Slashdot Mirror

• Here's and idea, I'll vote for a politician that will spen his time abolishing bad laws. We need fewer laws, not more

Then vote Libertarian Party, doofus.

Alternatively, let's throw all of our politicos into one big room without access to food, water, toilet facilities, phones, net access or law books and get them to write down all the laws that they can remember (50% of them are members of the American Bar Association, they should be up to the job). When the last of them passes out, we hand over their rabid scribblings to the Supreme Court judges and let them vet the whole damn lot (without We, the People having to pay money to argue cases all the way up to that court one at a time). Then we're done. That's the new legal system.

Vote Libertarian

Government should never be trusted to behave responsibly with the powers it is given. Just as Corporations' trustworthyness is inversly proportional to the amount of power they have, so too are governments. As someone with a red flag in thier FBI file, I obviously have a vested interest in being able to protect myself. I believe everyone has a vested interest in thier right to live a private life. Period.

Carl G. Jung
--

Government should never be trusted to behave responsibly with the powers it is given. Just as Corporations' trustworthyness is inversly proportional to the amount of power they have, so too are governments. As someone with a red flag in thier FBI file, I obviously have a vested interest in being able to protect myself. I believe everyone has a vested interest in thier right to live a private life. Period.

Carl G. Jung
--

a. I have never taken federal government money for my education. I have never been to a public school, not for headstart, not for kindergarten, not for grade, middle, or high-school. My parents created me, and they paid up to high-school, when I promptly got a job and paid my $5k tuition bill four years in a row. For college, I first went to a private school with scholarships and private loans and then transferred to an in-state University where I volunteered to pay the out-of-state unsubsidized costs (which still were 1/3 of the private school, btw).

I have to say this is impressive. I admire people who can put their money where their mouth is. I'll point out that you probably do benefit, however indirectly, from federal spending. But that is mostly to tweak you. You are probably doing all you can to live as you think you should. (BTW, if you aren't already, you might consider buying food (at least vegetables) from a farm coop or community agriculture program. Cheap food is another fed subsidy. And the community agriculture stuff often tastes better as a bonus.)

b. As for welfare, my parents nor myself have ever accepted welfare. My parents, who both make a very small amount as city workers and later as a stay-at-home dad, had six kids. They never took welfare, WIC, food-stamps, or any of that "assistance". They bred us, and they fed us.

Again, very admirable.

c. Now, as a member of the workforce, and as a member of a rather low but still sufficient pay-class, I could have taken state-subsidized prescription drug benefits (in Maine). I feel the laws that allow them to be unconstitutional on server levels, so I refused the 'benefit'. I pay for my drugs out of pocket and with my private insurance benefits. What makes these benefits unconstitutional in your opinion? And do you go to Canada to buy drugs? That would be a sensible alternative given you live in Maine. Or would that be cheating?

Futhermore, I don't like your ad hoc attacks.

This doesn't count as a spelling flame: I think you mean to say ad hominem rather than ad hoc. Just an FYI.

Finally, if we reformed our system, and got the government out of our lives, you would see what we as Americans are really capable of. If Oregon was a truly droughted and changed state then a few things would change, if not for government bailouts: farmers would relocate or move out of the farming business, then due to low supply food prices would go up, then people in more fertile areas of nation would see the opening for more farming and take it and supply would increase, and prices would once again stabilize, along with supply.

I agree that subsidies distort markets and cause inefficient and undesirable resource allocation.

All we need is for the government to leave us be, to allow us to exploit our natural and progressive talents, and to rise to the challenges facing us. The process has been started, mostly by freedom minded people like myself. Our day is rising, and as it stands, we are quickly growing. Five years ago we in the LP numbered less than 100,000. Today, we number over 500,000 - and that's only those of use who registered. That number is likely over 1 million, and everyday we grow stronger.

I think you believe what you say and that is good. I think you try to do what you believe and that is rare and admirable. I think you are wrong about what would best benefit the world but that's life. Saying "that number is likely over 1 million" is meaningless. The web site only claims 224,000 registered voters. If you want to prove something, pretend I'm from Missouri. Show me.

