Slashdot Mirror

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).

Is this even necessary? $308M is a lot of money (maybe not for our federal government, but for the average taxpayer) and this really seems to be a waste to tax and spend on a program that is better solved by private companies.

Will we need old information in digital format? How many old books have we needed to save that were better saved just by reprinting them? How much information will the future need, and is it important to save just about everything just for memory sake?

It just sounds like pork to me. Competitive pork, yes, but still pork. Our government has kept Lockheed afloat for decades.

I'm trying to find out where in our Constitution does the Federal Government find an enumerated power to pay for this. It is outrageous -- there are numerous companies out there already attempting to archive old data. Why does our government even care? I bet it has more to do with raising taxes, creating new taxpayers to be paid on the government dole, and increasing unemployment figures.

Similar to Hazlitt's Broken Window Fallacy, taxes are NOT good for creating wealth for the country. Instead, they create profit for certain select individuals and reduce wealth for everyone else.

Our elected officials continue to finance deficit spending, which will only make us taxpayers and the next generations poorer.

First, I'm no libertarian.

Secondly, ALL risk review requires sickness and death. Otherwise, it wouldn't be considered risky.

To say that the market requires death before changes are made is ridiculous. How many people get sick, go hungry, or even die because of government regulations and taxes?

The free market creates wealth opportunities for everyone at every level. Government regulation and taxation creates profits for the rich and connected at the expense of the poor. No free market transaction forces the poor to give to the connected. None.

If you truly believe that government policies help the poor and the environment and the sick, read this article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/ravet1.html

Lovely work of your fine elected officials in making your life better.

I know this is an off-topic response to an off-topic post...but: The same government that caused those 20,000+ deaths are the ones that will be regulating these blu-ray players.

It was interesting to see in that blog that what I've heard elsewhere is confirmed: Police are doing much of the looting.

Its unfortunate that government sweeps in during disasters and starts making mandates that make things worse. Like prohibitions against price "gauging". What, they htink things get cheaper when the infrastructure is destroyed?

Gauging actually helps-- it brings in more supply to service that demand, and ultimately prices go down FASTER when the free market is allowed.

Here's an economists take on the issue:
Price Gauging saves lives: http://www.mises.org/story/1593
And another: http://www.lewrockwell.com/akers/akers16.html

Libertarians claim to be the third largest party in the US, and they range from wanting small government to virtually no government at all. They all agree that the government should be dramatically smaller than it is today. Their philosophy is guided by the principal that freedom is always more important than "safety" and force. They believe that individuals should have the freedom to do as they please so long as they do not take away the freedoms of others. The Libertarian party in the US has a very detailed section on their website with points illustrating how this philosophy shapes their political stance on nearly everything: Libertarian Issues & Positions.

If you want to read some engaging essays and articles by the Libertarian Party's most prominant writer (and former presidential candidate), I suggest visiting Harry Browne's Website. You can also find alot of libertarian essays and editorials at Lew Rockwell's website

Enjoy!

I don't have the "right" to my social status -- and that is completely irrelevant for my arguemnt; I do, however, have the right to my property. As for the need for roads, safe water, law, etc, all of this can be provided by the free market, and in fact has been provided in the past, before big businessmen -- doomed to failing in free-market attempts to cartelize the industries -- turned to government to accomplish the task.

Private roads were provided in Old Europe, known as turnpikes. On this topic, see the Walter Block's publications CV, specifically Transportation Systems section. Free-market justice was provided -- absent a State -- in Ancient Iceland and Ancient Ireland. Ancient Ireland existed as a peaceful, and intellectually advanced, stateless society for almost a thousand years. In terms of respect for women's rights, their society was centuries ahead of its time. Regarding a general introduction to the argument for a statless libertarian society, see Rothbard, Murray. For a New Liberty .

Regarding a the desireability of States, no we do not want to "have one of these". In the past century, States have murdered 174 million of their own people during peacetime. That is, these are the number of people murdered in State-sponsored democide. Another 36 million people have been murdered by wars. That's 200 million people murdered by States.

Then there's DDT. See Englund, Eric. The Mosquito: Environmentalism's Weapon of Mass Destruction . Every year, 2.7 million people die of malaria; all of this is prevantable, provided the use of DDT, which is cheap and effective. Despite that, States have banned it.

