Slashdot Mirror

You need to go read the actual definition of libertarian. At it's core it's about personal responsibility, and that includes the state being run under a similar set of guidelines, as opposed to the current behemoth state that tramples our rights, privacy, and personal wealth. True libertarians are anti-state, anti-war, and most defintely anti-empire. You may not beleive the US is already an Empire, but at the very least I'm sure you will agree it's slipping towards being one. Libertarians also do not favor massive monopoly corporations, as again those trample rights and eschew responsibility in favor of profits. We do believe in less government intereference in markets, however that does not mean that capitalism be allowed to run wild until all corporations have merged into a huge monopoly. In order to function pure capitalism does require some intervention (checks and balances), else it is self-destructive. However there is more than a fine line of what constitutes running hte system and over-intereference by government. While true, many libertarian authors often advocate strange and unreasonable policies (a recent LRC article suggested taxing politicians for being... well politicians) but for the most part (rabid fanatics exist in any group but do not represent the mainstream of that group) these are meant as satirical logical-conclusion pieces that are more meant to draw attention to inadequacies or hypocracies of current policies rather than be accepted as literal solutions. The "tax all politicians" piece I reference for example was using the "sin tax" argument that "the power to tax is the power to destroy". The point was that NY was imposing extremely high taxes on ciggarettes in an effort to force people to stop or never take up smoking due to costs. While to some extent this has merits it is also not going to work in reality, people who are truly addicted will simply find some other way to get ciggs cheaper or they will find the extra $$, likely by forgoing other things. And since when has an extra 50 cents per unit of something stopped a kid from doing what they think is cool? Ever priced beer? that costs way more than ciggs yet underage kids still get it for various reasons (fitting in, coolness, escape, etc). To highlight how absurd this sin tax policy is in practice the author applied it to a Libertarian goal of smaller government, and suggested taxing politicians as a means to eradicate them. This is more patently rediculous and highlights the absurdity of using a tax as a means of "wiping out" any undesirably behavior. So I can see how people may think that Libertarians are lunatic radicals if you take some arguments at face value, but in fact the underlying arguments are sound and many of the "radical" suggestions are meant to highlight the absurdities of current policies, not actually be applied.

Myself, I have only recently started identifying with the Libertarians, and some are more hardcore than others (againt this is true of any political group) but I must say more than any other political ideaology I have encountered they seem to espouse my (and many other /.ers) beliefs on issues like privacy, personal responsibility, and smaller more focused and efficient (and accountable!!) government.

Ironic that your post was a result of your taking offense at someone ignorantly miscategorizing your ideals, and yet you immediately slander a whole set of others, demonstrating the same ignorance. I suggest you think twice and maybe even do some research before just spouting off fallacious vitriol when you yourself are so sensitive to people correctly understanding your point of view.

The inflation figure that the government (the BLS) creates is based on BS. Robert Blumen has a great article regarding this manipulation. They swap out numbers at will to hide the fact that they're creating money out of thin air, and depreciating the value of your money. The stock market has only gone up 500% in 90 years in terms of real value because of money printing.

There are a few links to Rothbard's book in this entire thread. It is a free and tiny e-book, I'd highly recommend reading it.

Aye, I've yet to see exhaust gases of a coal plant actually benefit the health of anyone as opposed to exposure to low-level radiation and cancer.

"WHAT? Radioactive is always harmful!"

Infact the LNT (linear-no-threshold) theory of radiation for humans is based on quantities vastly exceeding 'normal' amounts - on effects of atomic warfare - and there exists no study of the effects of radiation of lower intensity on humans.

However there is substantial evidence that indicates the risk from low-level contamination is currently blown utterly out of proportion - For example: Chernobyl. Instead of projected casualties of 20,000 direct and 500,000 indirect "only" 47 direct and 4,000 indirect were realized. Furthermore the environment around Chernobyl is infact thriving with many large mammals living in the 'protected zone'.

More:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=091905D

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller12.html

http://ranprieur.com/crash/naturechernobyl.html

the free market naturally leads to harmful monopolies, "boom and bust" cycles, de-skilling and mechanization, and a lot of other bad things.

Wow. I am impressed. You have listed specific effects of legal restrictions, government control of the money supply, minimum wages, and somehow blamed them on "free" markets. Seriously, I am impressed, I'm not saying that to be sarcastic.

it's a matter of economic fact. Put down that Ayn Rand and start reading the work of some serious economists.

If I post the links, will you bother reading them?

Business Cycle Primer http://www.mises.org/story/606

Murrey Rothbard Monopoly and Competition http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp

A Critique of Neoclassical and Austrian Monopoly Theory http://www.mises.org/story/1800

Politics Causes Unemployment http://www.mises.org/story/1782

Abolish the FDA http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar17.html

Some think that these situations are unintended consequences of laws that have "good" effects. Sarbanes-Oxley was intended, from the start, to be the ultimate way for governmentto control any corporation at will.

The law was initially meant to "fix" problems such as the Enron fiasco, but if you rewind just a few years, you see that most of these fiascos came directly out of trying to take advantage of loopholes in previous laws. The SEC colludes with the rest of the all powerful federal government to constantly keep non-preferred companies on their toes, while giving excessive power to the cronies. Sarbanes-Oxley will have the same effect.

The one light in Congress, Dr. Ron Paul, made an excellent note regarding Sarbanes-Oxley and the cost it will pass on to consumers. The Mises Institute also has a ton of great articles and blog posts regarding the horrors of this law.

It is time to realize that government is NOT good at regulating business, except from the point of view of the cronies. Bills like this will rarely be used for their original intent, and the un?-intended consequence in the long run is to see criminals made of innocents that had nothing to do with the law's purpose.

Instead of voting, I think we need to start pitching money in a hat to buy rope for those who violate their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Are you honestly telling me multiple companies are all going to lay sewage pipes so that you can choose which one to hook your toilets up to?

No, because I don't know how to do that. I am also not going to tell you that they won't, which is a judgement that you are making out of hand.

What I will tell you is that there are alternatives to sewage lines. Chemical toilets, composting toilets and the like have been around for a very long time.

The provision of such services through taxation creates a situation of monopoly because there is always a legal restriction placed upon the service at the same time. For example, a San Jose, California, professor at SJSU was doing a course on recycling. The entirety of the "garbage" his household generated was about one pint per trash pickup cycle. He was taking that in to the school to demonstrate to his class what was possible, and thus thought he didn't need to pay for the garbage can provided by the city.

