Slashdot Mirror

I made the same call: Judges Mark A Ciavarella, Jr and Michael T. Conahan should be legally put to death.

Honestly, violating the oath of office is the only proper way to find someone guilty of treason. Common citizens don't take oaths of loyalty, public servants/slaves do. We need to hold ALL public servants to their oaths, by punishing them to the fullest extent of the law that they supposedly uphold and delegate authority over.

I've always wished that voting totals also included the amount of registered voters who decided not to vote. To me, this number is just as important as how many voted for the winner or the losers.

I belong to a different team, the team that repudiates the prejudice act called voting.

Real democracy is not about electing officials with unlimited power. Democracy means the people have the power, hence we don't need representative government. Let everyone vote on every single thing that government wants done, and require that 51% of ELIGIBLE VOTERS vote yes for it to pass. That way, staying home is the equivalent of voting no, rather than not being counted at all.

Then again, I want to end suffrage rights entirely.

I've been an entrepreneur since the age of 12, running a variety of geeky businesses from BBSes in the 80s, to 3D design studios and rendering farms in the 90s. I've had my consulting business since I incorporated it when I was 15 (with an adult business partner who I bought out at 18).

I still moonlight through a variety of ventures, none of them geek oriented. EVERY moonlighting gig I did that was geek-oriented made my life miserable. Too much geekiness can really break you, honestly.

I run a Christian Printing business that accounts for about 25% of my income, and I run it on the side, maybe 1-2 hours a day. I blog, which accounts for 10% of my income, also very part time. I've owned retail stores which became too full time to manage. I'm starting a digg-like print magazine focused on Chicago (details to come).

Everything I do moonlighting-wise is anti-geek. Much of it is hands on, without programming or thinking about technology or electronics. It keeps me fulfilled.

Stay away from moonlighting in what you do for a living. Find a hobby you can profit from. There's a billion ways to make money, but the most fun ones are the ones that don't cross into the market you're in for a living.

If we were stuck on a gold or silver standard, we'd be in real trouble: there just isn't that much gold or silver around to make a a very good currency. We need a currency that can grow as the amount of real assets in circulation grows -- as we as a society and civilization create more valuable stuff, we need a way to pay for it. The debt money system uses all those real assets as the basis for its value, rather than an arbitrarily chosen precious metal.

We don't need something that can grow with the economic growth of the country. If we fixed to a gold standard, prices (in gold ounces or grains) would fall softly over time -- soft price declines. This encourages people to save rather than overspend, and only spend on things they need or are sure they want. Soft price declines are GOOD and happened for thousands of years when people used gold as a medium of exchange. This also allows for proper investment as people are not pushed to invest and can watch their savings grow in value even if they hoard their gold in the mattress.

Instead, we have fiat currency inflation (which just means more money is created than destroyed) which caused soft price increases -- this gives people incentive to spend and not save, even if they don't need or are sure they want something. It also creates malinvestment as people invest "just to protect their savings."

But a house, that has real value.

No it doesn't. Buy a home and ignore it for 5 years. The yard gets destroyed, pests and mold destroy the inside, roofs fall apart, windows need replacing, carpet goes stale, dust collects. A house has declining value.

A factory has value.

I'm sure all those horse-shoe manufacturing factories in 1889 are still valuable today. I'd say they weren't valuable within 30 years.

A John Deere tractor has value.

For about 7 years, at which point it is more costly to buy used than new in terms of lost productivity.

When people borrow money to pay for these things, the money is created and the newly-created money is backed by the pledged asset. So when I buy a house for $250k, two hundred and fifty thousand new dollars are created, but those dollars are backed by my house; they are, in one sense, actually my house, floating around out there. And then I work, and pay the loan principle back, and basically suck those 'house-dollars' back out of the market and put them back into my house.

Not quite, because when you have an inflationary fiat economy, people malinvest -- they take the easy new money as quickly as it comes, and that causes prices to rise extravagently. Your $250,000 house bought in 2005 may only be worth $175,000 today -- and if it is in Southern Florda, it may be worth only $125,000. Add to that your property taxes, maintenance, utility cost, and general upkeep, and the house is a terrible investment.

With a fixed amount of gold, you'd have massive inflation/deflation cycles as prices changed in response to the amount of available currency.

Inflation just means an increase in the money supply, deflation means a decrease in the money supply. You mean price rise/price decrease. This is _good_, actually, because it benefits the non-hoarders to pick up newly repriced assets that have dropped in value when they need them most, and it benefits hoarders in watching their money become more valuable even without investing.

Where you run into serious problems are when banks start making loans to people who don't have enough real assets behind them to cover the amount of money that's being created. IMO, this should be illegal, or at the very least the banks should be held directly responsible for ensuring that the loans they're making are backed by something (real property, or an income stream). If they don't, then they're magicking money into existence that has nothing behind it, and letting it out into the market

Surely you don't seriously believe that just because a war is not declared on an official document does not mean a war does not exist.

A war does not exist. Without a Declaration of War by Congress, or a Letter of Marque by Congress towards an individual or individuals, no U.S. citizen has any right to harm another person's rights or property. The military in Iraq is trespassing. The soldier who pulls the trigger against another person has committed murder, UNLESS that soldier was vacationing and truly defending themselves. If the solder was not vacationing, but were trespassing, it is murder, and trespass, and they should be bound until Iraq justice system can bring them to trial.

And "enemies" are enemies in practice... not by some legal definition. Al-Qaeda declared war on us, and attacked us several times... and in practice has been an enemy of the US for over a decade and a half now.

Wrong, Al Qaeda did not declare war on me or you. They declared war against the United States government, not the People. They did not attack me, nor you, because "they" are not within our borders. The men who attacked a building, and killed thousands, should have been tried in court had they survived. They didn't survive. Anyone who admits culpability in the crime of 9/11 should have a Letter of Marque issued against them by Congress, so they can be brought to justice. Anyone else should be left alone.

If a State declares war on the United States, it should be up to Congress to debate declaring a war back, or considering just leaving it be. As far as it stands today, every troops in a foreign country that has not been invited by that foreign country's leaders, is trespassing.

If the United States wants to go to war, like in World War II, there are 3 simple steps to do so:

1. Debate a Declaration of War in Congress. Let the constituents voice their opinions.
2. Raise funds for the war by selling war bonds. Remember those? They exist, but no one wants them.
3. Raise a militia of volunteers -- truly unpaid men who understand that they are defending against a real act of war that is invading the borders of their State or country. Paid troops is a ridiculous idea, because it becomes a job, not a moral decision to protect their home and family.