And those are only the most obvious cases. There's also all of the people who die because of road-socialism (the over-use of roads and poor management, due to the inability to perform economic calculation when there is no private property, and the lack of incentives).

Absent States, these murders would not have occured. It isn't profitable on the free market to murder hundreds of millions of people. And anyone attempting to commit mass-murder in a private libertarian society, wouldn't be able to externalize the costs of his aggression onto others by taxing. He'd have to fund it himself. Obviously, one is much more likely to engage in aggressive action if one faces hardly no consequences of such actions. E.g., G.W. Bush does not -- in any significant way -- pay the price of war; he doesn't experience the death, nor is he burdened by its financing.

PS: Re, "if you don't like it, leave" -- a childish, silly and fallicious argument. A mafia organization invades your neighborhood, continually expropriates your property, and commits violence, and the response to any protest is "if you don't like it leave". That presumes the criminal -- in my example, the mafia members, representative of the State -- has a right to be there, and that you don't. Mere rhetoric.

I honestly don't see quality differences. Most of my favorite movies are embarrassing. They're favorites because I associate them with friends, inside jokes, and a time in my life when money wasn't a concern. Ghostbusters, North Shore, NL'sacation are terrible productions but my associated memories make them great movies.

Today, I can't afford them. I buy $4 DVDs (new and used) and watch them on my $1000 TV I bought on credit and will likely pay $2500 for when its paid off. $1500 in interest that could've gone to seeing terrible movies today with friends -- who also can't afford to go.

'My' theory of time preference is a century old. Hayek, Mises, Rothbard and now Rockwell have warned about overspending + government inflation + no savings = recession. Time preference is killing many markets.

My retail stores are youth focused extreme sports. Today's youth is overweight, short attention spanned, and tech savvy. Myspace is the new mall, AIM the new phone. I fear for my future because I didn't forsee the decline, nor did I savr. I spent thinking things can only get better. The million bucks I spent in the last 15 years is gone -- helping other countries get better but not paying dividends to me.

I don't blame anyone but me. When everyone accepts the reality I profess, we can start making changes. Unfortunately I believe that the laws of the free market will surprise many people still living on future earnings.

In "The Right Stuff," Wolfe mentioned that the NASA X-15 pilots didn't qualify for astronaut wings.

Also see this book for a great discussion of what makes a pilot. We're the Astronauts pilots even though a monkey made thier flights first? Not to say that doesn't make them brave, but there was certainly a lack of control.

NO! That is a recipe for continuation of the status quo. They BOTH need to feel the heat NOW. Otherwise the Dems will take over and think their social agenda of increasing the loss of our freedoms for different reasons was the cause of their "success" at the polls. You wind up in a perpetual seesaw resulting in the steady elimination of all rights equally between the two. You repeatedly trade bully one for bully two, then reverse and repeat.

There is nothing you or I can do to stop the pendulum of the bi-polar polity, other than convince enough people who will vote to actually change it. There was a chance at a third party with clout, but Buchanan, the Republican loyalist to the end, took the FEC money and trashed them in 2000. Demcorats still blame Nader, the fools, they should be blaming Buchanan, Perot and Ventura.

In the current circumstances, the best that can be achieved is an evenness of parties, and the abrasion that comes with it. I think that a large part of the economic boom in the 90's was due to the great friction between the parties. Neither side had enough power to suck their vigorish off of the top, and the free market that could, did. The equities traders screwed it up, but equity traders should be dealt with. If they didn't venture for capitalisation of the business, they are leeches, sucking from the valuation of the compensation provided to the producers of the product.

An Abridged Listing Why I Beat Upon Republicans Presently

The republicans have gained the upper hand in large part by betraying both their core ideology and the Dreamtime America. NeoConservatism's maturation can be traced from marxism to trotskyite CIA stooges to Scoop Jackson DemoHawks to Reagan to the Son of Bush. They have never given up the marxist trait of spewing rhetoric, the truth notwithstanding. The self-confessed American traitor, David Horrowitz calls Kerry and Fonda traitors, and is given stature within the Right. The putrescence of moral relevancy oozing from the partisan defense of a president who fixed the intelligence and the facts around his policy of familial vengence, and took America into an unrighteous conflict without contemplating the aftermath. a president who sings sweet songs of liberty and democracy, yet gives aid to dictatorial destroyers of democracy, has liasons with leaders loathsome of liberty, and goes out on ManDates with Saudi Princes who come to the USA laden with extra baggage.

