Slashdot Mirror

It is not arrogant to try to defend yourself against a constant an unprovoked attack from a cowardly enemy that hides among the civilian population. Israel did not try to kill kids, and the blame for the deaths of any children that were killed in Lebanon lies soley with the group that started the conflict: Hezbollah. There were thousands of innocent Israeli casualties due to the relentless stream of rockets Hezbollah fired into Israel. Why aren't you calling Hezbollah arrogant too?

I am from the planet where the UN Security Council unanimously passed resolution 687 and over a dozen subsequent resolution that explicitly authorized- even required- the use of military force to get Iraq to expose and dismantle it's weapons programs and stop supporting terrorists (among other things). Since Iraq never did either of those, the use of military force was not only authorized, it was obligated Chapter VII of the UN Charter to force complience.

Any sufficiently organized community is indistinguishable from government.

False.

A government is merely a territorial monopoly of jurisdiction. (See Hans-Hermann Hoppe's summary of his own book, Democracy: The God That Failed.) If you own property and do not surrender your right to sever any contracts with other entities to whom you grant certain powers (e.g., over defense), you have not given over control to a government. Such was the state of the United States prior to the Civil War, when secession was viewed as legitimate. Unfortunately, the primary result of the Civil War was that the national government attained supremacy over the individual states, a reversal of the prior situation.

Cheers,
Kyle

/. is stealing headlines from Lew Rockwell.

P.s. I'm curious as to what premise you disagree with in my argument regarding private terrorism v.s. state terrorism. Do you think the state has a special status when it comes to being allowed to kill innocent people? I'd be quite interested to see how you would justify that level of coercion against innocent people by the state. Though I have many problems with the Libertarian philosophy as a whole I have a great respect for Libertarian/paleo con Murray Rothbard's argument that mass indiscriminate killing by the state is always an act of terrorism as it treats people who wind up as collateral damage as mere means to an end.

"But "aggression" only makes sense on the individual Smith-Jones level, as does the very term "police action." These terms make no sense whatever on an inter-State level. First, we have seen that governments entering a war thereby become aggressors themselves against innocent civilians; indeed, become mass murderers. The correct analogy to individual action would be: Smith beats up Jones, the police rush in to help Jones, and in the course of trying to apprehend Smith, the police bomb a city block and murder thousands of people, or spray machine-gun fire into an innocent crowd. This is a far more accurate analogy, for that is what a warring government does, and in the twentieth century it does so on a monumental scale. But any police agency that behaves this way itself becomes a criminal aggressor, often far more so than the original Smith who began the affair.

********

The libertarian foreign policy, then, is not a pacifist policy. We do not hold, as do the pacifists, that no individual has the right to use violence in defending himself against violent attack. What we do hold is that no one has the right to conscript, tax, or murder others, or to use violence against others in order to defend himself. Since all States exist and have their being in aggression against their subjects and in the acquiring of their present territory, and since inter-State wars slaughter innocent civilians, such wars are always unjust - although some may be more unjust than others. Guerrilla warfare against States at least has the potential for meeting libertarian requirements by pinpointing the guerrilla's battle against State officials and armies, and by their use of voluntary methods to staff and finance their struggle."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard84.htm l

Taps foot I'm waiting for a sound counter argument.

From this statistical analysis of similar screening systems:

The US Census shows that there are about 300 million people living in the USA. Suppose that there are 1,000 terrorists there as well, which is probably a high estimate. The base-rate would be 1 terrorist per 300,000 people. In percentages, that is .00033%, which is way less than 1%. Suppose that NSA surveillance has an accuracy rate of .40, which means that 40% of real terrorists in the USA will be identified by NSA's monitoring of everyone's email and phone calls. This is probably a high estimate, considering that terrorists are doing their best to avoid detection. There is no evidence thus far that NSA has been so successful at finding terrorists. And suppose NSA's misidentification rate is .0001, which means that .01% of innocent people will be misidentified as terrorists, at least until they are investigated, detained and interrogated. Note that .01% of the US population is 30,000 people. With these suppositions, then the probability that people are terrorists given that NSA's system of surveillance identifies them as terrorists is only p=0.0132, which is near zero, very far from one. Ergo, NSA's surveillance system is useless for finding terrorists.

I am not talking about "survivalism" here (...) [but about] an understanding of how to live in reality for the time when all the virtual realities collapse.

Virtual realities lie at the heart of Brave New World, aka the New World Order, "globalism," "democratic capitalism" (as the neo-cons define it), etc. The bargain Brave New World offers is this: if you will only do as Marcuse advises and trade the Reality Principle for the Pleasure Principle, we will enmesh you in virtual realities that will make you happy. True, you will lose your free will, because our virtual realities will condition you to think as we want you to. But they will also give you anything and everything you want. So what if none of it is real? All that matters is that you feel happy, right now.

(...) all of them [virtual realities], without exception, eventually collapse. The complex structures and vast resources required to sustain them are evanescent. (...) answers to the Fourth Generation [of modern war] and to Brave New World, false images both, can only be found at the individual and family level, because that is where the decision to live by the Reality Principle must be made.

I am not talking about "survivalism" here (...) [but about] an understanding of how to live in reality for the time when all the virtual realities collapse.

Virtual realities lie at the heart of Brave New World, aka the New World Order, "globalism," "democratic capitalism" (as the neo-cons define it), etc. The bargain Brave New World offers is this: if you will only do as Marcuse advises and trade the Reality Principle for the Pleasure Principle, we will enmesh you in virtual realities that will make you happy. True, you will lose your free will, because our virtual realities will condition you to think as we want you to. But they will also give you anything and everything you want. So what if none of it is real? All that matters is that you feel happy, right now.

(...) all of them [virtual realities], without exception, eventually collapse. The complex structures and vast resources required to sustain them are evanescent. (...) answers to the Fourth Generation [of modern war] and to Brave New World, false images both, can only be found at the individual and family level, because that is where the decision to live by the Reality Principle must be made.

I am not talking about "survivalism" here (...) [but about] an understanding of how to live in reality for the time when all the virtual realities collapse.