Luckily, there's more than one axis in the political spectrum. Besides Left vs. Right there's More Govt vs. Less Govt. Have a look at the Libertarian Party for more details, esp. the World's Smallest Political Quiz. On this, I'm a bit left of center and quite a ways up the "Less Gov't" axis ;)

Luckily, there's more than one axis in the political spectrum. Besides Left vs. Right there's More Govt vs. Less Govt. Have a look at the Libertarian Party for more details, esp. the World's Smallest Political Quiz. On this, I'm a bit left of center and quite a ways up the "Less Gov't" axis ;)

BTW, fuck privacy - you don't need it if you ain't guilty.

And what happens when someone in power decides you are guilty -- except that you are innocent? Are you going to say that people in government won't abuse their power? How many Russians died under the rule of Stalin? (Answer: 100 million)

Privacy is protection from tyranny. Your attitude is indicative of the belief that powerful governments are the source of compassion and never do wrong. Unfortunately, history is not on your side.

Reason and Evidence.

The neat thing is that neither your party or mine really gives a damn about us. All they really care about is taking more freedom from us and making the government more powerful, only from different directions and in different areas. But, its all bad.

Maybe when enough people like you figure out that the Demopublicans and the Republicrats are all out to trash both your wallet and your rights, and that the Libertarian Party isn't a bunch of druggies but just feels that it's nobody's damn business what consenting adults do to themselves or each other behind closed doors, we might get somewhere.

Until that happens, however, basically, we're fscked.

--
In the long, twilight struggle which lies ahead,
there is the possibility of hope.
-- Draal, Babylon 5 #219

Careful though. The post office could report you if they think you're acting suspiciously. The Man is everywhere.

Look at the Libertarians. They have a plan for paying for all those good things without income tax.

wishus
---

An attempt at using the concept of 'eminent domain', which is a common excuse for governmental entities to seize control of legitimately-held private property. Take a look at Jacob Hornberger's work with the Future of Freedom Foundation, and take a look at Harry Brown's (Libertarian candidate for US President, '96 and 2000) running mate's record of fighting eminent domain in California for good reasons why the concept is flawed, immoral, unjust, corrupt, and intellectually bankrupt (if you need reasons other than your own, that is)

• A radar gun that allows police to "see" through concrete walls. The handheld device, about the size of a large hair dryer, shoots radio waves through walls and displays movement on a graph. The device will be in police hands by October.
• High-tech scanners -- dubbed "X-rated X-rays" by critics -- that can show a clear image of your naked body under your clothes. The machine, called the BodySearch, has already been installed by the FAA in airports around the nation, and is used to examine suspected smugglers.

Yes, the Cato Institute is so Republican...that's why they sponsored Beyond Prohibition: An Adult Approach to Drug Policies, Are Republicans Locked in a Cold-War Mindset?, and Republicans and Democrats Are in It for the Money, the Power, the Prestige.

Cato regularly speaks out against Republican attacks on liberty as well as Democratic ones. The Democrats do tend to be overachievers in this department, but the Republicans sure can do it as well.

Cato is a bit more realistic than, say, the Libertarian Party. It is my impression that the Cato folks assume that there is little chance of an effective third-party in the US, and that working to provide facts to the two existing parties and the public is the best way to move forward.

How does the public know who to NOT vote for if a mistake is made with Echelon? How does the public even know if a mistake has been made?

Forced infectious freedom isn't freedom...I really wish more people saw the GPL as having the hampering effect that it does; let it truly be free; let the market forces and the open source cloners and innovators determine how the code evolves and branches.