When did conservatives begin to support due process of law applied inequally to humans? That is a high crime against America, yet they still repeatedly remind us that a stained blue dress is impeachable? Why not decry Blood-Stained Iraq Sands?

Bush's SCOTUS nomimee Roberts is a dangerous and activist judge who DOES NOT adjudicate using original intent, and all the country can think about is which way he'll decide on abortion cases. His assent in the Hamdi v Rumsfeld appeal is frightful. It posits that a president is above the very law that legitimises his power, stating this is a function of war power, in a war upon unstated enemies, of an indeterminate duration. Why hasn't anyone asked Roberts just what the hell he was doing during that ongoing criminal enterprise: The Reagan Administration? This is ano

See http://www.lewrockwell.com/crispin/crispin20.html. Thanks for the hugs!

You need to vote for anarchists with guns and bombs and nanotech. The fucking big-L Libertarians are sucking up to the Republicans and Demos who are behind all this DRM crap. I just read a very nasty story about the Libertarian Party pulling some shit which has pissed off a lot of small-l libs. Read "Regime Libertarians" here.

> the dude's account was HACKED. it wasent just a man using some ambient airwaves, he hacked someones account, big difference.

Sorry, but there's no indication that the guy did any account hacking. If the network was open (as seems likely), he ASKED for a connection and was granted it. He was probably counting on the owner not intending to give away access, which is Not Nice(TM), but hardly illegal.

Ethical issues aside, it looks here like no laws were broken and the cops should have known that before they arrested the guy. Of course it wouldn't be the first time cops threw their weight around in ignorance of the law.

Abolish the FDA!

Hey, this article may interest you. Good luck.

http://www.financialsense.com/ http://www.dailyreckoning.com/ http://www.lewrockwell.com/ A number of sites out there with plenty of information explaining how Federal Reserve policies will be probably be very disasterous. We have a centrally managed economy, make no mistake, and the devaluation of the dollar thanks to a whirlwind of easy credit (thanks Federal Reserve!) over the last 3-4 years will have serious ramifications.

And in spite of that fact, moron hoplophobic murderer Teddy Kennedy continues to insist that these non-existent terrors be banned. Jack would be so proud.

Gotta love Google Adsense, i got 3 links to Steve job's websites and articles about him for this page =)

But seriously, Is Mr. Gates so insecure about himself he has to surround himself with people who 'love' him? Its intersting, throughout history, people in positions of great power, sooner or later surround themselfs with pure yes-men who belive everything they say. Such as this and This example. Could this be a sign? Probably not, but it is an intersting move for this idea to even come out of redmond.. Only time will tell.

And Fort SUMTER was in South Carolina, a state which seceeded from the union, and wished to take its territory back from a government with which it was no longer affiliated.

I would like to remind YOU that Lincoln imprisoned NORTHERN journalists who were critical of the war, and tried to have the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested!! .

Dont believe the BS about the Emacipation proclamation either. It only "freed" slaves in states which were "in rebellion" thus Maryland a slave state in the Union was unaffected.

A public school, like any bureaucracy, has its financial incentives backwards: the more they fail, the better their chances of arguing for a bigger budget next year.

In my home town it happens the same every year. The school board screams that if they don't get more money, they'll need to cancel <favorite program X>. Then they hand out pink slips to the teachers -- it's all a big show. Then they use the funds to hire their friends and family.

I've learned enough about our education system to know I don't want my kids in the typical public school.

...and that fossil fuels need a replacement Real Soon Now...

That's right, little kiddy. Let good ol' Daddy Government tell you what to do, think, and say.

No independent thought, mass conformity, deminished free will.

This is just what the Framers were thinking when they passed 10 Amendments immediately *after* affirming the Consitution.

They had no great trust of strong, centralized governance. That doesn't mean there weren't any founders who throught a weak central government was a *good* thing, but they were all pretty fresh from King George's treatment.

