Grubb for Congress. By Weblog.

An anonymous reader writes: "Wired is running a story about a (Libertarian) candidate for Congress in North Carolina whose platform explicitly supports P2P file-sharing activity. She's running against one of the big supporters of the Berman P2P hacking bill." The weblog community is all excited over her because she drank the Kool-aid.

Comments

The ultimate single issue candidate?

[Hayzeus]

Will she break the 5-vote mark?

You can also look here ...

[__aasfhc1949]

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/23/16 33224

Libertarian

[slashnot007]

This would be a libertarian issue. But oddly its not likely to be an issue for any other party. How do you debate such a thing when it only matters to one party? How does this help her succeed?

Re:Libertarian

[Ra5pu7in]

libertarian = liberty from excess government? or just a convenient platform to get attention?

Re:Libertarian

[harlows_monkeys]

That wouldn't be a Libertarian issue. The quickest way to get a bunch of Libertarians arguing among themselves is to bring up intellectual property. Half of them will be against it, and half will be for it.

Re:Libertarian

[slashnot007]

Ah! so her stand distinguishes her amongst other libertatian candidates! there's the debate. But who's the audience if there's only one candidate with an issue?

Re:Libertarian

[BattyMan]

libertarian = liberty from excess government?

Yes, that's the core idea. Less Gub'ment, more liberty.
A smaller government both oppresses the people less and co$t$ less.
Of course, NO incumbent will have anything good to say about such a concept.

Unfortunately this doesn't draw much largesse from big corporations looking for favors, which is today's primary source of campaign funding, so you won't see many Libertarians on TV, or doing well in many elections, either.

Get ahold of and check out the list of contributors to both candidates of any major political campaign. SURPRISE! The _same_ companies are hedging their bets by supporting _both_ sides! No wonder there's not a gnat's ass worth of difference between their policies!

Re:Libertarian

[BattyMan]

The quickest way to get a bunch of Libertarians arguing among themselves is to bring up intellectual property. Half of them will be against it, and half will be for it.

That's not the only issue that will do this. Ask about abortion. The Libertarian party does not take stances on many major issues, leaving individual candidates the liberty to choose whatever viewpoint they want.

This is called "Freedom(pat.pend)". Unfortunately it's too complicated and threatening to be palatable to most Americans, hence we see the domination of the Demicans and the Republicrats.

Re:Libertarian

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarians are basically just undeclared Republicans...only possibly even more conservative without such a bitter taste of religious fervor. They just want to be left alone with the capitalist system to exploit the classes below them, instead of having the government do it for them. Their "liberties" still basically come down to the "liberty" to burn as much gas and pollute all they want, the "liberty" to pay people 2 cents a day to work for them, and the "liberty" to undoe any checks on capitalism that the labor movement or any other forward thinking, good natured people have worked through the system in our history.

Re:Libertarian

[dogfart]

You sound like a Libertarian, so I will ask a question of you and other LIbertarians:

What's the Libertarian position on national defense issues? Do you support more spending on defense (a typical Republican position)? A missile defense system? An invasion of Iraq?

Or do you support a more isolationist position - defend the territorial boundaries of the USA but basically keep out of other's business?

Is the military regarded as being as "oppressive" as other arms of the government, hence it should be minimal?

Are Libertarians basically pacifists?

Re:Libertarian

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Try looking here.

Re:Libertarian

[dogfart]

"a foreign policy of non-intervention, peace, and free trade"

OK.

Re:Libertarian

[chris_mahan]

What if you can't maintain peace and free trade without intervention?

Do you give up on peace and free trade for the sake of non-intervention or do you intervene in order to maintain free trade and peace?

You do realize that if you don't stand up to the bullies in other countries while they are in other countries, they eventually come spread mayhem here. (see 9/11--however sad--for some realism)

Re:Libertarian

[Planesdragon]

This is called "Freedom(pat.pend)". Unfortunately it's too complicated and threatening to be palatable to most Americans, hence we see the domination of the Demicans and the Republicrats.

Parties aren't about freedom. They're about like minds gathering to achieve goals. The idea is that if you pick the group which is the closest to your personal ideals, you'll see more things that you want happeneing and less that don't (assuming that you get them in charge.)

Until we manage to change campaign finance & how votes are counted (instant runoff, anyone?), third parites are little more than issue-raisers for the two big ones--who promptly raise up and take sides on any issues with significant debate on it.

I am free to do whatever the hell I want, and vote for whomever I want--but the only way to get someone I want in political office is to find a bunch of other free individuals and get all of us to agree on who's the best person for the job--so we can get someone we can tolerate in instead of someone we despise.

It used to not work this way--for all of eight years, until George Washington refused to run again.

Re:Libertarian

[chris_mahan]

Oh, right... Because the janitor on the thrid floor was really a counter-terrorism specialist who had just come back from a super-secret mission inside afghanistan where she had singlehandedly killed 80 Al-Quaeda cadre.

Coming soon to theatres everywhere.

Re:Libertarian

[_krimson_]

Logged in this time...sorry about that... I may not have faith in a god, but I do have faith that people will be able to take care of themselves in the long run.

Just for clarification purposes. Do you mean take care of "themselves" as individual units? Or rather, work together for "their" common good?

I'm all for restricting gas-guzzlers and condemning worker exploitation as long as it's not done by laws punishable by imprisonment.

Well I agree, and I disagree. I think if anything deserves a prison sentence, it is worker exploitation, in all of it's many, many forms...

But I do agree. Prison sentences, much like death sentences, are not something to be handed down by the state. Unfortunately, most people seem to be far too unenlightened to be able to envision an alternative. And I fear they are FAR, FAR to unenlightened to even consider a society where people actually cared for one another, and helped one another...eliminating competition for resources, and hence the root of almost all crime. But, I could be way too much of an idealist. Or just plain wrong.

I'm a Libertarian because I'd pretty much be happiest with an anarchy which is protected from a hostile outside world. Otherwise I have faith that unhindered education can take care of the rest.

"Hostile World Outside" being what? The "outside" world, outside the U.S. that doesn't like our exploitation? Or by outside, do you mean some other world? As far as I know, worlds within several light years have been found to be uninhabited so far. And as far as I know, we all appear to be humans, "sharing" the same world. Although, "sharing" doesn't quite seem to be the right term...considering the lack of balance in the way world resources are consumed.

