Slashdot Mirror

The numbers in the story on the libertarians page, here, are from all accidents by reason or contributing factors. Is anyone surprised that more accidents involved fiddling with the stereo than talking on a phone? If more people change radio stations than use cell phones while driving, which I'm betting is true, then this pretty much goes to follow.

The real question, and let's just narrow it down to these two groups radio users vs. cell phone users, which group had a higher accident rate (e.g. number of accidents / number of users)? Research tends to indicate that cell phone users are *more likely* to be involved in accidents than Big Mac eaters, cd changers, etc.

And really, this isn't an issue that I'm all that worked up over. I'm just taking issue with what are obviously the wrong numbers being bandied about as if they're meaningful.

North Carolina performed such a study. A take on it can be found on the Libertarian Party web site.

I'm not a Libertarian, but if they use PHP they can't be all bad.

..well, ok, they could use some help from the Demoronizer though.

Violations of rights is Violation of rights is Violation of rights. It doesn't matter if you are a us citizen or not. I believe the constitution said that "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL". Maybe i misread that.

Either way, history has shown that laws supposadly aimed at "non-us citizens" have been extended to us citizens eventually. Know about RICO? That law was supposed to apply only to people in the mafia. Later, abortion protesters and stock brokers were prosecuted under that law. Money Laundering laws and Asset seizure? These were only supposed to apply to the "evil" drug lords. Now innocet americas who have not been accused of a crime can have their property stolen by law enforcement.

And as for Lincoln, Washington, and FDR, they were in REAL WARS, not some fictional crusades like the "War" on Crime, the "War" on Drugs, and the "War" on Terrorism.

O'Reilley supports the rule of copyright law over software. This is not libertarianism.

What? Most Libertarians quite firmly believe that it is appropriate to exercise property rights over one's intellectual output, and that people are free to contract their rights away to others in any way they choose, which necessarily (assuming the precept that intellectual property is property) includes things like software licensing.

If you don't think Libertarians believe in IP rights, you need to spend a little more time reading about the things they believe.

You'll note that everything on the web page is copyrighted, not copylefted.

The Libertarian Party doesn't have an official position on the GPL, but I can assure you that if they did, it wouldn't be in favor of mandating it's use.

Exactly. Freedom isn't a point on a continuum. Saying, "Well at least it's better here than elsewhere, so I guess we have liberty," doesn't mean you really have freedom. Freedom is a direction you have to constantly face and strive toward. Turning from that direction at all should not be tolerated by a people that values liberty.

Sacrificing our rights in order to combat terrorism (PATRIOT Act is a complete misnomer) is one of the sickest jokes I can imagine. Wake up, America! Your Constitution is being trampled on by the very people that have sworn an oath to uphold and defend it. How much more will it take before you realize that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans care about you? There are other parties to vote for, you know.

No, don't

on the scale of politics, libertarians are very far on the "right wing"

Wrong. Economically, libertarians are right-wing, but socially, they're left-wing. Libertarians place themselves on the top wing, the other wings being left (liberal), right (conservative), and bottom (authoritarian). Where do you fall?

Please, citizens of the US, stop your government before it's too late.

I normally don't push libertarianism in this forum, other than via my sig, but this is getting way out of control. If we want to do something about this long-term we need to work on getting people in office which share our ideals.

After being fed up the last presidential election with the Republicrats, I decided to go out and look at the different parties. After much searching I discovered the Libertarian party.

Without going into a long post about their ideals, I'll just summarize by saying I hear a large portion of the vocal slashdot community spouting those ideals. Perhaps the most relevant portion of their platform to this discussion is this:

We oppose any abridgment of the freedom of speech through government censorship, regulation or control of communications media...

I'll spew one or more two references and then shut up. If you'd like to figure out where your views really fit in with politics, the libertarian party has The World's Smallest Political Quiz which is a set of ten questions which will rank you into which area you best fit.

For more info on the Libertarian party, click on the link in my sig...

It's not a reinterpretation of protected freedoms, but rather of available powers.

As written, the Constitution provides the Federal government with very little power, except in a number of well-defined areas. However, there have been many areas in which "interstate commerce" (which a single clause allows the Federal government to regulate) has been used as an excuse to allow in influence. Does your business sell anything to out-of-state customers, or buy supplies from the same? Guess what -- the Federal government can now regulate what you do and how!

It wasn't always like this, and there are those who'd put most governmental power back where it belongs -- with the states and the people. Take a close look at the Libertarian Party -- they're the strongest proponents of freedom I've seen yet.

