Slashdot Mirror

You forgot the bit about guaranteeing security, for free, for the better part of the last century. That cost a few bucks for sure, but none of that matters. ... Being reminded that the taliban really are the bad guys doesn't fit with the world view these idiots like to project.

Selling weapons to your enemies
Destabilising democracies and supporting fascist dicators
bombing civilians
supporting terrorists including the taliban
supplying weapons to mass murderers
preventing colonies from gaining independence
deploying nuclear weapons against civilian targets
unilaterally invading soveriegn nations
turture, illegal detention
starving children
mind control experiments
obstructing the prevention of terrorism
dropping bombs on everyone you possibly can

Gee thanks guys. We would all just love all that security you have been guaranteeing, when do you suppose it will be delivered? On second thoughts, I think we might just sort out our own security from now on.

Typically, government regulation is what is used to achieve this, by holding businesses that violate various agreed on "principles" of fair trading and conduct accountable. Which makes the staunch objections of many to any sort of regulation all the more bizarre as rational analysis of the capitalist model would seemingly conclude that some reasonable degree of regulation is in almost everyones interest, possibly excluding the filthy rich at the top of the hierarchy of enormous multinationals.

Presumably what you are talking about when you say that the "natural tendency of business is to damage the economy for selfish material gain" is that, if left unregulated, something like monopolies will tend to naturally establish which will reduce the diversity? That's what people think for some reason, but historically that hasn't been the case. Please supply some real world examples of unregulated market leading to monopolies? Almost all examples of real monopolies have arisen due to the government regulation while unregulated markets actually tend to encourage diversity. Here is a good article on the damage caused by antitrust regulation, by Alan Greenspan http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/12/12/interrupting-the-election-coverage-alan-greenspan-on-antitrust-circa-1961/

One can make an inferior product in a foreign country and sell it for less money.

And what's the problem there?

One can buy the competition and close them down.

Again, what is wrong about that?

One can make unreasonable patents that scare away competition.

Last I heard the patent office was part of the government. Who is more immoral, a company that asks for unreasonable monopoly on an idea or the government that grants it?

One can collude with other companies to lock out certain competition.

This at last has a semblance of a real problem until you realize that this just does not happen in practice. Good article on a nightmare that is the antitrust law by Alan Greenspan (back when he was still a libertarian): http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/12/12/interrupting-the-election-coverage-alan-greenspan-on-antitrust-circa-1961/

Your list is really nothing more than saying that competition is tough and not everybody wins. As a general rule that is good for the consumer in the long run and where it isn't you will typically find that it is most often the government regulation that is causing the problem, not the free competition.

I'm sure if we spent less on the military, and more on social programs that don't work that we'd be speaking German.

Germany in 1939 was the only world superpower, and was in the process of invading everyone else and making a serious bid for world domination. They needed stopping.

However, none of the over 20 countries that the US has bombed since then has been even remotely similar. How many of them were actually a threat?

Sadly, in the eyes of the non-US countries, the role of terrorist world superpower is now in American hands rather than German. If you disagree, you might want to remind yourself what terrorism is: tactics designed to coerce people through fear. As just one example, the 'Shock and Awe' policy used in Iraq in 2003 was described by it's designers like this:

Shock and Awe must cause ... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless

The fact that it is done by a state, rather than a dispersed trans-national ideological group like al Qaida makes no difference - the effect is the same. Defence spending is a very good idea, but the military spending you're talking about is used to fight wars of aggression, often with little regard for civillian caualties. That needs to stop.

This whole pacifist, Utopian, lets hold hands while the rest of the world stabs us in the back makes me throw up a little.

What exactly does 'stabs us in the back' mean? Who's bombing who here?

Well, we don't need a "stupid people" lobby, but rather a "general populous" lobby. Oh, there's some organizations of that sort, but they end up serving their own particular ends when it comes down to it. I like some things the ACLU has done, but not others.

Say, for example, Bill A comes up for a vote in the House of Representatives. It's a FISA or Patriot-Act type bill, and is being supported by every big business out there, and most lobby groups that have called then up. Individuals are ignored on a mass basis yet again, as is usual. While constituent voting has an influence on politicians, it's quickly forgotten mid-term. Lobbyists, as evidenced in this link, overwhelm the politicians' general sensibilities. So, we need a way to remind these politicians who they're representing. My answer is individual lobbyist efforts.