Virtual realities lie at the heart of Brave New World, aka the New World Order, "globalism," "democratic capitalism" (as the neo-cons define it), etc. The bargain Brave New World offers is this: if you will only do as Marcuse advises and trade the Reality Principle for the Pleasure Principle, we will enmesh you in virtual realities that will make you happy. True, you will lose your free will, because our virtual realities will condition you to think as we want you to. But they will also give you anything and everything you want. So what if none of it is real? All that matters is that you feel happy, right now.

(...) all of them [virtual realities], without exception, eventually collapse. The complex structures and vast resources required to sustain them are evanescent. (...) answers to the Fourth Generation [of modern war] and to Brave New World, false images both, can only be found at the individual and family level, because that is where the decision to live by the Reality Principle must be made.

An international treaty is considered law here, but that does not mean it is immune from constitutional questions. This treaty must be balanced with the bill of rights

Hmm. I see. You must be new here.

You live in a trailer park in south milwaukee and drive a used toyota corolla.

Actually, I now own 6 mobile homes in my area (halfway between Milwaukee and Chicago) and am expanding that holding to at least 20 throughout the country in the next few months in hopes of a pending bubble collapse that will leave a lot of families needing a place to move to. The mobile home idea came directly from Gary North's article on opportunities and living expenses last year (the article I link to is a more recent recap of his 2004 opinion that I can't seem to find right now).

Last year the lady and I drove new cars (Land Rover, Volkswagen and a Lexus) and lived in a large house and had a few vacation homes. Liquidating these unneeded assets have expanded our ability to do what we want (travel, spend time with our church, etc) rather than worry about how we'll pay the bills each month.

Who, exactly, do you think wants to "mimic" your lifestyle? Junis?

I'm not sure who Junis is, but considering that I've helped a few dozen people downside their lives and increase their happiness and free time in the last year (through example alone), I think far more people would wish they made adaptations like I did.

There were years when I made a strong 6 figures and had really zero to show for it. Now I can make 1/2 my previous income but my monthly living expenses are about 90% lower. If you're working 50-60 hours a week and have no money to travel, raise kids, spend time with friends and family and do the things you want to do, you may not realize how profitable it can be to downsize extravagently. Owning a US$400,000 house in Chicago was not as amazing as I thought it was (especially since most of my friends owned similar homes on 95% debt). Owning 20 US$20,000 trailers throughout the country that I can live in when I am on a work contract really makes my life easier. Try it sometime.

As for the Toyota Corolla, that has been a long standing joke between friends here and in real life. We're a 4 vehicle family (SUV, Toyota beater, car to drive customers around in and a joy ride vehicle). We're still trying to downsize all those vehicles to two.

If you founded such a company, and if because of your stand, some of your customers actually turned out to be terrorists, who then did some of the things we all fear, like setting off a nuke, how would you feel?

Well, the terrorists use the telephone and mail systems. Should we do away with them? What about cars, didn't they drive to the airport on 9-11?

By the way, here's and interesting link discussing wiretaps and the whole statistics behind this screening. Even in their best-case scenario it's a joke. Extract:

Suppose that NSA's system is more accurate than .40, let's say, .70, which means that 70% of terrorists in the USA will be found by mass monitoring of phone calls and email messages. Then, by Bayes' Theorem, the probability that a person is a terrorist if targeted by NSA is still only p=0.0228, which is near zero, far from one, and useless.

That's what makes the issue difficult; if you try to uphold the liberty we all believe in, there's a chance you can help people who literally want to see us destroyed.

They don't want to see you destroyed; that's the BIG LIE here. They want your country to stop messing about in the middle east. You know, supporting Saddam, installing puppet regimes in Iran and more recently; priority shipping of new weapons to Israel while the rest of the world is screaming for some sanity. You've made them your ememies over your actions, their hatred of America is not rooted in idealogical beliefs.

Yay! Election '08 will include podcasts... of course the podcasts will be of politicians trying very hard not to take a firm stand on controversial issues, making vauge and completly meaningless promises ("I promise to help every American achieve the 'American Dream'"... "I promise to protect America"), and lots of issueless propoganda human interest videos designed to make a candidate more "human" and "likeable" ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDhv15EKJNo&search= al%20gore%20unseen ).

So called "Democracy Activists" will hail it as a great victory for "people power"... meanwhile elections will take place in gerrymandered ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander ) districts to keep incumbent politicians in power, "Campaign Finance Reform" laws like McCain-Feingold will be used to censor political speech ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory16.html ), and third parties will be banned from elections by catch-22 regulations ("Your party needed to have recieved 10% of the vote in the last election in order to be on the ballot this year"... Yeah, but if you are not on the ballot, how the hell do you ever get on the ballot? Essentially the law only allows Republicans or Democrats to run), or banned from gatherings or fundraising by legal harrasment ( http://thirdpartywatch.com/2006/07/10/nude-liberta rian-fundraiser-foiled/ ), etc. And the FBI will be used to spy on political adversaries (done by both Dubya and Clinton).

I expect podcasting to even further degrade journalism and become more sensationalized. Check out the lowering in the quality of debate in 24 years:

1980 Carter Reagan Debate: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans80b.html
2004 Kerry Bush Debate: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html

Here is an example of the difference in questions asked in 1980:
"Mr. President, when you were elected in 1976, the Consumer Price Index stood at 4.8%. It now stands at more than 12%. Perhaps more significantly, the nation's broader, underlying inflation rate has gone up from 7% to 9%. Now, a part of that was due to external factors beyond U.S. control, notably the more than doubling. of oil prices by OPEC last year. Because the United States remains vulnerable to such external shocks, can inflation in fact be controlled? If so, what measures would you pursue in a second term?"

And the type of questions asked in 2004:
"Mr. President, what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?"

I challenge anyone to tell me that the debates haven't turned into a completly idiotic parody of Democracy.