No Such Luck! The city prosecuted him for failure to pay for the trash service he wasn't using.

Do I get to not pay school taxes if I do not send a kid to government school? Do I get to not pay sewage taxes if I use a composting toilet? Do I get to not pay for trash pickup if I generate no trash?

Government granted monopolies create inefficiency not only in the usual "waste, fraud and abuse" that government efforts are always rife with, they also prevent innovation by removing money that might have been spent on replacing that government service with something valued higher by the consumer.

Roads? By Cromm, not that old standby. Have you read none of the arguments already published on that matter? Here, have a couple:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control =202

http://www.mises.org/story/1704

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds164.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory27.html

You can do better than that, can't you? How about prisons? "Justice"? Those, at least, require real thought to refute.

Bob-

Are you honestly telling me multiple companies are all going to lay sewage pipes so that you can choose which one to hook your toilets up to?

No, because I don't know how to do that. I am also not going to tell you that they won't, which is a judgement that you are making out of hand.

What I will tell you is that there are alternatives to sewage lines. Chemical toilets, composting toilets and the like have been around for a very long time.

The provision of such services through taxation creates a situation of monopoly because there is always a legal restriction placed upon the service at the same time. For example, a San Jose, California, professor at SJSU was doing a course on recycling. The entirety of the "garbage" his household generated was about one pint per trash pickup cycle. He was taking that in to the school to demonstrate to his class what was possible, and thus thought he didn't need to pay for the garbage can provided by the city.

No Such Luck! The city prosecuted him for failure to pay for the trash service he wasn't using.

Do I get to not pay school taxes if I do not send a kid to government school? Do I get to not pay sewage taxes if I use a composting toilet? Do I get to not pay for trash pickup if I generate no trash?

Government granted monopolies create inefficiency not only in the usual "waste, fraud and abuse" that government efforts are always rife with, they also prevent innovation by removing money that might have been spent on replacing that government service with something valued higher by the consumer.

Roads? By Cromm, not that old standby. Have you read none of the arguments already published on that matter? Here, have a couple:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_7.pdf

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_1.pdf

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control =202

http://www.mises.org/story/1704

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds164.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory27.html

You can do better than that, can't you? How about prisons? "Justice"? Those, at least, require real thought to refute.

Bob-

The necessary and proper clause?

From this article: At the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry expressed his fear that the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution (which said that the federal government would have all powers "necessary and proper" to carry into effect the powers granted in Article I, Section 8) would inevitably be interpreted by the federal government as a boundless grant of power, transforming the limited government that supporters of the Constitution promised into an unlimited government that would menace the people's liberties. He was likewise concerned about the "general welfare" clause, since government could justify practically any action it might take by some strained reference to the general welfare.

Do you know what "necessary" and "proper" actually mean?

Necessary -- The group or person must do this in order to follow through on their obligations. The federal government is obligated to two things: protect We the People from piracy, counterfeiting and treason, and prevent the states from trampling on our freedoms.

Proper -- The group or person must do the action morally to follow through on their obligations. The federal government is obligated to only do what the Constitution has limited them to do.

Don't use words you don't understand.

After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a judge.

Relented? The government is supposedly here to protect us and never stomp on our freedoms. When is the government ever NOT supposed to relent to the citizen? I believe that's their job -- to relent to our will if they come onto our property without just cause. In fact, I don't even believe they ever have just cause as the federal government has gone beyond their constitutionally mandated limits of power.

The FBI, to me, is a completely unconstitutional arm of government. I usually hear the entire "But the Justice Department needs to do their job and the FBI enforces this" and yet I also find the Justice Department unconstitutional. Neither is compatible with freedom or a republican (not the political party definition) form of limited central government.

The FBI is the greatest violator of racketeering laws. They have all the power to force you to perform actions against your will. They have all the power to take what they please when they please, and all you have is the ability to address your grievance in the courts -- the same courts that are paid by the same people who pay the FBI. And how do you vote the FBI out of office?

I don't like the idea of police that aren't policed. I have enough problems with the power that the local cops have -- it goes straight to their heads the minute they put the badge on for the first time. Federal cops are against everything I believe in -- what exactly is the FBI policing? The Constitution set up the crimes that the Federal arm was to enforce -- piracy, counterfeiting and treason. The FBI is not needed to police any of these crimes.

Sure, you can say that the commerce clause gives Congress unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce and they need the FBI to police that commerce. My view on the regulation of commerce is from a freedom perspective -- the commerce clause was written specifically to give Congress the authority to prevent any individual state from restricting commerce with another state. Congress has no mandate to do the restricting of commerce but to regulate the states from restricting free trade. That's pretty much what the founding fathers intended as well.

You can say that the FBI is needed to prevent terrorism, but they haven't. We foster terrorism by provoking anger -- our troops are in over 100 countries of the world today. If you wonder why people hate us, look at the monsters with guns that wear our flag, within our country and beyond our borders in the hundred or more countries we're policing against the will of those citizens.

You can say that the FBI is needed to police child porn or illegal communications between states, but this is also untrue -- both are protected from federal policing by the Constitution, and should be policed only by the individual states if the people so decide. Nothing prevents states from working deals out to help each other when crimes cross into their neighboring states

I don't see the need for the FBI. All I see is their involvement in crime after crime committed by the authoritarian state -- look at prohibition, the drug war, and the daily mistakes that repeat themselves by an organization with too much power and no overview.

Sort of reminds me of Congress, actually.

After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a judge.

Relented? The government is supposedly here to protect us and never stomp on our freedoms. When is the government ever NOT supposed to relent to the citizen? I believe that's their job -- to relent to our will if they come onto our property without just cause. In fact, I don't even believe they ever have just cause as the federal government has gone beyond their constitutionally mandated limits of power.

The FBI, to me, is a completely unconstitutional arm of government. I usually hear the entire "But the Justice Department needs to do their job and the FBI enforces this" and yet I also find the Justice Department unconstitutional. Neither is compatible with freedom or a republican (not the political party definition) form of limited central government.

The FBI is the greatest violator of racketeering laws. They have all the power to force you to perform actions against your will. They have all the power to take what they please when they please, and all you have is the ability to address your grievance in the courts -- the same courts that are paid by the same people who pay the FBI. And how do you vote the FBI out of office?