I'm an anti-voter, anti-voting in all elections that I can vote in. Many people are surprised that I said I would actually vote for Ron Paul in the primaries, since this vote doesn't actually give any of my rights up to another individual. But even with so many RP supporters online (and now offline), I still think the only way to reduce tyranny in this country is to get judges back into reading the Constitution, and understanding that the document is not flexible, living, breathing and adapting.

Since the U.S. was born, it was understood by all, even detractors, that the Constitution had one purpose: the keep Federal government small and let the individual States be big for those who wanted a big State, and small for those who wanted a small State. People afraid of a North American Union forget that the U.S. was designed this way: a union of States (governments) that agree to one thing: personal rights and responsibilities (these are one thing because they go hand-in-hand).

I'm SHOCKED that we today forget that freedom comes from a lack of government intrusion, NOT from government intrusion. The PATRIOT Act is a simple proof that citizens today have no clue that the Federal government is restrained by the Constitution exactly as it was written. No laws restricting speech, no laws restricting arms, no laws restricting Habeus Corpus, no laws restricting travel or transport, no laws restricting trade, no laws restricting the People's rights beyond what limited powers the central body has. In fact, the only thing the Feds really can do is to make sure the individual States don't trample on the individual's rights to act non-violently how they want to act.

I'm glad to see SOME judges admire SOME parts of the Constitution, but I can only dream of a day when judges understand the non-breathing, non-adapting Constitutional limits on the Feds. When that happens, nothing Congress or a power-hungry President do would become law.

Please help me understand this. If the preterist "church" is considered to be the entire body of humanity (including unrepentant rapists, murderers, adulterers, satanists, atheists, etc), if that be the case, then God has a very messed up family. And the violence, perversion and hate is getting worse every day! His body would be getting more corrupt every day it would seem. So are these people all automatically welcomed with open arms into heaven upon their departure from the earth, regardless of the decisions that they have made? Even those who reject/hate God?

Yes. Why? God is a loving God. Jesus Christ did not come to earth to die for men, He did it for the Father -- to reconcile the Father's loved children and creation to be stewards of His earth, not to be judged or penalized for their shortcomings.

Regarding the 70AD completiong of God's programme, in Matthew 28, Jesus states that when the gospel is preached to all nations, then will the end come. This was not the case by AD70 ( although some claim that representatives of each nation were present in Jerusalem at penticost). In reality, there are still many unreached people groups and cultures where the gospel has never been heard. What use is there in preaching the "good news" if all people are already saved and nothing they can do affects their eternity?

Your Bible, unfortunately, is wrong. Scofield and Moody in the late 19th century really did a number on the Church in order to try to push the Evangelical ideology into the mainstream. The New Testament supposedly says that Christ would not return until the Gospel was preached to all the nations, but "nations" did not mean the entire Earth. The Hebrew and Greek text supports the definition there of "all of Rome" or "all of the Roman Empire" where the Gospel SURELY was preached in entirety.

There is no need to preach the Good News, in fact I believe that the great commission is over.


Many of the biblical prophecies have their fulfillment in 2 different time periods, especially those in the Old Testament that supposedly combine Christ's death and Kingly reign. Isn't Jesus meant to setup his Kingly throne for a time in Jerusalem? Seen Jerusalem lately?

No. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christ will reign (especially not for 1000 years). All it says is that the faithful and righteous BEFORE the second coming will reign WITH Christ. How they will reign, and specifically where, is unknown.

Jesus' own disciples didn't really believe that He would die, even though He told them plainly. They probably expected Him to take His throne in the physical sense. The OT prophecies would seem to imply this. Perhaps many of the prophecies that were fulfilled in 70AD actually and have their fulfillment in multiple time periods as well.

I fully believe that. I laugh a little in my heart when Christians tell me that Christ surely couldn't have returned already because look at the world. But I remind them that Jews today refuse to believe that the Messiah came 2000 years ago because THEIR interpretation of prophecy was not fulfilled -- just like the mainstream Christian refuses to believe that we live without sin today.

Please help me understand this. If the preterist "church" is considered to be the entire body of humanity (including unrepentant rapists, murderers, adulterers, satanists, atheists, etc), if that be the case, then God has a very messed up family. And the violence, perversion and hate is getting worse every day! His body would be getting more corrupt every day it would seem. So are these people all automatically welcomed with open arms into heaven upon their departure from the earth, regardless of the decisions that they have made? Even those who reject/hate God?

Yes. Why? God is a loving God. Jesus Christ did not come to earth to die for men, He did it for the Father -- to reconcile the Father's loved children and creation to be stewards of His earth, not to be judged or penalized for their shortcomings.

Regarding the 70AD completiong of God's programme, in Matthew 28, Jesus states that when the gospel is preached to all nations, then will the end come. This was not the case by AD70 ( although some claim that representatives of each nation were present in Jerusalem at penticost). In reality, there are still many unreached people groups and cultures where the gospel has never been heard. What use is there in preaching the "good news" if all people are already saved and nothing they can do affects their eternity?

Your Bible, unfortunately, is wrong. Scofield and Moody in the late 19th century really did a number on the Church in order to try to push the Evangelical ideology into the mainstream. The New Testament supposedly says that Christ would not return until the Gospel was preached to all the nations, but "nations" did not mean the entire Earth. The Hebrew and Greek text supports the definition there of "all of Rome" or "all of the Roman Empire" where the Gospel SURELY was preached in entirety.

There is no need to preach the Good News, in fact I believe that the great commission is over.


Many of the biblical prophecies have their fulfillment in 2 different time periods, especially those in the Old Testament that supposedly combine Christ's death and Kingly reign. Isn't Jesus meant to setup his Kingly throne for a time in Jerusalem? Seen Jerusalem lately?

No. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Christ will reign (especially not for 1000 years). All it says is that the faithful and righteous BEFORE the second coming will reign WITH Christ. How they will reign, and specifically where, is unknown.

Jesus' own disciples didn't really believe that He would die, even though He told them plainly. They probably expected Him to take His throne in the physical sense. The OT prophecies would seem to imply this. Perhaps many of the prophecies that were fulfilled in 70AD actually and have their fulfillment in multiple time periods as well.

I fully believe that. I laugh a little in my heart when Christians tell me that Christ surely couldn't have returned already because look at the world. But I remind them that Jews today refuse to believe that the Messiah came 2000 years ago because THEIR interpretation of prophecy was not fulfilled -- just like the mainstream Christian refuses to believe that we live without sin today.