Sorry folks, Democracy was supposed to be about people governing themselves... and by governing themselves, I mean people making decisions for themselves. Having a popularity contest for 300 million people to elect a centralized executive branch and legislative branch with no limits on power whatsoever is not Democracy - It is popular authoritarianism. You doing whatever you want (so long as it doesn't directly harm someone else) is Democracy, electing a tiny oligarchy to have total power over your life, your education, transportation, health care, lifestyle choice, and economics is not democracy - It is popular totalitarianism! Giving the handful of eligble people in the elite political class better viral marketing is not going to do anything to make the country better. It is only going to create the presidential version of the Subserviant Chicken the norm.

I'll defer to some basic facts about anarcho-capitalism (the "true" free market) that Lew Rockwell himself said in 1990:

The Trouble with Licensure

On campaign finance reform, I'll defer to Ron Paul ( Why Is There So Much Money in Politics? ) and another by Lew Rockwell ( Corruption in Government )

For me, campaign finance reform isn't needed -- if you limit the Federal government to the Constitutional limits (or a Federal Government smaller than 1% of the GDP), no amount of bribery would help. Bribes only work with those with massive power, dig? In terms of medical licensing, the AMA is a lobbying group that gives Congress the means to limit the amount of licensed Doctors as well as med students. They restrict the supply of doctors, which increases the costs. They also lobby for every sort of government health-welfare program because they know that the State will never really regulate the money paid for public healthcare.

Regulation in both markets is bad for consumers, prices, quantities, qualities and those who want to work.

I'll defer to some basic facts about anarcho-capitalism (the "true" free market) that Lew Rockwell himself said in 1990:

The Trouble with Licensure

On campaign finance reform, I'll defer to Ron Paul ( Why Is There So Much Money in Politics? ) and another by Lew Rockwell ( Corruption in Government )

For me, campaign finance reform isn't needed -- if you limit the Federal government to the Constitutional limits (or a Federal Government smaller than 1% of the GDP), no amount of bribery would help. Bribes only work with those with massive power, dig? In terms of medical licensing, the AMA is a lobbying group that gives Congress the means to limit the amount of licensed Doctors as well as med students. They restrict the supply of doctors, which increases the costs. They also lobby for every sort of government health-welfare program because they know that the State will never really regulate the money paid for public healthcare.

Regulation in both markets is bad for consumers, prices, quantities, qualities and those who want to work.

I'll defer to some basic facts about anarcho-capitalism (the "true" free market) that Lew Rockwell himself said in 1990:

The Trouble with Licensure

On campaign finance reform, I'll defer to Ron Paul ( Why Is There So Much Money in Politics? ) and another by Lew Rockwell ( Corruption in Government )

For me, campaign finance reform isn't needed -- if you limit the Federal government to the Constitutional limits (or a Federal Government smaller than 1% of the GDP), no amount of bribery would help. Bribes only work with those with massive power, dig? In terms of medical licensing, the AMA is a lobbying group that gives Congress the means to limit the amount of licensed Doctors as well as med students. They restrict the supply of doctors, which increases the costs. They also lobby for every sort of government health-welfare program because they know that the State will never really regulate the money paid for public healthcare.

Regulation in both markets is bad for consumers, prices, quantities, qualities and those who want to work.

Welcome to the club, either way :) I have a ton of friends who still prefer big-L libertarianism (through legal means) than small-l libertarianism (encompassed by a variety of voting and non-voting ideals). The most recent LP problems are REALLY scary because it seems that some of the paleoconservative and paleoliberal policies of the LP are being usurped by neoconservative and neoliberal thoughts.

Keep a look out at the LRC and at the Mises Institute blog for more updates on the LP issue. I gave up my membership a few years ago when I realized that the LP internal politics prevented anything from moving forward. Only in the past 2 years did I realize that voting is also fraudulent, coercive, and against almost everything that can be labeled as "free" or "pro-liberty."

Copyright is one of those issues that even Mises and the LRC don't agree with me on -- I guess I'm a fringe libertarian.

I'm against voting in every way, but the LP is especially bad since their recent reform that now places them closer to the wackos on the New Right. I believe that all federal parties are corrupt: if you look at what the late Harry Browne did within the LP (stole, lied, defrauded, lied, stole, and defrauded), you'd see that almost all politicians are corrupt, especially at the Federal level.

D
D
T

Too much junk science out there to acknowledge something that we should still be using, I guess.

I'd love to know.

Here is an article how Linux IS Capitalist

Libertarians need to learn some marketing. From what I can tell, they are the party that supports selling off all roads and sidewalks, essentially abolishing the right to travel.

Indeed, if that's your impression, then marketing certainly isn't working.

So what did people do before the government owned all the highways? They built them themselves. Look up "turnpike" in a history book, and be amazed.

They seem to be inconsistent in some messages (i.e., they are pro-business, when they should be for limitations on corporations based of how they describe liberty).

Limitations of what? Do you really mean, allowing the people who own and run organizations to be held responsible for their "organization's" actions? That isn't pro- or anti-business, that's anti government-granted-limited-liability.

Why should I change if public roads work so good?

They do? As someone stuck in traffic on the only road between A and B some time.

Yes, public schools are cheaper than private.

Actually, they're not. The public schools spend more than $10,000 per student, per year, every year, and it's only going up. Private schools charge far less than that, and get better academic performance on every measurement. Homeschoolers spend a fraction of that and beat public and private schools.

Try http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/ for a little background on the subject of "public" education.

If you like video instead of reading, try doing a little bit of piracy and finding "ABC's 20/20 Stupid In America". While John Stossel comes down hard in favor of vouchers, the reasons why are what will shock you to your boots if you are paying attention.

Social Security is run with a lot less overhead than Wall Street funds doing the same T-bill investments.

Social Security is not an investment at all, it's a ponzi scheme. Present beneficiaries are being paid out of present donations. There is no trust fund, there is no set-aside, the money goes into and comes out of the general fund.

The only reason SS is said to "cost less" is because the government doesn't include sallaries of government employees or costs of the buildings and facilities in their "cost" estimates.

When the Libertarian message gets me benefits (and I think those that run can manage to impliment their ideas), I might consider them.