Well put. GPL = the socialist, we'll tell you what freedom means license. BSD = the libertarian, truly free license. All the BSD folks want is "credit where credit is due" and "don't sue us" :)

Better yet, lets start having government reviews of the companies that are already running, so they can decide which ones can stay running. Then, we can set up a "think tank" of government appointed citizens to decide which companies can start up. Of course, this council will need to full disclosure from the company, and maybe even a stake of its shares. Then, if a company does something politically incorrect, the government will put them out of business so we wont have to make the bad decision of buying their inferior product. This council (formerly the Council on Commercial Affairs, now known as the Ministry of Commerce, or "MiniCom" in newspeak) could then even decide which product in a market is the best for us! No more need for endorsements or unfair competition! This council will even anticipate our need for new products, and will personaly reward the innovators with a bonus on top of the MiniCom approved salary level. All workplace discrimination will _COMPLETELY_ disappear, as our unions will decide who is employed where, and at what level. As the evil corporate nightmare we have today disappears before our eyes, we will shower our thanks upon the wide politicians who boldly led us into this brave new world. Socialism - Why regulate industry when you can own it! Facism - Why own industry when you can control it! Communism - Why own industry when you can own the people! Vote Libertarian and vote for freedom

Uh that's just a little bit inaccurate, because from what I've seen lately, more republicans are taking the initiative to decriminalize marijuana than democrats. I can think of at least 2 examples. I believe it was a republican legislator in Maryland who got it legalized (or is trying to) for medicinal uses, and I think the governor of Arizona is fighting to get it decriminalized down there. Drug legalization is actually an ultra-conservative belief. Notable conservative thinker William F. Buckley is even for it. Take a look at the Libertarian Party's beliefs, and you will see.
--

Well, the MPAA isn't a corporation. It's a conglomeration of corporations that shouldn't exist as it stifles competition and the free enterprise system. Anyone here remember why it exists? That's right--the government!

And who enforces the region coding? Who's stopping manufacturers from making multi-region DVD players (and don't you think they'd love to sell them to you)? Who's stopping 2600.com from linking to DeCSS? Again--the government!

As for the taxes issue, the government is currently taking 48% of the national income in taxes. By comparison, our Founding Fathers said if the tax rate ever went above 10% it was time for another revolution.

Methings you seriously need to look around at this site. It may just open your eyes. Our government has ZERO interest in listening to us and improving things for us. We have far greater effect on the corporations than we do the government.

It's a sad state of things when you've got to prove that something is good in order that it not be presumed harmful. "This hammer could be used for dangerous purposes -- can you prove there are good uses for it?" Sigh.

So stop voting for the Republicans, and the Democrats, and the Greens, and all the other political parties that promote socially-coercive agendas and support laws that make it impossible for the courts to behave in any other fashion.

Start voting for parties that favor strict liability as a standard for both civil and criminal action.

Or, to put it another way; hammers don't kill people, people kill people, sometimes with hammers. P2P doesn't "steal" intellectual property, people do, sometimes with P2P.

-

It's a sad state of things when you've got to prove that something is good in order that it not be presumed harmful. "This hammer could be used for dangerous purposes -- can you prove there are good uses for it?" Sigh.

So stop voting for the Republicans, and the Democrats, and the Greens, and all the other political parties that promote socially-coercive agendas and support laws that make it impossible for the courts to behave in any other fashion.

Start voting for parties that favor strict liability as a standard for both civil and criminal action.

Or, to put it another way; hammers don't kill people, people kill people, sometimes with hammers. P2P doesn't "steal" intellectual property, people do, sometimes with P2P.

-

The big problem in Florida last year (and therefore everywhere this year) was that the dipshits don't make a habit of voting. The one time an election came around that they cared about, the state government didn't represent them. The Gov was W's brother and the Sec. O'State had been W's campaign manager. The people, who never bothered to vote in the past, got (deservedly) fucked.

Look into the people running for office. Vote for someone sensible, not just for an irresponsible tax cut. Hell, try voting for a responsible tax cut for a change. You only get the government you deserve. Why vote for one that intrudes on you?

we all know.. yes. and love... not hardly. I love freedom, not the GPL. The GPL's idea of "freedom" is right up there with Ralph Nader and the Green party: "freedom is what we tell you it is" The BSD license is more like the Libertarian party's ideals. Freedom means do what you like with it :)

No, it's not the only way. It's not best way. It's not even a good way. The democrats want to tell you how you can spend your money. They want to rob you to pay for their own agendas. Wouldn't you rather choose where the fruits of your labour go?