I can't begin to count how often in the past people cheered about a product that ended up either vaporware or less-than-desired. I also can't begin to count on the opposite happening: a non-starter product release that turned out to be better than expected. I've been a PDA user since the Apple Newton days, and I've been a PDA Phone user since pre-Blackberry days (although I never had a Blackberry, I prefer full PDAs). I currently use an HTC Trinity P3600 and love it -- GPS, EDGE/3G, 2GB storage card, WiFi, and more. It runs the horrid Windows Mobile 5 but I absolutely love the phone, and combined with Google Maps online + GPS, it replaced 3 devices that I had tethered with me constantly.

The iPhone looks terrible to me for a variety of reasons -- locked application support, AT&T (love my T-Mobile), restrictive networking (GPRS and not EDGE/3G?), etc. But the iPhone will probably win in version 2 because of what has made Apple a powerhouse -- it's the interface, stupid. My iPod is really a great device (even though I don't use it since I have EDGE-radio streamed from my home media PC). I loved the iPod for the interface. I'm glad my wife, sister, father, mother and brother all have iPods -- I have to do absolutely NO work to keep them happy.

My #1 complaint about ALL PDAs and ALL phones has always been the interface. It seems that techies designed a horrid interface around features, rather than integrating everything into a smooth GUI. Apple's interface alone will sell millions, and people will pay the price.

One thing that people seem to forget time and again is that you can not judge tomorrow's prices on yesterday's prices. Inflation has destroyed the US dollar (down 50% in 5 years), so prices double of what we paid 5 years ago can be considered "par" with the fall in value of the dollar. I think $500 is a reasonable price for all of what the iPhone offers -- even though it is merely version 1.0. By the time the iPhone is actually released, who knows how much inflation has caused wages to "rise" and incomes to "soar." With the Democrats taking over, I don't doubt that inflation will get worse than even the high-spending Republicans forced the issue.

Don't look at prices as a constant. In terms of US dollars, we're almost all wealthier in the number of dollars we earn -- even though we are poorer in terms of what those dollars can buy us.

Sidenote: Apple is also wise to set this price point. It is just pricey-enough-sounding to make the device a little more elitist than the $49 Razr that every 12 year old seems to have. Getting the superstars and Paris-Hilton-models using their phone will make everyone want one, and as sales go up, prices tend to go down. Apple's biggest problem in the short run will be supply -- I guarantee they won't have enough to keep up with demand, even at $500.

I paid $650 for my HTC Trinity P3600, and if Apple can integrate a GPS and EDGE/3G, I'd pay $1000 for it just on the interface alone. Give it a few weeks after release, and I think people's opinions of the device will change. They'll see what it can do for them (especially business folks, teenagers with money, and young adults with new credit cards), and they'll jump at the chance to have one early for $500.

The U.S. copyright lobby exists for one purpose: to give distributors sole custody of intellectual property "rights." In the past, pre-copyright, there was no intellectual property -- there was only marketing material that provided an artist or creator access to the market so they could sell their true product: live productions of that marketing material. Shakespeare wrote for acclaim, but it was his live performances that produced his income. He was also paid by wealthy patrons of the arts who wanted to see more from him. For centuries, this is why art was created. Those who didn't want acclaim but still wanted to produce art would do what we all do for incomes -- they got jobs in creating something for someone else.

For 200 years, copyright was considered the only way to protect your creations, but what came out of copyright is the worst-case scenario for amateur artists: instead of copyright protecting your creations, it only protected the monopoly networks of distribution, what I would call distribution cartels.

Now, 200 years later, we have a majority of opinion that believes that people wouldn't create if their intellectual property wasn't protected. But this isn't true. I created the Global Unanimocracy Network"> of blogs and forums in order to prove that you could generate an income for your talents without the need for copyright. All my writings are now public domain -- I freely encourage others to copy my writings and posts and repost them under their own name, on their own sites, for their own income. Why? Because it generates interest in the niche topics I cover, and eventually people find their way to my site. I make a decent income through advertising and individual support for my future writings. People pay me so that I will write more in the future. Even better, my network of blogs has also gotten me writing gigs for other sites that pay me to write content for them in a "ghost writing" type of deal.

If you are a musician, you have two options: record a record and use it as marketing to get people to your shows (as my brother's band Maps & Atlases has done), or go and get a job as a studio musician creating music for commercial ventures (movies, TV shows, muzak, etc). The idea that you can spend 2 weeks or 2 years creating one record and then reap 70 years of income is ridiculous. Does a plumber go to school for 2 years to learn how to fix toilets only to get paid for 70 years whenever you flush that toilet? No, they continue to work. Does an architect spend 2 years designing plans only to get paid forever by those who live or use the building that came forth from the plans? No, they keep designing. Artists are no different -- they should continue their labors in order to continue to reap incomes.

Right now, copyright has placed in the hands of powerful mercantilists the monopoly of distribution. The FCC decides who can transmit over public airwaves, and this blocks amateurs from the airwaves. Yet those days are coming to an end as the airwaves are growing less important as the Internet is available in more and more places (for example, I have a consistent WiFi connection to the net in my car at about 200kbps via T-Mobile's EDGE network). As the Internet finds its way to more parts of the country and the world, the public airwaves will be less utilized and way less efficient. The copyright lobby knows this, and they're trying hard to restrict future growth in "piracy" and non-licensed distributors. Yet for amateur artists, the non-licensed distributors are the best way to get the word out about their real product: continued labor to make new and unique art.

A friend's band, 38 Acres, now tells their audience and online visitors to freely copy their albums for friends. They make a decent income selling unique performances, and they also make an income selling their T-shirts and hats and posters. People who "pirated" t

The State.

Why did they do it? Because the average person has no way to fight back the tyranny.

When will they do it again? Whenever they please.

To whom will they do it? Anyone -- even those who happily vote for them.

It's time to vote with the noose, I say, for criminal acts of tyranny.

I'd pay a lot of attention and take action (like, um, move away?). The thing is, any organization that has the potential to have a significant impact on your life (let's say, arrest you) shouldn't be straight up ignored.

That's completely true, but as someone who has a faith belief, I will not offer resistance if they want to come and take me away. I believe in natural rights and I believe that I can not force anyone to do anything against their will. By default, the law is force. I can not take advantage of the law if it forces a person to do something they don't want to do.

I find anarcho-capitalism intriguing. What you want is for capitalism to extend into the public utilities, law enforcement, etc. should be run on a capitalist model.