Those lists of benefits are out there. http://www.fff.org/ http://www.lewrockwell.com/ http://www.mises.org/ http://www.cato.org/ http://www.pennradio.com/

If the only information you are listening to comes from government, as your statements of "fact" indicates, then no wonder you have a bad impression of "libertarians".

Until then, they are the party for government-hating gun nuts (and no, people that support the 2nd Amendment aren't gun nuts, the people that get upset they can't have their Desert Eagle strapped to their hip wandering around their children's kindergarden are gun nuts).

When someone comes to the school your child is in and starts killing them (even though murder is illegal) with whatever weapon they choose to use (regardless of any law to the contrary), you'd better pray that some principled gun owner who chose not to be disarmed by law is there to stop them. ...like what happened in Pearl, Mississippi, when a killer decided to visit a "gun free zone". Oh, you didn't hear about that? Then may I suggest http://www.johnrlott.com/ _The Bias Against Guns_ by John R. Lott?

But that would re

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0603e.asp The New Mercantilism

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy17.html Patently Absurd

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sapienza/sapienza36.htm l The Fraud of Intellectual Property

http://www.mises.org/blog/archives/002935.asp Mises Economics Blog: Bill Gates: Anti-IP Movement Is Communist

I wish the Pirate party far better success than the Libertarians have had. It is surprising that the message of Liberty does not resonate in the United States.

Bob-

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0603e.asp The New Mercantilism

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy17.html Patently Absurd

http://www.lewrockwell.com/sapienza/sapienza36.htm l The Fraud of Intellectual Property

http://www.mises.org/blog/archives/002935.asp Mises Economics Blog: Bill Gates: Anti-IP Movement Is Communist

I wish the Pirate party far better success than the Libertarians have had. It is surprising that the message of Liberty does not resonate in the United States.

Bob-

What America needs is a change in the public school system. The immense amount of pressure placed on schoolchildren encourages them into rebellion upon adolescence. During the recent spring break, four suicides occurred near my area due to the massive amount of pressure.

But it's not really the pressure that is the problem. The libertarian Charley Reese observed that "Boredom is the devil's workshop" -- school is way too boring, and such boredom leads to rebellion: slacking. If it could be made more fun, and if teenagers were treated like adults, perhaps the pressure problem would float away.

Another cause for the slacking may be that school attendance is compulsory. I've always found that I am more encouraged to finish projects to their completion if I chose to do the project voluntarily; perhaps if school were voluntary, the total, helpless idiots would just be kicked out (which would make class more challenging), and the people who do choose to educate themselves will be the most motivated, and thus, more successful.

Sadly, this place is slowly turning into a nanny state as the years go by.

At least you can still pump your own gas. Be thankful that you don't live just a bit to the south.

Of course, in my hometown, it appears to be against the law to fish from a giraffe's back. Go figure.

-h-

First, your analysis of the incompetence of the national "intelligence" community is very good.

Second, your recommendation that this be fixed is disturbing.

How about we just do away with the whole pile of crap. For more on the dismal state of affairs, see http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt19 2.html

The only thing you can count on is that more and more money will be wasted on returning less and less of value.

Actually, have the CIA, NSA, etc. yet produced anything of value? Note: do not count useful intelligence ignored because the president was asleep, drunk, or just dumb as shit.

Ding, ding, mod parent up. The people of Nazi Germany thought they were free too:

http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free.h tml

the dirty secret of successful totalitarian control is rooting out the dissidents quietly while making sure the people who go along with it think "if I'm not doing anything "wrong" what do I have to worry about...?" Keep a constant watch on the watchers, some good resources to start:

Libertarian/Paleo right

http://antiwar.com/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/
http://www.amconmag.com/

Moderate:

http://buzzflash.com/
http://moveon.org/

Left:

http://counterpunch.org/
http://commondreams.org/
http://indymedia.org/

That should keep you busy for a while...

I wonder if we would be better off if someone like Lincoln, "The Great Emancipator" were in office. Now there is a guy who could protect civil rights!
From http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/gregory1.html
More violations of the Constitution probably occurred during Abraham Lincoln's four years as president than during any other cohesively defined era in American history. Many have pointed out that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail war protesters, shut down hundreds of newspapers that disagreed with his war, established a draft for the first time in American history (except in the seceded South, which had a draft a year earlier), instituted restrictions on firearms, and sent troops to violently suppress the New York draft riot. He also used the war to push through the "American System," a program of de facto nationalization of the transportation industry via massive subsidies to corporations that would agree to build "internal improvements" - railroads, waterways, and canals. The victory of the Union in 1865 not only established that, contrary to popular political theory in the antebellum era, the federal government was completely supreme over the states; it also established that a president could do literally anything he could get away with, no matter how many liberties were suspended, innocents jailed, and people killed in the process.

In other words, Bush is not Hitler. Hell, he hasn't even reached the level of Lincoln. The restriction of civil rights is nothing new in a time of war, and is completely legal as a precedent has been set.
Take, for example, the right to bare arms is guaranteed by the Constitution. Can you bare arms on an airplane? Of course not. Can you bare arms in your local bar or city hall? Nope. How about free speech protection in a crowded theatre or in a case of perjury or libel? These rights are spelled out clearly in the Constitution with no wiggle room what-so-ever. "The right to free speech shall not be infringed" period. Yet I can not say anything I want anywhere I want.

Huh? Isn't Snopes in the business of debunking claims? Or did you misword your sentence: what I think you were trying to say is that it is easier (and requires less credibility) to make a claim, and it's harder to debunk it?

Whatever you meant, I think it has more to do with *who* made the claim. If we are told, let's say, that Silverstein, owner of the WTC bldgs., "pulled" them on purpose to collect the his insurance policy by Fox News we'd probably believe that over a bunch of web sites saying 19 arab crazys hijacked a plane with a box cutter, somehow managed to avoid NORAD, outflew fighter jets, hit the towers dead on, and the pentagon, and they exploded and collapsed.

