Slashdot Mirror

I'm on of the few who dispute the economic equilibrium theory. As an Austrian economist, I hold a stronger belief in Mises' evenly rotating economy (ERE). Reading any writings on time preference helps dispel the thought behind EE.

Since presumably Amazon is already pricing the product at the optimal point

This is a bad presumption. My record store sold everything at keystone (100% over cost). Most Amazon prices were 20%. Some small sites sold at 5%.

. But my point is- the consumer isn't going to benefit.
  Correct me if I'm wrong?

The selling price of a product wil always seek out its cost now that the Internet cuts of so many middle men. In some direct markets (writing, music recording, etc) I think the artist has to sell direct. Other items (hard goods) will definitely come down in price as profits get chased to near zero.

In both situations you have the consumer paying less, leaving them with more money to spend on other things. Yet if the retailers fail, the consumer's job might lose its customers. The new circle of economical life will be interesting!

The war between states is what the southerners like to call the civil war as they viewed things with an emphasis on state rights

I'm not a Southerner. I was born in Chicago to "a hindu and a polock."

Big government did not come in until the 20th century under Theodore Rosevelt. I do not even recall a national income tax before ww1.

Read "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo. Search it at LRC as DiLorenzo has dozens of articles about the Great Tyrant.

Lincoln hated blacks. He created the Illinois law barring blacks from citizenship. He wanted to deport every black to the Caribbean. His Emancipation Proclamation did not free slaves in the North, only in the seceded South.

Lincoln's primary goal was to turn the U.S. into a mercantilistic all-powerful central governed body. He wanted to tax and spend. He wanted Henry Clay's "American System" of government coin, government banking and a welfare-warfare State.

Buy a copy of The Real Lincoln. If you don't like it, I will buy it back including all shipping. Your jaw will drop.

The U.S. is not in a state of absolute capitalism. Absolute capitalism is anarcho-capitalism. The U.S. was not anarcho-capitalistic in the 1800's, and it has become much more authoritarian since the "New Deal". The policies of the New Deal actually started with Hoover, and FDR added even more policies, making the disaster worse. Without those policies, we would have simply had another "Panic of 1929", but FDR managed to drag out the massive unemployment for at least a decade. Of course, we wouldn't have panics at all if the government had not been using the banks to inflate the money supply since 1814 (in 1814, the government allowed banks to suspend specie payments, which caused the first panic in 1819). Clearly, the U.S. is not an example of anarcho-capitalism.

Somalia is a good example of a population that is trying to establish control over each other, rather than simply law and order, and that is why the fighting continues. Whether or not violence will happen in a given country has more to do with general culture than government, although government often makes things worse. For an example of a population who fought against government (rather than trying to establish control over each other), see early Pennsylvania. There was plenty of law, order, and prosperity in that region, but virtually no government.

Sex is bad unless the State teaches it, to 7 year olds: California school district administered a survey to children (ages 7 to 10) in the early grades with questions concerning "thinking about having sex"

Violence is bad unless the State teaches it, without parental intervention: believed people were exclusively the products of their social environments, and that if nurtured properly by the state, could be molded into whatever was desired.

Prejudice is bad unless the State discriminates in order to generate more control and funding for itself.

There is no surprise here, folks. The law's delay is only to reduce its newsworthiness. In a few months we'll have forgotten (as a voting majority) and it'll still be enacted and enforced.

Do the right thing. Buy violent games for your kids if you think they can handle it. Bring you 15 year old adult with.

Your vote means nothing. Your safety means nothing. Your knowledge of your child isn't important, since you've given up responsibility to the teacher's unions long ago.

You made your bed? Out of shit? Don't make me sleep in it.

Sex is bad unless the State teaches it, to 7 year olds: California school district administered a survey to children (ages 7 to 10) in the early grades with questions concerning "thinking about having sex"

Violence is bad unless the State teaches it, without parental intervention: believed people were exclusively the products of their social environments, and that if nurtured properly by the state, could be molded into whatever was desired.

Prejudice is bad unless the State discriminates in order to generate more control and funding for itself.

There is no surprise here, folks. The law's delay is only to reduce its newsworthiness. In a few months we'll have forgotten (as a voting majority) and it'll still be enacted and enforced.

Do the right thing. Buy violent games for your kids if you think they can handle it. Bring you 15 year old adult with.

Your vote means nothing. Your safety means nothing. Your knowledge of your child isn't important, since you've given up responsibility to the teacher's unions long ago.

You made your bed? Out of shit? Don't make me sleep in it.