Perhaps the mental division made so often between "us" and "them" when referring to the world, fosters some of these hostile feelings you need protection from. I am fairly staunch in my belief that the record shows our interventions in the "world outside" has pretty much strictly lead us to the "hostile" world we deal with today. But hang me for treason already...(not you personally, just general public sentiment these days..)

Anarchy would be a pretty sweet idea, except that it CANNOT ever possibly exist on this planet. The social power structures already exist. Removing regulation only increases their power. If we somehow instituted anarchy it would simply allow he with the biggest guns to dominate...(not that he doesn't already. But at least there are laws on the book that benifit someone else slightly...) I believe it is fairly obvious where we would end up.

I just fail to see how the libertarian stance would do anything except turn us into a third world nation with marginalized, atomized workers, and an extremely concentrated groupings of wealth in the upper classes. (Hey...kinda like the conservatives (conservative in the traditional sense) have already done for us.) So who knows...maybe making it just outright BLATENT would motive people to actually give a shit...maybe you libertarians are on to something...

I believe anarchy "in theory" could work. But it would take a serious overhaul of almost everyones values. And no one is committed to change when you can watch AWESOME shows like Anna Nicole on T.V. To do it without just completely handing over the reins to the group with the biggest "DEFENSE" budget, basically *ALL* modern weapons would have to be destroyed...along with all conventional money systems. Either that, or the money in those systems would have to face a cold boot and be reset to a base state where everyone is actually equal. But, I highly doubt anyone is really open to that option. Even those who would benefit from it the most.

Re:Libertarian

[_krimson_]

Oh, right... Because the janitor on the thrid floor was really a counter-terrorism specialist who had just come back from a super-secret mission inside afghanistan where she had singlehandedly killed 80 Al-Quaeda cadre.


No. But the thousand of innocent civilians who died in Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, Palestein, Iraq and a whole host of other nations we have exploited for all of recorded American history weren't a part of the "WAR" either.

This country would do so much better if people actually read shit instead of watching the fucking television hoping to become educated members of society.

It is appearantly fasionable and politically correct to just DENY about 75% of our history and interaction in the world.

If you fail to see why people outside this country have a much more valid reason to hate us than we do of them, YOU are the idiot my friend(s).

It's all written down. It's called history. It doesn't look favorably upon us. Other than the section referring to most exploitative, most repressive, most warmongering....etc...

Wake the FUCK up people. This gov't that is supposedly protecting you is doing the opposite. It's so fucking sad...and no one even notices...

Re:Libertarian

[RedGuard]

German civilian casualities were more like
hundreds of thousands or millions and as for the
idea that the second world war was sought to
stop the holocaust, this is an invention of the
last couple of decades; during WW2 the allies
didn't mention it very much for fear of
alienating their domestic populations and at the
Nuremburg trials the main charge against the
defendants was crimes against peace, the death
camps were secondary. Also a large number of
German civilian casualities occurred during
bombing raids, the allies had a specific policy
of bombing workers' housing to affect the morale
of the population, and after the war due to
cold, disease and malnutrition which the
occupying power did very little to alleviate.
How were the deaths of these people supposed
to be stopping the holocaust?

Re:Libertarian

[HiThere]

But if neither of the major parties is interested in the issue, then one of them will make a pretense of addressing the issue. E.g.:

Say the issue is a grossly overbearing federal government. The one party, say the Republicrats, will claim to be in favor of it, and the other will be mute. If, however, they get in, you will see, at best, a few small gestures made in the direction of reducing the size of the government (largely in precisely the areas that people in general *DON'T* want it reduced), and then something will come up and the plank is quietly buried.

A sarcastic hip-hooray.

The dominant political parties are about freedom. They're against it.

Re:Libertarian

[Andyrew2000]

>Unfortunately, most people seem to be far too unenlightened to be able to envision an alternative. And I fear they are FAR, FAR to unenlightened to even consider a society where people actually cared for one another, and helped one another...eliminating competition for resources, and hence the root of almost all crime. But, I could be way too much of an idealist. Or just plain wrong.

Why do socialists and other statists get a monopoly on the term "enlightened"? It seems to me that the people that advocate "eliminating competition for resources" are the ones with their heads in the sand. The root of nearly all of humanity's troubles, contrairy to your claim, comes from the doctrine that it is alright to sacrafice some people to others by depriving them of fundamental human rights. Competition for resources, a consequense of the protection of people's freedom (specifically, the freedom to the products of their own mind, or property rights), is the reason humanity is so much more prosperous then 500 years ago. It is the amoral doctrine of the socialist/communist/collectivist axis that wants to destroy the source of our prosperity and return the tribal days of the pre-enlightenment.

>Anarchy would be a pretty sweet idea, except that it CANNOT ever possibly exist on this planet.

Anarchy is just as wrong as socialism. In anarchy, there is no government to protect individual rights--physical force remains an integral aspect of human relations, just as in socialism, except in anarchy, anybody can choose to use it, not just beurocrats.

Re:Libertarian

[Gooba42]

The really frustrating thing about Libertarian's is that they seem to think that everyone else is evil. Not that they're misguided, wrong or unenlightened but that if you believe in some other system of government you are genuinely evil. The root of all evil stems from property "rights" and any form of sharing of resources.
By all means, sure, survival of the fittest is a good method for evolution, but what makes you so sure that you're the fittest? And doesn't enforcing the right of "the fittest" to survive and take up resources infringe on the right of the "less fit" to also take up those same resources?
The system *is* broken, but the way to fix it is not to make the current cheats legal. You would give Microsoft and others like them carte blanche to destroy all smaller competitors by way of their existing resources which have been built up under the currently broken system. If you started everyone back at square one, threw out all the money and the existing goods, capital and market conditions you could restore fair competition and reduce legislation. Short of taking away everyone's property you could never restore a fair market by way of deregulation.

Re:Libertarian

[Andyrew2000]

I share most, but not all, views of libertarians, so I will venture a response:

Defense against a foreign invader is one of the primary responsibilities of government (the other two being criminal and civil law). September 11th made it clear that we were not doing enough to protect ourselves from these foreign threats; therefore, more spending (in a general sense) is probably a good idea. A missile defense system would address an important security concern, and would probably be a good investment (but I could see how a libertarian might oppose it if he thought defense dollars could be better spent somewhere else).

On Iraq, I think the issue is very unclear--most people don't have the access to the classified information needed to make an educated judgement. However, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is a despotic tyrant who has not respect for the rights of his people; therefore, his regime has no fundamental right to exist. If it became in our best interests (more on that later) to destroy his government, than there is no moral argument to stop us. On "interests", the only moral purpose of a government is to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens; therefore, the only moral interest that could possibly justify war with Iraq would be the defense of the citizens of the United States from terrorists, weapons of mass destruction or other infringements on life and liberty. Therefore, going to war in order to extort oil from Iraq would be immoral. I am confident that Bush would only go to war with Iraq if it were critical to protecting national security.

