Slashdot Mirror

Which can also be used to get rid of our good friend Berman.

I personally think the whole thing stinks. No one wants the RIAA snooping around on their machine, so how can you justify it being OK for hackers to snoop out spammers? Another brilliant Berman solution is all this is. This guy just needs to shut up.

Now I hate spam as much as the next guy, but there has to be another answer. I mean seriously, I'm still trying to find a way to get away from unsolicited phone calls and snail mail, I don't see much legislation going around trying to stop that.

...just think

Ron Paul: Former Libertarian Presidential Candidate serving in Congress as a member of the Republican Party

Victory or not? If a victory, is it pyrrhic?

will someone please "predict the death" of senator hollings already?

"As you are proposing, as well."

No. I am asserting a negative right, that others may not interfere with me (so long as I don't try to interfere with them), whereas you are asserting a positive right: that, armed with sufficient numbers that agree with you, you can force specific actions on my part.

In particular, I make no claim to restrict you from getting together with a bunch of people wnd voluntarily imposing a system of regulation upon yourselves. It may serve as an example of what kinds of agreements are beneficial for people to enter into.

"I can't include myself a public highway system any more than you can exclude yourself from it."

Sure you can! Form a cooperative, seek rights of way to land you do not own, and levy tolls on non-members. The railroads did this (though toward the end of the so-called "bobber baron" days, they also tried to outlaw other forms of transportation, i.e. coastal shipping, as "dangerous" -- it is worth investigating how much of the "bad" stuff done by these so called "robber barons" was done via money buying law -- something libertarians would oppose). People who gave rights of way cheaply, without seeking a share in railroad ownership made a mistake, and later cried foul.

...things I can not do, like send my child to a better school, contribute more to worthwhile charities and organizations like the EFF, etc., because of my tax burden

"Oh, yeah, the bad man's taking all your money."

Er, yes. And, without my consent, that IS bad.

"It's just like you objectivists to blame everyone else for your troubles. You want more money? Then make more money! The money's out there just waiting for you to take it."

First of all, I am an Libertarian, not an Objectivist. (Rand supposedly hated libertarians, BTW). The primary difference is that Objectivists claim the moral high ground becuase of "reason", whereas Libertarians claim it because of non-initiation of force, though my moral basis stems from Contractarianism and not Libertarianism, per se. Second, you are suggesting that the victim of forceful confiscation is to blame for the harm this causes them. Third, I earn quite enough to pay for what I want, including the share of government-provided services that I use, were it not for taxes I pay to (a) be redistributed to others, (b) support the enforcement of all sorts of regulatory programs. Do note that, were I to retain this money, it would stimulate the local economy, and provide income for other people -- hardly the spoils of personal greed.

"And by the way, the wealthier you get, the more ways you'll learn to dodge that bad tax man."

More evidence of the corruption of the tax system: ostensibly the "rich" pay more because they can "afford to". However, this is a lie, precisely for the reasons you mention, though it isn't as rampant as it once was. Unfortunately, calls for the rich to pay more of their "fair share" are exactly the wrong thing to do: in terms of government services actually received, they generally do pay far more than most of us. So, you have the paradoxical situation where the rich are over-taxed, yet taxed less than the middle-class at the same marginal rates. Of course, it isn't the low taxes the rich pay that's the problem, but rather the relatively high taxes that prevent the middle class from investing to join the ranks of the rich. Socialists decry capitalism because of the perpetuation of this have/have-not dichotomy, but it isn't an attribute of capitalism, but rather one of corruption.

Since you insist on alternatives, here's one for you: let the government offer the rich liability, asset, and court insurrance. Courts cost money, generally funded out of tax revenues, but larger civil cases, where more is at stake, should probably incur higher court fees. These could be offset via court-cost insurance policies. Rates could be structured to subsidize the poor without being forced upon anyone since one would have the chose to self-insure.

...the few checks against outright mob rule are codified on flimsy sheets of paper in the form of a constitution.

"At least that paper's a little more concrete than corporate rule being obviated by some theoretical invisible hand."

Huh? Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution mandate the type of regulation we see today. In fact, any rights not explicitly given to the government are reserved for the people. Libertarians have no problem with strong constitutions, and generally like the American model.

Adam Smith's so-called "invisible hand" would be constrained by prohibitions against initiation of force and fraud (particularly fraud, I'd expect). Of course, this would not protect people from their own ignorance or stupidity: a free society requires members to be responsible for their choices, both those that affect others, and those that affect themselves.

A forced exchange is neither fair nor free.

"Well, nice to see we agree on something. I can absolutely get with this philosophy as a tool. As a be-all, end-all philosophy, however, it's as lame as any other One True Way, rigidly applied."

