Slashdot Mirror
Politics: Harry, The Disastrous & The Unpalatable
nd writes: "Harry Browne has agreed to a roundtable discussion with everyone in a Kuro5hin Feature. He'll be responding to messages himself under his own account." It's been going on for a few days now, and is an amazing look at the future of political coverage. Reflecting a sentiment I hope is accurate, Jim Madison writes: "Despite the apathy, I think slashdot's members are actually quite well-informed, politically speaking. Our friends, however, are not. According to this article, 25% of citizens 18-24 cannot name both major party presidential candidates and 70% cannot name their running mates. Wow. This discussion at Quorum.org (disclaimer: a site I co-founded) questions whether online forums (like this one) can help make politics more accessible or whether it's going to take structural change in Washington before it gets any better. What's the point of the $200 mm spent on advertising if they can't even get
unaided brand recall?" For whose pathologically opposed to the letter "W," CaptainZ asserts that "This guy [Jamin Raskin] over at MSN has a pretty good article about how Nader and Gore can both 'win.'" Finally, wallstrum writes with word of yet another worthy candidate (still, I'm more of a Quimby man).
Do you really think Dubya will do squat about extinctions, pollution & global warming (at least until it's far too late)
Do those extinct animals make anyone a profit? Then maybe they deserve to die -- they're just Looters, living off our hard work!
What has the environment done for us lately? If it was worth saving it would work harder, like all good americans do! Why should we give welfare to the "environment" when it doesn't pay taxes, all it does is take, take, take?
Don't you see, protecting the environment is for communists -- we live in a free country, and the government should stay out of it. If you want to fix the ozone layer, then do it on your own dime.
Don't tell me to stop dumping toxic chemicals into your drinking water just because you're not profitable enough to afford a filter.
Damn looters!...
---------------------------------------------
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Unlike tangible goods and real property, the nature of IP -- or any form of knowledge -- is to spread."
:)
Looks a lot like "Information wants to be free" to me..
Yes, but then he goes on to say
As far as IP being worthy of being safeguarded, it matters little to me whether or not a week's worth of my labor was spent fashioning a dining room table or writing code -- both consumed part of my life and are fruits of my labor, and I want both to be guarded from those who would take them without my giving me something in exchange.
The (unspoken) implication is that copyright, patents, and other forms of IP are OK, although strictly speaking he did not state that explicitly.
I think he (and a lot of people, both here and elsewhere) need to be educated and made to realize (or at least confront and argue against) the notion that a government mandated and enforced monopoly isn't necessary for IP creators to be fairly compensated and, furthermore, has a stifling impact on the field of endeavor so affected, not to mention the society, culture, and the economy as a whole.
Nevertheless, while Libertarians are split on the question of IP (and he perhaps falls on the wrong side of that debate), he is quite correct in saying that "our first step on the road to freedom is to return to the Constitution as the rule of law for our nation." We can (and must) fix the debacle that is IP, but he argues (perhaps correctly) that getting bogged down in that is putting the cart before the horse.
Although I disagree with his (implied) stance on patents and copyrights, I have been persuaded to vote for Harry Browne over Ralph Nader nevertheless. There is no candidate I agree with on every issue, but I agree with Harry Browne's agenda on far more points than I do with any other candidate.
(And yes, as someone who was going to vote for Ralph Nader based on his stance WRT corporate and special interests influencing government, I have had my mind changed. This happens from time to time, if one's mind is truly open.)
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
If people are ignorant of the candidates, the parties, and the process, they don't have any business voting. Voting is a civic duty that every American should participate in. But the duty of voting does not consist of going to the ballot box and just checking off whatever comes to mind, what your friend thought was a good idea, etc. Responsible citizens explore and try to understand the issues, the differences between the various candidates, and then vote in the best interests of the nation. While the founding fathers recognized that factionism would likely occur, they still regarded voting for the best candidate for office as a civic responsibility, rather than simply voting self-interest.
People who can't name vice-presidential candidates or who don't know the issues shouldn't be voting. They should be learning.
This is easy.
First of all, he's not only really dim witted and stupid, he's woefully unqualified to hold the highest and most powerful office in the free world.
Beyond that, there are his ties with the religious right, that threaten the freedom of everyone who is non-Christian, or 'unapproved' by Christians (such as gays).
He's very anti-gay (fighting to keep the Texas Sodomy Law on the books, for example), which represents a direct threat to my personal civil liberties.
He's fiscally irresponsible, given his promise to throw the surplus back at rich people who aren't hurting for the money, and not concentrating on paying down the debt, or more carefully 'targeting' the tax-cut so as not to over-stimulate the economy, etc., etc.
He's inarticulate and really inexperienced in foreign affairs... do you really want this guy who can't even prounce words in his own Mother Tongue in sensitive negotations with other countries?
He represents a switch back to the ways of the past... with the potential to roll back hard-won freedoms in the areas of gay civil rights, a woman's right to choose, freedom of (and from) religious expression in public life, etc... he'd rely almost exclusively on the same advisors his dad used (in a few cases that's not so bad, but in most it is)... and really, do you want to go back to the state this country was in in 1990/91?
And as for integrety, Bush is every bit as vunerable on that as Gore is. He's lied (or mistated) just as much. What about his AWOL time in Alabama (where he never reported to duty), and he has no idea where he was for that time, and can't answer any questions about it? How about that Texas 'patients bill of rights' he takes credit for, when the reality is that he fought it tooth-and-nail the entire way?
And then there's the whole environmental issue. And the way he coddles corporations. He wants to give them practically free liscense to do anything they want (even ignore Clean air/water acts if they so choose), and he wants to remove the ability of individual consumers to sue 'big companies' for damages in such cases.
As far as I'm concerned, George W. Bush represents a direct and real theat to my own personal freedoms and even my existance.
- Spryguy
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
Sadly, too many Libertarians (especially online) make really bad arguments. Those Libertarians who have thought about the issues in some depth and read more than Atlas Shrugged have a much more nuanced world-view than simply believing that everyone needs to look out for himself and ignore others. Libertarianism is a political theory, not a philosophical one. It holds only that Big Government is destructive of society, not that individual shouldn't help one another. The choice is not between cooperation and selfishness. The choice is between voluntary relationships and coercive ones. Voluntary relationships promote harmony, and progress. Coercive means lead to strife and special interest wrangling. Indeed, one of the strongest arguments for libertarianism is that Big Government destroys the good will and cooperative spirit that voluntary relationships promote. There are of course many other reasons-- government programs are inefficient, threatening to civil liberties, benefit the rich at the expense of the poor, and many other bad things. But please don't dismiss Libertarianism because of the stupidity of a handful or Randroids. An idea is not responsible for the intelligence of its adherents.