Government is an institution that holds a monopoly of physical force. The only moral use of this monopoly is to prevent others from initiating the use of physical force to infringe upon other's rights. Pacifism, therefore, would also be an irresponsible use of this monopoly because it would also result in the infringement of fundamental rights.

Re:Libertarian

[_krimson_]

I totally fail to see your point. You are right. We killed a lot of innocent people in Germany too. Feel better now? We entered WW2 because Japan attacked us. Not because we wanted to end the holocaust. It had been going on for some time without us giving a shit. Actually we had many companies in america making a pretty good profit off of it.

The only world we are trying to save right now, as we know it...is that of the military industrial complex bent on exploitation. To do that, out in the open, you need a simple way to pull the wool over the peoples eyes. The war on "Terrah" is one of those ways. It doesn't even BEGIN to come close to actually solving any of the causes of terrorism...in fact it does the opposite. And takes a way a whole lot of personal freedom at the same time.

Of course..it is a lot easier to sit and watch Larry King, and feel warm and fuzzy knowing that we are doing the RIGHT thing out there...but its just not the truth. The road to fighting "evil" starts here at home. Even if you use our own definition of evil, and hold our nations actions up and compare. I think you will see who biggest terrorist state is.

Re:Libertarian

[_krimson_]

Competition for resources, a consequense of the protection of people's freedom (specifically, the freedom to the products of their own mind, or property rights), is the reason humanity is so much more prosperous then 500 years ago.

Your head is so far up your ass it's not even funny. First of all, I hardly think "humanity" as a whole, worldwide, benefits from the capitalist ventures here in the US. There are actually many obvious examples to the contrary. But I'll leave those up to you to investigate if you ever decide to wake up.

Competition for resources is the result of the protection of SOME peoples property...and the exploitation of other people. You see, the WHOLE world belongs to the people that live on it. When certain large organizations or countries decide to consume 40% or more of the natural resources of the planet, than that is not quite fair. Some people realize that and grow to resent that fact. The idea of a permanently growing market is a pipe dream used to allow ignorant people in the US to not feel bad that they are holding back the rest of the world. We've done everything we can to prevent Democracy from taking over around the world. Look at central america for instance. (Really look - Don't just buy what you were told on TV. I mean research it. You know?)

For America to be as prosperous as it is, other people are going to have to be extrememly poor. And what's really funny, is that while "America" is extremely prosperous, only the top 20% really see that. The rest do OK, but are constantly getting beaten down by the top 20%. How else to you explain that our average real wage right now is less than in was in the 1970's? Even after the advances in automation, why do we all work more hours, for less pay?

These all seem to be problems that capitalists, being so warm and cushy in their new SUV, don't care to think about. But if you want a glimpse into what causes the rest of the world to have so much contempt for us...it's a good place to start. p. BTW - Socialist, and others who want to redistribute wealth, worldwide even, get a monopoly on "enlightened" because compared to the other alternatives offered, they are. Remember in elementary school how they said to share, and not beat up your neighbor? Why does that work in school, but not geopolitics?

Re:Libertarian

[chris_mahan]

Please be advised that calling me an idiot does not endear you to me.

Besides, I was born and grew up in France. My mother was almost killed by an American bomb in 1944. She was 1 year 2 months old.

On top of that, the millions who have died in Rwanda, china (remember 1852-6?) soviet russia, afghanistan, and so on ad nauseam and ad infinum were NOT the fault of any US policy. They were the fault of other policies, by the leadership of other countries. And in most cases, that leadership is still in place, and they are now our "good friends" and "customers". What are we to do? Nuke them? We can't do anything short of that, because they would nuke us first.

We live in a dangerous world, and some people are going to die.

Being French, I recall an argument I had with a teacher back there: Why did France with its 130 army divisions not invade germany in 1936-37 an put an end to Hitler? They could have. Everybody knows that. Hitler even knew that; that's why he kept his military developments very secret.

The teacher argued that no one really knew what Hitler was capable of until it was too late. Then France, who only in 1938 could have crushed Germany, was in fact atacked and forced to surrender in 1940, in less than 6 months of fighting.

If Hussein develops and tests nukes, then the US will just back off (who would allow Miami, FL to be nuked?) and the whole middle east will become a charred land, like europe was in 1945, after 50 million people died.

We have the capability to stop him now. We have knowledge of his intent, and we have (i hope) the moral obligation to save the lives of millions of people.

But the Europeans are saying wait.

Yes, and the europeans said wait in 1938 too.

So, being french, I can say to the europeans: Fuck them.

Let's take Saddam's regime out. Yes, many thousands may die, and yes, it may cost (i head on CPAN) something like 16 billion dollars. But it will surely be less expensive than rebuilding:
--Turkey
--Iran
--Irak
--Jordan
- -Israel
--Syria
--Lebanon
--Saudi Arabia
--Kuwait
--Barhain

Because you know that if Iraq gets nukes, Iran will have to get some too.

Iran is on the verge of revolution, and so is Iraq. Both of these countries are governed by dictatorships that don't have popular support and are seriously out-of-touch with the rest of the world. They will piss each other off, and nukes will detonate. (remember, they WANT to meet Allah and especially the virgins (I forget how many)).

Once that starts, one will "accidentally" level Tel-Aviv, and Israel will retaliate, and we'll be sucked into a war that will make vietnam seem like a Fort-Bragg exercise.

Re:Libertarian

[Planesdragon]

The dominant political parties are(n't) about freedom.

Well, yeah. I allready said that.

In the big scheme of things, what the Democrats and Republicans don't disagree on are either things that define Americans (following the 1st amendment, freedom of religion inside your home, generally being a superpower, etc.) or things that simply aren't issues (such as GPL'd software.)

Third parites take up issues on either one of these, either making themselves out to be cooks ("Let's be isolationist!") or raising an honest issue and then losing it inisde of four years. ("Let's reform the government!" followed closely by the "Contract with America.")

Say the issue is a grossly overbearing federal government.

Y'know, you just proved the words of my college English teacher. "Setting on the words to describe a problem is nine-tenths of the way to resolve that" or something. No one's in favor of a "grossly overbearing federal government." They just have different opinions of what that is.