I don't like the idea of police that aren't policed. I have enough problems with the power that the local cops have -- it goes straight to their heads the minute they put the badge on for the first time. Federal cops are against everything I believe in -- what exactly is the FBI policing? The Constitution set up the crimes that the Federal arm was to enforce -- piracy, counterfeiting and treason. The FBI is not needed to police any of these crimes.

Sure, you can say that the commerce clause gives Congress unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce and they need the FBI to police that commerce. My view on the regulation of commerce is from a freedom perspective -- the commerce clause was written specifically to give Congress the authority to prevent any individual state from restricting commerce with another state. Congress has no mandate to do the restricting of commerce but to regulate the states from restricting free trade. That's pretty much what the founding fathers intended as well.

You can say that the FBI is needed to prevent terrorism, but they haven't. We foster terrorism by provoking anger -- our troops are in over 100 countries of the world today. If you wonder why people hate us, look at the monsters with guns that wear our flag, within our country and beyond our borders in the hundred or more countries we're policing against the will of those citizens.

You can say that the FBI is needed to police child porn or illegal communications between states, but this is also untrue -- both are protected from federal policing by the Constitution, and should be policed only by the individual states if the people so decide. Nothing prevents states from working deals out to help each other when crimes cross into their neighboring states

I don't see the need for the FBI. All I see is their involvement in crime after crime committed by the authoritarian state -- look at prohibition, the drug war, and the daily mistakes that repeat themselves by an organization with too much power and no overview.

Sort of reminds me of Congress, actually.

After a brief standoff, FBI officials relented and sought a warrant from a judge.

Relented? The government is supposedly here to protect us and never stomp on our freedoms. When is the government ever NOT supposed to relent to the citizen? I believe that's their job -- to relent to our will if they come onto our property without just cause. In fact, I don't even believe they ever have just cause as the federal government has gone beyond their constitutionally mandated limits of power.

The FBI, to me, is a completely unconstitutional arm of government. I usually hear the entire "But the Justice Department needs to do their job and the FBI enforces this" and yet I also find the Justice Department unconstitutional. Neither is compatible with freedom or a republican (not the political party definition) form of limited central government.

The FBI is the greatest violator of racketeering laws. They have all the power to force you to perform actions against your will. They have all the power to take what they please when they please, and all you have is the ability to address your grievance in the courts -- the same courts that are paid by the same people who pay the FBI. And how do you vote the FBI out of office?

I don't like the idea of police that aren't policed. I have enough problems with the power that the local cops have -- it goes straight to their heads the minute they put the badge on for the first time. Federal cops are against everything I believe in -- what exactly is the FBI policing? The Constitution set up the crimes that the Federal arm was to enforce -- piracy, counterfeiting and treason. The FBI is not needed to police any of these crimes.

Sure, you can say that the commerce clause gives Congress unlimited power to regulate interstate commerce and they need the FBI to police that commerce. My view on the regulation of commerce is from a freedom perspective -- the commerce clause was written specifically to give Congress the authority to prevent any individual state from restricting commerce with another state. Congress has no mandate to do the restricting of commerce but to regulate the states from restricting free trade. That's pretty much what the founding fathers intended as well.

You can say that the FBI is needed to prevent terrorism, but they haven't. We foster terrorism by provoking anger -- our troops are in over 100 countries of the world today. If you wonder why people hate us, look at the monsters with guns that wear our flag, within our country and beyond our borders in the hundred or more countries we're policing against the will of those citizens.

You can say that the FBI is needed to police child porn or illegal communications between states, but this is also untrue -- both are protected from federal policing by the Constitution, and should be policed only by the individual states if the people so decide. Nothing prevents states from working deals out to help each other when crimes cross into their neighboring states

I don't see the need for the FBI. All I see is their involvement in crime after crime committed by the authoritarian state -- look at prohibition, the drug war, and the daily mistakes that repeat themselves by an organization with too much power and no overview.

Sort of reminds me of Congress, actually.

You're so right. Try to talk to someone about this sometime:
.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.ht ml

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.htm l

Very strong evidence of controlled demolition of all 3 towers on 9/11, and nobody wants to talk about it. I'm being ostracized by my family right now. My wife even refuses to entertain the idea.

But like the other guy said, evil can flourish when good men do nothing, so I continue to invite ridicule and worse by raising the discussion.

> Currently, the cops don't just randomly stop people and ask for ID. They stop you because they suspect you of a crime.
> ...
> So when they arrest you, it's for whatever that crime (or pretext) was, not for failing to show ID.

Have you heard of Russ Stein? The cops in his case had absolutely no reason to suspect him of anything, but they arrested him anyway when he refused to produce ID.

ut its also isolated to NYC - like a lot of problems NYC has.

Watch the 20/20 episode -- this problem is NOT isolated to NYC. My town (suburban, halfway between Chicago and Milwaukee) has 2 teachers that should have been fired years ago -- but the school administration can't. The union has threatened to walk if the teachers are canned. I am very involved with my school board (I constantly go to review why my stolen taxdollars are being wasted on useless programs).

However, you remain completely silent on the fact that many poor simply wouldn't get an education.

Since when is this a fact? The poor eat, right? The poor generally have televisions and cell phones also. Some of the poor in this country are indoctrinated poor people -- they're poor because it means less work.

Jacon Hornberger comments about how the poor would get educated in a free market education system. Voluntary donations by the wealthy. In fact, this has been happening for decades already.

The poor today already get the worst educations -- their schools are run over by gangs, drug dealers and unsafe environments. From what I've seen in my volunteer time with my church in very bad neighborhoods near my town, the poor are sent to school to keep them together. Kids with the desire to get away from their poverty have no chance -- the system won't allow it.

There are also places where it completely fails - particularly when there just isn't much market competition involved.

Yet McDonalds and Burger King can provide a meal for $3 (cheaper over time actually), but education has to increase its costs 10% every year? Wal*Mart can provide clothing at lower and lower prices every year, but we need to keep adding more topics for teachers to teach even though we're already paying way more than we should be?

Before we had public education, our poor had higher literacy rates. Current literacy rates do not actually test reading skill, they are based on how many years a student has studied English. Been in school for 6 years? You're literate, at least for statistical purposes.

To me, it seems that public education stifles 90% of the kids in order to try to help the 10% at the bottom. This is not how it should be. By trying to make everyone an average citizen, how can you expect some to excel and become the next wealthy generation? How can you expect some to have to settle in lower paying jobs to keep the economy driving strong?

