Slashdot Mirror

I read the Thalidomide parts and skimmed some of the other paragraphs, and she kept talking about "agression". So I clicked on the book cover. Here's an exertp of the blurb on the flyleaf:

I know what the book is about; I've actually read the whole book.

Dr. Ruwart shows us how to transcend these win-lose scenarios by systematically applying the win-win tactics to our social interaction that have proves so successful in our personal lives. HEALING OUR WORLD is the first book to integrate the common elements of our Judeo-Christian heritage, the personal self-responsibility of the Aquarian Age, and the political self-responsibility of the worldwide libertarian movement. "The Easy Way Out" os the realization that others do not create our global harmony and abundance any more than they create our inner peace and enrichment; our reactions to others determine our fate.

So, libertarian views on government, Judeo-Christian view on morality, and "Aquarian Age" views on personal responsibility. Sorry, I don't generally take advise from schizophrenics.

Riiight... Well, when you're ready to act like an adult instead jamming your fingers in your ears because you're hearing something that challenges your current world view, we can continue this debate. :)

In the meantime, if you want to understand what the big deal with "aggression" is, feel free to read "The Gun in the Room" by Stefan Molyneux. Of course, if you'd like to just dismiss that guy out of hand, too, some people think he's the leader of some sort of cult, so feel free to just point to that and ignore the substance of the essay.

Here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard180.html

In a sense, it's a scare tactic. "Just think what the world would be like without all these books, movies, etc.!" At best, it's Machiavellian: the ends justify the means. Stephan Kinsella (an attorney and author specializing in "intellectual property", international law, and Internet law) wrote in a September, 2000 article on Napster, utilitarianism, and the second homesteading principle:

First, even if a given policy could increase "net" wealth by redistributing property from A to B, that does not justify the policy. The goal of law is justice, not wealth maximization. B may be helped "more" than A is harmed by redistribution, but how does this justify the harm done to A? By the reasoning of utilitarians, we could not condemn every act of theft, rape, or murder; we would have to weigh the benefit to the thief, rapist, or murderer against the harm suffered by the victim, to determine whether or not the crime should be permitted. In cases where the aggressor enjoys his crime "more" than it harms the victim, it is not a crime at all, and should be permitted, since net wealth is increased. Clearly, this is a wholly immoral and unprincipled view.

If this fact were well understood, support for copyright, patents, and trademarks would be much lower than it is today. Hence the emphasis on using terms like "rights" and particularly "Intellectual Property", which pro-monopoly people and companies use to frame the debate on terms that are favorable to themselves. This is one reason it's important to avoid using such terms when discussing this type of enforced monopoly, except of course when critiquing the terms themselves.

Kinsella continues:

Finally, even if we set aside the problems of interpersonal utility comparisons and the justice of redistribution and plow ahead and employ standard utilitarian measurement techniques, it is not at all clear that IP laws do lead to an increase or decrease in overall wealth.(8) That is, it has not been demonstrated that the "costs" of copyright and other IP laws outweigh the benefits of such laws. Utilitarian analysis is thoroughly confused and bankrupt: talk about increasing the size of the pie is methodologically flawed; there is no clear evidence that the pie size is increased by IP rights; and in any event pie growth simply does not justify the use of force against the otherwise-legitimate property of others. For these reasons, utilitarian defenses of IP are not persuasive.

...

Not only is utilitarianism morally insufficient to justify property redistribution, but it is incoherent as well. As Austrian economists have shown, the utilitarian weighing of costs against benefits requires the impossible be done, namely making interpersonal utility comparisons, as when the "costs" of copyright laws are subtracted from the "benefits" to determine whether such laws are a net benefit. In short, there is no way to compare the benefit to B and the detriment to A of a given redistributionist policy, because values and disvalues have no cardinal magnitude. The reason for this is that values are subjective and ordinal, not cardinal.

As for the claim that without copyright, fewer works would be created, there's no solid evidence of that position. What we have seen is quite contrary. For example, the abundance of Free/Open Source software is a great argument against this position. It's not even true that free software authors never get monetary compensation for their works. Many companies hire programmers to improve existing free software projects. Neither is free sof

There's actually some effort out there to pass that last unpassed amendment, about the size of the House of Representatives:

• http://www.thirty-thousand.org/
• http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-11-16_069_the_case_for_bigger_government.mp3

@jester:

"Was it because CNN doesn't show that kind of thing as policy, or was it just because it was too close to home and they didn't want to upset people further?"