The one party, say the Republicrats, will claim to be in favor of it, and the other will be mute. If, however, they get in, you will see, at best, a few small gestures made in the direction of reducing the size of the government (largely in precisely the areas that people in general *DON'T* want it reduced), and then something will come up and the plank is quietly buried.

If the parties acted like this--really, truly acted like this--then the reform party would have won ten years ago.

The two major political parties that we have are ruthlessly efficient in feeling the waters of what America wants, and then adjusting themselves towards that which has the most appeal; that's how they get to elect the president, and how they avoid the fall of their predicessors.

It's hard to say what is Republican and what is Democrat simply because they're so adaptable--Republicans are "right" and Democrats are "Left", and those terms go all the way back to the first inklings of democratic rule in France. The parties have switched a few places over the years, and (like I said earlier) we here in America have had at least one major party completely vanish because it couldn't adapt.

They generally don't ignore issues that people really care about--and they certainly don't take action that the majority of the populace doesn't want done unless they've got a damn good reason for it. If an issue is ignored, then chances are that the people who really care about that issue have no real idea how to play the game.

Re:Libertarian

[Andyrew2000]

First of all, I hardly think "humanity" as a whole, worldwide, benefits from the capitalist ventures here in the US.

What I meant is that the _principle_ of capitalism and freedom, which has been implemented to the furthest extent here in the United States has been the source of the prosperity that the United States and other western nations have experienced. The United States would still be in the tribal state of the Third World if it rejected freedom and capitalism at its creation. The best thing that the United States can do for the poorer nations is to help them establish moral and freedom-protecting governments that will provide the framework for individuals of that country to create wealth.

There are actually many obvious examples to the contrary.

One of the most common of these "obvious" examples is how many western corporations "exploit" the citizens of poorer countries by building factories. Compared to more prosperous nations, which have been experiencing the benefits of capitalism longer, the workers in these factories make much less. Socialists condemn this, but little notice is given to the fact that these workers are enormously better off then they would have been if the capitalist had not chosen to invest his money in the factory.

>Competition for resources is the result of the protection of SOME peoples property

This is absolutely false. Capitalism requires that _every_ man, rich or poor, competent or incompetent , be able to decide how to dispose of the products of his mind. "Exploitation" implies physical force, which is the exclusive domain of the government in an ordered society.

>You see, the WHOLE world belongs to the people that live on it.

If the wealth and prosperity sprouted spontaneously from the earth, regardless of the activities of man, than this doctrine that wealth belongs to all would make sense. Unfortunately, it doesn't. Wealth in its most elementary form is created by the mental and physical energies of _individuals_. One of the most basic freedoms that man requires for a proper existence is the freedom to control the products of his own mind and body---without that freedom, his actions become meaningless, and he is reduced to the level of a sacrificial animal on the altar of socialism. At this level of existence, productive achievement is pointless, and the net prosperity of all of society's member's are handicapped. You beleive that each individual's achievement belongs to "everybody." Unfortunately, there is no such entity as "everybody", only a number of individuals. So who is to decide who gets what? Such a system lowers man to his worst level of existence: sacrificing others to himself. Weather such a process involves tribal gangs killing each other, fighting over the scarce wealth, or lobbyists and pressure groups pushing for the passage of laws that benefit themselves at others detriment, the result is the same. Mankind becomes a group of crabs in a bucket, with no individual able to excel without the others pulling him back down in to a sub-human existence. Such was the state of affairs of mankind for most of history, and this is what socialists, fascists and others of their type are advocating a return two. One does not have the right to unearned wealth (which necessarily must be looted from its producer). This is the most destructive idea ever inflicted upon humanity.

For America to be as prosperous as it is, other people are going to have to be extremely poor.

The great thing about capitalism is that this statement is not true. One person's gain does not mean another's loss because the only way a person can gain wealth is to create/earn it.

And what's really funny, is that while "America" is extremely prosperous, only the top 20% really see that. The rest do OK, but are constantly getting beaten down by the top 20%.

Even the poorest people in America are immeasurable more prosperous than the rest of the world. The degree to which countries implement capitalism and protect people's rights directly relates to the degree of prosperity n that country.

Remember in elementary school how they said to share, and not beat up your neighbor? Why does that work in school, but not geopolitics?

Voluntary sharing and charity are not prohibited by capitalism, only "sharing" at the point of a gun. It seems to me that it is the socialists who advocate the looting of wealth that need to be reminded not to beat up people.

Re:Libertarian

[Andyrew2000]

In its founding the United States is the only moral country in history. No country ever has ever had as good of a track record as the United States in protecting individual freedoms. Certainly, we've had our failings (the New Deal, "War on Poverty", Vietnam, slavery, segregation, our unprincipled foreign policy today...), and America is well on its way to descending to the level of the rest of the world in the desecration of human rights, but if you look at the big picture of United States history and compare it to the history of the rest of the world, you will see a sharp contrast. From the very beginning, our founding fathers knew what they were doing, when the subjugated society to moral law through a system of individual rights. This system is in danger of collapse, but the morally superior system of ethics (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) on which this country is based had never been implemented on such a grand scale anywhere else or in any other time.

Re:Libertarian

[Andyrew2000]

I am free to do whatever the hell I want, and vote for whomever I want--but the only way to get someone I want in political office is to find a bunch of other free individuals and get all of us to agree on who's the best person for the job

How is that you are supposed to "find" these individuals? Through an act of God. Promoting and expressing your views to people in a meaningful way almost necessarily requires the expenditure of money. To restrict people's ability to use their _own_ money to finance the spreading of political ideas (speech) is a clear violation an individual's fundamental property and free speech rights.

The politicians (and lawyers) in a our republic have made it their business to sacrifice people's rights to others in the form of welfare-state laws and other looting, don't you think that people will want to influence that process to avoid getting screwed by the government? The problem is not that people are trying to influence the way that politicians desecrate our individual liberties, but that the government is allowed to take the freedoms away in the first place! There is no moral way for a politician to sacrifice people's rights, no matter weather he accepts bribes or not. Campaign finance reform is just another slide down the slippery slope towards statism.

Re:Libertarian

[Planesdragon]

How is that you are supposed to "find" these individuals? Through an act of God. Promoting and expressing your views to people in a meaningful way almost necessarily requires the expenditure of money. To restrict people's ability to use their _own_ money to finance the spreading of political ideas (speech) is a clear violation an individual's fundamental property and free speech rights.

No, it isn't. Why should someone who's rich be "more equal" than I am when it comes to political office?