Yes, true, but not on the U.S. version of Capitalism. The U.S. is not capitalistic, and hasn't been for probably 150 years (actually, just before Lincoln was President). We are more mercantilistic (which is what Lincoln and the Whigs wanted!) -- government is there to give paternalistic treatment to the powerful and connected. So when I say "capitalism" I mean pure capitalism. My definition of pure capitalism is the opportunity for two people to barter or exchange where both parties will mutually profit. This is true of all bartering except when the State enters the picture (taxes, etc). You won't buy an pear for $50 because you won't gain anything, but you will buy one for $0.50, and both you and the supplier profit. That's the simplicity of the free market. What people need, others will provide for. THAT is capitalism.

Or, money shouldn't be involved at all, like libraries.

Funny, because I am donating money for a private library to be put together in my area. Libraries are terribly inefficient today -- a huge burden on the taxpayers who DON'T use them (the vast majority). Libraries were always funded by the wealthy for the betterment of society -- today that is not true, because the voters can steal from the non-voters for whatever they want. The library is a huge waste of YOUR money. I am doing my year-end taxes right now, and over 50% of my income has gone to government this year. Over 50%. Why? For libraries?

Religion is one of the most hierarchical organizations on earth. It's a step beyond autocracy. Did you ever get to choose your leader? What makes it right for him to rule? Why does he have that power? Do you know that he's perfect, or just take his word for it?

I have been ex-communicated by many "churches" in my area. I don't use the word church, almost never -- I use the word "congregation." I truly believe that most Christians have no clue about the Bible, because they sure don't live it. They're accepting the word of some egomaniacal "pastor" and then they teach their kids the mumbo jumbo that they learned. The Bible is pretty cool, actually -- almost all of it is irrelevant for Christians today. About 95% of it is what I call "the example of human trash;" the 5% that is pertinent is REALLY amazing and goes completely counter to how most Christians live today. Yet I can not judge their actions and their sins, I can only love them. I feel sorry that many Christians are wasting their mortal lives on mumbo jumbo, but that's their choice, their free will. Yes, they vote and steal from me. Yes, they give me a bad name. That's fine, I still love them. I also love the non-faithful, too :) Maybe moreso, hah. If you're interested in my take on Christianity, drop me an e-mail -- even if you're an atheist.

I don't know whether you'd appreciate this, but I'd think you would make an excellent senator or representative. I do appreciate it, and I appreciate your candor. I actually hear it often (I do quite a bit of public speaking, actually), and I've responded to it in an article titled I should be President? It's an old article, but still solid in terms of my bel

If voting changed anything, it would be illegal. Though, if I had as much money as Microsoft to lobby congress and donate to presidential campaigns, I'm sure my vote would count for something.

It's easy to blame the voter in a corrupt system. But why not blame those who perpetrate the behaviour rather than the average voter who isn't an engineer and doesn't understand what is at stake.

The voter votes in order to try to change something that the market hasn't had time to cover. Instead of giving the market a chance (which could sometimes take a few years but makes life more efficient for everyone in the end), the voter gives power to the State to force SOME sort of change -- usually creating a law that few can afford to take advantage of, but that stifles future market creations because it exists.

I love to read old laws that are still on the books -- and still enforceable if the wrong person goes against the State -- and I see how the market worked around those laws to provide for what the market wanted. It took a bit longer than the strike of a gavel, but it worked better than what the State created. Laws create a standard that never goes away, and if it does, it usually goes the way of those who were able to take advantage of the law first to create a monopoly based on the law's strict definition.

Voting is the worst thing you can do, except when you vote for none of the above and let your vote be counted as a person who is against ALL intrustions on rights.

I am a voting anarcho-capitalist and I advocate voting for yourself as a way to vote none of the above. I do it, and I figure this is a great way to actually NOT waste you vote. If all the eligible non-voters voted for themselves, it would really show the State that there are a ton of people who don't like anyone -- neither evil.

If the 30-40% of eligible non-voters "won" over the winner of the candidate who got the majority of yes-voters, it would really turn things on its head. Imagine, a Republican getting 37% of the vote (winning), the Democrat getting 33% of the vote (loser) and the Unanimocracy voters getting 40% of "Other."

I'm a fan of that decision.

I am a voting anarcho-capitalist and I advocate voting for yourself as a way to vote none of the above. I do it, and I figure this is a great way to actually NOT waste you vote. If all the eligible non-voters voted for themselves, it would really show the State that there are a ton of people who don't like anyone -- neither evil.

If the 30-40% of eligible non-voters "won" over the winner of the candidate who got the majority of yes-voters, it would really turn things on its head. Imagine, a Republican getting 37% of the vote (winning), the Democrat getting 33% of the vote (loser) and the Unanimocracy voters getting 40% of "Other."

I'm a fan of that decision.

The Democrats pander to big business just as often (if not more often) than the Republicans do. They're just more able to offer it as some sort of "equality" of certain selected racial or income classes. Don't believe that we'll see anything better come from them that we did the Republicans -- remember, many Democrats voted for Republican pork so that the Republicans would vote for Democratic pork. Nothing will change.

The Internet is best left alone -- and deregulate communications as much as possible to allow for more competition. That will help everyone with lower prices, more competitive levels of service based on what the customer needs (rather than a one-size-fits-all solution), and better service levels due to the reduced cost of meeting regulations and restrictions.

We have just as much to be worried about with the Democrats in power as the Republicans. The Democrats are no friend to the free market, which means we'll see more restrictions on speech (ie, copyright and patent extensions), more restrictions on actions (ie, paying wages equal to the production of the worker) and more restrictions on competition with offshore companies (ie, forced benefits, federalizing of programs that should stay local, and probably higher barriers to entry against entrenched corporations).

The Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same face of the coin -- the left side and the right side of authoritarianism or Statism. The opposite side is freedom, something no political party (not even the Greens nor the Libertarians) are about.

If you want freedom, start voting for none of the above like I do.

Most of the Constitution applies all over the world in regards to the US governments. The term "citizen" is VERY rarely used, but the generic term "man" is used over and over to signify ALL men. The Founding Fathers were very specific about wanting the document to be accepted by countries all over the world, unfortunately, it isn't even accepted by most U.S. citizens anymore.

The U.S. government has very specific and limited authorizations under the Constitution. Not just within the borders, but everywhere.

Bush, Clinton, Gore, Obama (Barack), Kerry, Kennedy, all of them have to abide by the Constitution no matter where they're at. When will the courts start charging them with the treasonous act of violating the Constitution and give them the ultimate penalty?