Simple: The best case scenario for socialism is inefficiency. If only they would have realized this 100 years ago before the damage was done.

Americans everywhere should be ashamed at this rape of our space program, once the envy of the world.

And there is nothing to say of the blatant rape of civil rights that has allowed the socialist agenda to advance over the past century?

It seems the only people here with any kind of enthusiasm are the ones that want to control your lives

Exactly -- the ones who insist on holding a gun to my head, stealing my hard-earned savings to fund thousands upon thousands of socialist programs that, in the end, accomplish only one thing -- advancing the power and wealth of government at *your* expense.

Vote Libertarian

Let's see, first of all, the federal government produces things, just not (often) things that commerce finds profitable. Interstate highways, public vacination programs, and oh yeah, let's not forget a little thing called the Internet.

One of the few functions of government that even Libertarians agree with is to provide for the common defense. This defense can take many forms, such as the planes flying sorties over the East and West coasts since 9/11. There's also police protection, such as is provided by the FBI. There's protection of the public well-being, such as is provided by the CDC.

Finally, there is protection from those who would abuse the free market system that you claim to admire. Monopolies break free markets. Yes, I know that card-carrying Libertarians don't fully agree on that point, but their position papers clearly state that only government regulation creates monopolies, completely ignoring the fact that the sale of information (books, music, software) differs in several fundamental ways from the sale of material goods.

On the other hand, copyrights are the only goverment regulations that I can think of that have assisted the RIAA, the MPAA, and Microsoft in establishing their monopolies. So maybe the Libertarians are right! Let's tell Microsoft that we'll let them completely off the hook, no breakup, no fines, no punishments of any kind, except that they will have to forgo copyrights on their products forever more. Heck, I'd even let them keep the source code for everything secret for as long as they are able, just as long as they realize that if any of it ever gets out, they couldn't do anything to stop its spread.

Carl
Vote Libertarian

Furthermore, the grassroots parties that are still somewhat democratic like the Libertarians and Green are so far out there that there's no chance of them ever growing beyond their core whacko contingent.

I couldn't disagree more. If they're "still somewhat democratic" then for that principle alone it's worth voting 3rd party. Voting for the establishment Duopoly will not have any effect whatsoever, regardless which half of it you pick. We need to vote against the establishment, and contrary to some popular beliefs, the way to do that is not being a non-voter. If Dems/Reps are both intolerable, find a party that is at least tolerable even if you don't agree with every plank in the platform and vote for them. I don't agree with everything the CP and LP are for, but they both agree with me that we need a smaller, Constitutionally-limited federal gov't, so I vote for them.

Who wants to start a new party?

Don't waste your time. The third party movement is small enough already (because the establishment likes it that way and passes laws to keep it that way), and fracturing it further won't help.

#1 - Bill Maher is NO libertarian. Good article about his anti-libertarian ideas here.

#2 - Microsoft is a tough situation. While they definitely can be called a monopoly, I truly believe that they have not shown the problems associated with many monopolies in the past. I am in the consulting business, I have tried _every_ replacement product (from OS X to Linux, from BeOS to more esoteric workstations OSes) and I have to say that the M$ product, while not the most stable, is still the most user friendly. M$ did not become a monopoly because they forced themselves on people. They spend a LOT of money making their product, employ a tremendous amount of people, keep a huge consulting industry at work, and sell their product at a VERY reasonable price. I don't believe that Microsoft is a monopoly.

Competition to topple Windows will take years to perfect. Windows has taken over 15 years or so I believe to get to this point, how can we expect Linux and other OSes to get there that fast without the financial backing and R&D of a large corporation as well as smaller corporations who support the OS?

The biggest problem with government IS regulation. Give any power to government over any business, and it will be corrupted against the people by that business. All the laws we have made in this country in the past 50 years, even the pro-consumer laws, were still written or amended to help business first. Government should only be here to protect our persons and our property from theft, injury, death, littering, etc. It should NOT protect us from "Big Business" that only got there because they bribed their way to the top.

If government wouldn't subsidize the big guys and sanction the small guys, the big guys generally wouldn't last that long. Look at the airline industry, the automotice industry, and many many others that failed because they became just big companies. Those companies got big because of government contracts or subsidies, not because they had the best product. And how many SMALL companies went bankrupt because they had a better product, with a better business plan, but the government bailed out their not-so-smart competitors who were "wiser" to bribe the government reps in charge of regulations?