I'd say you pretty much answered your own question. For a more balanced perspective than U.S. corporate MSM I'd recommend:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/ (center left by European standards hard left by American standards)

http://antiwar.com/ (Libertarian anti imperialist excellent tracking of conflict around the world)

http://commondreams.org/ (Liberal/left compilation of news from around the world)

http://counterpunch.org/ (Hard left with occasional Libertarianesque essays)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/ ("anti state, anti war, pro market" essays)

Yeah this list is slanted to the left if you go to all these sites and balance it with the BBC and our center right to hard right corporate MSM, you can ALMOST figure out what's going on in the world. Good luck having a life though. :(

And yet, the bailout and so forth was actually foreseen by some, INCLUDING free marketeers such as (yes, him) Ron Paul...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html

Now, I have no idea whether his reasoning is sound, so give it your best shot. But that does seem, to me at least, pretty impressive...

the rich get richer, the poor get poorer

That's because the rich invest the time to learn how to generate wealth and then do it. It's a skill almost anyone can learn. Those who don't simply have other priorities. We still live in a mostly free society in western world. It's one thing to be starving on the streets, but anyone who has enough money to have a tv and the time to watch it has all the resources they need to become wealthy.

The other reason why the poor get poorer is because of fiat currency and fractional reserve banking. This allows for rampant inflation. Inflation is a tax on the middle and lower class. Everytime banks or governments borrow money from a central bank (e.g. the Federal Reserve), new money is added to the money supply, created out of nothing. As the holders of these loans spend the money, they get its full buying power, while the buying power of dollars everyone else holds gets diluted, essentially robbing the savings of the middle class.

Insider trading is really a minor issue. If the other stockholders truly feel they lost value, they should be the ones suing.

Are you sure? [mp3]. 146 million flu shots were made for the 08-09 flu season. Of those, 100 million of those contain a full dose of mercury. That's 250 times the EPA safety limit. It's been shown that adults who regularly get the flu shot have a 10 fold increased chance of Alzheimer's. Educate yourself.

Churchill, as usual, was wrong. The best alternative to democracy, imho, is no government. Please take a look at the following and let me know what you think:

Democracy: The God That Failed
The Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard

I think that statement is very much open to debate after the last few months. A better statement would be people believe in regulated free markets. Completely free markets would just be handing all the worlds money to a bunch of wolves who are already using the global economy as a giant casino with all the tables rigged in their favor. The challenge is in figuring out the fine line between enough regulation, not enough and to much.

Do you realize the Fed was created in 1913, the big crash happened in the late 1920s. And now Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are government entities - that with various acts starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 under Carter and getting amendments over time, encouraged lending to the risks a normal banker would see a mile away?

Please spout off on more regulation. Greenspan hasn't been for free markets since he headed the Fed, the exact opposite of a free market entity.

This financial downturn has been predicted by free marketeers since 2002 by the likes of Ron Paul and Peter Schiff:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html

http://www.amazon.com/Crash-Proof-Economic-Collapse-Sonberg/dp/0470043601

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

or the CEOs of most of the companies out there. It was the fundamental nature of our monetary system and banking itself. It is built into the fabric of our society. Has been for centuries.

e.g.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/frb.html

and/or:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-905047436258345

But hey look. There's an election coming! Maybe something will change. LOL.

They were wrong. part of the problem is Government intrusion into the market. The market should be allowed to determine what lives and what dies

What the hell do you think Greenspan did? Jesus fucking christ, that was his *entire policy*! And now what does he say? "Oh, sorry, I assumed self-interest would be enough for businesses to protect shareholders, but... I guess not." Translation: people are douchebags, and leaving the market to regulate itself is a recipe for disaster.

Mark my words, this disaster will see the end of popular support for libertarian economic ideals, for at least the next decade. And rightly so, IMHO.