Sex is bad unless the State teaches it, to 7 year olds: California school district administered a survey to children (ages 7 to 10) in the early grades with questions concerning "thinking about having sex"

Violence is bad unless the State teaches it, without parental intervention: believed people were exclusively the products of their social environments, and that if nurtured properly by the state, could be molded into whatever was desired.

Prejudice is bad unless the State discriminates in order to generate more control and funding for itself.

There is no surprise here, folks. The law's delay is only to reduce its newsworthiness. In a few months we'll have forgotten (as a voting majority) and it'll still be enacted and enforced.

Do the right thing. Buy violent games for your kids if you think they can handle it. Bring you 15 year old adult with.

Your vote means nothing. Your safety means nothing. Your knowledge of your child isn't important, since you've given up responsibility to the teacher's unions long ago.

You made your bed? Out of shit? Don't make me sleep in it.

Also, I've always wondered why good old Ludwig seems to so strongly support the rights of "corporations" to be free from government regulation-when their very existence is owed to a government regulation.

We're not pro-corporation, we're against them. I believe a group of investors could tell creditors that a loan contract affords limited liability up to the amount invested, but they should still be personally liable.

What state do -you- live in that there is not an exception in the law allowing a person to use violence in self-defense?

Illinois. A local town made national news because they arrested a home owner for shooting a burglar who robbed him twice. I had my unregistered handgun stolen twice by the police.

Just how could we avoid the government having a "monopoly" on the use of military-scale force?

Great question! The federal government should have zero power to recruit or fund any standing army but the coast guard. States form militias to protect their territory. In the event of an attack on our land by another government, the Congress can enable the CiC to assemble the State militias.

I refuse to accept that Japan or Germany were threats to us, but that is a complex debate.

Might you point out to me which prescription drugs are produced by the government?

They set the standard for what is acceptable. Don't believe that those in power aren't getting amazing amounts of money to overlook a few red tape items? In my opinion, the UL does an amazing job protecting lives. They have competition. Let free market UL-like FDAs appear and drugs won't cost $300,000,000 to make.

The Founding Fathers saw fit to give Congress the authority to grant copyrights and patents.

I believe that invention and creation is important. I am a writer and I own a software company. I do well financially by supporting my books (free if you don't pay) with live appearances and consulting. I support my (free if you don't pay) software the same way. I could make millions but I like my free time more. If you spend $50,000,000 inventing a widget, you should initially find a market that will pay back your invention costs and analyze how long it will take competition to knock it off. It isn't free to copy drugs, machinery, etc.

. All these point to a central authority as the optimal way to do things, and the obvious use of taxation as the alternate payment method points to that agency being a government one.

I disagree. Stossel investigated private roads and found private roads are less congested, safer and less costly. Numerous iideas exist for privatized roadways. One of my companies supports a highway contractor and the waste of public dollars is incredible.

Really? What government agency created Standard Oil? The railroad barons? Microsoft? Government -can- create monopolies, true, but not -only- government can.

Standard Oil had a "monopoly" on kerosene. Before the government started antitrust investigations, a new energy source was discovered by a company unable to compete with SO: gasoline.

There w re no railroad barons. It is a myth. Our own government created these so called barons, who were actually Whig/Republican mercantilism supporters. Again, a complex story made simple when you realize the source of power was government regulations! Lincoln's War was started so he could get his friends government contracts.

Microsoft continually upgrades their software, develops new items and loses money on many fiascos. Microsoft will fall from google or apple like IBM from Compaq, GM from Honda, and on and on.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation for the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes ... Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

• Why is deprecated evidence for evolution spoon-fed to children alongside real, valid results? Why do we tolerate this? (Granted, we are finally starting to fix this one.)
• When honest questioners (Christians or not!) raise valid issues, they are not answered but instead accused of being creationists. Why do we tolerate this?
• In my high school physics class my teacher read aloud Bertrand Russell's essay, Why I am not a Christian. Why do we tolerate this?

This is newsworthy? This is the same President who gave George J. Tenet the Medal of Freedom.

This is generally cronyism at its worst, and media attention getting at its finest. There is no Constitutional mandate or power. President Harry Truman enacted the medal in 1945 and it was virtually ignored until JFK brought it back -- through an Executive Order in 1963.

That same Executive Order also expanded the size of unconstitutional government by extending the "Distinguished Civilian Service Awards" board -- yet another cronyist bunch given very nice salaries* by the President.

I know the political spectrum is well covered here, but does anyone honestly believe a government that is trillions in debt needs a board to give out awards? Disregard any constitutional grounds and focus on the need of the governed. Can't an independent not-for-profit group do the same? BTW, Clinton also gave the award to some ridiculous recipients, so I'm not Bush bashing. This is just a waste of your money.