The government allready provides matching funds to anyone who can rally enough support. What "should" be done is to expand this, so that every candidate gets an equal share of funds. We could even set something up so that voters could note that "I'd like to hear more from this candidate", and some simple math (# of "yes' votes for each canidate = # of shares of the pot) could be used to divy up the election funds.

Let private citizens make donations to this pot as well, if they've got so much money to burn and want to "speak" by doing such.

We don't allow people to simply give money to people who promise to vote a certain way. We shouldn't allow people to simply give money to someone they want elected, either.

The politicians (and lawyers) in a our republic have made it their business to sacrifice people's rights to others in the form of welfare-state laws and other looting, don't you think that people will want to influence that process to avoid getting screwed by the government? The problem is not that people are trying to influence the way that politicians desecrate our individual liberties, but that the government is allowed to take the freedoms away in the first place! There is no moral way for a politician to sacrifice people's rights, no matter weather he accepts bribes or not. Campaign finance reform is just another slide down the slippery slope towards statism.

(did you mean "Satanism" or "stalinism?" I'll assume you meant "destruction of the American way of life" and respond accordingly.)

No one's rights are absolute, and various circumstances and events can cause what are normally given rights to be suspended or superceded by the rights of other people. You normally have the right to your posessions and capital, but if you use them for felonius actions you can lose the right to them. I normally have the right to go wherever I want, but your right to privacy in your own home negates this.

Let me take a stab at defining the two sides of hwo to look at government (I'll endeavor to choose terms that lack prejudice.) On one hand we have the pragmatists, that view government as simply a dollars-and-sense thing, that think in terms of individual rights, and that view equality as "equal abilty to move about unrestrained by government or uncompensated service."

On the other hand, we have the idealists, that view government as a thing that holds the trust of the people more than a fiscal entity; they think in terms of universal rights, and view equality as an "equal opportunity" thing.

Realistically, neither one of these sides is any better than the other when taken to the extreme. "Pragmatists" taken to the extreme are lazzie-faire capitalists, that wind up with monopolies and gross disproportions between the rich and the poor, and a general lack of real advancemnet in any sector of society.

"Idealists" taken to the extreme are communist, that wind up with totally corrupt societies where the only way to get ahead is to break the law, and have a general lack of any real advancement in nay sector of society.

The formula that has proven to work the best is a confrontational system between two sides that favor different ratios of "pragmatism" vs. "idealism." This lets us have a place where we look out for everyone, but we also let people tweak the system to get ahead. There might be a better system around, but we sure as heck haven't found one working anywhere in the world just yet.

The world is a lot more complex than you think it is, and it's hardly a manner of "sacraficing people's rights." The right of you to spend money on whomever you want to win office is tempered by my right to hear every candidate equally and make an informed vote. The right of you to keep your golden parachute is tempered by my right to have a descent chance to survive. The right of me to protest is tempered by your right to live in peace.

It's simply not a matter of sacraficing rights, and it never has been, in the whole of history in any situation you care to name. It's about choosing who's rights and what rights take priority in what circumstance. Currently we in the United States trust the government with that power, because it sure as hell works better than leaving it to indivudal citizens to battle out who's rights take priority in a world without the rule of law.

Re:Libertarian

[_krimson_]

In its founding the United States is the only moral country in history.

:) MWHAHAHAHAHAHA!

From the very beginning, our founding fathers knew what they were doing

Yeah. They were committing genocide.

Re:Libertarian

[_krimson_]

One of the most common of these "obvious" examples is how many western corporations "exploit" the citizens of poorer countries by building factories.

Yeah. I was sorta pointing to that issue. But then I was also going to point out the way that we manipulate their politics in ways to keep their demand for a decent wage down. Look at Nicaragua. They ELECTED a leader, and we did everything we could, including forming our own covert army, in order to prevent them from progressing. THe whole time stating we were doing it for them, in our efforts to give them "freedom." Similar examples are abundant. Guatemala, El Salvador...well..most of central america. And by no means does it stop there.

I don't have such a problem with capitalism is theory, I have a problem with "Americanism" in practice.

Corporations are by nature totalitarian institutions. And by this point in the game, they have more rights than individuals, and they also benefit from virtual immortality. They own the propaghanda channels, and hence are close to the governement out of a matter of "national security". They also have their hands in the governement in other numerous ways, all of them undemocratic. It's a totalitarian world we live in these days, unfortunately enough people are snowed into believing it's doing good for them, that they don't both thinking anymore.

If one suggests we do everyone a favor by spreading democracy to the rest of the world, I suggest we spread it here first.

The great thing about capitalism is that this statement is not true. One person's gain does not mean another's loss because the only way a person can gain wealth is to create/earn it.

"Wealth" exists in the minds of other people. Supply and Demand remember? I'm simply talking about FOOD, and SHELTER. There are a lot of people in the world who don't have those things. I suppose you say that is because they just choose not to "create" it, right?

How are these third world countries ever supposed to become industrialized when the supplies of energy and natural resources are decreasing, and controlled by the US, among others.

By simple logic, one persons gain, when so grossly out of perportion, is anothers loss. Look, the world has limited resources. These resources are used to "create wealth". When these resources are horded by people, there aren't as many for other people to use...hence it becomes increasingly more difficult for them to "create wealth."

Now, the fact that the US uses over 40% of the world natural resources, definately leaves the rest of the world worse off. Combine that with our inability to actually have a democracy, much less spread one around the globe, and you end up with a very tyranical, corporate greed run game. Which is, I belive, where we stand today.

Even the poorest people in America are immeasurable more prosperous than the rest of the world.

And immeasurably more poor than they used to be. Our average wage right now is less than it was in the 1970's. Obviously, somebody isn't out there "creating wealth" for themselves huh? Or at least not enough.

This idea that a market based on finite resources will just grow forever is one of the most amusing failings of otherwise intellegent people. I mean, it feels really good to think that way, because you get a lot less guilt. But it is just logically untrue.

Re:Libertarian

[neocon]

I have to disagree with this. Your `right' to hear each candidate, like most of your rights, is dependent on your interest in going out and listening to them. It is certainly not of a level that would justify limiting a candidates right to free speech in order to make sure that you don't `hear him more than other candidates'.

Once you start down that road, where do you end? If a candidate speaks more eloquently than another, are we to somehow compensate for this, to make sure that you don't `unfairly' consider his side more than his opponent's? I don't buy it.

And if personal wealth makes such a big difference, why wasn't H. Ross Perot the president for the last eight years?