Imagine that a large number of people individually tell their individual representatives that if the Rep votes the correct way, the individual would donate toward that Rep's campaign fund. Also, the individual vows that they will remember the voting record for the individual bill when re-election time comes around. If something like this happens on a large enough scale, then the powerful monopolies would lose quite a bit of power and influence in government.

I'm sure that it could be set up as a classic PAC, with the only goal of forwarding information to and money from individuals as they request it.

Your opinion of atheism is completely contradictory to how I view it...I think it does benefit society

What you think or I think does not matter, what actually matters is what is real. Historically, religion with all its flaws has given us the abilities for pretty much any advancement we have today, you can thank the university system for that. Also the charity of Religious organizations to keep society running in times when welfare wasn't around. Even the wars that religion has been responsible for, it really wasn't religion that was the problem, a human used a common goal to cause said war, would have happened with or without religion because people are selfish. Be it the hate of a race, a nationality, or a faith, humans will always use common goals as tools good and evil. Atheism, Historically has given us relatively nothing and taken so much. for a good neutral debate check this link.

Rather, you believe things that have been thoughtfully tested and proven

This is not a fault of religion, this is simple human rationality. I consider myself a rational christian, I believe not because someone told me to, but because it makes sense and I can justify my belief. I do not confuse it with science, but rather a rational understanding of history and personal experience. I will admit largely the religious field behaves like sheep, but that doesn't mean that all religions are wrong. Don't judge a belief be it Atheism, Gnosticism, Theism, or even scientific theories by the people involved, rather look at the evidence behind it. I think this is a mistake many people make.

I think it's marvelous to be driving towards actual truth rather than clouding it up with nonsense.

This statement is completely dependent on there not being a god, for if there is a god of some kind, then the atheist is just driving towards a lie.

Why must these people kill those people? Different religion

Well that is entirely way too exclusive a statement, people use religion as an excuse to kill each other, if they didn't have religion they would use another excuse, this has been proven time and again in history.

Why is global warming all a conspiracy? Because God has a plan.

Who the heck uses this rationality? Wow, any christian is called to be stewards of creation. Case and point, I and the churches I am involved in are very active in taking a proactive stance on the environment, and encouraging others to do the same. Besides the conspiracy theorists are not only theists. People just like a good conspiracy.

And I don't even think I can count how many times I've been told that I am wrong for being a vegetarian

I really hope a christian did not tell you this. Yet another example bad theology because people don't study scripture. God created man as vegetarian, Gen 1:29. It wasn't for a LOOONG time, see a couple thousand years at least, that god made eating meat permissible, Gen 9. Not to mention the chapters on Daniel being a vegetarian and because of that outperformed fellow students. So if your people are Christians telling you this, go ahead and show them that they are full of crap. And no I am not a vegetarian, but I highly respect people that are.

Helped build up modern science and a realistic understanding of how the world actually works.

Sorry there buddy, science is not an atheistic thing. It isn't even a belief, it is an understanding of how the world works, not exclusive to any one world belief. As I said earlier, Christianity in general gave the western world its universities, charitable foundations, and encouraged scientific thought with the exception of some major blunders.

What good did religion do for society?

See the link above, religion has done wonderful things, immeasurable, whether or not their God is real is besides

he doesn't know much about the economy and doesn't really understand economics. He's said so himself!

http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/04/18/john-mccain-doesnt-know-much-about-the-economy-and-doesnt-really-understand-the-economy/

I suspect the oncoming economic shitstorm may finally get corporations to really tighten their belts

You are wise to see this, but I do not think the full magnitude
of what is coming has struck home even with you unless you
follow the Peak Oil movement and Putin's statements since
the attempt on his life.

The World is poised on the edge of a paradigm shift.

World wide imports of oil dropped for the first time in
modern history by 100 million barrels in 2007, the decline
began in 2005.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_a.htm

This is not due to lack of usage, but lack of supply.

Go to google video and watch the 80+ min. copy of Crude Awakening
and you will see most of what is coming.

The part about Putin being upset takes a little imagination:

http://politicalinquirer.com/2008/03/15/putin-assassination-attempt-foiled/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-55

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones

Keep in mind the kh-55 is an older design and rumor has it
that it was modified with stealth tech from the downed F117
during the war in Serbia.

I found some caves in a low fallout zone west of the major
metro area, and when it looks like it is all going to go
haywire I am going camping...near that area.

Good Luck !