*There's almost no oversight or budget restrictions on what the board can be paid: Expenses. Necessary administrative expenses of the Board incurred in connection with the recommendation of persons to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, including expenses of travel of members of the Board appointed under Section 3 (a) of this Order, during the fiscal year 1963, may be paid from the appropriation provided under the heading 'Special Projects' in the Executive Office Appropriation Act, 1963, 76 Stat. 315, and during subsequent fiscal years, to the extent permitted by law, from any corresponding or like appropriation made available for such fiscal years. Such payments shall be without regard to the provisions of section 3681 of the Revised Statutes and section 9 of the Act of March 4, 1909, 35 Stat. 1027 (31 U.S.C. 672 and 673).

The police should not be able to hunt for evidence. A search warrant's sole purpose is to retrieve specific data (gun) from a specific location (bedroom).

We're living in a terrible police state. In my opinion, a crime should only be investigated by detectives when someone has been violated.

To me, talking about blowing up a train is no crime. Actually blowing it up is, but the victims must bring charges against the perpetrators. I'm sick of "The People versus" cases.

Terrorists who blow themselves up need no trial. Property owners have the sole responsibility to protect their property, not the cops.

All these laws are ridiculous. Even drunk driving is a non-crime.

And to cite a passage from a book, you cite the book, not anyone else who happened to have used that same passage. Get it? It's really not a difficult concept.

This isn't true. If you had his book in front of you and typed it in yourself from the page referenced you would only cite the book (and author, and page, and edition, and in most circumstances the date of publication and the publisher and often the publisher's city).

When you copy and paste something from the web it is proper to cite the page you copied it from. If you are copying a quotation from a website you cite it as quoted. E.g., Futayama wrote in such and such as quoted by so and so "blah blah blah". This would appear in a a list of works cited as (roughly, MLA):

Futuyama, something. "some book." page x. qtd. in some, author. "some other book." city: publisher, date. page y.

An in-text citation would be something like (Futuyama qtd. in So-and-So: page).

Often when writing about biology (as we are in this case) you might prefer ACS to MLA. You can google for the rules in your profession with the words "indirect sources".

In your case http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166820 &cid=13910607 (had you in fact copied this quotation from another site) you could have made the proper citation with these words:

"Really? Then explain this quote from Douglas Futuyma, p. 123 of his Science on Trial (qtd. in http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy75.html):"

Not mentioning that you are quoting someone else's quotation implies a different context (e.g., you could be committing the same quotation out of context as an author who'd been previously rebuked for it, or you may not know the context at all, and your audience should be [made] aware of that; citing an indirect source does exactly that, it lets the reader know that you don't have/haven't read the work that's quoted, just the quotation in question). That's why there are rules/guidelines for indirect citation. This is first year English with a rehash in third year science courses (when you're writing about science, not just doing it), at least in Florida.

Now... The part that appears as plagiarism? The part you have bolded aren't Futuyama's words, and thus aren't attributed at all and passed off as your own. Those words are Bob Murphy's. That's why down thread people are calling you a liar. Plagiarism is an unforgivable sin to some people.

I'm making no accusations, as I'm not invested in this conversation at all... just passing by. Cheers!

At the very least you could correctly CITE your sources.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/murphy/murphy75.html

Yeah, I found the page you're copying from.

And since you're using that person's argument as your own, it is up to YOU to defend it.

First off, start by learning that "species" does not mean "individual".

And saving a redwood does not mean that the human race will suffer.

Yes, I'm sure it's just biased accidentily. Consider:

Fox Primarily an "Opinion" Network
Fox Viewers More Likely to be Misinformed
Fox Shills for the War
Fox, Neither Fair nor Balanced

There's lots more out there if you open your eyes.

UK lawlessness, nothing new?

The UK has preceded the US in destroying the basic rights of its citizens, replacing laws against violence with laws against rights.

This is a country that won't let their citizens bear arms (increasing crime), but will let security officers shoot first and never ask questions. This is a country that continues to fight a war against secession for centuries.

TFA doesn't surprise me at all. Citizens have no rights any more. Just let the State provide. Does it surprise you that they criminalize non-violent behavior after you realize that national prisons were a statist recreation? More laws = more crimes = more criminals = more prisoners = more money for the State.

Again, nothing to see here, except it is a good preview of things to come in the US as we clamor for more regulation, more government control of the Internet, and more destruction of our basic rights to protect ourselves.

UK lawlessness, nothing new?

The UK has preceded the US in destroying the basic rights of its citizens, replacing laws against violence with laws against rights.

This is a country that won't let their citizens bear arms (increasing crime), but will let security officers shoot first and never ask questions. This is a country that continues to fight a war against secession for centuries.