Voting does nothing. I vote, but not for anyone you'd vote for. The best way to vote is with your dollars -- and don't tell ANYONE why you stopped buying their product, but tell your friends and family why you did. Competition rises to meet demand, so when you remove demand, other competitors have to figure out WHY. That is what makes items better. If you set a bar at a certain level, the market will try to rise to ONLY that level (this is why the State fails, because they set the bar too low). If you set a bar at a level undetermined, but higher than now, the market will try to raise the bar until you're happy. Usually in raising their bar, they find new ways to provide a better product at a higher quality in a faster period of time and at a lower price.

Voting with your dollars matters, voting at the ballot is a joke.

Yes, theoretically fiat currency could be as scarce as gold and not be overproduced. But could you name even one fiat currency that isn't inflating and hasn't been inflating? I didn't think so. Why then would you propose that paper money and gold money is more or less equivalent when they clearly are not other than in theory?

If I'm not mistaken the price of gas measured in gold is lower than it's ever been.
Source: http://gold.unanimocracy.com/2006/05/15/i-bought-g as-for-89-cents-per-gallon-today/
Can this be because theory and practice differs somewhat?

I'm against voting in every way, but the LP is especially bad since their recent reform that now places them closer to the wackos on the New Right. I believe that all federal parties are corrupt: if you look at what the late Harry Browne did within the LP (stole, lied, defrauded, lied, stole, and defrauded), you'd see that almost all politicians are corrupt, especially at the Federal level.

How is the telco market NOT an ideal market? In almost every situation where we saw subsidies, we saw a market restrained from providing new and better efficiencies for consumers due to the typical side-effects of subsidization: redtape, mandates, and a bigger barrier to entry than previously existed.

You can refute it, but your refutations don't hold water. That's why I posted "chicken and egg and chicken and egg" because the common refutation is "Well, we have to regulate it because we spent tax dollars on building the infrastructure." Well, why did you do that? "Because we had to since no one would have sold land to provide the service in the first place." How do you know that? "Well, because."

All I have to do it point to J.J. Hill's amazing life story -- he built a network of efficient businesses that the consumers loved, he helped thousands through government's mad depressions, he destroyed the myth that only government can create anything large scale, and he did it without any help from anyone but his own fingers, capital, networking and time.

That Wikipedia entry is bunk, plain and simple. Natural monopolies do not exist unless they do the nearly impossible: offer such a good quality of service at such a low price that competition would not give the consumer ANY advantage. If that is the case, then the natural "monopoly" is the best that is possible -- why do we need government to try to do better if there IS no better?

Name an natural monopoly -- they don't exist. What does exist, for a very short period of history, is a company that works so hard that it gives its customers the best they could ever wish for. When another company can trump the first, that short period of historical dominance goes away.

I just wrote about it today, as well as smacking the callous disregard for free market truth at Wikipedia, at my anarcho-capitalism blog.

Terrible idea. Campaign finance reform only creates cronyism and preferential treatment of a select few (2 party system). How I spend my money is how I express myself, and it should be completely unregulated. There are 3 reasons why we have a 2 party system: 1: the debates are closed, 2: the money that is acceptable in a campaign is heavily regulated to prefer the 2 main parties and 3: it is harder to get a third party candidate on a ballot in terms of ballot signatures.

Campaign finance has only made it harder to get rid of incumbents, not easier. Don't think that taxpayer funded campaigns would make a difference -- we already live in that world, and it is a failure.

I don't believe in campaigns anyway... Just vote like I do.

Clearly that's a justified, well balanced world view with no room for argument.

Throw your arguments here and I'll explain. Or visit my anarcho-capitalism forum and I'll be happy to answer quicker.

Teen pregnancy? Fiat currency!

Fiat currency has created a massive State expansion that in the long run created savings devaluation (even your stocks that look like they're going up in dollars are going down in value!), which has created an atmosphere that seems to require both parents working. When one parent is home and focusing on their children, teen pregnancy decreases greatly.

Racism? Fiat currency!

Fiat currency creates inflation, which is used to transfer wealth from the lower class and middle class to the elite in control of the money market. Many minorities have found it hard to get out of the ghettos and out of the social stereotyping because their savings are quickly thrown in the toilet. Put $1 a day under the bed, and in 20 years you have nothing. In a gold standard, your money gets more powerful over time, so even the poorest minorities can break free of their stereotypes. Racism often happens out of stereotypes that sometimes breed true because the minorities can't break away from the stereotypes, so they embrace them.

Substandard literacy rate? You guess it, fiat currency.

Absolutely. Fiat currency caused massive problems in educating privately because of the large expanse of the State as inflation robbed residents of wealth to support the State expansion. As inflation increased, public educators expected more money to compensate for the increasing costs of living, which accelerated taxation and inflation (savings devaluation) which forced both parents to work rather than educate their children properly. Now the State educated, of course the kids can't read.

Lack of critical thought? ...anarcho-capitalism?

I used critical thought there. How about you, friend?

Actually, I am starting a series on Gandhi and Freedom where I am looking into his Anti-State life. People called him a socialist, but that is completely untrue. He had strong anti-government beliefs and realized MANY times that the law would not help him. In fact in many trials against him he offered no defense and no legal manipulations. He stood firm and said the law does not cover him, so if they plan on convicting him to just go ahead and do it.

Gandhi did NOT preach non-violence, either. It seems the socialists love the guy when he was one of the biggest seditionists in history. I'm happy to model myself after him as much as possible in terms of sedition against tyranny.

I'm not sure I agree about not buying a PS3 on the "expensive" idea. I made a post a few days ago, Is the PS3 really more expensive? offering that the PS3 is not really that much more expensive once you factor in Federal Reserve currency devaluation. The Central Bank has destroyed the dollar by almost 50% over the time since the PS2 was launched. Considering that devaluation, the PS3 really isn't that much more expensive. If you follow that thread, you see that the PS2 versus PS3 in Europe (which didn't see as much of a currency destruction as the USD has in the same time period) is NOT seeing a huge price increase in the PS3 as we are.

I still won't buy the PS3 on other grounds -- but definitely not the "its too expensive" idea. The PS3 is no more expensive than the PS2, comparing 2000USD versus 2006USD values.

In terms of the price of gold, the PS3 is VERY cheap.

A reader at my forum posted a question regarding the PS3 and if it is really more expensive than the PS2. In 2000, the PS2 sold for US$299. In 2006, the PS3 will sell for $599. Over the past 6 years, the dollar has fallen in value by about 50% in many areas of the market (not just gasoline or housing). Things haven't really gotten more expensive, the dollar has just become more worthless. You can thank Greenspan and Bernanke for their inflationary monetary policy.