Before public education literacy was not very high.

This is a myth, and I hear it all the time from friends of mine who are part of the teachers union.

Literacy rates have fallen since we've increased the funding to public education:

Teacher Linda Shrock Taylor shows that literacy rates are not based on actual literacy but on the amount of years a student has attended an education curriculum. Scary scary scary!

When colleges were paid for primarily by the student or private funds, you KNEW what type of college you were attending. The best schools even had professors who still worked in the industry "Those who can't do, teach" was not really an accurate cliche.

When was this? Oh, right. Back in the 1930s, when only a small fraction of the population attended college, before World War II and the GI Bill. You knew what you were getting alright. You were getting an elitist preserve of WASP men that excluded virtually everyone else.

Now we have primarily public funding in college. What do you expect but State-loving socialists instead of true masters of academia? Is college even necessary [lewrockwell.com] if you're to go on to a non-science profession?

The humanities in academia are obviously dominated by liberal Democrats, which is probably not good for academic discourse. As to whether the cause is public funding can be debated, particularly in the absence of proof. If public funding automatically leads to socialism, then the military ought to be populated by Lefties. As to whether a college education is necessary for non-science people, that seems to be an obvious expression of bias: The sciences require learning and rigorous thinking, but the humanities do not.

One of the few professors I still admire is Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who had something to say [lewrockwell.com] about the system and the garbage bin it has fallen into. I'm not sure we'll see any real changes until we remove the federal funding of education from all education, especially the college grants and loans that the government seems to happy to dole out.

That would certainly make changes. Things could go back to the way they were back in the halcyon days before the GI Bill and the democratization of higher education, when Jews could be excluded by policies crafted specifically to deny them entrance into top schools. I suppose that doesn't matter if you're a white male, but a lot of other people out there might not be so excited about the society without democracy that Hans-Hermann Hoppe advocates. He goes far beyond the question of public funding of higher education, and into the realm misty-eyed libertarianism, where unimpeded commerce rids us of all social ills:

In subsidizing the malingerers, the neurotics, the careless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts, the Aids-infected, and the physically and mentally 'challenged' through insurance regulation and compulsory health insurance, there will be more illness, malingering, neuroticism, carelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, Aids infection, and physical and mental retardation. By forcing non-criminals, including the victims of crime, to pay for the imprisonment of criminals (rather than making criminals compensate their victims and pay the full cost of their own apprehension and incarceration), crime will increase. By forcing businessmen, through 'affirmative action' ('non-discrimination') programs, to employ more women, homosexuals, blacks, or other 'minorities' than they would like to, there will be more employed minorities, and fewer employers and fewer male, heterosexual, and white employment. By compelling private land owners to subsidize ('protect') 'endangered species' residing on their land through environmental legislation, there will be more and better-off animals, and fewer and worse-off humans.

Do you suppose the good Professor would have wanted to fight to free slaves in the days leading up to the American Civil War? Would he have fought for a woman's right to vote? He obviously would not have wanted the government to stop "businessmen" from employing 10-year old children. But hey, economic efficiency invariably leads to nirvana for white males, who cares if the scum have to suffer?

As for the old c

However, how does a student getting money, which he can spend in whatever university he chooses to go to, including private ones, going to make that student a worse student than the one paying his way through?

In order to qualify for federal funds, colleges must meet federal mandates for levels of education. These mandates also include very hefty bureaucratic red tape messes. A few colleges nationally (VERY FEW, can count them on your fingers) don't accept any federal funding of any kind (including grants and loans) -- leaving them able to accomodate what the market wants in education, not what government may have decided is correct 10 years ago. See J.H. Huebert's view on college regulation by Congress and how it has become affected by federal financing.

Also, colleges accepting federal funding do seem to be more "liberal" than the colleges that don't. Neal Zupancic offers some good pointers as to why public college funding is creating a bigger problem than had ever existed before federal mandates.

As to federal dollars increasing the cost, this is completely true. As the money supply in any market goes up (more money available), prices rise. This happens when Greenspan runs the money printing machine (ends up in inflation in everything), as well as in healthcare (medicare, medicaid and social security causing medical prices to go up), and even in education.

Take the money (and the mandates) out and let colleges be competitive in every way.

However, how does a student getting money, which he can spend in whatever university he chooses to go to, including private ones, going to make that student a worse student than the one paying his way through?

In order to qualify for federal funds, colleges must meet federal mandates for levels of education. These mandates also include very hefty bureaucratic red tape messes. A few colleges nationally (VERY FEW, can count them on your fingers) don't accept any federal funding of any kind (including grants and loans) -- leaving them able to accomodate what the market wants in education, not what government may have decided is correct 10 years ago. See J.H. Huebert's view on college regulation by Congress and how it has become affected by federal financing.

Also, colleges accepting federal funding do seem to be more "liberal" than the colleges that don't. Neal Zupancic offers some good pointers as to why public college funding is creating a bigger problem than had ever existed before federal mandates.

As to federal dollars increasing the cost, this is completely true. As the money supply in any market goes up (more money available), prices rise. This happens when Greenspan runs the money printing machine (ends up in inflation in everything), as well as in healthcare (medicare, medicaid and social security causing medical prices to go up), and even in education.

Take the money (and the mandates) out and let colleges be competitive in every way.

Don't fool yourself by thinking that the government is funding our entire education (or even a significant portion) when it's giving out more in your damn tax refund.

The tax refund was just an excuse for Greenspan and his peers to just print more money. There is no "refund" when our dollars are being depreciated by the Fed, week by week.

On top of that, education is funded more by government than by private institutions. Government grants and allotments account for more than direct-to-college funds -- they subsidize the students with lower-than-market loans (which never seem to get repaid) and guarantees on top of those loans.

Tracy Saboe seems to realize this -- the State has done more damage than what they were hoping to repair.

When colleges were paid for primarily by the student or private funds, you KNEW what type of college you were attending. The best schools even had professors who still worked in the industry "Those who can't do, teach" was not really an accurate cliche.

Now we have primarily public funding in college. What do you expect but State-loving socialists instead of true masters of academia? Is college even necessary if you're to go on to a non-science profession?

One of the few professors I still admire is Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who had something to say about the system and the garbage bin it has fallen into. I'm not sure we'll see any real changes until we remove the federal funding of education from all education, especially the college grants and loans that the government seems to happy to dole out.