The current economic situation is not the result of deregulation and "libertarian economic ideals". For starters, the government has had its grubby hand in this mess long before Hoover tried to suspend wages (ironically enough, Hoover's administration has been accused of a failure of laissez-faire economics) and has continued mucking around in it:

• The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 has encouraged lenders to give credit to surrounding communities, particularly low and moderate income neighborhoods.
• The outpooring of federal money into companies such as AIG is anything but a hands-off policy. Look at how AIG is spending its newly acquired money, they're holding expensive parties at posh resorts. What a perfect use of government regulation and intervention.
• On that same note, the money from the $700b bailout was intended to buy up depressed mortgages but we're now learning that many banks are looking to expand and acquire other institutions with the money or, simply, hold on to the money. Banks aren't the only ones looking for action though, as Insurers, automakers and American subsidiaries of foreign banks are all lobbying the Treasury for a piece of the pie.
• Libertarians were harping on Fannie and Freddie back in 2003, knowing that it could lead to a problem in the housing market. This problem, is attributed to government intervention.
• Sarbanes-Oxley was supposed solve the most pressing problem at the time: accounting fraud. The SEC had its budget doubled, new laws imposed stiff fines and lengthy prison times were threatened. However, legislators were behind the curve and new problems emerged precisely because of our regulating authority's encouragement of unsound banking practices. This demonstrates that, no matter what, Government cannot foresee the future and will always be behind the curve in regulation.
• And then there's the Fed, which, with its low interest rates and steady supply of new credit, encouraged the housing boom.

America has never fully tested libertarian ideals in the economy, but has a history of criticizing them for government failures in the economy. Government has proven its inclination to reward private-sector failure with its 85 billion bailout of AIG. Bailouts, reregulation, and tax increases are not the solution; such measures are the root cause of our current crisis. The American public must come to recognize the true nature of our current problems in order to avoid further deterioration of our liberties.

Not entirely true: the real trick with the "subprime" loans was in 1995, when the ACORN extortion racket (of which Obama was a happily willing participant in an attack-dog role) was set up. The gist of it was that it changed the CRA by halting all growth actions of a bank (mergers, acquisitions, etc) until all CRA-based complaints against them were resolved in the courts.

Enter ACORN (and attack-dog lawyers like Obama), who saw a gold mine, and began shaking down lenders for "donations" and the issuance of more and more "subprime loans" to people who couldn't possibly meet the Three C's (Capacity, Collateral, Consistency) standards for getting a loan. The conversation really does read like a mafia tactic; the lawyers would come in, have a "meeting" with bank officials, and if the officials didn't cooperate, the result was the filing of enough frivolous CRA complaints to throw the bank for a loop till it gave in.

A few links, if I may:
Link 1
Link 2: Obama's name on a frivolous ACORN extortion suit
Link 3: New York Post
Link 4

Now, this isn't enough to cause big problems. What happened a few years later, though, is that Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac (the GSE's who wound up buying a lot of these loans later) figured out a scam: to roll the mortgages into a bundle, sell a "security" based on them under ridiculously optimistic "mark-to-model" prices, and sell them out into the market. And of course, other banks and lending companies wanted to follow suit, and they got their chance to do it in 1999 when the Glass-Steagall reforms were repealed and the major lending institutions were allowed to slide into the market and start issuing all sorts of securities again.

Just one thing is never the problem. It's when you stack them up that they start to grow exponentially, and then you get everything going wrong at once. Think of it kind of like fat people: diet alone can help you gain weight but it can't make you "obese." Lack of exercise, if you eat relatively little, won't do it either.

But if (on the other hand) you're a slob who wolfs down 3500 calories a day and whose only exercise is lifting the TV remote and occasionally dragging your ponderous bulk to the bathroom to expel the inevitable results of eating and drinking into the porcelain throne...

It's interesting that we've finally come to a time where people are actually vocally discussing a change of the whole system. That really says something about the magnitude of the changes that are happening.

That said I think you got it quite right about the problem being that humans govern other humans and thus face a conflict of interest.

However I dare to claim that the program you are proposing already exists and is in place and has been for practically ever since humans existed on this planet. That program is indeed open source to the core and completely free for everyone to participate in. It is called THE FREE MARKET.