Re:Libertarian

[Planesdragon]

I have to disagree with this. Your `right' to hear each candidate, like most of your rights, is dependent on your interest in going out and listening to them. It is certainly not of a level that would justify limiting a candidates right to free speech in order to make sure that you don't `hear him more than other candidates'.

Actually, I'd prefer to never hear from any candidate tat I don't seek out, so I could base my opinion on third party analysis and which major party has recently ticked me off.

But the candidates / their "friends" can and do buy media spots and mailings to influence the public. This isn't free speech--it's money in an election.

Ideally, I'd like to have formal and regulated system where each candidate gets an equal time to be heard. Let them say whatever they want, and let me ignore it or pay attention to it as I want--as opposed to the curent system of one-sided nagging by the side with the most money.

And if personal wealth makes such a big difference, why wasn't H. Ross Perot the president for the last eight years?

Because he was a screwball, and the two major parites both had more money to spend than he did. (Oh, and that little bit about dropping out of the race for three months in the heat probably effected it, too.)

If one rich guy wants to spend all his money on running for office, I say great--let's even out the wealth through the system. But when a bunch of rich guys throw their money together to drown out the little guy--well, that bugs me on a why-does-this-computer-take-so-long-to-boot level.

Re:Libertarian

[neocon]

I don't see the line between `money' and `politics' as being nearly as clear as you see it.

In particular, a candidate's own money is dwarfed by the money which is constributed to his campaign -- and this itself is a form of democracy in action. If a candidate has a lot of money to spend, it is a sign that people believe in what he has to say enough to give him money.

Besides, the only real effect of limiting the money the candidates themselves can spend on a campaign is to multiply the power of the (generally biased) media in determining the effects of the election -- the less you hear the candidate speak for himself, the more Dan's and Tom's and Peter's opinions of the candidate contribute to what you know about them.

In a country where the media bias pretty heavily to the Democratic party, this makes campaign finance `reform' nothing but a free ride for the left...

Re:Libertarian

[nathanm]

If one rich guy wants to spend all his money on running for office, I say great--let's even out the wealth through the system. But when a bunch of rich guys throw their money together to drown out the little guy--well, that bugs me on a why-does-this-computer-take-so-long-to-boot level.

This is an interesting comment, though I can't quite agree with your conclusion. Here are two events that relate:

The 2000 US Senate seat here in Minnesota was pretty much bought and paid for by Mark Dayton. He inherited ~$100 million at birth that his family made from Dayton-Hudson (now Marshall Fields, they also own Target stores). I've got nothing against wealth, but his trust fund isn't even taxed at all in MN (it's a resident of South Dakota for tax purposes). I went to a debate (with 7 candidates!) where the incumbent, Rod Grams, was dressed in a nice suit, what you'd expect a US Senator to wear. Dayton wore jeans and a plaid shirt, trying to look like a working man. That's ironic because Grams literally grew up in poverty on a farm, without a father, and worked his way up to a TV news anchor before he was elected. Dayton had a lawyer and tax accountant before he was born, and would never need to work in his life (he did work by choice, but mostly as a political appointee). He ended up spending $12 million of his own money in the campaign.

On the other hand, in the 2000 presidential election court battles, each side set-up funds to defer legal expenses (see this article). Bush raised $13.8 million while limiting donations to $5000 each. Gore, on the other hand, didn't limit the amount of individual donations, and raised $3.2 million. Most of his donations were over $5000 each ($2.8 million). Bush raised more than Gore's entire fund from donations smaller than $200 each! Which candidate had the grassroots support?

My point is that there are no easy answers for campaign finance reform. Sometimes rich people buy their way into office, but sometimes the system works the way it was meant, and people use their contributions as a form of political speech.

Re:Libertarian

[Planesdragon]

Besides, the only real effect of limiting the money the candidates themselves can spend on a campaign is to multiply the power of the (generally biased) media in determining the effects of the election -- the less you hear the candidate speak for himself, the more Dan's and Tom's and Peter's opinions of the candidate contribute to what you know about them.

In a country where the media bias pretty heavily to the Democratic party, this makes campaign finance `reform' nothing but a free ride for the left...

That would be a bad thing.

We could have regulated time for the campaign. I don't think it's an insufferable limitation of speech to limit the total media time each side's followers get to an equal ammount.

'course, any short-term Democratic slide would probably be kept short-term, and possibly suffer an immedate slide back as Republican dollars that used to go right to the party start going to invest in newspapers. Which would be a nice unintended benefit... imagine the US with a politcally neutral (or "equally biased") meda? ;)

Re:Libertarian

[Planesdragon]

Which candidate had the grassroots support?

Grassroots? Good question. Looks like Bush got more donors, but Gore got bigger donations--which could be Gore going for more rich folks, but it could be Gore getting the support of federations and community groups instead of individuals.

I think I'd like a system where everyone's pre-election "nod" to one canditate was equally important, not one where Bill Gates is worth more than me just because he has money to donate and I don't.

Re:Libertarian

[nathanm]

Looks like Bush got more donors, but Gore got bigger donations--which could be Gore going for more rich folks, but it could be Gore getting the support of federations and community groups instead of individuals.

The article I linked to has several names of Gore's donors, mostly the ultra-rich and elite of NY and Hollywood, including Denise Rich (who bought a pardon for her ex-husband from Clinton), "producer" Stephen Bing, and traitor Jane Fonda.

It doesn't mention anything about group donations, but Bush raised 4 times more money while limiting the amount of each donation to $5k. Most of Gore's of the money (87.5% by my calculations) came from 84 donations over $5k (avg donation of $33.3k). Of those 84, 30 were from CA and 23 from NY. Most typical "community groups" and political foundations are headquartered in Washington DC, so they at least didn't play a big part in the fundraising.

I think I'd like a system where everyone's pre-election "nod" to one canditate was equally important, not one where Bill Gates is worth more than me just because he has money to donate and I don't.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Drank the Kool-Aid?

[burgburgburg]

Then how did she end up here instead of still being down in Guyana? The Reverend wants to know.

GeekPac

[FyRE666]

Another useful link here. GeekPac are attempting to use the same tactic as the big corps by trying to raise funds to push some less corporate "influenced" candidates (read sock-puppets) into the parties.

Re:GeekPac

[flonker]

I would suggest sending donations to help her finance her campaign, to show the people in power that we really do have a strong community. I mean, even if she only gets 10% of the vote, that's enough to shake things up, so that they can't ignore us anymore. And the better she does, the better we do. If, against the odds, she wins, we've got ourselves a really strong political voice. Not just her, but the fact that we put her in office.

