Slashdot Mirror

In think totalitarian control is politically left (communism). But some argue it is politically right as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I prefer this clarification of left vs right:
https://www.theobjectivestanda...

Yes, they are the politically right party in our country.

What I'm getting at is that overall, compared to the USA, our politicians (including the right) are politically very left.
A great example is how our right wing government enacted tight gun control ,reducing personal freedom, which is considered left.
Another great example is the topic at hand, the new draconian censorship laws which again reduces personal freedom, and is considered a left wing ideology.
Both parties spend heavily on social security, free health care, public schooling, etc. Again politically left.
Australian's don't enjoy protected free speech. Say something offensive and you can be charged. Very left. The politically right haven't changed this even though they could.
Australian's don't enjoy the right to self defense. (but it is a defense to a charge of assault). Very left. The politically right haven't changed this even though they could.
Etc. I could go on for quite a bit more.

Lest Comcast become the 21st century version of Standard Oil.

I hope so, because in 1865, kerosene cost fifty-eight cents a gallon; by 1880 it was just 9 cents a gallon.

But somehow I doubt that Comcast TWC NBCU will be able to reduce cable prices as much as Standard Oil reduced kerosene prices. After all, Standard Oil did not depend on local government monopoly franchises to achieve their monopoly, but instead only depended on the market.

[Read Vindicating Capitalism: The Real History of the Standard Oil Company]

Apparently it is not an absolute defense if you have multiple children die from this form of insanity.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2013/07/death-by-prayer-christian-fundamentalist-parents-denied-their-children-medicine-and-watched-them-die/

Natural laws probably don't even exist (unless you're simply referring to the ability to do things, such as stay alive). Or at the very least, evidence supporting the existence of natural laws is as scarce as evidence supporting the existence of a deity figure.

Perhaps before claiming that it doesn't exist, you should gain a closer understanding of what exactly is meant by Natural Law? This term has evolved quite a bit since John Locke, and it should be obvious from my original post that I am speaking from the perspective of modern libertarian epistemology. (Some have chosen to invent new terms instead, to rid the concept of its historical baggage, which has only added to the confusion... Did Einstein stop using the word "physics" after partially supplanting Newton, who in turn partially supplanted Aristotle?) The modern understanding of Natural Law has nothing to do with deities, primitivism, idealism, etc. Natural Law is a physical law of human interaction that is observed through praxeology, economics, game theory, and other related studies.

To say that there is no Natural Right to Life is saying that wide-spread tolerance of murder would have no dire economic consequences, which is completely contradicted by reality. Data analysis here is not as simple as looking at various isolated civilizations with various legal philosophies in a huge set of petri dishes (we ourselves are inside the petri dish), but much can be learned even from our limited knowledge of legal and economic history. We are a part of a civilization that would be impossible without Natural Laws (aka, from an individual's perspective, Natural Rights) being recognized and enforced to a sufficient (and growing) degree.

Take away a politician-made "law", and some politician gets less political ego-boo, the voters s\he was wooing don't get the bribes they were promised, and some other solution not involving politicians or government is found instead. Take away Natural Laws (Right to Life, Right to Liberty, Right to Property, Right of Contract, Parents' Rights, etc), and we're back to the stone age (or, more likely, recognition of those Laws would get restored to the optimum degree possible, even if it means a horrendous dictatorship that violates some to protect others).

Don't confuse showing that it would be convenient if they did exist with showing actual evidence that they do exist, either.

You seem to be stuck on ye olde is-ought problem, which many a philosopher before me have debunked in many different ways. It is only a "problem" during a thought experiment that detaches itself from reality - it isn't a problem in the real world, where individuals must make choices and experience their consequences.

We exist (cogito ergo sum), we find existence desirable (those who disagree are free to stop existing), we live in a universe with consistent rules that can be analyzed through scientific inquiry, and we are material beings that are subject to certain scientific laws.

If we endeavor to create electrical devices, we are subject to Gauss's Law. Likewise (and prerequisite to development of any advanced technology being possible), if we endeavor to create a functional civilization, it is subject to certain Laws as well. The legal question of whether (living, physically autonomous) babies can be "turned into dog food" with impunity is not arbitrary, nor is it decided by instinct or emotion - there's only one right answer. These Laws are not invented by men, but are discovered. These laws can be ignored, in the same sense that someone can try to build a wheel with the assumption that Pi == 3.000, but the results will be dysfunctional. The closer you come to the accurate solution, whether in mathematical constants or in law, the mo

Glad you brought that up. Debt/GDP is about where it was at the end of WWII. What differs now is the will to respond. That generation tightened their belts and raised taxes as high as in the 90% range for top tax brackets.

That generation also could cut government spending by 60%, since, y'know, they could just turn off the war economy they'd been under for the past four years. It's a lot harder to turn off entitlements.

Twelve years ago we were able to maintain a thriving economy, the entitlement programs, and top marginal tax rates below 40%, and we had budget surpluses. Now we have lower tax rates, a huge debt problem, and people saying we have to chop off support for the most vulnerable segments of society. We can fix the budget problem by a convex combination of entitlement cuts and tax increases, but you can't have it both ways and most people want the entitlements.

Glad you brought that up. Debt/GDP is about where it was at the end of WWII. What differs now is the will to respond. That generation tightened their belts and raised taxes as high as in the 90% range for top tax brackets.

That generation also could cut government spending by 60%, since, y'know, they could just turn off the war economy they'd been under for the past four years. It's a lot harder to turn off entitlements.