Look at it this way: If you want to keep big business "small" the libertarian way is the only way: we want to cut copyright down to 7+7 years MAXIMUM. The majority of IP laws are totally unconstitutional and we would throw those laws out. We want to remove corporate limited liability -- something that helps corporations trample over anyone since they can't be help responsible. We want to stop subsidizing bad businesses, and take regulation out of the hands of those that can be bought -- put it into the hands of consumers and watchdog groups who can inform consumers.

Also, who needs KDE or Gnome anyway? Enlightenment's all ya need. All those "features" just get in the way of doing stuff.

Carl
Vote Libertarian

lp.org

lp.org

When you vote for a politician, you get anti-constitutional politics.

There is only one party that wants to get rid of all the unconstitutional anti-privacy anti-consumer anti-freedom laws, all of them: The Libertarian Party.

Why are we so surprised it passed? This post is NOT flamebait, its a wake-up call to those of you who think lobbying a democrat or republican is going to make a difference -- its not. The ONLY Libertarian in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul has an exemplery voting record. Looking up his campaign donations on OpenSecrets.org shows that big business doesn't bother lobbying him because he will not vote YES on any bill that is against the Constitution. They call him Dr. No in Congress.

We need more guys like him. Even if you think the LP goes too far in reducing Government, the only salvation to the 50%+ we all pay in taxes of all sorts, to the privacy we've lost, to the endless harassment of so-called "Big Business" is to vote libertarian, and only libertarian. Your vote is not wasted: our party received over 1.7 million congressional votes in 2000. No third party in history has ever received even 1 million (not even the Greens).

Don't point the finger at Congress -- you and all of your little friends have allowed these attrocities to continue. Whether you vote Democrat or Republican, you're not voting for the lesser of two evils, you're saying "YES" to each and every unconstitutional bill they turn into law.

Okay, one thing i consistently hear from libertarians are arguments to the tune of 'well, no one is stopping you from doing [x], you're just too lazy to go out and do it...'

sorry if getting elected is such a big effort, but where exactly are the laws written saying that you can't go door to door and convince people to vote for your party via write-in votes?

And that's exactly what we do. The point is, why isn't everyone held to the same standard? That's unfair. America is the land of equal opportunity. We just want equal opportunity. We'll do the rest ourselves.

are you proposing a loose interpretation of the constitution? because last I heard voting laws were specified in the body of the constitution

I'm saying no such thing. The Constitution does indeed set up the Electoral College system, but says nothing regarding how voting is conducted in the States. That is a State issue. And the States can use whatever method they choose for conducting their own internal elections. I believe that the correlation between the number of senators+representatives and the number of EC votes is not mere coincidence. I believe that EC votes are meant to be allocated by district. Maine and Nebraska currently do this, IIRC.

You, like many others today, are taking an overly broad interpretation of the Constitution. Yes, it is the highest law of the land, but the federal government was never given the power to impact every area of our lives. It is limited to a small set of narrowly defined powers. In a republic power derives from the people and that implies that power should be kept as local as possible to guard against corruption and mismanagement. It wouldn't make sense for the federal gov't to be responsible for fixing the city streets in front of my house, would it? So why does the federal gov't have any say in other local issues, like the welfare of my disabled neighbor, or what/where the farmer down the road can/can't plant? If you read the Constitution, you'll see that the federal gov't has no jurisdiction in these areas at all.

what do you want, government regulations to help out 3rd party candidates? that would be the height of irony. as would be caps on campaign donations.

You completely misinterpret the goal of the Constitution and Libertarian parties. We are totally against any kind of special treatment for special interests. All we want is the equal opportunity that is supposedly guaranteed in America. We are strongly against any limitation of campaign funding. Americans spent more on potato chips last year than elections. "Too much money in politics" is not the problem. Money is speech, and donations should not be regulated.

i agree that just about anyone should be able to get on a ballot (within reason).

Yes, and "reasonable" means everyone should have equal chance. No preferential treatment for incumbent parties. Think about it. It's a corrupt government that discriminates against challengers!

however, you'll still lose as candidates that are willing to pass laws favoring big business get into office on the strength of those big business's campaign dollars. free market, people's choice - that's the libertarian ideal if i'm not mistake.

You misunderstand yet again. The goal is liberty coupled with personal responsibility. This means the gov't should stop regulating people so much. If you want to build a big business, good for you! It's good to work hard to get ahead. But don't expect government to help you. Why should it? That's taxpayer money, not business money. The CP and LP are firmly against the airline bailouts that Congress has recently enacted.