For many households, their incomes have nearly doubled in the past 10 years, if not 6 years. I know my income is up nearly 300% in 7 years. For me, the PS3 is cheaper versus the true cost of living than the PS2 was, and I'm 32, not 25. Considering I was 26 when the PS2 came out, I am already past the "I can't afford XYZ" phase of my life.

Maybe things are coming to a head in the economy entirely, where people are earning more and more dollars, but those dollars are constantly worth less and less to a global market. For a guy like me living on a personal gold standard, most prices have been falling over the last 5 years, not rising. For those of us who see our paychecks going up every year, the PS3's reported initial price shouldn't see that outrageous, especially considering many of us aren't doing much more than we were doing 6 years ago, so getting a raise seems pointless.

At least the PS3 has many new features to show for the dollar price increase. What is the Euro price of the PS3? The dollar fell against the Euro almost 50% in that same time.

For me, I won't buy it anyway, since it's a Sony product and I'm through with them. I was a Sony fanboy for a decade, but not now with their junk and their consumer manipulations. They can go suck it. Even still, the PS3 seems comparble to the PS2 in actual value rather than dollar price.

I know it's a minor point, but why on Earth do you need a Day-Timer if you have a PDA? Or, to look at it the other way around, why the hell do you have a PDA if you are already carrying a notebook PC and a Day-Timer?

Actually, I converted my Day-Timer to an uber-PostIt/mega-notepad. My PDA is great for leaving notes to myself, but terrible for leaving notes to someone else (in paper form). I am an appointment-afficionado, and I write many thank-you notes and "Don't Forget" notes that I hand out as needed. The little Day-Timer leather-bound system works great because I can take it with me to meetings where a bag won't do, and a PDA is a bit too attention-grabbing.

For me, something that can be broken down to individual, smaller parts is key. I forgot to mention that I also carry a D50 with me at all times, so having a bag within a bag within a bag works best.

(That was a lot of hypenated words, but it was necessary.)

Regulations by the government have nothing to do with protecting the consumers or enabling the market to produce a quality product. All regulations are created to do is protect the favored companies (paternalism) and created an artificially high barrier to entry (protectionism).

In this situation, of course the government wants to regulate new media -- it will let them tax it, censor it, and prevent it from pushing the pro-State media companies into oblivion, where they should go.

Don't be surprised if everything is eventually owned by the largest media cartels, the kings of distribution. They've realized the mistake of investing in the online market, the most free and most anonymous place for people to interact. I look at the web as an anarcho-capitalist haven, a place that even when touched by ridiculous white market laws allows everyone to instantly circumvent them to the free black market.

The citizens here won't care, they'll see it is "for the children" or "against terrorism" and they'll bend over and accept it. Thankfully we have enough geeks around the world who will continue to work on new ways to transport information beneath the radar of the monsters in office.

If you are an anarcho-capitalist, that sounds almost like a Libertarian. In which case, you may want to check out The Free State Project - and move to New Hampshire.

I used to consider myself Libertarian but the Libertarian Party proved to me that they're all about power in politics and libertarians in office are easily corrupted. Now I vote very differently and for different reasons.

I believe the right actions for someone are not to vote or change government but to make real changes in their own lives -- be a beacon. In my church, I don't throw money around (although I do tithe between 20-50% of my income) but I spend time with people. I believe church is helping a guy fix his car or helping an old lady shovel her drive or helping a neighbor kid learn math. That is how I make a difference, not by voting or paying a charity to do work I should do.

I'm a big fan of the mesh networking idea, and I believe fully that the biggest problem with getting more bandwidth out there is the FCC. I wish they would vacate the airwaves and let the free market use the airwaves for moving more information as it is needed (a la carte style).

If you are an anarcho-capitalist, that sounds almost like a Libertarian. In which case, you may want to check out The Free State Project - and move to New Hampshire.

I used to consider myself Libertarian but the Libertarian Party proved to me that they're all about power in politics and libertarians in office are easily corrupted. Now I vote very differently and for different reasons.

I believe the right actions for someone are not to vote or change government but to make real changes in their own lives -- be a beacon. In my church, I don't throw money around (although I do tithe between 20-50% of my income) but I spend time with people. I believe church is helping a guy fix his car or helping an old lady shovel her drive or helping a neighbor kid learn math. That is how I make a difference, not by voting or paying a charity to do work I should do.

I'm a big fan of the mesh networking idea, and I believe fully that the biggest problem with getting more bandwidth out there is the FCC. I wish they would vacate the airwaves and let the free market use the airwaves for moving more information as it is needed (a la carte style).

If you are an anarcho-capitalist, that sounds almost like a Libertarian. In which case, you may want to check out The Free State Project - and move to New Hampshire.

I used to consider myself Libertarian but the Libertarian Party proved to me that they're all about power in politics and libertarians in office are easily corrupted. Now I vote very differently and for different reasons.

I believe the right actions for someone are not to vote or change government but to make real changes in their own lives -- be a beacon. In my church, I don't throw money around (although I do tithe between 20-50% of my income) but I spend time with people. I believe church is helping a guy fix his car or helping an old lady shovel her drive or helping a neighbor kid learn math. That is how I make a difference, not by voting or paying a charity to do work I should do.

I'm a big fan of the mesh networking idea, and I believe fully that the biggest problem with getting more bandwidth out there is the FCC. I wish they would vacate the airwaves and let the free market use the airwaves for moving more information as it is needed (a la carte style).

I convert all my paper money into gold and silver immediately upon receiving it. I use gold and silver to purchase almost 30% of my goods right now, and I hope to make it 50% by year's end. You'd be amazed at the amount of local business owners who will take gold and silver at a HUGE discount over retail, I even found 2 gas station owners who will let me buy unleaded with gold and silver (at spot price).

For banking, I don't. I DO have a paypal account, and I also have a green dot debit card that I only fill with dollars if I need to buy something online. I am currently looking into investing in a bank that performs ALL transactions in grains of gold that the depositor owns -- converting to and from dollars on the fly at the current buy price of gold or silver.

It is not easy living this way, but it is VERY profitable. Because I transfer all my dollars into hard money right away (except for paying the basic utilities), I am very controlled in spending. I cut my salary almost 50% over 5 years but I am wealthier today than I have ever been in terms of security and ability to do what I want to do rather than what I have to do. I posted about it at my gold investment forum.

I still have employees who expect dollars, but they get their share before I pay my dividend. I've found some possible tax loopholes that help getting paid directly in gold or silver, but I am still in the process of verifying it with the IRS, so I am paying full tax on the true value rather than the US Mint value.

The way I like to call Anarcho-capitalism is "Life a la carte." I'm always surprised that people here want Cable TV channels a la carte and they want software a la carte, too, but they're happy accepting pre-packaged government services.