But I looked, and I couldn't find any contact info. Not so much as an email address. I guess we're stuck donating to the EFF instead.

Re:GeekPac

[metrazol]

Ehem, I point y'all to here. They're the definitive source for easy to acccess campaign finance data. I work for campaigns (Democratic, thank you very much) and am in my office right now. When I can't find anything on GeekPAC or it's true name, American Open Technology whatever, I start to worry. Every other PAC, contributor, candidate, etc., no matter how small or how few votes or dollars they got, is in there. I would go as far to check the FEC, but what's the point? If GeekPAC hasn't set itself up as a legitimate PAC, then your money is just going down the drain b/c they'll be breaking the law. If they aren't filing their periodic disclosure forms, they aren't going to be making any contributions, and they aren't going to be in business.

Re:GeekPac

[linzeal]

Someone needs to get this info, I'll throw 50 bucks into the ring is she had a paypal account right now.

Re:GeekPac

[Issue9mm]

Actually, the not too unlikely scenario that might follow would involve people picking up the "internet issues" to gain popularity, who know nothing about them, and who have no real intentions to do anything different than how things are.

If Grubb gets any votes, "Digital Rights Management" will be the next big election platform that nobody does anything about.

-9mm-

Re:GeekPac

[daveilers]

found on the libertarian party page www.lp.org

grubbhouse@msn.com

Re:GeekPac

[Conanymous Award]

grubbhouse@msn.com

Hmmmm... Conspiracy theories, anyone?

Re:GeekPac

[orthogonal]

Mod this dude up. opensecrets.org is an excellent tool for learning who gave what to whom.

Search for your boss's political donations! Your company's. That girl you've got a hopeless crush on. And her parents!

This information definately wants to be free!

Re:GeekPac

[flonker]

After carefully scouring her weblog page, I found a 14x10 pixel image linking to a form to email her. It's right there underneath the XML boxes, and is near impossible to see.

But you're right, it is there.

Check You Links - You make us do it

[Peridriga]

Well... They almost got the link right...
But, they linked to the 2nd page of the story..

For those too lazy to do it themselves or too stupid to realize it here's the link.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,54693,00 .html

Re:Check You Links - You make us do it

[stmintz]

Although linking to the 1st page would make more sense, the second page does have more information about the candidate in question.

Kook-Aid?

[Breakerofthings]

I don't get the Kool-Aid reference... ?

Re:Kook-Aid?

[spencerogden]

'Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test' Tom Wolfe

In this case I think it just means buying into something, i.e. having her own weblog.

Re:Kook-Aid?

[lokki]

No, try the Jonestown mass suicide, 1978.

Re:Kook-Aid?

[Breakfast Pants]

nice troll.. thats what the dude was talking about, he said it has become a metaphor for buying into something (i.e. the people in jonestown bought into a crazy cult religion)

Re:Kook-Aid?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Jim Jones actually used Flavor Aid®, not Kool-Aid to kill all his cultists.

Re:Kook-Aid?

[cpeterso]

Brian Jonestown Massacre? now that is true rawk power.

Re:Kook-Aid?

[BattyMan]

Jim Jones actually used Flavor Aid®

Yeah, that makes sense.
It's cheaper than the name brand stuff, but just as good.
You know how churches are always on a tight budget.

Re:Kook-Aid?

[tburkhol]

nice troll.. No troll, Mr Ignorant. The Electric Kool Aid Acid Test is a book by Tom Wolfe based on the 60's LSD counter-culture. Drinking the Kool Aid refers specifically to the Jonestown cult suicides in 1978. Dropping acid may make you feel like part of a group, but not everyone who does so is a fanatic about it. Everyone who drank the kool aid and Jonestown was a zealot.

Duplicate?

[lostindenver]

Posting the same thing twice in a week is one thing but twice in a DAY?

But Maybe we should help.

Amen

[jukal]

"People give worth to what they produce. What they produce is their future. Invest In Each Other.

Tell congress to love your kid."

Sheesh, that almost beats the Dilbert.com mission statement generator in saying nothing and sounding fancy... but sstill not quite:

"Our challenge is to proactively enhance mission-critical services as well as to seamlessly disseminate world-class data "

Geek spelling

[bravehamster]

*emphasis added*

I ask your patience, as I am developing this blog with little assistance and no very little about today's computer technology.

Hmm...I'm going to assume this was a deliberate spalling error to endear her to the /. crowd.

Re:Geek spelling

[FyRE666]

"your" right! ;-)

Re:Geek spelling

[ergo98]

rediculus! Clearley you do'nt know what your talking abowt.

Re:Geek spelling

[Enigma2175]

Their, they're. There just mad cause your good at spelling alot of words. Theirs alot of ./ers that arent virsed in contractshuns, hahmonihms and grammer to.
Here, Here!

Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish

[voisine]

The idea is not to do away with all legislation,
you're thinking of anarchy. Libertarianism seeks
to reduce legislation to the origional consitutional
roles or protecting the population from force and
fraud. The gub'ment does a piss poor job of most
of the stuff it's involved in. What's needed to
prevent exploitation and toxic dumps is to make sure
that the true cost is stuck to the entity making the
purchase. If you polute, you must pay to clean it up
and pass those costs on to your customers. Then
you'll have an incentive not to polute, or at least
come up with a cheap efficient way to clean it up.

Drink the Kool-aid?

[easyfrag]

Yes the weblog community may be over-hyping this, but it is interesting. I would be very surprised to see any candidate from the two "real" parties take a risk by writing a weblog. Many candidates don't even write their own speeches and policy platforms, a weblog can be a valid tool for Joe Voter to get a feel for a candidate... assuming that it is actually the candidate writing and not some hired gun.

The "Kool-aid" comment is a cheap shot and even ironic, because if she were the Linux candidate no one from /. would allude to a cult though many others might. Its time to end the /. editors' "tags" on the end of submissions, thats what the reply button is for.

Re:Drink the Kool-aid?

[BattyMan]

Many candidates don't even write their own speeches and policy platforms, a weblog can be a valid tool for Joe Voter to get a feel for a candidate... assuming that it is actually the candidate writing and not some hired gun.

Even if is actually written by a hired gun, there's a hardcopy statement there, to which they can later be held accountable. Most politicians avoid this sort of thing at all costs.

The "Kool-aid" comment is a cheap shot and even ironic.