As for Snopes, I like the site overall, but Mikkelson really fell down on the job as far as 911, especially with her bias (see the rather odd personal nicknames at the bottom of each article). Many of the "rumors" she has as false simply because that's what she read in the 911 Commission Report, which claimed to investigate every single scrap of evidence, yet somehow forgot to investigate why WTC 7 collapsed. Others that she has marked as unsubstantiated can easily be verified by querying Google to find severable reputable news services. Her source, whatever it is, says otherwise. And sometimes does not even include interesting, verified, reports - for example she has the govt certified report of the cheering Arabs, but stunningly neglects to mention the 6 Israeli agents who were seen cheering and "high fiving" as they filmed the towers burning, and were subsequently mysteriously released. So Forget Snopes. Start here, at this excellent site: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/index.html

More violations of the Constitution probably occurred during Abraham Lincoln's four years as president than during any other cohesively defined era in American history. Many have pointed out that Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail war protesters, shut down hundreds of newspapers that disagreed with his war, established a draft for the first time in American history (except in the seceded South, which had a draft a year earlier), instituted restrictions on firearms, and sent troops to violently suppress the New York draft riot. He also used the war to push through the "American System," a program of de facto nationalization of the transportation industry via massive subsidies to corporations that would agree to build "internal improvements" - railroads, waterways, and canals. The victory of the Union in 1865 not only established that, contrary to popular political theory in the antebellum era, the federal government was completely supreme over the states; it also established that a president could do literally anything he could get away with, no matter how many liberties were suspended, innocents jailed, and people killed in the process.

I'll take my chances with the crooks and terrorists rather than submitting to ubiquitous surveillance. It would be more than a little ironic to have fought the cold war for 50 years only to wind up with Stasi style pervasive surveillance. For all their neo "conservative" rhetoric people who present this sort of argument have a remarkably collectivist view that the security of the collective is more important than the individual. Perhaps that's because many neo-cons started out as Trotskyists?

"The Trotskyist pedigree of neoconservatism is no secret; the original neocon, Irving Kristol, acknowledges it with relish: "I regard myself to have been a young Trostkyite and I have not a single bitter memory." Nor is there any doubt about the influence - one might almost say hegemony - of "former Communists" on the post-war conservative movement. Just read the words of one neocon, Seymour Martin Lipset:

From the anti-Stalinists who became conservatives - including James Burnham, Whittaker Chambers, and Irving Kristol - the Right gained a political education and, in some cases, an injection of passion. The ex-radicals brought with them the knowledge that ideological movements must have journals and magazines to articulate their perspectives. In 1955, for example, William F. Buckley, Jr., launched National Review at the urging of Willi Schlamm, a former German Communist. In its early years, National Review was largely written and edited by the Buckley family and a handful of former Communists, Trotskyists, and socialists, such as Burnham and Chambers. It played a major role in creating the Goldwaterite and Reaganite New Right and in stimulating an anti-Soviet foreign policy.

Worthy of note is that while ex-Stalinists tended to denounce their Communist roots vehemently, neoconservatives like Kristol and Schwartz remain at least wistfully fond of Trotsky. It's also worth noting that the neoconservative preoccupation with exporting social democracy abroad through war and mercantilism reflects the original split between Trotsky and Stalin. Trotsky argued that there could not be "socialism in one country" but rather that the revolution had to be truly international. And so the neoconservatives push for "human rights" and social democratic governments to be imposed on Serbia, for example, by force of arms."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dmccarthy/dmccarthy23.h tml

Did the communists win the cold war after all under guise of "conservatism?"
How "conservative" are they really as state centralists who have little regard for individual freedom and privacy?

Thank you. Article I, Section 8. "The Congress shall have power...to declare war." There's an interesting article called "Violating the Constitution With an Illegal War", by Rep. Ron Paul (republican).

Where have you been for the last 20 years? The entire Bill of Rights has been gutted - every single element in it, except for the 3rd Amendment (AFAIK). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the provisions in the Bill of Rights are not absolute, but can be outweighed by what the government "needs" to do. For example, if you're searched at an airport and found to be carrying $4000 in cash, it very probably will be seized and confiscated in apparent violation of the 4th Amendment.

The "War On Drugs" was the excuse for most government violations of the Constitution in the last 20 years, but there is a longer history here.

Why do you think this is a Republican issue? There are plenty of statist scum in both parties who support internal passports.

All this national-ID shit started under Clinton, and Hillary still wants a national ID card encoded with biometric data.

You owe freedom-loving Republicans like Rep. Ron Paul an apology.

-ccm

Are you saying the total number of elected officials should be capped at 60k or that governments shouldn't govern populations larger than 60k?

Maximum constituents under an elected official is capped at somewhere between 20K and 60K people. Preferably with representatives rather than one king.

The first is when the Constitution was written the nation was tiny and no one envisioned it ballooning to 290 million people.

So? If the Constitution was followed, the Federal government would still be tiny, taking in less than 1% of GDP. State governments would be more powerful and give people more choice -- letting people with similar interests live together. The way it is today, the US is not a Constitutional Republic, it is a Democracy, the worst form of government.

Also our nation is more efficient this way. With one federal government and only 50 state governments things get done much faster than they would then if there were say a few thousand micro-governments.

I think the democracy in the US is terribly inefficient -- instead of having freedom of choice, we criminalize many non-violent fully-consenting actions in order to maintain "integrity" and "harmony." Why is drug use or sale illegal? Why is prostitution illegal? Why is self-defense illegal on your property? Our country is an inefficient, paternal cronyist country, nowhere near as efficient as the states in Switzerland or many other countries where Federalism is prefered to Nationalism.

People don't want to deal with that level of beauracracy and red tape....something I assumed an anti-statist would instinctively recognize. It would be crazy for a company to have to deal with a thousand different laws just to work across the nation.

So? This would reduce the chances of there being paternally approved megacorporations, and it would increase the ability of people to buy what the want to buy by living in a government created by like people. The Independent State of Potistan might have maryjane legal, where the Independent State of Holistan might make skirts illegal. Let the people decide. Much more efficient dealing with a local representative government than one who ignores the people completely, even in voting.

About Marx, I don't understand how our republic has been weakened by democracy. The most successful states in the world today are democracies, republic or parlimentary or whatever.

I disagree, I believe the biggest failures were democracies. The Third Reich was a democracy.