• creating and distributing free software, or
• throwing people in jail for doing it?

lp.org

Getting your voices heard isn't going to work as those voices don't hold up big money. Go donate some money to a POLITICAL party so they can advertise and get votes. Even $50 helps reach 2500 people.

and a bunch of other things that Feingold is against such as:

"Computer Tresspaser" is too broadly defined for comfort.

"Secret Searches"?

Viewing private records without a warrant?

There is more to this bill than the press releases are letting on.

...in House or Senate voting, it seems to me that there's one clear-cut answer:

Run for office, and win.

For those who don't have the time, the means, or the inclination to seek public office, there are other options:

I'd definitely continue to let the folks who have been elected know how you feel, by any/all the ways discussed in this thread.

However, if you don't feel like you're getting the results you'd like from those in power, seek out a political party that DOES agree with your views on the issues you care about, and support them wholeheartedly. Vote for them in even the smallest local elections. Volunteer your time to them if possible. Talk about them to your friends (word of mouth still works surprisingly well, and it doesn't cost more than your time does). And, yeah, contribute to their campaign funds if you can afford to. Spend 5 minutes of time a day that you spend trying to get "FP!" doing something to support the party of your choice. Get involved in the legislative process, while you still can.

My party of choice, if you're curious: these folks. Your mileage may vary, though. Do some research, and find the people who you feel best represent you and your views. Don't be so defeatist about this stuff. There is still time to make a difference, if not on the Anti-Terrorism and Encryption bills (to cite some recent, oft-discussed examples), then on something else that matters to you.

There are a lot of smart, resourceful people who read Slashdot. You guys and gals *can* make a difference.

Yup. It's well-meaning fools like yourself and David "Slavery is Freedom" Brin who will lead us right to a police state, all in the name of "transparency." Unfortuneately for you, some of us still value our privacy.

The United States government supported Osama bin Laden. We funded, armed and trained his forces, both in war and terrorism. We helped build his terrorist army to fight a superpower, the Soviet Union. I don't like communism, but our politicians created a monster in Afghanistan. Now it seems that monster has attacked us.

Those that are now protesting against the bombing in Afghanistan condemned the Taliban long before tragedy of September 11. And yet the United States continued to fund them through May of this year.

• The United States Supported Pinochet.
• The United States Supported Saddam Hussein, even after he used nerve gas on his own people in 1988.
• And the United States supported the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.
• Even today the United States trains people in torture and terrorism at The School of the Americas.

I do think that something should be done about the Taliban's tyranny, but you have to realize that the Afghans are the first victims, not our enemies.

If we are really to put an end to terrorism we must stop our politicians from creating terrorists in the first place.

Hell, we gave one BILLION dollars in money and weapons to the organization Osama Bin Ladin was a part of when we were trying to get the soviets out of Afghanistan. It is time the US did not involve itself in wars we don't belong in. Thanks to the aid money we are now going to be fighting members of the Taliban that are using US made weapons that we gave them over 10 years ago!

In the year PRIOR to September 11th, 2001 we GAVE the TALIBAN over $125,000,000 [lp.org] in foreign aid! If we want to fight terrorism the first thing we should do is stop giving money to the terrorists

As for retalliation at this point I would say we are fully justified in destroying Osama Bin Ladin and his organization as well as the Taliban which harbors him. I think appropriate action after justice is served would be to cease all foreign aid (which accounts for almost 1 TRILLION dollars spent by our government since the end of world war II). We should also withdraw our troops from the one hundred countries we now occupy and stay out of other people's affairs. And of course, never allow a terrorist attack on America from now on go unanswered.

Most people don't realize that Terrorism goes much further than the past 8 years of the Clinton administration. The truth is there have been warning signs for years about terrorists and our lack of dealing with them. Here is an article [aynrand.org] that appeared in a full page ad in the New York Times. Please take it with a grain of salt. Personally I don't agree with their conclusions and think they are war mongerers, but the information about how long the US has appeased terrorists for their destruction of American lives and property is unbelieveable!

Hell, we gave one BILLION dollars in money and weapons to the organization Osama Bin Ladin was a part of when we were trying to get the soviets out of Afghanistan. It is time the US did not involve itself in wars we don't belong in. Thanks to the aid money we are now going to be fighting members of the Taliban that are using US made weapons that we gave them over 10 years ago!

