collective intelligence is there than the trillions of economic decisions made every day in the marketplace?

That is the exact point of capitalism (aka free-market economics) - that the collection of economic choices made by billions of free individuals drive efficiency and productivity far better than some committee of suits in Washington could ever dream of.

The worst part is that you're sitting there on your Windows computer writing this. Hard-core, Reagan-era capitalism didn't give you a very good operating system, did it?

Actually I'm writing this on my Linux-Mandrake 7.0 computer. Occasionally X or Netscape will flake out, but the OS itself never crashes :)

Here are some links you may find useful in learning more about the free-market point of view:

http://www.laissezfaire.org/ (Laissez-Faire books)

http://www.free-market.net/

http://www.mises.org/ (Von Mises Institute)

CATO Institute

Free-market approaches to environmentalism have been around for decades. Debunking mercantilist theories goes back a hundred years, with the best known analyst in recent years being Julian Simon This stuff has been on the web for a while, as well. While the book might prove interesting, the point behind it is old hat.

As a libertarian, I find nothing inconsistent with caring about the poor, promoting social welfare, being generous in spirit as well as materially and in supporting libertarian policies. Most libertarians believe what they do on the basis of sound economic theories supported by empirical studies, sound logic, and critical examination. More importantly, most libertarians support those ideas based upon responsible moral convictions. If I didn't firmly believe that the best way to support the poor was to eliminate welfare, I would never in good conscience advocate such a policy. If you want to know why libertarians support the ideas that they do - look at the arguments, don't just presume that we're all just a bunch of selfish, greedy, heartless (insert your favorite insult here). If you insist on pronouncing judgements, at least do it in an intellectually responsible manner and not simply dismiss the ideas without at least hearing them out.
www.cato.org
www.fee.org
www.perc.org
www.cei.org
www.lp.org
www.free-market.net
www.reason.org

Well, Tony, you make a good point. Here's my only counter argument: In the GNU Manifesto, RMS makes quite a lot of noise about software patents and any sort of legal ownership of 'knowledge'. Which is to say, of course, code. I disagree with that thought. Like it or not, we wouldn't be where we are if Microsoft hadn't produced an easy to use (relatively) set of software. We wouldn't be where we are if the world had been GPL from the beginning. Computers would have been tools of research only, instead of the game/office/productivity/information platform it is now. There, I've said it. Microsoft *caused* the beginnings of our revoloution when it came into existance. Without microsoft, None of this would exist, and there would be no community to write linux because computers would still be mammoth things which are used only for number crunching.

Secondly, I *totally* disagree that a true free market is an impossible ideal. I also *totally* disagree with the idea that communism is in any way -ideal-. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Communism and Socialism are evil, and Marx was a raving lunatic.

But, that goes outside the scope of this post. If you care to argue the finer points of political and economic theroy, drop me a line. Until then, visit Free-Market.net.
--Vegas@my.bomis.com
--wales001@my.bomis.com
--Sagev