Hans Herman Hoppe wrote a great book called "Democracy: The God that Failed" and it is a worthy read. Here's a link to an essay by him. Even some Congresspeople realize that democracy is failure.

Control over property does not give you absolute right of speech within its borders. To pull out the old Supreme Court analogy, by your logic, if you owned a theater, that would give you permission to attend a crowded performance, yell "Fire!" and watch the havoc unfold. That is absolutely ridiculous.

I find it ridiculous that the Supreme Court decided to control what a property owner can control themselves. If I own a theater and someone yells fire, I should just boot them out, maybe put a sign up saying not to curse, yell fire, or sign old Irish melodies. The "fire!" argument is half a strawman in my mind, because it is a ridiculous premise. The property owner just boots the offender. If you hear someone yell "Fire" do you start to run? If you trample someone, it is your foot that did the killing.

Sure thing. I'll throw out another analogy. You are a restaurant owner who happens to actively dislike black people. You own the restaurant, and it is your "own land." Does it follow that you can "censor" - e.g., deny access, refuse service, etc. - black people from going to your restaurant? (Hint - read the 1964 Civil Rights Act.)

The Civil Rights Act is a piece of garbage if you read it closely, it did NOTHING to "create" harmony. The big problem with civil rights pre-1964 was that LOCAL governments decided to discriminate -- with the populace following the law. The CVA created a mess of racial harmony as has been shown over and over. Look at the mess of Title IX, and how it destroys individual rights.

Please understand that you being pro-freedom necessarily implies that other people have the right to enjoy their freedoms as well, such as freedom from your asshatted bigotry.

I'm not caucasian and was racially berated through high school, but I never said anything. I just realized that people are idiots, if they want to waste their time slurring my background, that'll just hold them back. Two of the people who "hated" my race the most were people I later had a little control over in real life -- I made it perfectly clear that they'd not get a piece of the contract they bid on. In fact, I would likely be prosecuted for that action based on the pro-litigious race laws that exist.

On top of that, I do believe that everyone has freedoms, they just need to take the steps to belong to a community that shares the same beliefs. I have no problem with communities (not necessarily meaning villages or towns but organizations of people with like apprecations and prejudices) joining together to chat about their beliefs. It is part of freedom. If they come on my land, I am free to tell them to get lost.

Control over property does not give you absolute right of speech within its borders. To pull out the old Supreme Court analogy, by your logic, if you owned a theater, that would give you permission to attend a crowded performance, yell "Fire!" and watch the havoc unfold. That is absolutely ridiculous.

I find it ridiculous that the Supreme Court decided to control what a property owner can control themselves. If I own a theater and someone yells fire, I should just boot them out, maybe put a sign up saying not to curse, yell fire, or sign old Irish melodies. The "fire!" argument is half a strawman in my mind, because it is a ridiculous premise. The property owner just boots the offender. If you hear someone yell "Fire" do you start to run? If you trample someone, it is your foot that did the killing.

Sure thing. I'll throw out another analogy. You are a restaurant owner who happens to actively dislike black people. You own the restaurant, and it is your "own land." Does it follow that you can "censor" - e.g., deny access, refuse service, etc. - black people from going to your restaurant? (Hint - read the 1964 Civil Rights Act.)

The Civil Rights Act is a piece of garbage if you read it closely, it did NOTHING to "create" harmony. The big problem with civil rights pre-1964 was that LOCAL governments decided to discriminate -- with the populace following the law. The CVA created a mess of racial harmony as has been shown over and over. Look at the mess of Title IX, and how it destroys individual rights.

Please understand that you being pro-freedom necessarily implies that other people have the right to enjoy their freedoms as well, such as freedom from your asshatted bigotry.

I'm not caucasian and was racially berated through high school, but I never said anything. I just realized that people are idiots, if they want to waste their time slurring my background, that'll just hold them back. Two of the people who "hated" my race the most were people I later had a little control over in real life -- I made it perfectly clear that they'd not get a piece of the contract they bid on. In fact, I would likely be prosecuted for that action based on the pro-litigious race laws that exist.

On top of that, I do believe that everyone has freedoms, they just need to take the steps to belong to a community that shares the same beliefs. I have no problem with communities (not necessarily meaning villages or towns but organizations of people with like apprecations and prejudices) joining together to chat about their beliefs. It is part of freedom. If they come on my land, I am free to tell them to get lost.

Control over property does not give you absolute right of speech within its borders. To pull out the old Supreme Court analogy, by your logic, if you owned a theater, that would give you permission to attend a crowded performance, yell "Fire!" and watch the havoc unfold. That is absolutely ridiculous.

I find it ridiculous that the Supreme Court decided to control what a property owner can control themselves. If I own a theater and someone yells fire, I should just boot them out, maybe put a sign up saying not to curse, yell fire, or sign old Irish melodies. The "fire!" argument is half a strawman in my mind, because it is a ridiculous premise. The property owner just boots the offender. If you hear someone yell "Fire" do you start to run? If you trample someone, it is your foot that did the killing.

Sure thing. I'll throw out another analogy. You are a restaurant owner who happens to actively dislike black people. You own the restaurant, and it is your "own land." Does it follow that you can "censor" - e.g., deny access, refuse service, etc. - black people from going to your restaurant? (Hint - read the 1964 Civil Rights Act.)

The Civil Rights Act is a piece of garbage if you read it closely, it did NOTHING to "create" harmony. The big problem with civil rights pre-1964 was that LOCAL governments decided to discriminate -- with the populace following the law. The CVA created a mess of racial harmony as has been shown over and over. Look at the mess of Title IX, and how it destroys individual rights.

Please understand that you being pro-freedom necessarily implies that other people have the right to enjoy their freedoms as well, such as freedom from your asshatted bigotry.

I'm not caucasian and was racially berated through high school, but I never said anything. I just realized that people are idiots, if they want to waste their time slurring my background, that'll just hold them back. Two of the people who "hated" my race the most were people I later had a little control over in real life -- I made it perfectly clear that they'd not get a piece of the contract they bid on. In fact, I would likely be prosecuted for that action based on the pro-litigious race laws that exist.