In the year PRIOR to September 11th, 2001 we GAVE the TALIBAN over $125,000,000 in foreign aid! If we want to fight terrorism the first thing we should do is stop giving money to the terrorists

As for retalliation at this point I would say we are fully justified in destroying Osama Bin Ladin and his organization as well as the Taliban which harbors him. I think appropriate action after justice is served would be to cease all foreign aid (which accounts for almost 1 TRILLION dollars spent by our government since the end of world war II). We should also withdraw our troops from the one hundred countries we now occupy and stay out of other people's affairs. And of course, never allow a terrorist attack on America from now on go unanswered.

Most people don't realize that Terrorism goes much further than the past 8 years of the Clinton administration. The truth is there have been warning signs for years about terrorists and our lack of dealing with them. Here is an article that appeared in a full page ad in the New York Times. Please take it with a grain of salt. Personally I don't agree with their conclusions and think they are war mongerers, but the information about how long the US has appeased terrorists for their destruction of American lives and property is unbelieveable!

I've written some of my state reps but I'm just not sure that's doing the job. Is there a bigger organization that will stand up for us and privacy?

Then maybe it's time to replace your state reps. Try the Libertarian Party.

Whether you otherwise love or hate them, you have to admit their platform plank on privacy sounds a hell of a lot better than that of the virtually indistinguishable ElephantDonkey policitians:

The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. ...

We oppose all restrictions and regulations on the private development, sale, and use of encryption technology. We specifically oppose any requirement for disclosure of encryption methods or keys, including the government's proposals for so-called "key escrow" which is truly government access to keys, and any requirement for use of government-specified devices or protocols. We also oppose government classification of civilian research on encryption methods. ...

We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing.

We further oppose the nearly universal requirement for use of the Social Security Number as a personal identification code, whether by government agencies or by intimidation of private companies by governments. "

more here

I've written some of my state reps but I'm just not sure that's doing the job. Is there a bigger organization that will stand up for us and privacy?

Then maybe it's time to replace your state reps. Try the Libertarian Party.

Whether you otherwise love or hate them, you have to admit their platform plank on privacy sounds a hell of a lot better than that of the virtually indistinguishable ElephantDonkey policitians:

The individual's right to privacy, property, and right to speak or not to speak should not be infringed by the government. The government should not use electronic or other means of covert surveillance of an individual's actions or private property without the consent of the owner or occupant. ...

We oppose all restrictions and regulations on the private development, sale, and use of encryption technology. We specifically oppose any requirement for disclosure of encryption methods or keys, including the government's proposals for so-called "key escrow" which is truly government access to keys, and any requirement for use of government-specified devices or protocols. We also oppose government classification of civilian research on encryption methods. ...

We oppose the issuance by the government of an identity card, to be required for any purpose, such as employment, voting, or border crossing.

We further oppose the nearly universal requirement for use of the Social Security Number as a personal identification code, whether by government agencies or by intimidation of private companies by governments. "

more here

So big business gives MILLIONS split evenly between the 2 major parties just to be nice guys?

Oh, please.

No sir, you are incorrect: the 16th amendment ratified in 1913

alright, i'll concede that point. i just read that little factoid somewhere on the net and assumed it to be true.

You haven't answered my point about WOD. Like it or not, the government has declared "war" on drug users and dealers and the "states who harbor them"(colombia, anyone?), just as it is now declaring "war" on terrorism and "states who harbor them" in much the same fashion. Now in the WOD, the U.S. government has basically assumed that every american citizen is assumed guilty, until proven innocent. This war on drugs is an utter failure, and we've already proven that curtailing or civil rights in the name of "national security" only helps the criminals more. The people who are talking about this "war on terrorism" are eerily using the same language that was used in the war on drugs, and many are saying that we should be using the same tactics that are being used on the war on drugs.

In addtion, the government does not trust me to plan my own retirement(social "security"), does not think i'm capable of using a firearm properly(idiotic gun control laws), does not trust me to educate my children(mandatory public eduacation), thinks i'm old enough to force(or 'drafted' as they say) me into military service, but irresponsible enough to have one beer. And the government does not trust me to use recreational drugs safely period.

Now, please explain to me, why the fuck should I trust a government that does not trust me back? Until it trusts me to live my own life, I will never trust this government.

People, our system of government works: civil liberites can be suspended during war and then be regained afterwards.

You are incorrect. Federal Income Tax was instituted again in 1942 as a "war measure". It ended up being permenant.