Most of the Framers would not recognize their work of liberty in current expression of Executive power. But this expansionist policy of Executive priveledge is not a foreign concept to political party of the current President.

I think it works like this,
1. Joe Average start to notice what Israel is doing on the evening news
2. Palestinians get fed up with Israel for the upteenth time
3. Palestinian driven to desperation suicide bombs an Israeli bus killing 3 jews and 12 arabs, "evil rag-heads" pays loose change to bomber's mother for lose
4. Joe Average, who has a 15 minute attention span forgets that Israel bull-dozed Palestinial offices, bombed refugee camp in Lebonon or sunk the USS Liberty or WHAT-EVER
5. News media bombards Joe Average with 2 weeks straight coveage of 15 Israelis killed, congress-critter sends Israel more money
6. Israelis attack more until death ratio hits 10 to 1.
7. "evil-raghead" gets more money to fight the Israelis, Israelis get more money US foriegn aid, everybody else pays.

Of course if the Palestinians put as much effert into playing nice in Israel as they do to becoming martyrs given their fecundity rate, the Kinesset would be make Arabic the offical language and Islam the offical religion of Isreal in about 30 years.

Always glad to have a reasonable discourse.

So, how can you say that anarchy doesn't mean chaos?

Good sir, you said it yourself. 1. Absence of any form of political authority.

But what is "political authority"? It is the lawful power to unilaterally change contracts, among other things. For instance, the IRS code is changed every year. I have no ability to "opt out", unlike every voluntary contract I enter into that the other party chooses to change.

Every voluntary interaction you enter into is therefore anarchic, because you can indeed opt out. They hold no "political" authority over you. As you point out, those voluntary interactions happen under rules agreed upon by all the people involved. Churches are a great example. Some of them have a great many rules and regulations, yet (save for some abusive and generally condemned few) are entirely voluntary.

Anarchy means that if I am murdered there are no common standards whereby the murder would be judged.

Interesting that you would mention that after I said that the initiation of force, such as murder, remains prosecutable.

I do take exception to your putting forth that a lack of common standards is a bad thing. Many different standards have existed through history, some of which would value your life merely by some lump of gold. Variations of standards is why there are juries, because killing someone is not always murder.

Apparently we have read/talked to different groups of people calling themselves libertarians.

There are several people who call themselves "libertarians" who are nothing of the sort. I expect that you have indeed heard from some of them.

May I suggest the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell as good places to correct your misinformation?

Many of "us" who espouse the benefits of definition 1 you provided tend to use the term "anarcho-capitalist" rather than simply "anarchist", for all the reasons you suggest.

non-initiation of force is one of the easiest things to rationalize into use of force. (generational feuds, etc.)

Only if you posit a society without societal norms. Luckily, when people are left to their own devices instead of "ruled", they form communities under agreed upon rules and standards of conduct. All the laws in the world do not prevent, as you say, "generational feuds". What has happened is the societal norm that such bloodshed is wrong has been written into law.

This also brings up the not-insignificant question of where influence ends and force begins.

"We" set those standards every day. I recall a news report about a woman who constantly sued the people around her. She would sue the family several houses away for playing basketball in their driveway, for instance, because she was able to word the suit in such a way as to make it seem that they were creating a nuisance, like that.

By the strict letter of the law, she was right. She knew how to twist the words to suit her own ends. The community, the reporter, the people watching the report, however, all (I assume) condemned her actions as the most absurd abuse of what had been written into statute law to prosecute real troublemakers.

Societal norms asserted themselves. No one ruler decided she was wrong, the answer was not political. Anarchy(1) at its best.

Please don't get me wrong, I agree with you that standards for conduct are important. I consider them of the utmost importance for peaceful human interaction. This is one of the biggest reasons I have for opposing government, opposing "political rule": Government gets to change the rules at their pleasure. Government creates chaos in a way that a mere individual cannot, because government can enforce those changes.

I do recommend you look at a few of the articles on Mises.org, they also have a blog where you can ask for clarification.

I look forward to further discussion.

Bob-

Here is an article related to the value of an MBA I tend to agree. Its real value is the potential for networking. Other than that its not worth a whole lot. If the people that were teaching these classes really knew business, they would be out running their own instead of schlepping to a classroom every day.