TFA doesn't surprise me at all. Citizens have no rights any more. Just let the State provide. Does it surprise you that they criminalize non-violent behavior after you realize that national prisons were a statist recreation? More laws = more crimes = more criminals = more prisoners = more money for the State.

Again, nothing to see here, except it is a good preview of things to come in the US as we clamor for more regulation, more government control of the Internet, and more destruction of our basic rights to protect ourselves.

Saw it this morning. I never go to the theater, either. Props to Marcus Theaters in Gurnee. Great sound, great visual focus. Benefit of missing Navy pay day by a day.

Serenity has great Free Market plot lines, just as Firefly did. My "beloved" LRC has some good insight here andhere.

Even the theme song is freedom loving:
Take my love.
  Take my land.
  Take me where I cannot stand.
  I don't care, I'm still free.
  You can't take the sky from me.
Take me out
  to the black.
  Tell 'em I ain't comin' back.
  Burn the land and boil the sea.
  You can't take the sky from me.
Have no place
  I can be
  Since I found Serenity.

To bad Whedon's a socialist. Weird.

Maybe we can change that. I'm ready to pay Joss Whedon a nice annual subscription to have him bring Firefly back (web based video, high quality codec) to an online format. Fuck ox and Cable producers. Anyone know of a way to contact him about the idea?

FWIW the movie does feel TV-ish. I'd like to know what it was filmed on and edited on.

Saw it this morning. I never go to the theater, either. Props to Marcus Theaters in Gurnee. Great sound, great visual focus. Benefit of missing Navy pay day by a day.

Serenity has great Free Market plot lines, just as Firefly did. My "beloved" LRC has some good insight here andhere.

Even the theme song is freedom loving:
Take my love.
  Take my land.
  Take me where I cannot stand.
  I don't care, I'm still free.
  You can't take the sky from me.
Take me out
  to the black.
  Tell 'em I ain't comin' back.
  Burn the land and boil the sea.
  You can't take the sky from me.
Have no place
  I can be
  Since I found Serenity.

To bad Whedon's a socialist. Weird.

Maybe we can change that. I'm ready to pay Joss Whedon a nice annual subscription to have him bring Firefly back (web based video, high quality codec) to an online format. Fuck ox and Cable producers. Anyone know of a way to contact him about the idea?

FWIW the movie does feel TV-ish. I'd like to know what it was filmed on and edited on.

I am against any government support of corporations. The debate of full liability versus limited liability is contained in this two Op-Eds:

Pro-limited liability

Pro-full liability

I'm pro-full liability, but the case for limited liability has its positive ideas.

Even if you're not AnCap, they're great articles :)

I am against any government support of corporations. The debate of full liability versus limited liability is contained in this two Op-Eds:

Pro-limited liability

Pro-full liability

I'm pro-full liability, but the case for limited liability has its positive ideas.

Even if you're not AnCap, they're great articles :)

No, but I believe service and price do. Students get wealthier. As the article I point to shows, you don't see many poor bad doctors but you see many lawyers fail. The AMA keeps bad doctors wealthy, the ABA doesn't wield much power.

Its not the doctors, its the AMA.

For 150 years they've lobbied for every item that drives up medical costs. I came across this article about 7 years ago, my first LRC article ever :) Great history of the nemesis I feel is worse than the RIAA, MPAA and DoD combined.

We could only wish our medical students in the US needed robots as test patients. Unfortunately there is a monopoly on doctors, and the problem will only get worse.

The AMA is a lobbying organization with complete control (last paragraph) over the number of doctors.

Mexico has not enacted these same licensing restrictions, and surely allows for more doctors who can be used outside the country. Mexicans are well known to send a great amount of income back home.

The downside is that our AMA is working to prevent foreign doctors from coming over so easily. This could mean lower medical prices in Mexico though.

Oh, it had to be said:

"I got gonorrhea!" -- Cosmo Kramer

Heh, did you know that gold has the lowest return of anything except cash?

Yet gold has stayed fairly solid in value for 3000 years (I don't have the link handy but can e-mail it). The only time gold prices have fallen is when government dumped their holdings causing temporary spikes by messing up supply/demand. Gold is an excellent investment to secure against government fiat.

I think inflation is mixed - and might be a better way to hand out the government's bill than taxes.

By devaluing everyone's cash and raising prices? Eek.

- I'm not sure anyone really understands it.Nope! It is exactly what should happen, as this article states: .For short-term rates to exceed long-term rates, there has to be an intense demand for short-term loans. What would cause this? This: fear of falling demand for goods and services - a fear so great that business borrowers want to finish existing capital projects.

Hard money advocates have known for 100+ years what happens when government controls the supply of money: exactly the same thing that happens when they control anything.