If the problem is humans governing other humans how about letting human individuals governing ONLY themselves. I govern me and you govern yourself. If you want somebody else to do something for you or believe as you do, do not apply force to make them comply (like the current governments do), but instead use persuasion and other PEACEFUL non-violent means. And if it doesn't work then simply give up. Using violence against another (which current governments unfortunately legitimize, even while forbidding everyone else from doing it, thus taking a monopoly on violence) only results in more violence - violence breeds more violence.

This is not anarchy in the sense most people have been taught to look at anarchy. It is not lawlessness in the same sense either. It is simply a lack of a coercive ruler in place of self-rulers trading both value and ideas between each other on a purely voluntary basis. And it is law that is private where the only universal, and natural, principle to be followed by everyone and at the same time enforced by everyone (right to bear arms for defense) is the principle of non-initiation of force or fraud.

This philosophy is called by varying names: anarcho-capitalism, market anarchy, voluntaryism (because the CORE idea is that all human action should be voluntary, not coerced) etc. It is arguably also the original libertarian idea, although nowadays libertarianism is seen as compromising with coercion and government a bit too much so with respect to that we can call it a subset of libertarianism, or libertarian purism.

Lastly I want to refer anyone who didn't before think this idea through to check out these sites:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism
http://www.mises.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://freedomainradio.com/ (a fairly popular podcast by a genious market anarchist philosopher Stefan Molyneux which can with great proficiency answer every question you might have about market anarchy).

If you're curious enough that you'd give a book a chance, there's a free one with an audio book available here called "The Market for Liberty": http://freekeene.com/free-audiobook/

It changed my life.

And if you are convinced already or become sufficiently convinced after exploring this, there is good news: a place where free market and liberty stand most chance in the world: New Hampshire, because of a project of moving thousands of liberty minded people to it: http://www.freestateproject.com/

Thanks for your consideration (and sorry for such a long post, I'm just too passionate about this). I truly hope that instead of worsening conditions for our freedoms, this shift we are seeing happening in the world opens the eyes of people towards the true nature of coercive governance and what freedom truly is).

Float your boat so long as it doesn't sink mine.

close, they can beat you up and shoot you and of course, you did it to yourself. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/higgs-e1.html

i was actually looking for a story about an army private who was shot in the leg, and all record of his ever being shot were erased, it made the local news... but this story was better, so...

btw i realize this has only happened (reportedly, anyways) to 'army' privates, and of course, Iraqis and Afghanistan people, but it's amazing how some people with pull in the military can abuse the system.

I've got some upsetting news for you:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html

Look at the date. September of 2003. That's when Ron Paul, the only guy in DC that is being honest with us about monetary policy and central banks, laid out just how bad the government was fucking us by letting the Fed prop up fannie and freddie.

Letting financial institutions that make poor choices fail IS a market correction and IS part of a market dynamic. When the market is distorted by government intervention -- as Paul explains above -- naturally the problem will get worse before it will get better, and it will become "our" problem instead of the problem of one bank and its investors.

Do you think that COINTELPRO and spying on civil rights activists was worse than an administration that has said they don't believe in habeas corpus

Bush wasn't the first US president to deny habeas corpus. Though another president may have before him, the first president I know of that did deny habeas corpus was President Lincoln. And just as this Supreme Court ruled, the Supreme Court in his day ruled suspending habeas corpus was unconstitutional.

Falcon

Man, you sound like the southern states - I thought we took care of state rights with that little civil war of Northern Aggression? Some say Lincoln was the father of big government. Big Business won, state's rights lost, and further rights have kept slipping ever since.

The founders really didn't want an all powerful central government - good intentions and paving the way have taken care of the original design.

Since corporations are inherently more powerful than individuals, and utterly amoral on top of that, they need to be kept in tight leash.

Probably the single biggest reason corporations are so powerful is because they give stockholders limited liability. However, in general, Libertarians would end that limited liability. Personally I probably wouldn't so far as to totally eliminate it, because of the limit on liability a corporation can take more risks than individuals can. This is why corporations were granted charters to begin with. The first two charters granted to corporations were given to the Honourable East India Company in 1600 and the Dutch East India Company in 1602. Both were shipping companies facilitating trade between Great Britain and the Netherlands and India respectively. Shipping was a financially risky business, ships could be attacked by pirates or be sunk by bad weather. If a shop was lost the ship owner was financially liable, for both the cargo and for the lives of the crew. No matter how wealthy an owner was they could lose everything, even their home. So charters were granted to corporations to limit the liability of stockholders, the most a stockholder could lose was the money they invested in the corporation. With this limit more people were willing to invest in shipping which boosted trade and benefited a lot of people.