You may perhaps have heard the old saw that "ignorance of the law is no excuse", a concept which implies that it is the duty of all citizens to know all the laws, or at least, understand what kind of behavior is in violation. You would find it hard to plead with a judge that you didn't know that it was illegal to steal a car or beat somebody up, just because you didn't read the laws prohibiting such actions.

Secret laws remove any possibility of knowing what is illegal, and will lead to a situation where every citizen can be charged for criminal acts, if the authorities find it convenient to do so. This is known as a "police state", examples of which can be found in Communist Russia, and the military juntas of the 70's in South America. This is what is the really big deal- the possibility that members of the government may have you arrested for breaking laws of which you know nothing. Let's not get into the possibilty that they might enforce laws which don't exist. We all know that our government's belief in the habeas corpus is shaky and we're already talking about just how hard it is to challenge "secret laws" which might exist, as that's the gist of the report to which this article refers.

This is fundamental change in the balance of power in the government, and potentially, a fundamental change in the form of our government. I am very glad that there are some citizens and organizations which realize this and are fighting to prevent such changes. I submit to you that showing an ID to board an airplane is exactly, exactly, the state of affairs that we were warned against by Benjamin Franklin when said "Those who would trade liberty for security, deserve neither."

If you believe that concerns about abuse of power are strawmen arguements, let me provide a few links for your perusal: Air Marshall Abuse and Public Indigity . These are the tip of the iceberg, as these events are not directed with purpose or malice, but a simple outgrowth of conditions. I have no wish to experience the horror the Argentinian people did when they were subject to secret laws.

This suspension of the Bill of Rights at the sole discretion of the Administration is literally an unprecedented extension of authoritarian power to the President.

It's not unprecedented.

I Absolutely agree. I attended a very prestigious science and engineering school which cost way too much, and I regret it every time I write a student loan payment check.

I believe we should try going back to old-fashioned apprenticeships, wherein a young (wo)man goes to work for someone in the field they wish to persue. They would actually get paid for learning, instead of the opposite. They would also be able to learn if their chosen field was not for them, with very little penalty. The way it stands now, a kid can drop $100K on college, and then start work only to find that the career path they've chosen holds no interest for them.

I highly recommend reading a great article on this subject by Gary North: Why the Job Market Is Slanted in Favor of College Graduates . See if it doesn't challenge some of your opinions on the value of a college education...

Fact 1: National ID cards were used in Saddam Hussein's Iraq to track, then torture and kill people who said "bad things" about Hussein.

Fact 2: National ID cards were used to oppress citizens of the Soviet Union (do a find on "7. INTERNAL PASSPORTS").

Fact 3: Eastern Europeans experienced oppression and idiocy via national ID cards too.

Rumor 1 ("rumor", because it comes from prisonplanet.com rather than a more-reliable source): The Dept. of Homeland Security has hired the former head of socialist East Germany's infamous "Stasi" domestic spy agency - the same man who architected their national ID program.

Fact 4: Today, the U.S. House has approved by a 261-161 vote to institute an electronic national ID card system for all Americans.

Chances are good that President Bush will sign this into law, claiming that it will help fight terrorism and other boogeymen, nevermind the fact that the 9/11 hijackers used IDs as legit as anybody else's.

Question: From whom are you "free" of observation and interference when you are required to possess means of constant monitoring? Where is your right to be left alone, as suggested by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis in his famous dissent in 1928?

Even former President Ronald Reagan recognized the danger of national ID cards, albeit, from the perspective of Biblical prophecy. What about today's Republicans? Oh, that's right, Reagan Republicanism is dead, except in convenient revivals of peoples' dreams of a (relatively) freer, happier, more-hopeful America for which Reagan is so well remembered. No, the new cheer among Republicans is "long live big government totalitarian bureaucracy!" as imposed by President Bush.

Most Republicans in government are fuckwads. If they want my vote, or the vote of anybody who is even *remotely* interested in protecting the civil liberties and Constitutional protections for which the U.S. has been so famous and well-regarded, then they'd do well to listen to one of their own.

Until then, fuck that coke-snorting, basement-level-IQ RINO running the country, fuck those groupthink RINOs in Congress. Real Republicans vote against totalitarianism and in favor of federalism -- precisely the opposite traits of any national ID program we could ever institute.