If you believe that you should be making your decisions, instead of having politicans tell you how to live your life, then vote for a party who will let you decide how you want to spend your money and your time. Vote Libertarian.

If you want more information, go read the party platform.

I'm sorry, I guess I must have halucinated all those Nancy Reagan commercials where she had some slogan or other like just "Just say 'no' to drugs. Yeah, It couldn't possibly have started during the Reagan/Bush administration in response to the dramatic increase in Coke traffic during the eighties. The first drug czar couldn't possibly have been appointed before Clinton took office. And a politician must be on drugs, and/or liberal to support the policies in place when they took office if the majority of the public supports them, for good or for ill.

Next time you use a word like Bias, look up the definition first.

The Reagan-era commercials were annoying as hell, but the "War on Drugs" started with Nixon's re?-election campaign. Drugs were actually getting a lot of societal acceptance, but Nixon was able to strike some fear into the soccer Mom set and get elected.

The boondoggle has spiraled out of control under all subsequent administrations, regardless of party.

Yours truly,
Mr. X

...and they wonder why I'm a Libertarian...

They have been moreso of late than ever. Example: here in NYC, the Honorable (haha) mayor Rudolph Giuliani just started up a "decency" committee to oversee the exibits in publicly-funded museums, to make sure nothing too "provacative" (i.e., the Sensations exibit in the Brooklyn Museum of Art) gets displayed, or else they cut off funding. Basiclly, now anything that is considered offensive (to Christians and Jews) will not be allowed in public museums, therefore making it impossible for such artists to even get exposed and get noticed. If that was Allah covered in elephant shit, Giuliani wouldn't say a damn thing. And this is just one example.

However, what other choice do you have? The Democrats, who are on the inside what Republicans are on the outside, have the Tipper Gore / PMRC regime. There really is no fundamental diffrence between the Republicrats when it comes to censorship.

So basiclly, we're screwed either way.
--

One thing about LAN "parties" that should be noted is the rampant piracy that occurs at them.

One thing about companies in "third world countries" that should be noted is the rampant piracy that occurs at them.

In addition, the atmosphere of LAN parties is not conducive to proper behavior. Drinking and smoking are not uncommon at LAN parties.

Drinking and smoking are not uncommon at any event where teenagers are unsupervised, and this is not a new phenomenon.

In addition, the lack of female gamers leads encourages homosexuality.

I'm guessing you don't know any gay people. I am gay, and I must tell you that gay people don't need LAN parties to have their homosexuality "encouraged." If your son is gay and is a teenager, then he's been checking out guys for a long time now and hasn't needed a LAN party to help him do so. Hormones provide all the motivation he needs.

This sort of behavior may have been tolerable in the Greek armies of long ago, but is simply unacceptable in modern moral society.

So you admit that morals are relative?

As such, I forbid my children to attend LAN parties because I do not their school to become the next Columbine.

What evidence do you have that LAN parties caused the Columbine massacre? My belief is that there are many factors which lead to a tragedy like that, and I think that the number one factor is poor parenting. Parents nowadays are constantly looking for ways to shirk their parental duties. When kids do bad things, they are far too quick to blame "the media," "drugs," and (dumbest of all, so far) "LAN parties" rather than their own crappy parenting abilities.

(For the record, I am a Libertarian.)

The solution? Vote Libertarian. The only way to be sure your money will go for what you feel is right is to not give it to the government. Any other way is to submit to the will of whatever bozo happens to be in charge.
Think about it. The Republican party wants you to do whatever you want with your money, as long as it's not "immoral". The Democrats want you to be able to do whatever you want, except use your money for what you feel is right. The Libertarians want to take the Government off your back socially and fiscally.

Libraries need to stop taking government funds. Otherwise we fight a new battle each time some power-hungry politician comes in with an agenda to push (which is every 2 years in the congress, 4 years in the whitehouse).

You have to understand that this wasn't AOL's idea.

Some idiot lawmakers in the US passed a law making it illegal to store information about anybody under 13. Including, ironically, the fact that they're under 13.

The only way online services can protect themselves is to forbid anybody under 13 from using the service.

The only thing Americans can do to fix this is vote for better lawmakers.