This suggests that there are situations that call for forced exchanges that are free and fair. I can not see this. I can only see such forced exchanges benefitting the strong at the expense of the weak (who can not defend against the initiation of force brought to bear against them in forcing the exchange).

There are certainly situations where one might voluntarily accept what would otherwise be force against them, when appropriate consideration is offered. Where many agree, and few object, those few shound not be forced to comply, but rather shunned by the many who effectively form a cooperative under contract. This works well for many communities: Amish, for example, do not force complience with decrees brought forth by their Elders, but rather shun those who do not comply. This is surprisingly effective. See, the libertarian sword cuts both ways: you don't have to agree, but if you don't you're on your own.

...you take such a vocal, ardent, and venomous stance against my libertarian beliefs...

"Where I get ardent and venemous is when I ask for some reality checks, some backup for your statements, and you ''won't do my homework'' and sneer down at ''my ilk'' as ''biggots, racists, petty thieves, religious zealots.''"

From a libertarian perspective, you come off as a thief, or thief by proxy, so, yes, I claim the moral high ground (from a contractiarian perspective, this isn't strictly true, since we have not contracted to agree that theft is wrong, but I think it reasonable that you would agree to this, but claim that taxation is not theft).

But, how hard would a google search for "libertarian government regulation utility" be? You'd find arguments for both sides there, some with hard data. For example, regarding electricity .

If the government wants to certify distilleries as ''safe'', then let it, sell me a list of the safe ones. Or, offer a certification program, with fancy little seals and certificates (though that is so ripe for corruption)

"Well, as I believe you correctly point out, the fancy little seals system is not really a viable alternative. But I'm curious about the safe list system - this would be an improvement over the current one in precisely what ways?"

It would be an improvement in that the opportunity for corruption would be far lower. Instead of government providing the list as a service, private "booze rating" companies would spring up, in much the same way as bond-rating agencies. Because their value would depend on trust (lest, like Arthur Anderson, they go down in Enron flames), the incentive for corruption is almost nonexistent. Of course, for this to work, you'd need several companies in this business, and not a monopoly (which can afford to be corrupt for lack of alternatives), so while the government could offer this service, it would have to not do so exclusively (some people trust the governmment, after all, and would welcome such a service from them).

Perhaps it isn't improving because of the government-sanctioned monopolies that remove any incentive to improve.

"Cool. Now this is a basis for discussion."

First you support intervention and then you decry it?

Perhaps most people are too stupid to realize how bad things are.

"This ain't, though. Now how are you ever going to get the support of the mob, talking like that?"

So, replace ''stupid'' with ''ignorant''. There's a saying that people get the government they deserve. Cynics like myself tend to believe that government provide public education to keep the masses to stupid to see how badly they are being shafted. The first step, of course, is to encourage better education, let the schools compete, and not tax people to support the public schools if they chose to educate their children privately. Alternatively, provide greater choice as to where one's kids go to school and pay your school taxes to that district. The degree to which bad schools are subsidized is horrible in the U.S.A. At least, hold the schools accountable to standards. I know this latter measure is supposedly being done, but far too laxly, and supports the belief that the government does not want a well-educated (which does not imply expensively-educated, as home-schoolers can attest) citizenry.

But, to spend other peoples' money in an attempt to fix things is plain wrong. It is even wronger to give this money to the organization that likely fucked things up in the first place with their policies.

"I'm perfectly willing to go along with this, if indeed this is the most sensible way to improve the situation. I haven't seen anything so far but bland sophistry to back this up, though. So realistically, how might your proposal work? First you disband the FCC and FTC and a bunch of other acronyms, and then...?"

The general principle is that "less government is better". Of course, Libertarians take this to a minimalist level, and anarchists say, "none at all". If there is an overwhelming desire to intervene to boot-strap an infrastructure build-out, for example, then part of that intervention should be plans for it's eventual demise. If intervention is needed on a continual basis, then something is wrong, and the intervener (government) should be taken to task -- after all the intervention costs the taxpayer money.

Get rid of useless laws, and their enforcement. The only laws really needed are those prohibiting the initiation of force and fraud. Many grounds for intervention are based on preventing fraud. If the penalties for deceptive practices by private enterprises were much stronger (a condition of a corporate charter, perhaps? Though, libertarians generally oppose corporate fictions), and applied, there would be less need for intervention, which is likely just as corrupt and fraudulent. Look at gun laws restricting law-abiding citizens, for example. Criminal use of firearms persists generally because existing laws are not enforced for lack of funding. And the proposed solution is to spend more money on additional laws? This appears to be a government trend -- grow government for it's own sake. Government exists only to be the servant of the governed, not the otherway around, and not the instrument of a mob.

i think i would pay quite a bit of money to anyone who could correctly "predict the death" of senator fritz hollings.