Prices and interest rates are affected by the supply and demand in money. Government money intervention creates the boom-bust cycle. If government didn't set rates or counterfeit money (inflation) there'd be no major bubbles or recessions, as seen in our history from 1600 to 1913, minus the Civil War as Lincoln screwed with currency.

Interested in more?

When you call your representative, you should be aware of the following:

Congress has made a law that allows a certain increase in budgetary line items per year without calling it an increase. I'm not sure what that allowed percentage is, but if they allow 7% and only raise an item 6%, they can legally say they LOWERED that item's budget!

Our budget includes Social Security receipts but not complete payments. We've never had a truly balanced budget in decades.

Our budget is allowed emergency appropriations that can include money for any pork project as long as "emergency" is in the bill's title.

108th Congress Analysis what a scam!

The war Between States was about taxation / tariffs. Here's a complete review:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/pearlston1.html

As the London Times of 7 Nov 1861 stated: "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North and for independence on that of the South....".

And...

Adams claims that slavery was never in danger, pointing out that Lincoln pledged to enforce the fugitive slave law, declared he had no right or intention to interfere with slavery, and supported a new irrevocable constitutional amendment to protect slavery forever. The South's proclamation that slavery was in danger was a political ploy full of political cant to stir up secessionist fever.

The South knew people didn't see the harm in tariffs immediately so they used slavery to scare the citizens of the South.

That article ends with my belief -- slavery is wrong. But just as every other wealthy, agricultural Western country ended slavery without war, so would have we.

Particularly, the "right" of a State to institute slavery. And don't forget who fired the first shots of that war. This is incorrect. The War Between States was not a slavery issue but a taxation issue. Slavery was already on the decline worldwide. The US had 4% of the world's slave, yet the other 96% were freed peacefully by the free market -- slaves couldn't work as efficiently as industrial workers. The South was already adjusting to the change. Lincoln the tyrant needed an excuse to keep the South in the volunteer Union, so he could tax their production.

Slavery would have remained more profitable than mechanization for producing cotton and other Incorrect myth again. Lincoln was pro-slavery in every election he ran in.

. That's why so many Southerners went apeshit as soon as he was elected and immediately started the secession process. Wrong. Lincoln was open about running on the Hamilton/Clay platform of corporate mercantilism: tax production to fund cronies in "internal improvements." Read up on your history, the South feared the taxes that mercantilism brings.

And don't forget who fired the first shots of that war. It's been proven time and time again that, just like FDR forced the Japanese to fire first, so did Lincoln force the South. Lincoln's infamous Emancipation Proclamation granted slaves freedom ONLY IN Confederate States, not Northern ones. Imagine that, free people in Iraq, but not in the U.S. Hmmm.

Your debate is long lost. Go pick up a copy of The Real Lincoln. If you don't like it, I'll pay you double the cover price for it.

Particularly, the "right" of a State to institute slavery. And don't forget who fired the first shots of that war. This is incorrect. The War Between States was not a slavery issue but a taxation issue. Slavery was already on the decline worldwide. The US had 4% of the world's slave, yet the other 96% were freed peacefully by the free market -- slaves couldn't work as efficiently as industrial workers. The South was already adjusting to the change. Lincoln the tyrant needed an excuse to keep the South in the volunteer Union, so he could tax their production.

Slavery would have remained more profitable than mechanization for producing cotton and other Incorrect myth again. Lincoln was pro-slavery in every election he ran in.

. That's why so many Southerners went apeshit as soon as he was elected and immediately started the secession process. Wrong. Lincoln was open about running on the Hamilton/Clay platform of corporate mercantilism: tax production to fund cronies in "internal improvements." Read up on your history, the South feared the taxes that mercantilism brings.

And don't forget who fired the first shots of that war. It's been proven time and time again that, just like FDR forced the Japanese to fire first, so did Lincoln force the South. Lincoln's infamous Emancipation Proclamation granted slaves freedom ONLY IN Confederate States, not Northern ones. Imagine that, free people in Iraq, but not in the U.S. Hmmm.

Your debate is long lost. Go pick up a copy of The Real Lincoln. If you don't like it, I'll pay you double the cover price for it.

Particularly, the "right" of a State to institute slavery. And don't forget who fired the first shots of that war. This is incorrect. The War Between States was not a slavery issue but a taxation issue. Slavery was already on the decline worldwide. The US had 4% of the world's slave, yet the other 96% were freed peacefully by the free market -- slaves couldn't work as efficiently as industrial workers. The South was already adjusting to the change. Lincoln the tyrant needed an excuse to keep the South in the volunteer Union, so he could tax their production.

Slavery would have remained more profitable than mechanization for producing cotton and other Incorrect myth again. Lincoln was pro-slavery in every election he ran in.