Fucking commie pinko red-staters, every one of them.

Fact 1: National ID cards were used in Saddam Hussein's Iraq to track, then torture and kill people who said "bad things" about Hussein.

Fact 2: National ID cards were used to oppress citizens of the Soviet Union (do a find on "7. INTERNAL PASSPORTS").

Fact 3: Eastern Europeans experienced oppression and idiocy via national ID cards too.

Rumor 1 ("rumor", because it comes from prisonplanet.com rather than a more-reliable source): The Dept. of Homeland Security has hired the former head of socialist East Germany's infamous "Stasi" domestic spy agency - the same man who architected their national ID program.

Fact 4: Today, the U.S. House has approved by a 261-161 vote to institute an electronic national ID card system for all Americans.

Chances are good that President Bush will sign this into law, claiming that it will help fight terrorism and other boogeymen, nevermind the fact that the 9/11 hijackers used IDs as legit as anybody else's.

Question: From whom are you "free" of observation and interference when you are required to possess means of constant monitoring? Where is your right to be left alone, as suggested by Supreme Court Justice Lewis Brandeis in his famous dissent in 1928?

Even former President Ronald Reagan recognized the danger of national ID cards, albeit, from the perspective of Biblical prophecy. What about today's Republicans? Oh, that's right, Reagan Republicanism is dead, except in convenient revivals of peoples' dreams of a (relatively) freer, happier, more-hopeful America for which Reagan is so well remembered. No, the new cheer among Republicans is "long live big government totalitarian bureaucracy!" as imposed by President Bush.

Most Republicans in government are fuckwads. If they want my vote, or the vote of anybody who is even *remotely* interested in protecting the civil liberties and Constitutional protections for which the U.S. has been so famous and well-regarded, then they'd do well to listen to one of their own.

Until then, fuck that coke-snorting, basement-level-IQ RINO running the country, fuck those groupthink RINOs in Congress. Real Republicans vote against totalitarianism and in favor of federalism -- precisely the opposite traits of any national ID program we could ever institute.

Fucking commie pinko red-staters, every one of them.

Republicans essentially stand for lowering taxes, decreasing the size/amount of government and government regulation, etc, etc.

It's been a very long time since the Republicans have done any of those things in earnest. Even Bush's allegedly tight budget proposal this year is actually 7% higher than last year's.

Neither major party is interested in shrinking the government. They are the government. And therein lies the problem.

> What does it matter if it's true or not? Kim
> Jong Il admitting to having WMDs is already more
> proof than was necessary to invade Irak...

Yeah. UN should really embargo Israel.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/wittner8.html

> The real trouble comes when terrorists make a deal with North Korea saying
> "ok, tell the U.S. to get out of OUR country or you'll push the button."

That would mean real equality among nations.

Now we have US ripping apart NPT, while at the same time trying to enforce it elsewhere:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/wittner8.html

The Constitution?

Yes, Yes! By all means, wave a piece of paper at them..that'll stop 'em!

I heard Randy Weaver was waving the Constitution at the FBI right before they shot and killed his wife. For some strange reason, it didn't stop the bullet. Must have been a defective copy..hmm..

Of course there is going to be lower prices where Microsoft is competing. If you have to compete with someone who breaks all the rules it is hard. One of the things you are going to have to do is lower prices.

Microsoft is a large company. If you are competing with them then you are facing a lot of competition (a significant proportion of the total marketing budget for the whole software industry is Microsoft's) so of course there is more pressure on you to lower prices.

"First, in a poll of adult computer users taken by USA Today, only 6 percent said that "reducing Microsoft's influence" was a "major issue" to them. Most consumers love Microsoft's products. " As much as 6% of computer users think reducing Microsoft's influence is important? In other words most people who have actually used a computer that is not running Microsoft software (windows) think Microsoft is a bad thing, so bad in fact that reducing their influence is a "major issue". Hardly anyone thinks reducing Esso's influence in the oil market is a major issue but there is a whole campaign to boycott them, people hate Esso. Sounds like people hate Microsoft's products to me.