The only really effective way to handle all of this is to get through to people on a one by one basis. This makes it difficult as the task is enormous.

There are also the subtle points made in this article I cames across on Jefferson and his slaves

Jefferson, looking at the history of Revolutions and the later confirming experiences of the French revolutionary disaster, understood well with his contemporaries the subtle danger. A serf's idea of freedom is not to sit at his homestead, polishing his gun, saving his wealth while his son read Milton. His idea of freedom was to enslave someone else. His idea of democracy was the government as feudal lord, providing all needs, just nicer and with an occasional say.

the article is providing me much food for thought on many levels.

Because this precise issue is what we are encountering in the internet around the world, where some people's idea of freedom = they can be the dictator.

Because they have never figured out what it is to be a truly free person. They do not know what a true culture of freedom is.

Assasination Politics

Extra words inserted to get around idiotic lameness filter,

How about a government sanctioned form of Assassination Politics?

If a $25 million bounty was placed on the head of any foreign leader to declare war on the states, then it wouldn't take long for someone close tot hem to turn traitor. I'd imagine you can burn through that kind of money in a few hours of tomahawk bombing.

I'm actually surprised that this hasn't been tried. If the bounty isn't collected then there's nothing to lose.
+++++

Army accused of cover-up in Kosovar Albanian's death

Government Watchdog Agency for human medical experiments under investigation

Hydrazine Sulfate Cancer Coverup

THE COVER-UP OF GULF WAR SYNDROME -- A QUESTION OF NATIONAL INTEGRITY

The United States and Biological Warfare

THE UNITED STATES SINCE 1968

MKUltra, Uranium, Unsolved Homicide, Possible Genocide

My bad everyone must be wrong the government is such a great watcher and keeper of the peace. Maybe if you took the time to see things in an unbiased way you would actually have a clue. Me on the other hand I love government, and I truly love many of the policies they've created, but I would never turn a blind eye because they did one good thing so this enables them to perform 20 bad things in return. Fsck that.

This article debunks the myth that 3rd party candidates are syphoning off votes from the Democrats or Republicans. Using statistics on voter turnout, the author shows that Perot drew in people who otherwise wouldn't have voted at all.

Think about one point. When the media say that this election is too close to call, they base that on polls of likely voters. The same author points out in this article how badly that biases the results in favor of Democrats and Republican. Non-voters are more likely to be sympathetic to 3rd party candidates. Given voter turnout at or below 50% in the past few elections, all it would take would be a majority of the people who have decided not to vote casting their votes for a 3rd party candidate and this nonsense of voting for the lesser of two evils would be over.

This article debunks the myth that 3rd party candidates are syphoning off votes from the Democrats or Republicans. Using statistics on voter turnout, the author shows that Perot drew in people who otherwise wouldn't have voted at all.

Think about one point. When the media say that this election is too close to call, they base that on polls of likely voters. The same author points out in this article how badly that biases the results in favor of Democrats and Republican. Non-voters are more likely to be sympathetic to 3rd party candidates. Given voter turnout at or below 50% in the past few elections, all it would take would be a majority of the people who have decided not to vote casting their votes for a 3rd party candidate and this nonsense of voting for the lesser of two evils would be over.

There's an interesting article entitled Sesame Street, Epistemology, and Freedom. The author argues that much of what is wrong in education and politics is a failure to teach children some of the important concepts in philosophy beyond the Sesame Street game of "One of these things is not like the others".

I'm reluctant to accept any argument that finds the one central problem. This article points out that that is precisely the problem. Essentially, politics has become an argument over whose abstraction will be accepted as the model for the issue, who gets to determine which are the two sides of the issue. Consider the similarity between multiple choice tests such as the SAT and ballots. Only one answer wins.

The Global Financial Jackboot

Concepts in Digital Cash

Digital Cash and the Regulators

More by Grabbe here

jsm, please drop me a line.

The Global Financial Jackboot

Concepts in Digital Cash

Digital Cash and the Regulators

More by Grabbe here

jsm, please drop me a line.

The Global Financial Jackboot

Concepts in Digital Cash

Digital Cash and the Regulators

More by Grabbe here

jsm, please drop me a line.

The Global Financial Jackboot

Concepts in Digital Cash

Digital Cash and the Regulators

More by Grabbe here

jsm, please drop me a line.

The Global Financial Jackboot

Concepts in Digital Cash

Digital Cash and the Regulators

More by Grabbe here

jsm, please drop me a line.

hehe :)
http://www.zolatimes.com/v2.26/jimbell.htm