-

If this passes, the computer and internet industries will follow Nasdaq. I'm not a Republican, but keep government out of the Internet.

You don't have to be a Republican to think that way -- you might be a Libertarian.

The fact that Americans can't handle their cars any better than their guns is hardly something to be proud of.

I'm not saying I'm proud of it. I'm just wondering why there isn't an anti-auto lobbyist group in Washington five times bigger than the anti-gun groups. Why isn't there a Million Mom (or rather, 40k Misinformed Mothers) March to get cars off the roads? Why doesn't a car rampage get as much press as a gun rampage? Spin/FUD by the media and others with an agenda, that's why.

But don't you think that computer manufacturers should be free to install Linux instead of Windows without repercussions from Microsoft? Don't you think they should be able to install an alternate web browser if they wish? Don't you think they should have control over what gets displayed first on their machines?

Yes; and I also think they should be free to sign contracts giving up those rights, if they think it's worth losing them in return for gaining access to somebody else's property, I.E. Microsoft's operating systems. I wouldn't want to choose that, but that doesn't mean I should have the right to force other people to agree with me.

Don't you think software makers should have the ability to make compatible software and use the same functions of Windows that Microsoft currently prohibits?

Why? Why shouldn't Microsoft be able to say "if you want to use my property, you will sign this contract saying how you will use it. If you don't like those terms, don't use our software."?

Is Windows a right?

If the license terms are onerous, don't use it. If that means people don't buy your computers, well, they have that right, too.

Before you accuse me of not being a Libertarian because I don't agree with you on this, you should perhaps check out the party's official position on the matter.

For those too lazy to follow the link, I'll tease it with the title from the press release: "Microsoft antitrust ruling: More costly than all the bank robbers in history."

This isn't a secret; we even made the front page of the Wall Street Journal with it.

The government should stay the hell out of this. The market as a whole, and consumers as individuals, should decide.

If you don't like the choices given you, make your own. If you don't have the skill to make your own, whose fault is that?

Not even your computer is a right, much less the operating system on it. But even if it were, you still have choices; run Linux. Run BSD. Or if you're just all fired-up set to pay somebody, run BeOS or Solaris.

-

But don't you think that computer manufacturers should be free to install Linux instead of Windows without repercussions from Microsoft? Don't you think they should be able to install an alternate web browser if they wish? Don't you think they should have control over what gets displayed first on their machines?

Yes; and I also think they should be free to sign contracts giving up those rights, if they think it's worth losing them in return for gaining access to somebody else's property, I.E. Microsoft's operating systems. I wouldn't want to choose that, but that doesn't mean I should have the right to force other people to agree with me.

Don't you think software makers should have the ability to make compatible software and use the same functions of Windows that Microsoft currently prohibits?

Why? Why shouldn't Microsoft be able to say "if you want to use my property, you will sign this contract saying how you will use it. If you don't like those terms, don't use our software."?

Is Windows a right?

If the license terms are onerous, don't use it. If that means people don't buy your computers, well, they have that right, too.

Before you accuse me of not being a Libertarian because I don't agree with you on this, you should perhaps check out the party's official position on the matter.

For those too lazy to follow the link, I'll tease it with the title from the press release: "Microsoft antitrust ruling: More costly than all the bank robbers in history."

This isn't a secret; we even made the front page of the Wall Street Journal with it.

The government should stay the hell out of this. The market as a whole, and consumers as individuals, should decide.

If you don't like the choices given you, make your own. If you don't have the skill to make your own, whose fault is that?

Not even your computer is a right, much less the operating system on it. But even if it were, you still have choices; run Linux. Run BSD. Or if you're just all fired-up set to pay somebody, run BeOS or Solaris.

-

Republicans decide to make the net safe for children by appointing an 'Internet Czar' (see To Renew America by Newt Gingrich) and decide that people can, in fact, be liable for "criminal" speech on the Internet. Congress accepts this comprimise to total Federal control of the Internet.