. That's why so many Southerners went apeshit as soon as he was elected and immediately started the secession process. Wrong. Lincoln was open about running on the Hamilton/Clay platform of corporate mercantilism: tax production to fund cronies in "internal improvements." Read up on your history, the South feared the taxes that mercantilism brings.

And don't forget who fired the first shots of that war. It's been proven time and time again that, just like FDR forced the Japanese to fire first, so did Lincoln force the South. Lincoln's infamous Emancipation Proclamation granted slaves freedom ONLY IN Confederate States, not Northern ones. Imagine that, free people in Iraq, but not in the U.S. Hmmm.

Your debate is long lost. Go pick up a copy of The Real Lincoln. If you don't like it, I'll pay you double the cover price for it.

When a disaster happens, people need to accept full responsibility for their part in the losses. Insurance companies have to be held responsible for their policy coverage. The State (any government) has zero responsibility to the people.

Unfortunately, the Federal flood insurance underwriting allowed people to build where it was unbuildable. Federal levees gave people a sense of security. Federally guaranteed loans allowed developers to build on soft land. No private banks or insurers would have done any of that without Federal guarantees.

Now the Federal branch wants ore of my money to build a bigger welfare development? No thanks. Easy money with no personal responsibility is not the answer.

I live nowhere near a flood plain yet I have flood insurance. I live nowhere near a crime ridden area yet I keep a firearm nearby. I have liability protections that I pay for (and review word for word) to protect me yet keep me responsible.

The poor in Louisiana were given opportunities to stay poor by your government against my consent. The wealthy had their investments backed by your government against my consent.

A free society is a full liability society.

Accept no substitutes. My money is slowly exiting the equation.

True, we are less burdened with rights violations, yet the burdens are increasing here. Our Executive Branch (Bush, Clinton, and on) LOVE Lincoln's Mercantile form of government. I fear the day when we return to Lincoln's days when he:

* Jailed 13,000 anti-war protestors
* Jailed media owners
* Censored hundreds of papers
* Censored communications
* Deported a Congressman (Clement L. Vallandhigham of Ohio) who spoke against him
* Signed into law the first military conscription law
* Confiscated firearms
* Quartered soldiers on private property

Scary how Lincoln did it illegally. Our new laws slowly legitimize these acts for future powers.

We're there already. Clay/Hamilton's American System is in full force. All that's le t is revocation of Posse Comitatus (already done, IMHO, with Katrina and Rita) and we've got tyranny without realizing it.

We have an Executive branch without restraint (War Powers Act, no real restrictions on Presidential orders, federal troops policing citizens, federal destruction of currency through inflation and cradle to grave welfare for all). We have a single party political system (look how many Democrats support the war funding, look how many Republicans support social programs). We have government control of media.

Voting is fruitless. The only way out is to mimic the Chinese -- support the black (free) markets and back out of supporting the governments by cutting their funding.

Govern - to restrict

This article helps reinforce my constant philosophy that information is now freed of regulation and censorship, and that no law can trump humanity's moral law that makes only offensive crimes truly wrong, legally or morally.

I feel bad for the Chinese, but thankfully the ways around censorship are growing in number. We have to note these gains internationally as we watch our speech get restrained even in the U.S.

No law will prevent the average person from doing what they feel is right, which to me is proof of the inherent rights we're all born with. Every person in this world has the God-given (or inherent) right to speak. It is only government that attempts to restrain it.

Take note, your freedom to speak is declining as we support persons we vote for to further degrade our rights. As the Chinese save up to 40% of their income, they also find ways to save their rights. As we U.S. citizens look to the federal government to educate us, rebuild our mistakes and provide our retirements, we save nothing (1%) and lose rights.

Oops! Forgot some links regarding why a trailer is a wise living arrangement:

http://www.garynorth.com/public/93.cfm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north358.html

We have waaay too much "incompetent federal rule" going on these days. Too much dependence on out-of-touch beltway blowhards with more money than brains and a penchant for "doing something".

Read this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/ellis1.html

The Interstate Commerce Clause has been grossly abused:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory40.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim3.html

The federal government was only meant to put checks on the States to make sure they didn't prevent interstate commerce by imposing tariffs or embargos on each other. Bad FDR, Taft, and Lincoln.

The Interstate Commerce Clause has been grossly abused:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory40.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/powell-jim3.html

The federal government was only meant to put checks on the States to make sure they didn't prevent interstate commerce by imposing tariffs or embargos on each other. Bad FDR, Taft, and Lincoln.

The United States, 1776 to 1861.

Lincoln was the first federal politician to gain unlimited powers. He had to fight a war against independent States who seceeded over his financial abuse.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.h tml

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo16.h tml

The United States, 1776 to 1861.