However what is overlooked today was that a corporation had to serve the common, or public, good. If a corporation did not do so it could have it's corporate charter Revoked.

While this sound fine on the surface, it would make investing an unacceptably high risk activity for anyone who can't watch the company full-time.

Actually it shouldn't take that much tyme or effort, no more than people should take anyway. Stockholders should hold the corporation accountable. They need to read any and all proxies they get and make sure they understand them. They can support shareholder resolutions. They need to be Activist Shareholders. If that's too much work, then they can invest in Socially responsible investing, SRI, mutual funds. Anyway, those who are active in their investments and oppose something the corporation does that causes harm or supports responsible and sustainable activities shouldn't lose their limited liability. Also corporate executives should be held responsible as well. Other than the captain not one person was held responsible the Exxon Valdez nor was anyone held accountable for the Union Carbide Bhopal disaster.

The core libertarian principle of removing government control would allow powerful entities to get away with whatever they want, because with government power gone, who's going to stop them ?

Government control is not the same as the control a court can wield. I have not heard of one Libertarian who wants a weak justice system. Actually I bet many would prefer to make it easier for people to sue corporations. Then if it is found it is not serving the public good then it's charter can be revoked.

Libertarianism would lead to the return of feudalism, which was, after all, rule by those who owned the land and could thus afford to hire armies to enforce their will,

I suggest you research the economics of slavery. The economics of slavery was unsustainable. It cost more to hire and keep an army than it costs to pay freemen a living wage. It was Libertarians, then called Liberals as in

Ok, so why not the 2nd and 4th? If the SCOTUS believe that the Fourteenth Amendment allows for full Incorporation, why haven't they fully incorporated it?

Just because some recent rulings seem to fall towards the belief that we now live with the BoR fully Incorporated does not mean that they are fully Incorporated. It's a sham to make that belief.

For the simple-minded who refuse to accept that there is no Incorporation, nor will there ever be, here are some resources by Constitutional scholars:

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights (PDF!!) Berger, Raoul
Fourteenth Amendment and Selective Incorporation Links, Jim Allison
The Truth about the Fourteenth Amendment, Thomas DiLorenzo
States Rights Traditions that Nobody Knows, Thomas Woods

Google Raoul Berger, he has numerous articles and books on the matter as well.

I've seen a theory that the reason for invading Iraq was that in late 2000 Saddam switched to using the Euro. Iran's promoting the same switch, and the talk of war with them keeps popping up.

Yep. It's actually a theory backed by Ron Paul. This the speech where he presented it to the House in 2006: The End of Dollar Hegemony.

There is reasonable debate occurring on the morality of an organ market.

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8173039
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/murphy-s2.html

You are correct that Plasmacutter is advocating the abolishment of (at least some) private property rights. (the right I have to decide what others are allowed to do and say on my website, my land and in my house) Does that make him a communist? The NRA is also advocating the abolishment of some private property rights when they support laws that makes it illegal to forbid guns on your property. Does that make the NRA communists?

The US did more environmental damage with DU than anyone could do with what is essentially purified dirt, insoluble, acid leached, crushed ore. Those on the giving end were also exposed to DU and some became ill. How's that for hypocrisy?

Tens of millions of dollars worth of yellowcake is a tiny percentage of the loot that was the real objective of the Iraq war.

So Ron Paul was right after all. If we just BUTT OUT of the world militarily and politically, ...and stop pulling tigers tails everywhere we find them, ...and stop leaving our military everywhere ...and stop promising to be in Iraq for another 100 years... and stop building military bases and a US Embassy bigger than the VATICAN... then maybe with a few years gone by after all that... maybe then we could trade and have commerce and live peaceably in the world.

ahh but WAR IS THE HEALTH OF THE STATE, profitable for government that it is, there will be no chance of that...