Funny you should say that. This is how I vote.

Actually all my dollar figures are converted to gold ounces for me automatically. Check out this GreaseMonkey script at my gold investment site. Very cool stuff.

And if companies choose to abuse their customer's trust by making private dealings public, then it's clear that legislation is needed.

I don't see that as the case at all. There is no right to privacy if you openly put information out there. My father told me at a young age to never put anything in writing that I didn't want others to know and use against me. That is true with all my private information.

I don't bank. I don't have credit cards. I don't trade stocks. I am living 100% on a gold hard money standard. I don't worry about my privacy because I have nothing to hide, and I don't care what someone does with my information because there is nothing for them to take. If you give someone information, YOU should be responsible for making sure that they will contract to not disclose it. That is freedom. Putting government in the loop means you hope they'll do things the way you want them to, but historically that never happens: they do things the way their funds suppliers want them to. Against all your wishes and hopes and dreams.

The JBoss story is one that is close to my heart -- it epitomizes much of what I believe in when it comes to my hardcore beliefs. I am a true capitalist (anarcho-capitalist) at heart, and I believe that earning money requires constant work in the field you're in. I don't believe in copyrights and patents either, which are a government mandate to pay residual income on products you've already bought. For me, the software industry is a huge mess of patents, copyrights, trademarks and proprietary code. We pay for a mess of code, and we get what we pay for.

The idea that you can make a basic product and give it away free in order to support your ongoing labor is an idea I've grasped all my life. I started my first BBS in 87 (13 years old) and used it to build my IT consulting business. I started a 3D video production house that had the same premise: build the models for free and then work on an hourly basis to help the client utilize the models. Today I converted my print newsletters to various blogs that I post for free, which has increased my hourly rate more than enough to compensate for the time I write them.

I look at all the various cartelized industries: music, movies, software, etc. They base their future incomes on protecting the uniqueness of their software through bad laws (such as copyright and patent) rather than the free market procedure of open competition. Bands can learn from JBoss -- give your digital music away free in order to support your fan base in person. Make your money by continuing to meet your customers' needs in person, and use the previous portfolio of work to show that you're worth hiring.

Fleury may not have come to his business plan from the same political viewpoint, but I thank him openly for creating the firestorm he has. The big companies have spent years or even decades forming the law around them in order to dissuade competition from entering their markets. By taking advantage of "incumbent-protecting" patent and copyright laws, they made the barrier to entry even harder. Now they have to compete, and they have to do so in a unique manner.

When people say you can't fight big corporations, it is only because these corporations have taken the law that is supposed to protect our rights and instead made it into a preferential treatment law. Now that others understand the basis of income -- ongoing consistent work and support of your customers -- the playing field might be truly leveled so that others can come in and bring the costs down even more while increasing the quality of products and services we all use and need. That will be true, at least, if government keeps their hands off of open source and other market creations that open the door to more healthy competition. Just want until we have a bigger anti-competition board created at the federal level.

Compelling experiences are carved out, made of gaps. We have bathrooms in our environments because it's more realistic. One day someone will think eating and shitting should go into a game because there's a bathroom to use. This is not a good idea.

I agree. The game experience for me is about two things: suspending disbelief and living a fantasy experience. Games that try to mimic life, to me, create complete disbelief. I tried the Sims and all that, but I'm thankful that Civ4 doesn't have toilets. My favorite games still go back to text mode, though, because I prefer my imagination over the "one-size-fits-all" imagination of 3D designers. I'm amazed at the visual quality levels of games today, but they don't suspend disbelief just because they look real.

We don't have an Oscars. We don't have an academy.

Be thankful. The Oscars are a self-serving joke for a cartel-driven industry. The gaming industry does have their own oscars: it is called game sales, game profits, and happy consumers.

You guys are the future, and it's a beautiful future if you open your mind and actually think about business a bit more.

See my previous point. The idea of thinking about business more is of massive importance. Profit for a product you make means you have happy customers who want your product. They're exchanging their store-of-time ("money") for your time, and if they're happy, they'll happily pay. En masse.

We need to make games that people care about so much that people can't not play them.

Yes! We gamers want not just to play a game, we want to be able to have a desire to play it. Most games today look cool, sound cool and have all the jazz but I want to not play them because they don't offer me the experience I desire. Have you seen the drive to return to table-top D&D gaming? That is an RPG. A keyboard and a mouse are not RPG-efficient in my mind, because my mind is not part of the interface.

Maybe we need to become fossil fuel for the next generation to come along and show us how it's done.

They will, but I think it will be taking a step backwards. The more hardware that is needed to play a "coolness-factor" game, the more bugs I find, the more difficult it is to play and the more it works to create disbelief and take me out of the picture.

I have to tell ya, there's nothing better that can be done because the games industry is d.e.a.d.

GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out.

We put food in, shit comes out.

See previous 2 points.

The second I'll just mention that I'm going down the corridor to the maternity room where there's an infant that has a better future than the games business and it's called interactive storytelling.

For me a big part of interactivity is letting my brain create the image I believe I will soon see. That is part of fear, part of desire. If I am fed everything, I won't be hungry for what is ahead. Games have to create a hunger and a thirst every step of the way.

Your number one beef with the industry or your job. And tomorrow.. no,, Saturday.. hahah.. do something about it!

Actually, the market will cause you to do something about it. Your paycheck might be great, so that means there are customers. But the big part of a job is also being satisfied in your work, and that might mean taking a paycut in order to find new markets.

but I realise that the people in the audience are actually very intelligent here and only stupid people think that patents is a good idea, so that'd be a waste of time.

Whoa, did your friendly neighborhood anarcho-capitalist just say that? I don't think I did!

I didn't wanna rant, I wanted to rave. Games are really totally amazing.

Yet when I complete a game, I am only happy when I realize that my mind is truly am

plead the second. (Score:5, Insightful)
by dada21 (163177) on Thursday March 23, @10:37AM (#14980524)
(http://www.unanimocracy.com/ | Last Journal: Monday January 09, @10:55PM)

I have a solution to fixing the FCC and it has to do with my subject line. Figure it out.

I believe the FCC is one of the most unconstitutional departments in the Federal government and completely destroys the reason why it was set up in the first place.


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1888118040/002-40 66203-5783260

I have a solution to fixing the FCC and it has to do with my subject line. Figure it out.

I believe the FCC is one of the most unconstitutional departments in the Federal government and completely destroys the reason why it was set up in the first place. If the airwaves are public property, why are they regulated to the point that no one but the elite can access them? How is the Internet considered public airwaves if it is run over mostly private lines?