Just because prices fall because a company exists it doesn't make it good. It is well known that companies with too much market power lower prices to squeeze out competition so they can raise prices later and stop innovating (predatory pricing). This is a problem where there are barriers to entry in a market. Computer software has some of the highest barriers to entry of any market. You have to spend almost all of your costs (development costs) before you make a cent and there are proprietary standards that mean it is very hard to compete with an established rival since everything uses there standard.

This guy actually doesn't believe in market failure. Of course he thinks anti-trust laws are bad.

We're turning into squalid East Germany [...]

Agreed; I even found the fact that they used "Homeland" which sounds so much like "Fatherland" to be mildly entertaining.

But they took it from a long US playbook, which includes the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) checking the 1938 Nazi gun control laws out of the Library of Congress immediately prior to writing the US's 1968 gun control laws--which look surprisingly like the 1938 version! (In fact, barring translation issues, they're almost word-for-word according to the second link.)

I don't know which bothers me more:
1. That they do these things intentionally;
2. That we allow them to do it without raising holy hell;
3. That we keep voting them into office.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/khan1.html
http://www.indyweek.com/durham/2002-12-18/first.ht ml

The first two links from a google search of "jealous of our freedom"....

Seriously, this is a great essay, The Revolution Was.

Anyone that hasn't yet really ought to read it. It's long, and some of it is a bit hard, but you'll be amazed. You think 1984 is scary?

Read it.

Go look at what Republicans actually do, as opposed to what they talk about -- two completely different things (aside from one case, Ron Paul, who's actually a libertarian). The Republican party endorses the socialization of various industries; you don't hear them calling to eliminate medicare, medicaid, social security, anti-"price-gouging" laws, or the rest. And of course, War is the most anti-free-market thing you can do, and Republicans have historically been all about war-monger. The Republican party is true to its roots, though, in Abraham Lincoln, who was a fascist protectionist in the mold of Hamilton and Clay. Under Republicans, the State expands even more than under Democrats.

How about twenty?

Yes and we spent an enormous amount of money doing everything we could to prevent those bombs from hitting high density civilian targets.

A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.

don't.

Picking Neither of Two Evils
II
III

don't.

Picking Neither of Two Evils
II
III

don't.

Picking Neither of Two Evils
II
III

Funnily enough the inflation figures (specifically the CPI) doesn't even include housing prices, which during this "real estate boom" have been shooting through the roof (as it were).

CBS has a much, much larger audience than Fox granted, but in competitive spirit, why go after the smaller Fox (no pund intended) when you can go after a big one like CBS. And so the commericalization of media is played out, where the competitors don't see a need to

• 1. define & investigate the story (i.e. someone did get preferential treatment) to get to the real truth regardless of lies and correct by saying what really happened.
• And 2. Identify by name the wrongful sources (i.e. someone flat out try to manipulate) that tried to create a conspiracy (dems AND repbs included) to discredit.

In the end, are we really informed?

Otherwise, I put my vote in for Wonkette too. It does reflect attitude and reality of the politics in DC.

Strike The Root Blog
KarenDeCoster.com Web Log

And as long as you're already surfing, check out the main sites too:

LewRockwell.com
Strike the Root

To keep abreast of liberty, I read the following:

Mises Blog
Lew Rockwell's Blog

To find out what the enemies of liberty are up to, I also read:

Daily Kos
Atrios
InstaPundit
Andrew Sullivan

I mentioned this in another thread, as well, and the more I read up on it, the more I feel that voting is just giving sanction to a corrupt system.

This is a nice archive of articles on non-voting, and I'd say this one is a good place to start.

Granted, I'll still probably go fill in the blank, knowing that it won't matter, and my vote won't make either party change it's plans -- they'll still go just a socialist no matter who I vote for, but hey, it's nice to read some opposing viewpoints.

(-1, OffTopic)

I mentioned this in another thread, as well, and the more I read up on it, the more I feel that voting is just giving sanction to a corrupt system.

This is a nice archive of articles on non-voting, and I'd say this one is a good place to start.

Granted, I'll still probably go fill in the blank, knowing that it won't matter, and my vote won't make either party change it's plans -- they'll still go just a socialist no matter who I vote for, but hey, it's nice to read some opposing viewpoints.

(-1, OffTopic)