When colleges were paid for primarily by the student or private funds, you KNEW what type of college you were attending. The best schools even had professors who still worked in the industry "Those who can't do, teach" was not really an accurate cliche.

Now we have primarily public funding in college. What do you expect but State-loving socialists instead of true masters of academia? Is college even necessary if you're to go on to a non-science profession?

One of the few professors I still admire is Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who had something to say about the system and the garbage bin it has fallen into. I'm not sure we'll see any real changes until we remove the federal funding of education from all education, especially the college grants and loans that the government seems to happy to dole out.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with payola?

My mistake in assuming you meant subsidy. But you hit the nail on the head. Currently, private property rights are not established in space, and that will be a serious impediment. Private property rights are essential for a free market to thrive. Without it, investment stops because there's no legal mechanism in place to protect your property. Here's another very good article about this subject.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance8.html

I was wrong, it isn't 100 countries it's ~130-something.

Out of nearly 200.

That's simply false and doesn't even merit a response.

Let's see how I can pwn this comment with a response of some articles covering how the disabled are hurt by the ADA laws and complaince regulations:

If You Weren't Disabled Before the ADA, You Are Now by Greg Perry

ADA Success? At What?

What is disabled?

These are my top 3 favorite articles (different authors, same website that keeps a good list of pro-liberty pieces). Read them and you'll see that the ADA is not helpful.

By the way, I have disabled friends and family who all agree it is harder to get a job and costlier to be disabled now than 10 years ago. What is your basis to repudiate what they've told me? Are you disabled? Do you live with a disabled person? Do you employ disabled people? I have a full time IT tech that is deaf who has worked for me for 3 years, and I pay him double what he received at his previous job. I also have a blind sales person who travels for me (he's legally blid 20/400 in his best eye) internationally. I do think I have something to say over what you do, my "theory" is based on facts in dealing with the disabled. Your "theory" seems to be based on class warfare.

That's simply false and doesn't even merit a response.

Let's see how I can pwn this comment with a response of some articles covering how the disabled are hurt by the ADA laws and complaince regulations:

If You Weren't Disabled Before the ADA, You Are Now by Greg Perry

ADA Success? At What?

What is disabled?

These are my top 3 favorite articles (different authors, same website that keeps a good list of pro-liberty pieces). Read them and you'll see that the ADA is not helpful.

By the way, I have disabled friends and family who all agree it is harder to get a job and costlier to be disabled now than 10 years ago. What is your basis to repudiate what they've told me? Are you disabled? Do you live with a disabled person? Do you employ disabled people? I have a full time IT tech that is deaf who has worked for me for 3 years, and I pay him double what he received at his previous job. I also have a blind sales person who travels for me (he's legally blid 20/400 in his best eye) internationally. I do think I have something to say over what you do, my "theory" is based on facts in dealing with the disabled. Your "theory" seems to be based on class warfare.

That's simply false and doesn't even merit a response.

Let's see how I can pwn this comment with a response of some articles covering how the disabled are hurt by the ADA laws and complaince regulations:

If You Weren't Disabled Before the ADA, You Are Now by Greg Perry

ADA Success? At What?

What is disabled?

These are my top 3 favorite articles (different authors, same website that keeps a good list of pro-liberty pieces). Read them and you'll see that the ADA is not helpful.

By the way, I have disabled friends and family who all agree it is harder to get a job and costlier to be disabled now than 10 years ago. What is your basis to repudiate what they've told me? Are you disabled? Do you live with a disabled person? Do you employ disabled people? I have a full time IT tech that is deaf who has worked for me for 3 years, and I pay him double what he received at his previous job. I also have a blind sales person who travels for me (he's legally blid 20/400 in his best eye) internationally. I do think I have something to say over what you do, my "theory" is based on facts in dealing with the disabled. Your "theory" seems to be based on class warfare.

The density of people on the land is increasing, since the number of people is increasing, and the part of the land that is useful to us is decreasing (desertification, salination, erosion, pollution, etc)

Actually, I tend to disagree. I see the amount of land becoming available to us as increasing. As technological resources continue to come to fruition, you'll see more people living on ocean cruisers, you'll see more homes being built in the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico (I was just there, and one desert town is now a grass-covered urban area). You'll see more buildings moving upward, allowing more people to live in comfort. Even in the deserts of the Middle East (just outside of Dubai) I see high rises.

Go look at the early history of ... anywhere

Before the printing press, yes. People lived and died based on the beliefs that their warlord was granted by God to conquer and spread their souls through rape and pillage. Now that people are a bit more intelligent, the mandate of God is not as potent. Maybe it is in the US (I'm a Christ follower and I just wrote about how Jesus was anti-government: 1 Samuel 8).

As people get more intelligent, they do realize that life is better through voluntary cooperation of mutual profit (capitalism). I don't see anyone allowing things to go to hell in a handbasket, as we've always worked together in mutual profit to make our lives better. The only time we don't is when we give government a big stick to smack us around with.

the chap who successfully predicted the USA's peak oil, and has predicted the world's peak oil soon now.

There is no peak oil. There never was, and there likely never will be. There is more oil available in the US than has every been taken out combined. Here and here.

Do I think oil will hit US$85 this year? Of course! The Fed keeps printing fake money, so all prices will rise. Oil is cheaper today than at any time in history once you factor in government printing presses and their inflation cycle. If oil is getting cheaper, it means that we aren't running out.

The density of people on the land is increasing, since the number of people is increasing, and the part of the land that is useful to us is decreasing (desertification, salination, erosion, pollution, etc)

Actually, I tend to disagree. I see the amount of land becoming available to us as increasing. As technological resources continue to come to fruition, you'll see more people living on ocean cruisers, you'll see more homes being built in the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico (I was just there, and one desert town is now a grass-covered urban area). You'll see more buildings moving upward, allowing more people to live in comfort. Even in the deserts of the Middle East (just outside of Dubai) I see high rises.

Go look at the early history of ... anywhere

Before the printing press, yes. People lived and died based on the beliefs that their warlord was granted by God to conquer and spread their souls through rape and pillage. Now that people are a bit more intelligent, the mandate of God is not as potent. Maybe it is in the US (I'm a Christ follower and I just wrote about how Jesus was anti-government: 1 Samuel 8).