Democrats, in order to appeal to their large amount of ethnic minority voters, pushes Congress for Federal 'hate crime' legislation. Now, it is a crime to think, or feel, hate. Orwell called these "thought-crimes". Republicans in congress who do not want to get "Ashcrofted" when they are appointed to their future cabinet position, make sure to go on record as voting for this legislation.

These are not scenarios... these are agendas.

So now, when some nutcase posts on slashdot that he's going to kill a bunch of /blacks/whites/women/frogs/FBI Agents, Commander Taco and friends get to go to Federal Prison for running a "Hate Speech Forum" when the Ministry of Love comes down on them.

Maybe 5 years is too far into the future. These proposals are in the works now. Welcome to the fold.

Vote Libertarian

According to Leadbeater the "first Internet" failed because the technologists and geeks,

Failed? It was awesome!

I was just talking to a guy on the train about this last week. I was reminiscing about the high-signal-to-noise days of the early days of Usenet over the Arpanet (late 1980's). He was yacking on about some new startup making pay-as-you-go chips that was gonna be the next e-boom, .... yeah yeah yeah. He was telling me that I should "load up" on this stock and that I would be rich.

I was telling this guy that I thought e-commerce was a big capitalist gang-bang, and that it (and advertising) has ruined then internet. And reminded him that the Internet was originally a SOCIALIST program, meaning, government "controlled", funded with tax dollars... and it worked real well!

I couldn't belive that I was saying this, as I'm a Green/Libertarian, and the term "socialism" is anathema to the Libs, (as well as the Dems and the Repubs).

But think about it: Certain things SHOULD be funded by a socialist model. The roads, for example. In a "free market" system, you'd have 2 toll roads going between the same 2 points, with the toll takes competing/colluding for your money. Look at the Cali energy crisis: public utilities should be severely regulated!

Look at the capitalist/commercial media in America. It sucks. It does not inform, it does not provide a balanced view of things, the corporations control the elections... the capitalist media does nothing well, but produce/distribute SPAM.

The socialst media in Canada and England produce some wonderful art (Imagine Monty Python or The Young Ones being produced in America?). The only thing like it in America is Public Access TV, or community radio (like what Pacifica is/was/tries to be) which has a socialist funding model with a decentralized authority (just like DNS).

I say its time for a return to the Socialst (economic) internet model, with the goals of decentralization and free speech, get the profit-seekers off the 'net, and immediately delcare the Deja archive a national treasure, with the goal of an UNCENSORED archive being restored/preserved for the good of mankind.

Call me a dreamer ... ;^)

There are lots of doling-outs of federal money that are of a dubious nature [, ...] that somebody could object to. [...] We could start with the Republican and Democratic parties, if you like.

Exactly. This is what needs to be addressed in McCain's campaign finance reform bill. I applaud the Libertarian and Constitution parties for their stand on not accepting matching funds. The gov't is forcing all of us to finance the promotion of ideals we don't agree with, and that's wrong.

I have no sympathy for anyone who voted Green in November, either, since the point was about securing matching funds for next time. None for the Reform voters either, since Buchanan abandoned his principles in order to get to the money.

Rather than being worried that the feds are giving religious organizations money [...]

That's precisely how they'd like you to look at it. The truth is that once you start feeding at the federal trough, it's hard to get away from it. If you start accepting their money, they've already started exerting control over you. If the church starts accepting money, the next thing is the gov't will want to dictate acceptable doctrines to preach, or start wanting to collect taxes from churches. No, thanks. This would set a very dangerous precedent.

If GWB really wants to help religious (or any sort really) charities, cut taxes. If I had more money free to do with as I pleased, I'd do more to help others. I already give 10% of my gross to my church, and still pay taxes besides. With taxes reduced there's just that much more I could give directly to charities without gov't bureaucracy as the middleman.

Can you provide a concrete example that conclusively demonstrates the assertation that CNN is "left-leaning?"

Desert Storm was Ted's finest hour, with the likes of Christiane Amanpour and Wolf Blitzer doing (and I know this is sacrelige to some) as well as Uncle Walter ever did... complete with a little misdirection for ol' Saddam thrown in for good measure. Too bad yon 800 pound liberal weenie media guerrilla (intentional) took notice.