Oh and speaking of which, Some officials have been hinting that this will be one of those "never-ending" wars, like the "War on Drugs"(tm), while not a traditional "war", is still considered one. You can have your property seized without being charged with a crime, with virtually no hope of getting it back, even if you are innocent. All it takes is for someone to accuse you of trafficing in drugs, or suspect you of any "criminal activity". And guess what, they're doing it often.

This isn't the 1860s where our government had some sort of decency. The government didn't repeal the income tax after ww2 because they knew they could get away with not repealing it.

You're assuming that our government is trustworthy enough to give us our rights back. History has shown that they are not. You're a fool if you think otherwise.

The worst part of it is that civil liberties given up in vain. The law breakers always find ways around them.

How can we vote for a paty that is dedicated to keep the constitutional rights of citizens and does not sell itself to business when there is NO SUCH PARTY?

That is a lot like saying, "Windows 95 doesn't have feature X, and Windows 98 doen't have feature X, therefore no OS has feature X."

If freedom is something important to you, then perhaps you should look at the parties who actually make a point of treating it as an important subject. The Libertarian Party may be a good place to start. Read their platform, it is interesting.

The whole idea of lobbying and buying laws is just sick and should be outlawed.

Your good intent is clear. But how far do you really want to outlaw lobbying? Should you be allowed to write a letter, expressing your legislative desires, to your congressman? Of course. Should you be allowed to sign a petition, which someone else then gives to your congressman on your behalf? Of course. What if you don't actually sign a petition, but join a group of people who share your opinions, and then some spokesman for that group writes or speaks with a congressman, on your behalf? Hmm, things are betting slippery...

Email your legislators as well. That's what I plan to do. You've got a better chance of audience with them, and they're the ones who actually draft the laws.

Here are three other good "letters" I've found. I like yours as well.

If you're worried about encroachments on your freedom, you should be voting Constitution or Libertarian.

Libertarian Party's Harry Browne's position.

"Your comment violated the postercomment compression filter. Comment aborted"

This is what I've been trying to explain to just about everybody around me. It's our own damn fault. Yet another reason to vote Libertarian -- the US has no business interfering in the affairs of other countries, especially at the taxpayers' expense.

You might want to try the South Carolina Libertarian Party. I'm sure you'd get support and they probably have contacts with other organizations as well.

On the one hand the porn industry needs free speech more than any other industry (CDA 1 & 2 struck down), and on the other hand, P2P file sharing networks have taken a significant bite out business, and it will only get worse. The "monkey spankers" could care less, but the content "pimps" still need to pay the "ho's" or we'll be stuck burping our worms to amateur porn, and re-runs from the 70s - late 90s.

So, without being hypocritical, they're between a rock and a hard place.

...larger reaction...A law against beer, or this bill?

Funny you should mention beer, as there's a good chance the beer tax will be cut in half. The cut amounts to peanuts ($1.7B/yr), but the reaction from beer guzzlers will be disproportionately greater. "SSSCA-what? buurrrrrp." :-)

So, if you're a smart frog being slowly boiled, what do you do?

Spread Jim Bell's assassination politics far and wide? (I kid you dear echelon)

It's a relief to find out that you know more about libertarianism than leading libertarians themselves. Whew! I was misguided there for a while. For example, from the Libertarian Party website:

We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade done in the name of national security. We also condemn current government efforts to regulate or ban the use of property in the name of aesthetic values, riskiness, moral standards, cost-benefit estimates, or the promotion or restriction of economic growth. We specifically condemn all government interference in the operation of private businesses, such as restaurants and airlines, by either requiring or prohibiting designated smoking or non-smoking areas for their employees or their customers.

And from the Cato Institute website:

Policymakers shouldn't ban any category of technology as the marketplace works through these difficult issues. Likewise, force should not be used to "aid" the sharing of IP, such as emerging calls for the imposition of compulsory licensing requirements on record companies. Such forced "contracts," with their accompanying price controls and regulatory dynamics, have no place in a nascent industry that desperately needs to embrace voluntary deals. If companies go too far in locking up information, other companies (and consumers) have the option of dealing with less-restrictive entrepreneurs.

Clearly the Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party have been misleading me as to the true nature of libertarianism. Thanks for setting the record straight.