As people get more intelligent, they do realize that life is better through voluntary cooperation of mutual profit (capitalism). I don't see anyone allowing things to go to hell in a handbasket, as we've always worked together in mutual profit to make our lives better. The only time we don't is when we give government a big stick to smack us around with.

the chap who successfully predicted the USA's peak oil, and has predicted the world's peak oil soon now.

There is no peak oil. There never was, and there likely never will be. There is more oil available in the US than has every been taken out combined. Here and here.

Do I think oil will hit US$85 this year? Of course! The Fed keeps printing fake money, so all prices will rise. Oil is cheaper today than at any time in history once you factor in government printing presses and their inflation cycle. If oil is getting cheaper, it means that we aren't running out.

Hurray for Burt Rutan and Paul Allen: Now It's Time to Deep-Six NASA!!!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grichar/grichar49.html

In what way would you overhaul tort laws?

This is a great question. Constitutionally, the federal government has no jurisdiction over matters of civil tort.

Before looking at what tort "reforms" would be necessary, I have to first say that I believe that you should only go after someone for matters of civil tort if the person actually did a crime against you. If a gun manufacturer makes a gun and someone buys that gun and shoots you, you should go after the criminal who shot the gun. If you work at a job that has obvious safety problems, you should verify that the job site you are working on is safe -- you are your best safety supervisor. Mining is VERY dangerous, but people keep doing it, most safely.

In a situation where someone creates something that is obviously unsafe, you have to make the decision not to use that product or service, or not take that job. That is common sense. If someone creates an item that looks safe but ends up not being safe, I believe that you can file a tort suit against the vendor (not the manufacturer in most cases). When you make a purchase, you can contractually obligate the vendor to making sure that the product that they sell performs the job it should, and is not inherently unsafe.

The problem with tort today is that it wants to see everyone for one user's incompetence and incapacity to understand personal responsibility. Tort matters deal with criminal intent, not what is deals with today. The New Deal was the beginning of the end for proper tort in this country, as Paul Craig Roberts shows here. Tort became a tool for achieving public welfare goals, but in the end protected no one but government and the cronies protected by government.

Tort deals with the harm done to one person by another. We've gone so far beyond the proper definition of tort that we no longer allow people to realize they have to be responsible for their actions -- and they have to walk away from situations that might be dangerous. People believe they have a right to be safe, and that is why we have such tragedies.

Ignorance? "Team of Rivals" I've read -- and Professor DiLorenzo does a great job here and here. Goodwin is definitely the "court historian" and he puts it -- continuing with the lies and the myth that to this day call Lincoln a great man instead of a worthless tyrant that he truly was.

Lincoln HAD no philosophy. He repeatedly changed his opinions on a whim in order to produce a false philosophy for whoever he was speaking to at the moment. Laurence Vance comes up with some great advice for Lincoln lovers:

In his debate with Stephen Douglas:

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. Yes, friends, that is Honest Abe talking.

In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

In Lincoln's Letter to Horance Greenley, the editor of the New York Tribune:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Oh, and Lincoln didn't free slaves in the United States -- the Confederate States of America legally and constitutionally seceeded (per the 9th and 10th Amendment as well as many State constitutions that held that right before signing into the Union), so they were out of Lincoln's control. Lincoln decided to basically free slaves in another country! Here is where Lincoln did NOT free slaves that existed in the Union:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

Look at those states and cities that Lincoln refused to release from slavery!

Lincoln's Army raped and pillaged the south -- setting fires everywhere. He destroyed Indians who were neutral on the War between States. Lincoln HATED blacks, and he only fought the war to preserve the Union so he could tax the prosperous South to pay tribute to his friends in the north with corporate welfare dollars.

Don't believe what you learned in school -- history written by the winners, not written based on the facts.

Ignorance? "Team of Rivals" I've read -- and Professor DiLorenzo does a great job here and here. Goodwin is definitely the "court historian" and he puts it -- continuing with the lies and the myth that to this day call Lincoln a great man instead of a worthless tyrant that he truly was.

Lincoln HAD no philosophy. He repeatedly changed his opinions on a whim in order to produce a false philosophy for whoever he was speaking to at the moment. Laurence Vance comes up with some great advice for Lincoln lovers:

In his debate with Stephen Douglas:

I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. Yes, friends, that is Honest Abe talking.

In Lincoln's First Inaugural Address:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

In Lincoln's Letter to Horance Greenley, the editor of the New York Tribune:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

Oh, and Lincoln didn't free slaves in the United States -- the Confederate States of America legally and constitutionally seceeded (per the 9th and 10th Amendment as well as many State constitutions that held that right before signing into the Union), so they were out of Lincoln's control. Lincoln decided to basically free slaves in another country! Here is where Lincoln did NOT free slaves that existed in the Union:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

Look at those states and cities that Lincoln refused to release from slavery!

Lincoln's Army raped and pillaged the south -- setting fires everywhere. He destroyed Indians who were neutral on the War between States. Lincoln HATED blacks, and he only fought the war to preserve the Union so he could tax the prosperous South to pay tribute to his friends in the north with corporate welfare dollars.

Don't believe what you learned in school -- history written by the winners, not written based on the facts.

Their incredible ability to defend themselves and their much vaunted neutrality add up to no-one sane wants to go to war with Switzerland, they're not a threat to anyone as long as they're left alone and invading them would be far far too expensive in terms of men to be worth it.

This is an oft repeated line, but it is amusing (if not accurate):

Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html

I am very happy that there is a watchdog making sure that the meat I get at the supermarket isn't diseased, rotting, filled with heavy metals, and so on; sure, they do screw up from time to time, but overall, you've got a pretty good guarantee that the steak you buy at $GROCER is both edible and nourishing.

Proper tort laws are what would regulate grocery stores in a free-er market. If a grocery store sells bad meat, you can expect them to go out of business. I don't fear the days of The Jungle because much of that book was myth and fiction that we take as fact. It was inaccurate and biased and very little of it can be held up as fact, if any. Don't believe what your teachers taught you, I guess.

Repeat business for drug companies was encouraged, of course, but why go through the trouble of making drugs that work, when you can just add some cocaine or heroin to those Wonder Pills?

Because cocaine and heroine have very useful medicinal purposes when prescribed by a doctor. I can't look back at the 20's as this was the beginning of the medical revolution -- what we have today is far different from what we had back then. When cars were first created, they were unsafe but they were made safer to get return customers. The same is true of any new invention -- if you want to sell more, it has to work and it has to be safe.