On top of that, I do believe that everyone has freedoms, they just need to take the steps to belong to a community that shares the same beliefs. I have no problem with communities (not necessarily meaning villages or towns but organizations of people with like apprecations and prejudices) joining together to chat about their beliefs. It is part of freedom. If they come on my land, I am free to tell them to get lost.

I wish I could agree, I really do.

Slavery ended in EVERY industrialized nation BECAUSE of industrialization -- slaves were inefficient with machines. Even the so-called child labor camps on Asia have been replaced slowly because the next generation is better at running the newer machines.

The bloody war you talk about (the War between States a.k.a. the "Civil" War) was not over slavery, it was about regulation. Lincoln was a Whig supporter of Clay's American System -- a politican engine designed to tax Southern producers in order to pay for what Lincoln called "internal improvements" in the North, a.k.a corporate welfare. Lincoln detested blacks and more than once called for them to be deported back to Africa or Haiti. Lincoln supported the law in Illinois that prevented black immigration.

Don't believe your (public school) history books, the war was always about one thing -- regulation.

The Whig part dissolved only to be replaced with Lincoln's Republic party, which, by the way, is also a Whig-intended party. The Whigs believe in 3 things:

1. A Central bank so they could inflate the currency (devalue it) just as the Federal Reserve destroys the dollar with no gold standard. (Democrats also support this today)
2. Imperialism to spread "democracy" which is reaslly a euphamism for spreading corporate interests aligned with the State. This includes protective tariffs. (see Haliburton, but Democrats also support this today).
3. Internal Improvements based on taxing productive companies and restraining entry to those markets for favored companies (again, somethnig Democrats support).

Some links to the truth about Lincoln:

1 * 2 * 3

The whole King Lincoln archive is online and very distressing to read if you're a Lincoln supporter.

I wish I could agree, I really do.

Slavery ended in EVERY industrialized nation BECAUSE of industrialization -- slaves were inefficient with machines. Even the so-called child labor camps on Asia have been replaced slowly because the next generation is better at running the newer machines.

The bloody war you talk about (the War between States a.k.a. the "Civil" War) was not over slavery, it was about regulation. Lincoln was a Whig supporter of Clay's American System -- a politican engine designed to tax Southern producers in order to pay for what Lincoln called "internal improvements" in the North, a.k.a corporate welfare. Lincoln detested blacks and more than once called for them to be deported back to Africa or Haiti. Lincoln supported the law in Illinois that prevented black immigration.

Don't believe your (public school) history books, the war was always about one thing -- regulation.

The Whig part dissolved only to be replaced with Lincoln's Republic party, which, by the way, is also a Whig-intended party. The Whigs believe in 3 things:

1. A Central bank so they could inflate the currency (devalue it) just as the Federal Reserve destroys the dollar with no gold standard. (Democrats also support this today)
2. Imperialism to spread "democracy" which is reaslly a euphamism for spreading corporate interests aligned with the State. This includes protective tariffs. (see Haliburton, but Democrats also support this today).
3. Internal Improvements based on taxing productive companies and restraining entry to those markets for favored companies (again, somethnig Democrats support).

Some links to the truth about Lincoln:

1 * 2 * 3

The whole King Lincoln archive is online and very distressing to read if you're a Lincoln supporter.

I wish I could agree, I really do.

Slavery ended in EVERY industrialized nation BECAUSE of industrialization -- slaves were inefficient with machines. Even the so-called child labor camps on Asia have been replaced slowly because the next generation is better at running the newer machines.

The bloody war you talk about (the War between States a.k.a. the "Civil" War) was not over slavery, it was about regulation. Lincoln was a Whig supporter of Clay's American System -- a politican engine designed to tax Southern producers in order to pay for what Lincoln called "internal improvements" in the North, a.k.a corporate welfare. Lincoln detested blacks and more than once called for them to be deported back to Africa or Haiti. Lincoln supported the law in Illinois that prevented black immigration.

Don't believe your (public school) history books, the war was always about one thing -- regulation.

The Whig part dissolved only to be replaced with Lincoln's Republic party, which, by the way, is also a Whig-intended party. The Whigs believe in 3 things:

1. A Central bank so they could inflate the currency (devalue it) just as the Federal Reserve destroys the dollar with no gold standard. (Democrats also support this today)
2. Imperialism to spread "democracy" which is reaslly a euphamism for spreading corporate interests aligned with the State. This includes protective tariffs. (see Haliburton, but Democrats also support this today).
3. Internal Improvements based on taxing productive companies and restraining entry to those markets for favored companies (again, somethnig Democrats support).

Some links to the truth about Lincoln:

1 * 2 * 3

The whole King Lincoln archive is online and very distressing to read if you're a Lincoln supporter.

I wish I could agree, I really do.

Slavery ended in EVERY industrialized nation BECAUSE of industrialization -- slaves were inefficient with machines. Even the so-called child labor camps on Asia have been replaced slowly because the next generation is better at running the newer machines.

The bloody war you talk about (the War between States a.k.a. the "Civil" War) was not over slavery, it was about regulation. Lincoln was a Whig supporter of Clay's American System -- a politican engine designed to tax Southern producers in order to pay for what Lincoln called "internal improvements" in the North, a.k.a corporate welfare. Lincoln detested blacks and more than once called for them to be deported back to Africa or Haiti. Lincoln supported the law in Illinois that prevented black immigration.

Don't believe your (public school) history books, the war was always about one thing -- regulation.

The Whig part dissolved only to be replaced with Lincoln's Republic party, which, by the way, is also a Whig-intended party. The Whigs believe in 3 things:

1. A Central bank so they could inflate the currency (devalue it) just as the Federal Reserve destroys the dollar with no gold standard. (Democrats also support this today)
2. Imperialism to spread "democracy" which is reaslly a euphamism for spreading corporate interests aligned with the State. This includes protective tariffs. (see Haliburton, but Democrats also support this today).
3. Internal Improvements based on taxing productive companies and restraining entry to those markets for favored companies (again, somethnig Democrats support).