I think it speaks volumes that a certain Libertarian talk show host doesn't watch CNN and has not for several years now, and has now given up on the Big Three as well in favor of Rupert Murdoch the Aussie's Fox. The Aussies may not care for their former masters the British, but they haven't forgotten what good journalism looks like. "We Report, You Decide(tm)." Helluvalot better than "We Know What's Good For You."

Rather than give some unknowledgable bureaucrat the authority to say who can and cant use what ad system and when, why don't you organize a boycot of websites that use doubleclick. The liberal media would love to cover it. You will either see a competitor to doubleclick with a privacy agreement rise up, or websites will yank 3rd party ads off of their website. Most webmasters would prefer to see them go anyway.

Just because something is 'bad' (drugs, medical bills, salary, investments), it is not going to get better with government regulation. The internet is where it is because the government stayed away from it for quote some time. Good!

And remember... faceless corporations are an easy target for FUD because they seem inhuman or uncaring. But behind that faceless corporation are thousands of employees and investors... people with families, people who hire others, VC firms that feed other businesses, a replenishing fountain for the economy. In this case, our 'faceless' corporation supports hundreds of thousands of websites, which in turn are our new foundation of free speech and communication.

Don't create a 'golem' by unleashing an Imperial Federal Government with the power to control what DBA's can or can't store. You will never get the monster to go back to where it came. Vote Libertarian.

It should be wildly amusing to watch as the party of personal responsibility tries to explain government censorship of the internet.

The Republicans are no more the party of personal responsibility than the Democrats are. Both parties want massive government control over your personal choices - they just disagree slightly over implementation. Try the Libertarian Party for a change.

--

It should be wildly amusing to watch as the party of personal responsibility tries to explain government censorship of the internet. [...] I'm sick and tired of the right ranting about small government and then pulling shit like that. The only way to stop it is to vote for personal freedoms.

That's because the Republican party is not truly about small government any more. Both the Dems and Reps are centrists, the only difference is the rhetoric they spew.

If you really want smaller government, you should be voting Libertarian or Constitution. While they differ in philosophy, they agree on this point. If you don't vote for what you believe, you won't get what you want.

Librarians have had an anti-censorship stance longer than Libertarians.

Regardless of standards and what not, i for one am quite pleased that that as it stands, it's considered to be indecent exposure for a grown man to expose himself to a child. Are you implying that that behavior should be okay, so long as no physical harm occurs? I'm glad that news reporters can indeed get in trouble if they fabricate a story about someone and try to pass it to the public as being truth. Again, no one was physically hurt, so should that be okay? And, say you were a woman, would you really be better off if you had no recourse against the man that may be following you everywhere you go, sending you letters, and calling you in the middle of the night?

I was just at the Liberterian Party's website earlier on today for a completely unrelated purpose, but i'm of the belief that either your misinterpretting their message if you believe the above behaviors should be condoned and accepted, or else the party itself is rather baseless... I'm not believing the latter, so please review your stances...

I simply don't have the strength to rant about this topic again, so I'll let others do it for me. The only thing I would do is point out a possible solution. The only way to change the system is to CHANGE the system. Vote Libertarian. At least they have the common decency to spell out how they really feel about every issue under the sun. Read the War on Drugs policy :) I can't believe I'm actually advocating a political party... and on slashdot no less... I must be mad. Oh well, Monday is a good day to be mad.

I simply don't have the strength to rant about this topic again, so I'll let others do it for me. The only thing I would do is point out a possible solution. The only way to change the system is to CHANGE the system. Vote Libertarian. At least they have the common decency to spell out how they really feel about every issue under the sun. Read the War on Drugs policy :) I can't believe I'm actually advocating a political party... and on slashdot no less... I must be mad. Oh well, Monday is a good day to be mad.

...libertarian to me.

Look up the L party line and see what you think.

The only reasons that I support Reps when there is no LP candidate are because they are generally in favor of a smaller government and are generally strong on national defense. Those two features also happen to be constitutional. I think that the feds should mind their own business, which appropriately enough, does not include my business. While a smaller govt. is not exactly what I'm after, it's closer to my ideal than what we have now and a smaller federal govt. means a de facto less powerful and less intrusive one. I really don't give a flip about whatever family values the pres. or any candidate exhibits, since I have my own and no campaign is going to change them.