Which is why I believe in things like state-run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, libraries, public education, minimum wage, and a mixed public/private healthcare system -- cheap on the taxes, great for the masses, and even with room for the capitalists to play.

I'll accept that, but I would love a way to "opt out." Hell, I'd hang a huge sign on my car, drive on private roads only, never walk into a public school or public library, and get permanently tattooed so I never collect a dime from social security, medicare or any of those organizations. I'd love to get out of the 50% tax rate that I (and all of you) pay for a nanny state.

I trust my suppliers and those I buy from because they want me to come back again and again. I've been poor, beneath poor even, and the only reason I am a success is because I busted my ass. The poor who continue to stay poor are in that position because they're granted so many welfare doles, they have no incentive to bust their asses to get out of the lives they live.

My church helps poor people become successful every day. We do a much better job than government will EVER do, and those poor people who don't want to succeed we stop helping.

Did he really say that?

I'd love to see him answer that question under oath.

At least one former liuetenant colonel believes it:

Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D. [send her mail], a retired USAF lieutenant colonel who spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon's Near East/South Asia bureau. She lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley, and among other things, has written on defense issues with a libertarian perspective for militaryweek.com, hosts the call-in radio show American Forum on Saturday nights, and blogs occasionally for Huffingtonpost.com. To receive automatic announcements of new articles and upcoming guests on her American Forum radio

I've asked the question in the past -- what stifling monopolies did we have in the past?

Standard Oil? Halfway down the page, Edmonds refutes that S.O. was a monopoly except where it worked with government to create laws.

I'd like to know who was a monopoly so I can research WHY they were a monopoly. I don't see much proof that a corporation had monopoly powers, except when they were able to abuse the power of Congress in their favor.

"Seriously, if you really think the 'average american' gave a damn about their rights, then why doesn't the Libertarian party get more recognition?"

Because the Libertarians have an aura of wingnut whackjob in general. Not a flame, but the truth. One Libertarian can make a point, two can make an arguement but for crying outloud if you have a bunch of them around it's like Trekkies. I just looked over the platform of the National Libertarian Party, on the surface it seems...alright, but you know about those folks out there that'd have the sidewalks sold off to the private sector.

It's like some of the"Paleo-Conservative" organizations and sites, on the surface it's you can see thier point, but it's not long till someone writes a piece on how Slavery was on it's way out and the Slaves in the South were better off slaves than free.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance61.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo29.h tml
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo37.h tml

I own firearms and support the 2nd Amendment however statements like "I don't believe in gun control" seem broad, I mean if Timmy is a Meth-head who won't go to jail for Meth now that theres no Drug Laws, can he go buy a full auto M-4 with an M-203 underslung? Thats the issue I have with the Libertarian Party's platform, it's mighty scarce on details and refinement.

"Seriously, if you really think the 'average american' gave a damn about their rights, then why doesn't the Libertarian party get more recognition?"

Because the Libertarians have an aura of wingnut whackjob in general. Not a flame, but the truth. One Libertarian can make a point, two can make an arguement but for crying outloud if you have a bunch of them around it's like Trekkies. I just looked over the platform of the National Libertarian Party, on the surface it seems...alright, but you know about those folks out there that'd have the sidewalks sold off to the private sector.

It's like some of the"Paleo-Conservative" organizations and sites, on the surface it's you can see thier point, but it's not long till someone writes a piece on how Slavery was on it's way out and the Slaves in the South were better off slaves than free.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance61.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo29.h tml
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo37.h tml

I own firearms and support the 2nd Amendment however statements like "I don't believe in gun control" seem broad, I mean if Timmy is a Meth-head who won't go to jail for Meth now that theres no Drug Laws, can he go buy a full auto M-4 with an M-203 underslung? Thats the issue I have with the Libertarian Party's platform, it's mighty scarce on details and refinement.

"Seriously, if you really think the 'average american' gave a damn about their rights, then why doesn't the Libertarian party get more recognition?"

Because the Libertarians have an aura of wingnut whackjob in general. Not a flame, but the truth. One Libertarian can make a point, two can make an arguement but for crying outloud if you have a bunch of them around it's like Trekkies. I just looked over the platform of the National Libertarian Party, on the surface it seems...alright, but you know about those folks out there that'd have the sidewalks sold off to the private sector.

It's like some of the"Paleo-Conservative" organizations and sites, on the surface it's you can see thier point, but it's not long till someone writes a piece on how Slavery was on it's way out and the Slaves in the South were better off slaves than free.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance61.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo29.h tml
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo37.h tml

I own firearms and support the 2nd Amendment however statements like "I don't believe in gun control" seem broad, I mean if Timmy is a Meth-head who won't go to jail for Meth now that theres no Drug Laws, can he go buy a full auto M-4 with an M-203 underslung? Thats the issue I have with the Libertarian Party's platform, it's mighty scarce on details and refinement.

Out of curiosity, where would the laws come from if there was no voting on them? Is your utopia some kind of autocracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://mises.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/

What about maintenance?

I think you CAN blame an overreaching Congress, here. The insurance companies are, of course, pushing Congress to mandate buying insurance. Any mandate causes the price to go up. Yet many laws on the books that criminalize cocaine, heroine/opiates, and even marijuana cause the prices of drugs to go up as well (legal ones).

Here is a decent article regarding the health care problem and how over-regulation and over-mandation (is that a word, editors?) is causing the nightmare.

My doctor is 80. He remembers the day that he could prescribe drugs for $5 and he could make housecalls for $5 (free to his poorest patients). He admits it is government that has destroyed his love for helping the sick. He is no anarchist, like me.

Socialized health care is the rot of the world, second only to the legal profession that has created the mess of laws we live under today.

I've read that article and the author (Masugi) as well as the publisher (NRO) seems to ignore any credible referencing on their retort. DiLorenzo's book has dozens of pages of references to Lincoln's actual speeches and letters, where as hundreds of pro-Lincoln books generally cross-reference each other.

I grew up in Illinois (The Land of Lincoln) and always believed him to be the best President, even after I accepted my anti-State stance. It wasn't until I read DiLorenzo and then read some pro-Lincoln books that I realized that Lincoln was likely one of the worst Presidents, and that his party (the Republican party) is following in Clay/Hamilton's American System of Mercantilism. I'm no liberal, and to call DiLorenzo a liberal is to try to cloud the issue.