Some links to the truth about Lincoln:

1 * 2 * 3

The whole King Lincoln archive is online and very distressing to read if you're a Lincoln supporter.

If you think your job is so secure, you ought to read this http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north446.html from Gary North, in particular the story of the Linotype setter ...

The only reason for a big business to use an HMO is because of the tax breaks and savings they've been granted by all the regulations that created the HMO monster. Look into the HMO Act of 73 for the damage created by federal "guidelines" that created the problems in health care we face today.

Here is a link or two.

Dell is trying to do something to help their employees, but in the end it'll fail to help because all we'll see is another group of people trying to avoid taxes.

The only reason for a big business to use an HMO is because of the tax breaks and savings they've been granted by all the regulations that created the HMO monster. Look into the HMO Act of 73 for the damage created by federal "guidelines" that created the problems in health care we face today.

Here is a link or two.

Dell is trying to do something to help their employees, but in the end it'll fail to help because all we'll see is another group of people trying to avoid taxes.

Although it may not apply to you specifically, I strongly recommend you first read the Ph.D. Glut. You mention graduate school and I assume you mean you plan to get a Masters, but the article is still worth a look before you plunge into the pool.

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

But hey...you don't have to take my word for it...watch it for yourself.

It caught on fire, burned from the inside out, and collapsed.

If that in fact is true, than it's the third steel-framed building to ever collapse from fire, the first two being WTC 1 and 2. The simple fact is: steel-framed buildings don't collapse from fire. Period. There have been several instances of steel skyscrapers on fire, many burning far hotter for far longer than any fire on 9/11. Yet, none of these buildings have collapsed. NOT ONE. I defy you to find one other example of a steel-framed building collapsing from fire....just one.

If they're "on record," then link to it. Who are these "experts," and how exactly did they acquire their "expert" knowledge on the dynamics of airliner strikes on large skyscrapers, given that it's never happened before?

The towers were designed to constantly withstand wind pressures equal to 30 times the energy of the airliner impacts. They were also specifically designed to withstand impacts from passenger jets (link here).

As for it never happening before, that's simply not true. In July of 1945 a B-52 bomber, lost in heavy fog, crashed into the Empire State Building. Over a million dollars in damage (and those were 1945 dollars), and several casualties. But the building was repaired and still stands today.

Finally, here's a link to a page that discusses the gag order slapped on the FDNY. From the article:

FDNY fire fighters remain under a gag order (Rodriguezvs-1.Bush.pdf, p. 10) to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a 9/11 gag order.

With respect to your crazytalk regarding the attack on the Pentagon, you demonstrate the classic flaws of a conspiracy theorist.

And now we go right back to the ad homenims. So far, you're following the administration's disinformation playbook page by page.

For example, evidence supporting the truth is overwhelming, undeniable, and readily available. If there really was no "Flight 77", then what do you make of this list of victims? The passengers and crew of American Airlines Flight 77? Are these fake names? Why not call up some of the family members and see if these people actually existed? Google them. Locate addresses and co-workers. Where did all these people go, if Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon? Are all their family members in on the conspiracy, and perpetuating a lie?

I just love it when people th

Not all of that so-called "basic research" has been government funded though. And even to the extent that it is, so what? Private companies anticipate, and then respond to the actions of others, like government, in researching other areas. Remove it, and they'll flush out all application-type improvements, profit margins in those areas will fall, and they'll extend time horizons to research with a later payoff. And so what if they focus on things with more direct application? According to Tom Bethell, from an interview, George Gilder says that "I cannot deny that places like Caltech, MIT, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon and Georgia Tech do a lot of very valuable research on government money," but that the most valuable insights come from making actual devices, and this is done by private companies.

We had great health care in the US until the Federal government unconstitutionally got involved in it with the HMO Act of 1973:

Congressman Ron Paul on the problems

Congressman Ron Paul again

Dr. Larry Wilson, MD

My doctor does not accept any public health care payments for any reason -- he's about 80 years ago and a die hard free market supporter. He still makes house calls when I'm sick, he charges less than $35 for a visit, and he helps keep costs down by making sure my health is good before I get sick -- he prescribed me a lower sugar diet which fixed all my health problems (blood pressure, overweight, memory issues, anger issues, allergies and sleep problems). He also makes sure that I stay away from prescriptions as he finds them cures for the lazy man.

Medicine is failed in the US because of government's reach into it -- 40 years ago medicine was much more readily available to the poor and the minority. Today it is destroyed because of trying to fix a problem that never existed.

We had great health care in the US until the Federal government unconstitutionally got involved in it with the HMO Act of 1973:

Congressman Ron Paul on the problems

Congressman Ron Paul again

Dr. Larry Wilson, MD

My doctor does not accept any public health care payments for any reason -- he's about 80 years ago and a die hard free market supporter. He still makes house calls when I'm sick, he charges less than $35 for a visit, and he helps keep costs down by making sure my health is good before I get sick -- he prescribed me a lower sugar diet which fixed all my health problems (blood pressure, overweight, memory issues, anger issues, allergies and sleep problems). He also makes sure that I stay away from prescriptions as he finds them cures for the lazy man.

Medicine is failed in the US because of government's reach into it -- 40 years ago medicine was much more readily available to the poor and the minority. Today it is destroyed because of trying to fix a problem that never existed.

We had great health care in the US until the Federal government unconstitutionally got involved in it with the HMO Act of 1973:

Congressman Ron Paul on the problems

Congressman Ron Paul again

Dr. Larry Wilson, MD

My doctor does not accept any public health care payments for any reason -- he's about 80 years ago and a die hard free market supporter. He still makes house calls when I'm sick, he charges less than $35 for a visit, and he helps keep costs down by making sure my health is good before I get sick -- he prescribed me a lower sugar diet which fixed all my health problems (blood pressure, overweight, memory issues, anger issues, allergies and sleep problems). He also makes sure that I stay away from prescriptions as he finds them cures for the lazy man.

Medicine is failed in the US because of government's reach into it -- 40 years ago medicine was much more readily available to the poor and the minority. Today it is destroyed because of trying to fix a problem that never existed.