Lincoln was the first federal politician to gain unlimited powers. He had to fight a war against independent States who seceeded over his financial abuse.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.h tml

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo16.h tml

Campaign donations are the ultimate form of free speech. Money does not corrupt a politician; unlimited power to tax, regulate and spend is the problem.

Since campaign finance has been regulated and re-regulated, we've seen a few chilling unintended consequences:

1. Third parties are stifled.
2. Incumbents wield huge powers.
3. Loopholes are created hiding the real flow of money.

Bringing campaign finance laws online will only enforce these consequences. Our Constitution is very clear in restricting our Congress from limiting speech. "No law" means NO LAW."

Even ridiculous rules such as mandated government sponsored matching donations restrict the minority positions from being heard in public media forums. Regulating blogs will do incredible damage.

Remember that Democrats and Republicans are both authoritarian parties intent on wealth redistribution. Neither party restricts the other, they actually both help increase the tax base and takes care of each other's cronies.

If you want the ultimate campaign finance regulation you can do a few simple steps:

1. Repeal all donation restrictions and dismantle the FEC
2. Allow anyone (including foreigners and corporations) to finance any candidate in any amount
3. Restrict politicians to their minimum Constitutional powers, so that money has no effect since they're virtually prevented from helping their donators.
4. Allow any candidate that can get on a ballot to join in any government-funded debate.

Anyone who believes more regulations will help is truly blind to the realities of politics today. A properly restrained government is a government that can do no harm. Today's two parties are joined closely, acquiring that power through money control, a.k.a. Speech control. How you spend your money is the ultimate form of expression.

Remember the quote from Stalin about elections? He said, and please forgive my inexactness, "The candidates on the ballot don't matter, what matters is who counts the votes." Even Stalin had elections.

Here's a relevant link. May it prove illuminating.

Doctors are already a protected class of citizens, who have enormous power over the average person. They've got sanctioned monopoly powers, have a huge amount of leeway in treatment quality, and generally don't come close to the quality of service that they did a generation ago.

It is in everyone person's right to criticize bad service, and the threat of libel lawsuits should not be as powerful. When you have a State-sanctioned power to treat others, it shouldn't stop you from giving your best, especially in life or death situations.

I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.

I've been to other doctors and wish I had the time to complain. Dirty exam rooms, gossiping about other patients, staff that works more like DMV workers than health professionals.

I guess these people should just shut up and take what the State spoonfeeds them. Just wait until we have Nationalized Healthcare if you really want to see things get worse.

The American Dental Associations is no better.

First Amendment restrictions on our Federal and State governments should be re-visited. "No law" means no law. Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story. I'm not sure why it is in anyone's power to curb the speech of others on a private or public forum.

Doctors are already a protected class of citizens, who have enormous power over the average person. They've got sanctioned monopoly powers, have a huge amount of leeway in treatment quality, and generally don't come close to the quality of service that they did a generation ago.

It is in everyone person's right to criticize bad service, and the threat of libel lawsuits should not be as powerful. When you have a State-sanctioned power to treat others, it shouldn't stop you from giving your best, especially in life or death situations.

I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.

I've been to other doctors and wish I had the time to complain. Dirty exam rooms, gossiping about other patients, staff that works more like DMV workers than health professionals.

I guess these people should just shut up and take what the State spoonfeeds them. Just wait until we have Nationalized Healthcare if you really want to see things get worse.

The American Dental Associations is no better.

First Amendment restrictions on our Federal and State governments should be re-visited. "No law" means no law. Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story. I'm not sure why it is in anyone's power to curb the speech of others on a private or public forum.

Doctors are already a protected class of citizens, who have enormous power over the average person. They've got sanctioned monopoly powers, have a huge amount of leeway in treatment quality, and generally don't come close to the quality of service that they did a generation ago.

It is in everyone person's right to criticize bad service, and the threat of libel lawsuits should not be as powerful. When you have a State-sanctioned power to treat others, it shouldn't stop you from giving your best, especially in life or death situations.

I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.

I've been to other doctors and wish I had the time to complain. Dirty exam rooms, gossiping about other patients, staff that works more like DMV workers than health professionals.

I guess these people should just shut up and take what the State spoonfeeds them. Just wait until we have Nationalized Healthcare if you really want to see things get worse.

The American Dental Associations is no better.

First Amendment restrictions on our Federal and State governments should be re-visited. "No law" means no law. Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story. I'm not sure why it is in anyone's power to curb the speech of others on a private or public forum.

Doctors are already a protected class of citizens, who have enormous power over the average person. They've got sanctioned monopoly powers, have a huge amount of leeway in treatment quality, and generally don't come close to the quality of service that they did a generation ago.