-- Frank

You should really get in sync with that benevolent libertarian party you appear to be so enamored with.
their stance on property rights

I've heard the libertarian talking heads on the subject, they see us as theives and are all in favor of cracking down on intellectual property theft.
Honestly, I don't know what a libertarian government would do about it, but I would imagine you would see some responce. You see I'm a former libertarian. I came around when I realized that the corporations that prop up the government are more dangerous than that government.
Libertarians all read too much Ayn Rand and lionize the great capitalists. I'm pretty much a capitalist. I've got a small business, I'd like to see it bigger and better. The problem is when something grows beyond a man trying to make his money and becomes this huge corporate monster beyond the control of any rationale for behavior other than making a profit by any means necessary.
Libertarians want to extend the freedom from government intervention to entity's that want to deprive me of my freedoms. The corporations that have grown up are fully capable of taking choices away from me that I want to make. They have formed cartels that are not able to be countered with free market forces (eg. the dvd consortium, WIPA, the nest of whores that surrounds and makes up microsoft). I'm sort of without a party now. Is there some party in the US that is pro-personal liberty and in favor of strong controls on business past a certain size?

I say yes -- this would be a breach of contract.

Vote Libertarian

1.We used to have these rights as consumers. Fair use, and all that. We used to be able to copy records to casettes. These rights are being taken away one by one.

Historic point, made more irrelevant by the change in media (digital media, CDs, DVDs). Fair use as in your example of copying records to cassettes is applicable because the copy will never equal the original in quality. Ditto for VHS/Beta consumer media.

2."You have the option not to buy this" - You'd have to be a hermit to live without music or movies. In essence, this is a monopoly, certainly a cartel - and being well trained in economics as you appear to be, you will know that different rules apply there.

And there is *nothing* inherently wrong with a monopoly... The recording and motion picture industry have immense profitability because they were savvy in business, despite some of the means (copyright laws, etc.) that they accomplished this.

It is *wrong* to punish an industry for doing something well.

Certainly different rules apply to ebooks, motion pictures, recorded music - these are generally intended for *entertainment* purposes. They're hardly necessities...

3."IP" - the proceeds evidently majorly do not go to the actual artists, who should own the IP.

Says who? In the record industry, lots of money is spent on promotion and distribution, a lot more than you may surmise...

In addition, it is the artists' responsibility to ensure adequate and fair compensation for their intellectual property. Remember, actors and musicians have unions/trade groups/guilds available to them. If these groups are weak or unwilling to support them, perhaps they should find a different profession?

Nobody is forcing them to choose their employment.

Remember, it is freedom and property rights that advances humanity and promotes yet more freedom. The free market can and does promote excellence and culls inferiority.

That you apply different standards of "freedom" is misleading and hypocritical. Those states that did so were socialist states, and hardly free.

www.lp.org

www.cato.org

www.moraldefense.com

Fair use from whom? Let me ask you this - who produced the content? Who offered it for use under license/copyright? Now let's look at this from the IP producers' and market point of view.

When I buy a CD or a DVD, I feel I have the right to listen to it/watch it on any device I like. So, I repeat: I paid! Now I want to listen to my CDs on the MP3-player, and watch the DVDs on my PC.

You have the *freedom* NOT to pay for said CD or DVD if you do not agree to the terms of the copyright/license/usage restrictions. The IP holders did not _force_ this upon you.

That's not contrary to IP rights.

Yes it is. The IP holder can and should dictate the terms of usage of his/her IP.

If the potential user does not like the terms of usage, he/she has the freedom NOT to purchase/license said IP.

Yes, the industry is afraid of this.

The industry is understandably trying to protect their investments and profits - when your revenue stream is threatened, wouldn't you try to protect it?

Like I mentioned in the previous post, these IP holders also have a responsibiity to investors and shareholders to maintain and improve performance.

IP protection via encryption, usage restrictions, etc. are all viable and acceptable means of maintaining revenue.

Again, if you don't like this, don't patronize the IP holders. They're not restricting your freedom to choose.

If consumers don't like this, the market will react. This is how the free market works.

www.lp.org

www.cato.org

www.moraldefense.com

Aren't we all forgetting something here? That is, content producers have _every_ right to protect their intellectual property. IP is still property, and content producers have a fiduciary DUTY to their shareholders to PROTECT their property.

Like it or not, IP is profitable and laws to protect that property are likewise just.

This bickering over the "morals" or "ethics" regarding IP remind me a lot of the environmental movement - crass restrictions and over-regulation of one's property and fruits of his/her effort by "well-meaning" (read - jealous, spiteful, envious) zealots that have no right meddling in another's affairs.