American Dollars are less than worthless right now- "Barclays Capital has advised clients to batten down the hatches for a worldwide financial storm, warning that the US Federal Reserve has allowed the inflation genie out of the bottle and let its credibility fall "below zero". - Telegraph.co.uk

And to back that one up:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/katz-j/katz-j28.html

Implying that we're all getting shipped off to the Gulag for using Azureus: Sensationalist

Ask someone in China behind the Golden Shield. If we build the same mechanisms and have similar laws, we will see the same abuse. Others have made the case very well without knowledge of internet press issues. You are not looking at the usual opinions of left wing radicals, you are looking at the whole spectrum of thoughtful society that's shocked and outraged. From WSJ reporters to Naval Academy graduates and Admirals. Fundamental rights and laws are being raped. The nubjobs doing it will cost us all dearly.

Deliberately confusing copyright with freedom of speech and trying to make a point that it should be eliminated because you don't like it, when the problem is really in the enforcement: Disingenuous.

The only confusion here is yours. Tell me how Virgin cutting me off is not a violation of free speech. What happens if every ISP honors RIAA blacklists? As more and more business is conducted on line, getting kicked offline will be more and more like stealing everything they have and throwing them onto the street.

I'll grant you that the problem is enforcement. Society should not waste it's time and money on copyright enforcement and that enforcement should never violate natural rights. Society should not trade it's freedom for entertainment. Free press is more important than all the games, movies and music owned by big publishers and other unfriendly assholes who think they are owed your home for sharing a few dozen songs.

the vast majority of it [P2P] revolves around copyright infringement

Irrelevant bullshit.

Someone who's writing looks exactly like the industry talking points laboriously repeated here should not be talking about sockpuppets.

These are the reasons corporate assholes fear a free press. They want to be above the law in every way and they don't want you to have a way to complain or do anything about it.

The US DID NOT declare war on Germany in WWII.

"America declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941 and upon Germany two days later."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_American_shots_fired_in_World_War_II

You're not saying that wikipedia could possibly be in any way fallible, are you?

Leaving that aside, it's quite clear that Roosevelt had been waging an undeclared war hidden from the public.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs77.html

Hitler himself didn't want to fight either England or the US, he wanted their allegiance in an anti-Communist alliance. Which would make for a more interesting alternative history series than the Turtledove books, I'm sure.

You're willfully misreading my words in order to insinuate that I would support loyalty oaths. This will be the last reply I write to you as I regard you to be dishonest.

What's elitist is the claim that there is no right to free speech seperate from ownership of property. The idea of public property an an open forum is important to me. What makes the first amendment important is its implications to public property. Mr. Kinsella is totally against the concept of public property. "What I am getting at is that the state does own many resources, even if (as I and other anarcho-libertarians believe) the state has no natural or moral right to own these things," he writes.

See http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella18.html

In Mr. Kinsella's ideal world, all property is private. Everywhere you go, you do so at the pleasure of a property owner. Everything you say or do while there is dependant upon remaining in his good graces.

What is monarchy but anarcho-libertarianism with a single property owner? That's why I say he's an elitist.

No, Stephen Kinsella is not a follower of Ayn Rand. In fact, I think he gets a great deal of pleasure out of mocking them:

http://blog.mises.org/archives/004065.asp

This column, An Unnatural Disaster: A Hurricane Exposes the Man-Made Disaster of the Welfare State by capital-O Objectivist Robert Tracinski makes some insightful points, if you can get past the giggle-inducing Objectivist stock-phrases like "sense of life".

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/010779.html

I've noted before Randians' bizarre practice of "officially" "breaking" with one another (other comments on this).

Now some Objectivists who actually have a sense of humor have made up an "Official Solo Schism Form Letter". Funny stuff. The letter is lampooning Objectivist nobody Diana Mertz Hsieh, who felt compelled to Officially, Publicly Break with a former Objectivist friend, the brilliant Chris Sciabarra (who is a decent, sincere, honest person who did not deserve to be treated like this), and to justify it by printing his private correspondence to her and a set of charges to any normal person would appear very bizarre (strange for a Randian, eh?).

...

Update: Just came across the latest Official Objectivist Denunciation: Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute has apparently been pestered into apologizing for having =gasp= published a short piece in the "Journal of Ayn Rand Studies". Bernstein's apology states "I deeply regret my thoughtless decision to contribute to this journal, and hereby irrevocably repudiate any and all association with it."