It is in everyone person's right to criticize bad service, and the threat of libel lawsuits should not be as powerful. When you have a State-sanctioned power to treat others, it shouldn't stop you from giving your best, especially in life or death situations.

I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.

I've been to other doctors and wish I had the time to complain. Dirty exam rooms, gossiping about other patients, staff that works more like DMV workers than health professionals.

I guess these people should just shut up and take what the State spoonfeeds them. Just wait until we have Nationalized Healthcare if you really want to see things get worse.

The American Dental Associations is no better.

First Amendment restrictions on our Federal and State governments should be re-visited. "No law" means no law. Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story. I'm not sure why it is in anyone's power to curb the speech of others on a private or public forum.

Doctors are already a protected class of citizens, who have enormous power over the average person. They've got sanctioned monopoly powers, have a huge amount of leeway in treatment quality, and generally don't come close to the quality of service that they did a generation ago.

It is in everyone person's right to criticize bad service, and the threat of libel lawsuits should not be as powerful. When you have a State-sanctioned power to treat others, it shouldn't stop you from giving your best, especially in life or death situations.

I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.

I've been to other doctors and wish I had the time to complain. Dirty exam rooms, gossiping about other patients, staff that works more like DMV workers than health professionals.

I guess these people should just shut up and take what the State spoonfeeds them. Just wait until we have Nationalized Healthcare if you really want to see things get worse.

The American Dental Associations is no better.

First Amendment restrictions on our Federal and State governments should be re-visited. "No law" means no law. Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story. I'm not sure why it is in anyone's power to curb the speech of others on a private or public forum.

Doctors are already a protected class of citizens, who have enormous power over the average person. They've got sanctioned monopoly powers, have a huge amount of leeway in treatment quality, and generally don't come close to the quality of service that they did a generation ago.

It is in everyone person's right to criticize bad service, and the threat of libel lawsuits should not be as powerful. When you have a State-sanctioned power to treat others, it shouldn't stop you from giving your best, especially in life or death situations.

I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.

I've been to other doctors and wish I had the time to complain. Dirty exam rooms, gossiping about other patients, staff that works more like DMV workers than health professionals.

I guess these people should just shut up and take what the State spoonfeeds them. Just wait until we have Nationalized Healthcare if you really want to see things get worse.

The American Dental Associations is no better.

First Amendment restrictions on our Federal and State governments should be re-visited. "No law" means no law. Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story. I'm not sure why it is in anyone's power to curb the speech of others on a private or public forum.

Doctors are already a protected class of citizens, who have enormous power over the average person. They've got sanctioned monopoly powers, have a huge amount of leeway in treatment quality, and generally don't come close to the quality of service that they did a generation ago.

It is in everyone person's right to criticize bad service, and the threat of libel lawsuits should not be as powerful. When you have a State-sanctioned power to treat others, it shouldn't stop you from giving your best, especially in life or death situations.

I have a great doctor who has been retired for probably 15 years. He's old school and treats me and my family with respect and friendliness. He's available 24/7 by phone (home, office, cell, pager) and he's called me back at bizarre times when I've had problems. All my friends are blown away by the stories I have of his service.

I've been to other doctors and wish I had the time to complain. Dirty exam rooms, gossiping about other patients, staff that works more like DMV workers than health professionals.

I guess these people should just shut up and take what the State spoonfeeds them. Just wait until we have Nationalized Healthcare if you really want to see things get worse.

The American Dental Associations is no better.

First Amendment restrictions on our Federal and State governments should be re-visited. "No law" means no law. Especially when a doctor is free to blog their side of the story. I'm not sure why it is in anyone's power to curb the speech of others on a private or public forum.

Why We Fight by Congressman Ron Paul.

The National Archives are important, except so much that SHOULD be in the Archives is not, for whatever (illegal) reason:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/stinnett1.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger17.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers40.html

And some of those items took decades to make it. If they're going to keep certain government information in the Archives, make it available immediately.

I'm against the $300M bridge to nowhere -- I believe in privatized roads funded by local businesses, industry, and homeowners divisions.

I'm against ALL unconstitutional wars (every one since WWII has been unconstitutional).

The National Archives are important, except so much that SHOULD be in the Archives is not, for whatever (illegal) reason:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/stinnett1.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger17.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rogers/rogers40.html

And some of those items took decades to make it. If they're going to keep certain government information in the Archives, make it available immediately.

I'm against the $300M bridge to nowhere -- I believe in privatized roads funded by local businesses, industry, and homeowners divisions.

I'm against ALL unconstitutional wars (every one since WWII has been unconstitutional).