It is time for a second Internet to come into action -- one that is voluntarily connected, one that is run over cabling (or satellite) connections that are not subsidized by any government regime. If we want it, it will happen, we just have to support the initial costs. These costs might be higher but in the long run they're lower because we won't be taxed to subsidize the costs.

I don't care much for the idea of regulating any speech -- broadcast or face-to-face. I don't see the Constitution giving the Federal government any power to regulate the airwaves (the interstate commerce clause was not meant to give the Feds power to tariff and tax, it was meant to give the Feds the power to prevent the individual states from tariffing and taxing interstate commerce).

The reason for this FCC mention is because the distribution cartels who have used copyright, airwaves regulation and subsidies for decades are now scared that their cartel will fall apart. Copyright has been antiquated by the Internet -- creating opportunities for millions of artists to distribute their artwork themselves (not needing the cartels). The subsidies for the phone companies and the old media companies have proved to be worthless as almost anyone can now afford to be not just a receiver on the mediacast network, but a sender as well. The regulations that were used to keep others from entering the market are now working against the big media companies.

This means that they want blood. They want control. They want their cartel to stay together, and the only way they can do it is through the use of force and coercion -- which is basically what the FCC is about. Maybe Google will come up with a free GoogleNet and let anyone (including competitors) connect to it. Maybe some kid in a garage will figure out a way to get a secondary network structure built, I have no idea, nor do I care, there are billions of people out there, I have faith in humanity.

The future will not be able frequencies or bandwidth or censorship or control. The future will be about freedom; I am just waiting for the day that software radios with reasonable frequency hopping methods can be used to give everyone high bandwidth at low costs without worrying about what monopoly their village lets run cable or worry about paying for someone out in Montana who can't afford their own wires run. For this, though, the FCC will need to completely vacate the airwaves. The day will come, we just have to find a solution to the FCC who keeps it all down.

I have a solution. I plead the second.

I can date numerous good looking women, take them out...etc. You just can't do that with 'wealth that is not money'.

This is completely untrue. I'm an average/below-average looking short guy who has always dated very attractive women, including some models. The one I chose for the rest of my life is hot AND intelligent. I never once offered that I had money, and I rarely even paid for their share of the dates. Of course I've been writing about how to date amazing women for 10 years (and now I offer the advice freely).

Also, you don't need to be rich to travel -- I've been traveling internationally on a regular basis for almost 17 years and I earn 40-60% less than the average slashdot IT reader here. You don't need to be rich for a nice home, or to eat well. I firmly believe a single guy can do VERY well on $20,000 a year in 2006.

Today, it is money. Just a fact of nature, and I don't know anyone that doesn't like getting laid by a great looking lady. It sure makes me happy.

This is wrong, completely wrong. Money can be a very big attraction for any gal initially, but the money wears off if the guy isn't able to offer the woman what she really wants -- mystery, intrigue and the chase. This continues through marriage and retirement, women want to chase. If you're rich and you have an attractive girl on your arm for your money, the marriage won't last -- look at Donald Trump for proof there. Yet I believe that a fat, bald and poor geek can still land an amazing girl -- attractive, smart, even one that earns much more than him. All they need to do is ignore what they thought the rules were and start acting like a real man.

I am sitting in my car, right now, as I type this. I had to check my e-mail (T-Mobile sends an SMS to my phone when it detects new mail on my POP3 server). I am currently using an EDGE connection (Laptop -> Bluetooth Modem of my T-Mobile Samsung t809 cell) to connect. While I am sitting here (McDonalds parking lot), my laptop detected and picked an open WiFi access point from the Popeye's Restaurant across the street, overriding the T-Mobile EDGE connection.

It all works flawlessly from my standpoint, and this isn't even T-Mobile's entire network. I'm amazed at the speed of the EDGE connection (consistent 150kbps download in most of Chicagoland), and even more amazed at the amount of restaurants with open WiFi connections. I may run over to Popeye's right now and buy a way overpriced soda just to thank them financially for the connection.

I just ftp'd two photos of where I'm at right now to prove my story. Check http://www.unanimocracy.com/photos/popeyes1.jpg and http://www.unanimocracy.com/photos/popeyes2.jpg in a few minutes. I love technology.

I am sitting in my car, right now, as I type this. I had to check my e-mail (T-Mobile sends an SMS to my phone when it detects new mail on my POP3 server). I am currently using an EDGE connection (Laptop -> Bluetooth Modem of my T-Mobile Samsung t809 cell) to connect. While I am sitting here (McDonalds parking lot), my laptop detected and picked an open WiFi access point from the Popeye's Restaurant across the street, overriding the T-Mobile EDGE connection.

It all works flawlessly from my standpoint, and this isn't even T-Mobile's entire network. I'm amazed at the speed of the EDGE connection (consistent 150kbps download in most of Chicagoland), and even more amazed at the amount of restaurants with open WiFi connections. I may run over to Popeye's right now and buy a way overpriced soda just to thank them financially for the connection.

I just ftp'd two photos of where I'm at right now to prove my story. Check http://www.unanimocracy.com/photos/popeyes1.jpg and http://www.unanimocracy.com/photos/popeyes2.jpg in a few minutes. I love technology.

The slippery slope of government's renting of their monopoly on the use of force is being proven right here.

Copyright can't work anymore. I'd say up until 1995 or so, you had copyright laws that were degrading but still were enforceable. It can't be done. It is time for everyone who creates content to find new ways to market it.

My typical reply to "how?" is to move to live performances and tours -- with a push to sell official merchandise on top of it. Some other people in support of my No Copyright opinions have even thought up other great ways to promote art without copyright:

1. You can charge your fans for access to your studio creation time via the web.
2. You can record your live art performance real time, dump it to DVD and sell it to the fans that were at the performance.
3. You can get a job with a larger company and be a salaried artist.
4. You can contract out with local pubs to be a regular live performance artist.
5. You can tour, often, using your cheap/free CDs or free MP3s to promote your music syle.
6. You can play cheaply in order to promote your real job: teaching others to play an instrument.

Copyright has one intent: to enable the cartels to retain control of the distribution. There is no other use for copyright enforcement longer than 3 years. I even think that 24 months sounds too long for me.

I've been debating copyright in real life for 2 years now, and I'm working on opening No Copyright Studios in Chicago, IL this spring. If you have interest in beating down the RIAA, move away from the law that supports their cartel -- copyright. If you're a band, a painter, a web designer, a sculptor or any other artist, there are ways to sell your art face-to-face for a profit and skip turning over your rights to a cartel middleman.