Well, then, Dr. Bernstein--it's official--and more than that, irrevocable! Thanks for letting us know!

He goes on: "To all who are sincerely concerned with Objectivism, I apologize, and recommend a complete repudiation and boycott of this journal and of any and all of Mr. Sciabarra's work."

Okay! I hereby repudiate and boycott Sciabarra.

And now I take it back! ha ha, I forgot to make it irrevocable!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/bacon1.html

Here are a couple of sources on those prefixes which TFA seems to have confused. They agree with each other:
SearchStorage Definitions
Extreme prefixes

This last one mentions even higher prefixes like vendeka (10^33).

I have a picture for you. Look familiar? Killed in captivity. He entered that death camp alive and in good health. There's another death camp down in Cuba. We're lobbing missles at civilians with impunity in Somalia and carting off "terror suspects" to more death camps in Ethiopia. You have citizens disappearing off the street, being held in secret and tortured, with no trial or charges for years. Tell me, when does it get to be Nazi enough for you??

You keep saying taxes are theft.

I say people who don't pay taxes (though required to) but enjoy the benefits of being in a country (which requires them to be taxed), they are the thieves.

It is a bit like being member of a club, and saying the membership fee is theft. If you use any of the club facilities without paying the fees, then who is doing the stealing? Even if you just sit in the club premises to talk to your member friends, you are benefiting from the past membership fees and the legacy of it all (club rules created by the committee, infrastructure, contracts with 3rd party suppliers). Even the fact that it's harder for outsiders to wander in and hassle you is a benefit.

Perhaps this will interest you:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w10.html
It kind of highlights what you say nicely.

since there are a fair number of left-wing liberals in the slashdot mix

Perhaps they wouldn't vote for him because they're generally a little more intelligent and knowledgeable than your typical left-wing liberal? Ron Paul talks a good talk, but I would vote for Huckabee before I'd vote for Paul. At least with Huckabee, he's up-front about turning the US into god's dominion on Earth. Paul's a bit more subtle. He's also clueless. He believes the Constitution is "replete" with references to god*. Considering the first sentence he's supposed to utter as President is that he will defend the Constitution, I would think the moron would at least bother to READ the thing first, rather than the Reader's Digest condensed version given to him by his god-fearin' followers.


* Sorry, this had originally been posted at his official blog, but my search turned up this one first and I don't feel like putting that much effort finding the exact URL.

[I]f American citizens were randomly blowing up Islamic sites, would you support forcing the US to do something about it?

Sure. But, if Russia decide to invade America because of a few American citizens blowing up Islamic sites, would you stand by and let the Russians set up a new government, "capitalize" our natural resources, and all the rest? Or would you fight against your "liberators" and assert your own autonomy even if you disagreed with the people that blew up the Islamic sites?

Unfortunately, America has a history of meddling, so there's little reason for the people in the countries we're occupying to believe that America has their best interests at heart. Read your history and find out how the Shah in Iran came to power (and why it's a thorn in our side today). Here's an interesting piece that truly does "reverse the tables": http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bryan2.html

Frankly, I think there's a big double standard. It's one thing for a country to declare war and officially fight[...].

The double standard happens on both sides. You are right in your introductory paragraph that the U.S. did fight against the British. The part you are ignoring is the fact that the Americans were using "dishonorable" guerrilla tactics instead of fighting on open ground. Why? Because the British forces were superior in organization and training. The Americans, true to their nature, changed the rules of the fight and won. Now that the Americans are the powerful, well-organized and well-trained forces, they are whining that the enemy isn't fighting honorably. I believe the newly coined term is "enemy combatant".

You might find the ones that actually know what communism is, stands for, and does of a differing opinion than, say, Americans who really know nothing about suppression, persecution, etc.

Go find a group of African-Americans and tell them that they know nothing about suppression, persecution, etc. I think you will find that you have made a grave error in that assumption.

IMO, no matter how bad you think ANY US president was, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't particularly have wanted to be a citizen under Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, or Hussein.