I think that you'll find that there are many more people that "are" libertarian compared to the number that "think" they are. There are a lot of folks who consider themselves Reps and/or Dems who have personal "platforms" that match that of the LP much better than those of the two majors. Why they don't vote that way I don't know. Perhaps if they did, then the USA wouldn't be working within a two party system.

Read the constitution, really. It can be enlightening. You'd think that it would be required in all of the government schools. For some reason(?) it is not. After that, surf over to Amazon and have them ship you a copy of The Federalist Papers. Come on out of the closet and join us. There is afterall a certain prestige associated with thinking, acting, and voting along side of the 99th percentile rather than with the crowd.

Cheers, here's to anticipating the next election!

Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.

Actually, corporations are unable to strip anyone of freedoms. It's those in favor of big government who wish to strip you of your freedoms (and who have the power to do so), and it's the American people who are doing nothing to check the power scramble. Not all citizens, of course, but a good number of them.

<PLUG TYPE="SHAMELESS">
The Libertarian Party has more information about protecting your liberty.
</PLUG>

Here's a good quotation: "Since when is 'public safety' the root password to the Constitution?" -C.D. Tavares

Yes, the U.S. is backwards when it comes to freedom with certain things, drugs being the most obvious. Netherlands certainly has us beat there. The U.S. certainly crushes every other country in economic freedom, though. How high are your taxes in Finland? And if the U.S. health-care system is so awful (i.e. not socialized) like everyone says, how come VIPs from around the world come to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota for treatment?

For those who are considering the advice of moving to Europe: make sure you check out the tax rate first.

Carl

Vote Libertarian

Your attitude seems to be "Individuals should have their freedom protected for them (rather than doing it themselves). Corporations are the ones who shouldn't get freedom, the government should control them."

Here's the thing: freedom is not something that can be applied in whatever way is convenient. It has to be universal.

Don't like what a corporation is doing? You always have a choice. You don't have to support them.

Are you disgusted with the apathy of consumers? For instance, people that buy from Home Depot even though they are a contributor to the destruction of rainforests? Do something about it! Hand out leaflets outside of Home Depot! Don't shop there! Be an intelligent consumer who makes choices based on what you believe, and urge others to do so as well. Don't just whine about how the government needs to put corporations in check. What next? Get rid of corporations all together and put them under state control? Hmmm... seems to me that communism doesn't work. Where do you draw the line?

Carl

p.s. If you really believe in freedom, vote Libertarian (sorry, shameless political plug).

I like Clinton and believe he may have been able to win a third term if the constitution allowed, but waiting till the end of your term to tell these truths, makes him look like a buffoon and a hypocrite.

Now he is advocating decriminalization of marijuana in Rolling Stone. During his administration, over 4 million Americans have been arrested on marijuana, 88% for simple possession. Hardly fair, given Clinton's history.

Mr. Clinton, why didn't you feel the need to speak your mind until you were a lame duck. I hope history does not reward such cowardice and hypocrisy.

I don't want the government telling me what is and what is not appropriate for my children. I'll make that decision.

Then quite frankly, you really should not be sending your children to an institution where the government acts in loco parentis.

In other words, if you don't want the government dictating the way your kids are raised, don't let the government raise your kids.

And this is exactly why the federal gov't should not be involved in education in any way, shape, or form. Where in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution is the federal gov't given authority to have any say in educational matters? Nowhere.

A Democratic president is expected to sign this into law. The Republicans no longer have this plank in their platform. Don't expect this to change any time soon. The Constitution party supports parental control of their children's education though. The Libertarians have a somewhat similar view. Limit the gov't to what it's actually allowed to do, and we'd be better off. Doesn't the Constitution matter any more?

We don't need vouchers. What we do need is for the federal gov't to not tax us for education in the first place. Let parents choose where their children go to school, and let them finance it directly, or at a county or state level. All the DOE is good at is wasting money while test scores continue to drop.