Please think about this if you _truly_ respect freedom.

www.lp.org

www.cato.org

www.moraldefense.com

Yes, I know we have a republic- but we also do have a Representative Democracy. The people should be in control of their representatives. Right now votes are a matter of money, not a matter of ideal, and that should be changed.

I'd agree that the republic has democratic representation in the legislature. I'd agree that people should be in control of their legislators instead of big corps. Look again at what the 17th Amendment (which I suggested repealing in my previous post) did. It made senators "accountable" to the people of the state at large by changing to a popular vote. Instead of being selected by a small group of knowledgable persons (state legislature) they are selected by a big group of mostly ignorant people. Because the campaign must now cover the entire state, the fund raising budget goes astronomical, so large campaign donations are a necessity. The senators thus elected are not any more accountable to the people (and often less) and the US federal gov't has no direct accountability to its constituent states. Repeal the 17th if you want gov't that's less influenced by Big Money and more responsive to the people.

The reason money should not be considered speech is because money is controlled by organizations and not individuals. Yes, it would be nice to donate a few hundred dollars to your favorite politician, but it won't matter when some corporation is donating a few million to his competitor. Or worse, some corporation is paying a few million dollars to the politician you elected so that he'd enact legislation that you and your countrymen oppose.

The solution is not to limit money, because that restricts the rights of individuals to affect their gov't as well. The real solution is to adjust gov't so that money doesn't have as much effect! That's why I support repealing the 17th Amendment. It makes money less of an issue. US senate candidates would "campaign" only within the couple hundred people in their state's legislature. Besides, many corps "hedge their bets" by making campaign contributions to both major parties, just to say they supported the winner. Money is speech, no two ways about it. I don't see any way you can restrict corporate speech without restricting individual speech also.

Besides that, you are naive to think that third parties will in any way benefit with fewer contribution limits. We didn't get anywhere near reaching donation limits to third parties in the last several elections- why would getting rid of those limits help them? It seems to me it would only hurt them as the two major parties (whose multi million dollar campaigns are held in check by the regulations) would be getting even more money.

The Constitution and Libertarian parties themselves want contribution limits removed. They don't care if it doesn't help them, it's the principle. If the principles win, then that party has won a victory. Look at the US Communist Party...they are winning because the Democrats are advancing their principles, even though there are no communists in office.

I just don't think the problem is government. It is corporate control of government. The people should control the government- not the businesses.

I agree with you to a point. The problem is really not that the special interests (more general than businesses) have control (though they do). The problem is that the gov't is too big, and has the power to run our lives. If the gov't couldn't run our lives to the degree it does (that is, if it were held to its proper Constitutional limits), then the issue of special interests in gov't would go away. If there's no power to grab, special interests can't grab it! The federal gov't should be limited to the least amount of power it needs to perform its legitimate duties as outlined in the Constitution.

Few people, even hardcore Libertarians have noted a small fight that's been going on in the LP.

You see, the Space Exploration part of the party's Comprehensive Platform mentions Lagrange Libration Points. There is a movement in the party to have that part removed, since no one ever talks about Lagrange points anyway. The fact that cnn.com mentions it is actually may give this part of the platform a bit more life.

a) password protect the file. now it's no longer "publicly accessible".
b) let the password "leak" onto some forum.
c) crack a wicked smile, knowing you've used a lawyer's own words against him. Got Freedom?

Vote Libertarian!

This is the single most reasonable thing I have read in weeks -- the last thing we need is a government big enough to make thinking a crime, no matter how objectionable the thinking may be. Sadly, we are closer than we think to that very situation...

Vote Libertarian

I expect two things to happen if bills like this pass:

1. Homeschooling will become a lot more popular.
2. Homeschooling will therefore eventually become illegal, since it's important to the corporations and government that kids be properly indoctrinated.

I don't know about you guys, but it looks to me like the good 'ol USA is slowly turning into its former Communist enemy, the USSR.

So are you voting in protest to the current regime? We owe it to ourselves and our posterity to use every legal means to correct this before resorting to a rebellion. The Constitution and Libertarian parties are working to limit the size of gov't. Are you supporting them? Are you voting for them? Are you petitioning your legislature for voting laws that are fairer to 3rd parties?

I voted for every CP and LP person I could in the last election. I'm considering running as a candidate in 2002. You may not agree fully with one or the other (or either, I suppose) but you know things are not going to improve if you keep voting for the Repubocrat duopoly.

I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.