For some decent debate on the Masugi articles:

A Reply to Ken Masugi -- with references

By DiLorenzo - A direct rebuttal

Dilorenzo critics

All are links to LRC but they are all different authors (Dieteman, DiLorenzo and Ostrowski).

I offer a pretty decent deal to anyone interested in reading The Real Lincoln. Buy a copy, read it, and if you don't like it I'll reimburse you 100% for the cost and shipping (keep it realistic, no FedEx same day shipping please). I've bought back about a dozen but I know of at least 100 more that were purchased that the readers kept and that changed their minds greatly on this American myth.

I've read that article and the author (Masugi) as well as the publisher (NRO) seems to ignore any credible referencing on their retort. DiLorenzo's book has dozens of pages of references to Lincoln's actual speeches and letters, where as hundreds of pro-Lincoln books generally cross-reference each other.

I grew up in Illinois (The Land of Lincoln) and always believed him to be the best President, even after I accepted my anti-State stance. It wasn't until I read DiLorenzo and then read some pro-Lincoln books that I realized that Lincoln was likely one of the worst Presidents, and that his party (the Republican party) is following in Clay/Hamilton's American System of Mercantilism. I'm no liberal, and to call DiLorenzo a liberal is to try to cloud the issue.

For some decent debate on the Masugi articles:

A Reply to Ken Masugi -- with references

By DiLorenzo - A direct rebuttal

Dilorenzo critics

All are links to LRC but they are all different authors (Dieteman, DiLorenzo and Ostrowski).

I offer a pretty decent deal to anyone interested in reading The Real Lincoln. Buy a copy, read it, and if you don't like it I'll reimburse you 100% for the cost and shipping (keep it realistic, no FedEx same day shipping please). I've bought back about a dozen but I know of at least 100 more that were purchased that the readers kept and that changed their minds greatly on this American myth.

I've read that article and the author (Masugi) as well as the publisher (NRO) seems to ignore any credible referencing on their retort. DiLorenzo's book has dozens of pages of references to Lincoln's actual speeches and letters, where as hundreds of pro-Lincoln books generally cross-reference each other.

I grew up in Illinois (The Land of Lincoln) and always believed him to be the best President, even after I accepted my anti-State stance. It wasn't until I read DiLorenzo and then read some pro-Lincoln books that I realized that Lincoln was likely one of the worst Presidents, and that his party (the Republican party) is following in Clay/Hamilton's American System of Mercantilism. I'm no liberal, and to call DiLorenzo a liberal is to try to cloud the issue.

For some decent debate on the Masugi articles:

A Reply to Ken Masugi -- with references

By DiLorenzo - A direct rebuttal

Dilorenzo critics

All are links to LRC but they are all different authors (Dieteman, DiLorenzo and Ostrowski).

I offer a pretty decent deal to anyone interested in reading The Real Lincoln. Buy a copy, read it, and if you don't like it I'll reimburse you 100% for the cost and shipping (keep it realistic, no FedEx same day shipping please). I've bought back about a dozen but I know of at least 100 more that were purchased that the readers kept and that changed their minds greatly on this American myth.

J. Robert Oppenheimer, (1904-1967) the Supervising Scientist of the Manhattan Project was giving a lecture at Rochester University seven years after the first atomic weapon was successfully detonated. After his lecture he opened the floor to a period of questions and answers.

One student asked: "Was the bomb exploded at Alamogordo during the Manhattan Project the first one to be detonated?"

Dr. Oppenheimer's answer was short but extremely telling. Dr. Oppenheimer said: "Well - yes. In modern times, of course."

-------

There is a ton more material out there on ancient nuclear wars. Just go google "ancient nuclear war" and see for yourself. Be objective. You might learn something.

Alternate energy? Black projects? Black science? Oil cartels? Repressed energy technology? Science cover-ups? Murdered scientists? ... go google ... It is insane how much material exists. Just remember that the U.S. black budget is higher than most country's GDPs, and that is without counting the hidden revenue (such as CIA drug operations and whatnot - yea, again, tin-foil hat stuff, right?). Don't ridicule. Go find out for yourself.

Fact can be and usually is, much stranger than fiction.

It looks like there were some ethical violations -- where the current ethical system means no possibility of coercion (e.g. no eggs from within the team) and no payment for eggs.

Here is something on the ethics of donations (from some free market fans).

One thing seems obvious: if they'd had been able to easily buy eggs, it wouldn't have been a hassle: they'd never have gotten eggs from staff, and the problem would have been solved. The lack of trading in eggs prevented these guys from doing the research and complying with the ethical restrictions.

Here's a nice piece from the sadly discredited NY Times author, Martin Finkel (he lied a story and got fired), talking about a Kidney market in pre-GWII Iraq.

I'm happy to see that we're looking at an important part of a free competitive market: voluntary cooperation for better competitive products.

The security enhancements we'll see that come out of these (and future) discussions will help all users yet also increase competitiveness in other areas. We didn't need a Congress or government body to force regulations, they're occurring out of customer need.

Note that government could create regulations but we all know that those regulations come too late and can never adapt to current and future ever-changing needs.

I read a great article today about the historical growth of the Net because of the lack of regulations and taxes.

Conformity and process are the primary goals of the educational system, even though many teachers are striving for excellence in educating the students. There is a reason the only objection to homeschooling is, "But what about his/her socialization?" Read some of John Taylor Gatto's stuff http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/ or Linda Schrock Taylor http://www.lewrockwell.com/taylor/taylor-arch.html Homeschooling allows you to teach your children what they want to know. The big secret to good homeschooling is to link whatever you feel the need to teach to what they are interested in. Give them a reason to learn something and they'll devour it. Go to the next subject when they had mastered the first. Remember Magic: the Gathering most people who played it memorized the attributes of hundreds if not thousands of cards. Schools had to ban it because they had nothing to compete with it, but they still asked students to memorize thousands of facts about Brazil and Ancient Greece, but they just couldn't make it interesting.

And studies argue ... that so many more people have died on the roads because they switched from flying due to the extra inconvenience, cost and sheer paranoia, that the number of extra road deaths in the USA alone may exceed the number of people killed at the World Trade Centre.

<rant>
Apart from the loss of civil liberties and the loss of billions of dollars, this is just another pointer to the fact that the so-called war on terror is costing many, many more lives than its ostensible targets. Up next, after two thousand dead American troops and literally countless dead Iraqi civilians: ... a civil war? ethnic cleansing? militant theocracy? more terror? all of the above?
</rant>