Slashdot Mirror

You're worried about a nanny state so you want to vote for Bob Barr? The guy wants to control your bedroom and your religion.

The Libertarian Party would not have chosen Bob Barr as it's candidate if he still wanted control. He himself said he was wrong and now opposes government control. I once opposed him but now I can support him. Of course, as with all other politicians, he needs to be monitored.

He led the fight to try and get the Army's first Wiccan Distinctive Faith Group disbanded (he lost that one).

During the 2000 campaign Bush went so for as to say Wicca wasn't a religion "I don't think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision." I'm not one myself but I have studied it and have friends who are Wiccans. Several years ago I probably gave my sister a shock, she's a Christian even though she doesn't act like one all the tyme, when she asked me if I wanted to join a church and I said I was thinking of joining a Wiccan Coven.

Add tot hat the fact that the Libertarians would demolish the what little control the government still exercises on Corporate America

Corporate libertarians perhaps. However: "B7. What would libertarians do about concentrations of corporate power?" Libertarians oppose the power corporations wield. Many corporations got their power by monopoly and Libertarians oppose monopolies. Corporations also offer stockholders limited liability, and Libertarians would end that thus making stockholders liable for actions the corporations take. It's Democrats, and others, who spread such lies that Libertarians would allow corporations to get away with whatever they want.

Falcon

Hope I didn't offend, I should have said some libertarians...

Well I'm more of a Classical Liberal whereas it seems at least some Libertarians are more like Corporate Libertarians.

Falcon

If you do not ensure fair transactions capitalism does not function. Adam Smith, father of capitalism, recognized this himself.

Adam Smith liked neither corporations, especially big ones, nor government. The Betrayal of Adam Smith is an excert from "When Corporations Rule the World" on what the writer identifies as what the "corporate libertarians" get wrong about Smith.

It has already been established that the WTO's authority overrides national laws and EU laws. That's the deal the politicians in the 90s signed. As a result, governments that have tried to disobey the WTO, including the EU, have been slapped down.

The 40 hours of work per week, the 8 hours work day, the compensation money when you are laid off, the right to give birth to a child and maintain your job, the rights of privacy at workplace, a decent paycheck.

As I see it these aren't rights, they may be privileges but they aren't rights, and as previously said they are up for negotiation.

More specifically, they want us to work for an amount of time defined by our employer, at the command of our employer. For example, one day you may work 9 to 5, the other 5 to 9, etc. They want to turn the 9-to-5 to 9-to-9, without being paid for the extra workhours. They want us to work on Saturdays, again without changing our paychecks. They want the freedom to lay us off without paying any reconciliation money. They want to stop paying for insurance, and they want us to pay for our insurance, without increasing our paycheck.

Nobody is forcing you to work under those conditions, if you and your coworkers don't like the conditions then negotiate via collective bargaining. If that doesn't work then work somewhere else, freeleance, or start your own business. Nobody's holding a gun to your head saying you have to work there.

Basic rights? a decent job, a decent meal, a health care system, decent education, and a good paycheck to live a confortable life.

Again I don't consider those being rights. Freedom of speech, religion (and from religion), and assembly are. Freedom from government harazzment, trial by jury, and freedom of private property are also rights. As is equal opportunity, not outcome mind you but opportunity. This is where I have a disagreement with some libertarians, whereas many believe education should be privatized, I believe it's a proper roll for government. If more people homeschool thier children, which I don't believe government should stop or regulate too much, then maybe this will force public education to reform. Yes, I strongly believe it needs to be reformed, though I don't have any children myself I've thought long about homeschooling my children if I ever have any.

when you are hired, you are told that you are going to work for X hours. But after the first week, you realize that you really work for X+N hours, with N being from 1 to 8 hours more, per day, and without being paid the extra money.

If you let them get away with this then it's your fault for not standing up for the conditions you were hired under.

And if you suceed in getting your former employer to pay damages, your case will be heard in the media and then noone will hire you any more.

Or they'll have more respect for you, and if enough people do it then you position is more secure, that's collective bargaining.

But corporate aristocracy is the result of Capitalism.

Corporate aristocracy isn't the result of capitalism, it's what results when people don't fight corporations and let them get away with whatever they want. To learn what capitalism really is read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations . One url on that page led me to this:

When Corporations Rule the World

It is ironic that corporate libertarians regularly pay homage to Adam Smith as their intellectual patron saint, since it is obvious to even the most casual reader of his epic work The Wealth of Nations that Smith would have vigorously opposed most of their claims and policy positions. For example, corporate libertarians fervently oppose any restraint on corporate size or power. Smith, on the other hand, opposed any form of economic concentration on the ground that it distorts the market's natural ability to establish a price that provides a fair return on land, labor, and capital; to produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers; and to optimally allocate society's resources.

Through tr

Well, more SLAPP suits and "agricultural disparagement laws" are becoming stronger, I believe those would count as "ANYONE"s.

Here are some real examples.
A landfill owner sued a Texas woman for $5 million for calling his operation a dump.
An incinerator builder sued a high school teacher in Missouri for $6.6 million for writing an anti-incinerator letter to the editor.
Canada's two huge logging companies, MacMillan Bloedel and Fletcher Challenge have sued hundreds of citizens, communities and environmental groups for saying bad things about clearcutting.
Monsanto, maker of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (BGH), sued several small Midwest dairies for advertising that their milk is BGH-free.
McDonalds sued two British activists for putting out a pamphlet claiming that Big Macs are unhealthy and harmful to the environment.

A bunch of big anyones suing little no ones for talking bad about their harmful crap for the sole purpose of shutting them up.

When customers stop buying it, corporations will stop selling it.

If that were the case, Monsanto would have stopped selling Posilac long ago. On the other hand, when your executives are appointed to the EPA, and you can prevent the news from airing the truth, who cares about the puss content of 1/3rd of America's childrens' milk?

Customers have all kinds of choice. It is awareness and influence that are starkly lacking in the modern America.