Anyone who is surprised by this should have checked their premise that EFF is a defender of freedom. A simple glance at their position on net neutrality would have cleared that up.

You are absolutely correct, I am firmly against patents and copyrights though I produce plenty of stuff myself that is copyrighted obviously, I am still totally against those things and will vote against them every time.

Are you sure? It would take 200 negotiations just to get cable or power run in my neighborhood (without eminent domain each property owner is sovereign over their property) alone IF they could negotiate with everyone between the neighborhood and their plant.

As to property rights, read this, apparently the problem for Edison was that he needed to run the cables through 'common property', he had to bribe officials in some cities to get the permits etc. So if there was no common property, which is my other argument that gov't shouldn't own any assets at all, because it is a terrible owner, a non-owner really, then Edison would be able to negotiate with actual real owners. I argue that such catastrophes as BP oil spill could have been prevented if the ocean was not a 'common resource' but was divided into properties and owned privately.

I argued about this point on /. extensively and in multiple threads and stories, same argument over and over it's suffices to say it's not a new concept, I am tired of this argument.

My point is that gov't owning anything is a bad idea, all property should be private, that's all, and for this purpose it's easier to reach agreement between private owners than going through all bureaucracies and governments and regulations etc.

--
De Beers is a major market player, big enough to be de-facto monopoly, as to MS, it enjoys various gov't protections, it couldn't have grown to its size without copyright and patent laws enacted by gov't, but it also benefited greatly from working with IBM, which also enjoyed many gov't protections and exclusive contracts and other perks, such as working with fascist gov'ts of other times on exclusive contracts, and from the very inception, IBM had an exclusive gov't contract to count census data.

--

I know my views are seen as extreme/radical etc., so I am not expecting consensus, but I am presenting my point of view and the case that US economy is dying because specifically of gov't intervention into economy.

A bigger threat than terrorists is arbitrary government restriction on competition in the electric grid, which is what led to the rolling blackouts in California.

In any case, this winter could be bad - probably a good time to get a generator.

The one where they legally require you to buy your own private insurance and then call it universal healthcare? Yeah, I'm sure that one is costing the state billions.

It is, because if you cannot afford health insurance, the state picks up the tab. that's the whole key.

Except the state doesn't pick up the tab for everyone who can not afford health insurance. A few months ago CNN had special report on health care and part of it was about the Massachusetts system. One person in the report was a DJ for a radio station and his employer didn't offer health insurance. So he checked into getting his own. He said part of the state law was that a person who did not have or buy insurance had to pay a fine but that it would be cheaper for him to pay the fine than it was to pay for insurance. At leas the first year, because the fine increased after the first year. He simply couldn't afford insurance and the state was not helping him. According to "Mandatory Health Insurance: Wrong for Massachusetts, Wrong for America" the cost for the insurance has gone up not down.

Craig Biddle is a great writer. He's editor of The Objective Standard and wrote Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It. The article you linked to appears in the most recent edition of TOS.

Except McCain and the Republicans are just as liberal as the Democrats these days. Conservatism is all but dead, replace with the bogus neocons who think that you can get the benefits of capitalism under a welfare-state system. Check out this very interesting article on the subject:

The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism

Read this, and find out why you're no more conservative than even Ralph Nader:

The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism

Yes, it's a long article. It will require you to think and understand. That's how learning occurs. Or, you can continue with your idiotic Fox News bullet points.

I suggest you try learning what a truly private system (i.e. a free market) actually is before you criticize it. We no more have a free market in electricity than we do in health care.

Property Rights and the Crisis of the Electric Grid

...kill the bureacrats, and THEN the lawyers.

We can't drill for oil where there's oil, we can't put up windmills where there's wind, and now we can't put up solar panels where there's sunlight, apparently. "Environmental Impact." Ha!

What about the environmental impact of stupid decisions like these? I'll quote the Talking Heads:

"There was a factory/Now there are mountains and rivers"
"We caught a rattlesnake/Now we got something for dinner"
"There was a shopping mall/Now it's all covered with flowers"
"And as things fell apart/Nobody paid much attention"

-- (nothing but) Flowers

(Scary to thing the Talking Heads as harbingers of our demise.)

This is idiocy. Absolute idiocy. You've got an populace -- not to mention an economy -- clamoring for energy independence and alternative energy sources, a glut (from the sound of it) of folks willing to provide the technology and the innovations --- and a bunch of bureaucrats who'd rather save the fucking fruit bats than the fucking country or fucking human race! How many time is it necessary to shoot oneself in the foot?

Exploit the Earth or Die.

Sadly, our government and our bureaucracies are making a conscious choice for the latter.

Thank goodness we still have a 2nd Amendment. We might need to use it soon.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2007-winter/moral-vs-universal-health-care.asp

I work for the local government. I'm sure you have the same problem where you live.

We always get little dictators: http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2006/05/littl e-dictators.asp.

It works thus: if you're inside the TI dept., you're accused of being arrogant to propose Linux, because you exist to serve the business area. I personally heard "our network is a Windows one" referring to TCP/IP + Ethernet 100Mbps, with dhcp etc.

Of course, if you're outside TI you must abide by their approved standards, because they were delegate with such "duties" by the powers-that-be.

An ill-intentioned M$-worshipping CIO can wreak a lot of havoc. And all that without risking any punishment, because most directors above are old and know nothing about free software or standard file formats.

As you said, it's the tail wagging the dog...