Again, you show your ignorance of history. The history books are filled with brutal and merciless autocrats, particularly in the Middle Ages, but somehow most societies managed to survive. Yes, it is preferable to live with the most freedom possible, but in the lens of history this has been a recent phenomenon. Unfortunately, with the overreactions to enemies like the communists and terrorists that the grandparent post mentioned, we are slowly reverting back to old forms of autocracy, dynasties, brutal treatment of people, and a lack of freedom.

Plus, in most legal systems I am familiar with, you cannot be exonerated from a lesser crime by claiming, "At least I am not a mass murderer!"

Lew Rockwell and the Mises institute ARE NOT FRIENDS of Paul. You will find that they have been attacking Paul almost non-stop. Lew Rockwell was fired I believe. It was Lew and pals who orchestrated The New Republic release. Not exactly something you do to someone you support.

Some links:

Lew Rockwell Blog

LewRockwell.com Ron Paul News

Past articles by Congressman Ron Paul on LewRockwell.com

Hmm... these don't seem like things that are critical of Paul, do they? in fact, they seem like the work of an ardent supporter.

Lew Rockwell and the Mises institute ARE NOT FRIENDS of Paul. You will find that they have been attacking Paul almost non-stop. Lew Rockwell was fired I believe. It was Lew and pals who orchestrated The New Republic release. Not exactly something you do to someone you support.

Some links:

Lew Rockwell Blog

LewRockwell.com Ron Paul News

Past articles by Congressman Ron Paul on LewRockwell.com

Hmm... these don't seem like things that are critical of Paul, do they? in fact, they seem like the work of an ardent supporter.

Lew Rockwell and the Mises institute ARE NOT FRIENDS of Paul. You will find that they have been attacking Paul almost non-stop. Lew Rockwell was fired I believe. It was Lew and pals who orchestrated The New Republic release. Not exactly something you do to someone you support.

Some links:

Lew Rockwell Blog

LewRockwell.com Ron Paul News

Past articles by Congressman Ron Paul on LewRockwell.com

Hmm... these don't seem like things that are critical of Paul, do they? in fact, they seem like the work of an ardent supporter.

We should instead have a regulatory climate friendly to the numerous private ventures trying to do the same damned thing without using our tax dollars in the process.

What private ventures are these that are putting sciecne satellites in orbit and sending probes to other planets?

Ok, there are a few private ventures interested in giving insanely wealthy people joyrides. NASA should stay out of that business, sure.

Then again, part of RP's appeal comes from his sanity rather than his strict adherence to unrealistic Libertarian ideals

His "sanity" such as his inability to accept the reality of biological evolution, his ability to make medical assessments of patients he's never examined (declaring that IDX is never medically necessary), his opposition to the separation of church and state and his typical Christian-right persecution complex? And his racism? (Paul-ites, before you claim he didn't write those articles, read the link and explain how he claimed authorship of them in 1996, just claiming they were quoted out of context?)

Libertarians need to disassociate themselves from Paul and identify him for what he is: a loon.

Here you go.

He's also written extensively on economics, monetary and foreign policy, and there's a large archive of his speeches in congress here.

-jcr

Anyone who actually supports individual freedom is sure to be popular among the unpopular and oppressed minority groups

Yes, there are problems with the educational system in the U.S. Big ones, even. But that doesn't mean that we should give up on the idea of a well-educated populace. A few hundred years ago the notion of universal literacy would have been laughable, but we have multiple societies today where literacy approaches 100%. I can't help but hear "why should we teach those slaves to read?" in your question, though I know you didn't mean it that way.

I take exception to the idea that we have anywhere near 100% literacy in the U.S. Reading various blogs today points to me that this is true. Literacy rates have FALLEN since compulsory education has been forced on us. Literacy rates in the 1800s were higher than they are today. Google old English books from that time frame and see if the kids today can comprehend any of it.

We live in a society of Cliff's Notes and txt5p3k, definitely not a literate society. Just because a person comprehends phonics enough to "read" doesn't mean that they are literate.

So how about how Paul wants to repeal birthright citizenship, which is part of the 14th Amendment? OK, fine, it's not part of the constitution proper. But neither is freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. Also, he made a rather veiled attack against gays; he wants to [prohibit] the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style. Now, this could be construed as reduction of federal funding in general, but he specifically singles out organizations that promote homosexuality.

He also opposes a renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and thinks the Constitution is "replete with references to God", which it really isn't.