Indeed. I think it is the major party candidates who are drinking the Kool-Aid of Big Business.

Re:Drink the Kool-aid?

[Joe Tie.]

I would be very surprised to see any candidate from the two "real" parties take a risk by writing a weblog.

It's rare enough to even see one talking like a human being, let alone activly doing so with the public. Though I can't totally blame them, as it seems every time a canidate does they're quickly labled as "wacky" by the media, and treated like a joke from that point on.

Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish

[siskbc]

If there were no regulation, our world would be an over-exploited toxic dump.

Yeah, the Soviets had a much better idea with state control. Chernobyl was a paradise.

Libertarian...

[Peridriga]

I am a Libertarian
I don't believe in music piracy
I do believe in P2P.
I disagree with how the RIAA/MPAA is trying to solve their problem.

If you don't agree w/ me, reply. I agree w/ the idea of copyprotected music. It is a produced object. Something that has time and money invested to produce an item that really does have actual value. If I produced a song that I specifically did not want to give away for free, I would try to keep it off P2P networks. I would contact those who are sharing these files and explain that they don't have permission from me to distribute this.

Now, let me step back and say. I do understand fair use. If you purchase my CD and rip it to MP3 that's fine. You purchased the CD, you purchase the rights to listen to the music but, you did not purchase the rights to re-distribute my works in a way I don't see fit.

OK.. Now step forward again. Why don't I like the way the MPAA/RIAA is protecting their property. There are/have been laws on the books that protect the copyright holders rights to published works. These laws explicity spelled out the fair uses of these works as well as protecting the creators. These laws worked for years on end. The change in technology didn't change the laws. The change in technology didn't make these laws less effective. You could easily still bring suit against a P2P user for sharing your music under the current legal system, it's just harder to do. So instead of attempting to protect their rights the hard way they simply bought laws to help them. These laws(DMCA, etc.) are what I have a problem with.

I abhor the creation of laws that violate my rights in any way shape or form. It is not the purpose of government to pick and choose winners by passing favorable laws it is the purpose of government to protect my rights.

Re:Libertarian...

[halftrack]

You forgot to mention that the DMCA haven't really helped them either.

The government is for and by the people (or so they should be,) not for the rich and wealthy who control the people.

Current politics work by the equation:

Corporations = Money + People

And in a democracy:

People = Vote

So it gives the equation:

Vote = Corporation - Money

Re:Libertarian...

[NanoGator]

I have a story idea I'd like to put out one day via the internet. It's like a comic. I do worry about people taking it and not paying for it, but I worry 10x more about a corp using it to enhance their own image (like Austin Powers and Taco Bell...) without compensating me.

For what I want to do, copyrighting the material would be for protection against corporate theft, but it'd be less for the prevention of consumer theft.

The corporate example I used is an example of theft, but I do not believe somebody acquiring the images without paying for them is theft. What'd they steal? Electrons? They didn't cost me anything by taking it, they just didn't pay me. I could threaten to sue anybody who doesn't do that, but instead I'd rather appeal to people's good sense. "If you like my work, pay me so I can keep doing it." (Note: My definition of theft is solely limited to the context of my content, I do not intend to imply that I feel that way about copyrighted material across the board.)

If somebody has my work but doesn't want to pay for it, how can I assume they'd pay for it if they couldn't get it otherwise? If anything, somebody got to trial my work and develop a taste for it. At that point, it's up to me to make the service worth paying for. "Want to see it today instead of having to wait a week or two for somebody to make it available?"

I believe people are basically honest. I also believe that there'll always be a percentage of those who don't pay for the work but they should. That's called risk. The best thing I can do is figure out why they prefer not to pay for it and consider ways of making it interesting to them. Maybe I can offer a deal where they get it for half price if they agree to buy a bunch of it up front? Who knows?

I certainly think that locking up the content so they can't use it or learn from it is by far the worst thing I could do. How do I know some guy didn't by my work only because he's interested in 3d rendering?

Anyway, Im responding to the parent post not to specifically agree or disagree, I just thought I'd express my view as a potential content provider in the future.

Re:Libertarian...

[smallpaul]

If you are a libertarian, I am surprised that you support government-backed monopolies at all. After all, that's what IP is!

Re:Libertarian...

[reallocate]

Why would people continue to generate IP if they had no way of protecting their interests in it, and that includes deriving revenue from its sale?

Re:Libertarian...

[Danse]

The obvious answer would be that they would do it for the same reason they did it before copyright existed. But that's not terribly realistic. The realistic answer is that the real problem here is not that copyright exists. It's that copyright has been extended and expanded beyond all recognition. Roll it back to a reasonable term (14 years was the original term, and if anything, it's more appropriate today than it was back then). Get rid of stupid laws like the DMCA. Then things will be fine. As it stands now, the public has no interest in copyright. Copyright was intended to entice people to create things that would eventually be added to the public domain for all to build upon. That doesn't happen anymore.

Re:Libertarian...

[geekoid]

"re-distribute my works in a way I don't see fit."

that doesn't work.

we must have laws thatoutline the copyright holders rights, and apply them to all copyrights.

what if you "see fit" to allow me(gee thanks) to rip mp3, but the next artists doesn't?
copy right laws need to be inplace to limit the copyright holders rights, not the rights of the people.
I say 5 year copyright restriction, and I can do anything I want with the medium, as long as I don't distribute it to likely purchasers of the product.

Of course, to date, new music that had wide p2p distribution also had higher then expected sales, and older music has only seen an increase in sale where available.
emmnemm would not sold over 1,000,000 copies if it wasn't being played by people who had ripped it before it was released.

Re:Libertarian...

[Anonvmous Coward]

I don't think that the *AA understands that content is only part of value, service is the other. The movie Ghostbusters is of little value if you can't watch it in entertaining conditions. If you can't pause the video so you can use the bathroom, then you've made viewing conditions 'less entertaining'. When commercials are added to a TV show, it becomes less entertaining. And so on.

That's why P2P hasn't replaced DVD sales. DVD's are a service that P2P can't replicate. But, if the *AA relies too much on the content and not enough on the service it provides, then yes the internet could potentially be a danger. Not from would-be pirates, but from the new content producers down the road who understand this.

Re:Libertarian...

[reallocate]

Agree that copyright law in the States has been warped to the strong benefit of corporations who have artists under contract, and doesn't serve the purpose it was intended to serve. Ditto on DMCA, RIAA and all that. Also think commercially successful "artists" like the money as much as the rest of us, and would probably think twice about a rollback of copyright to something considerably shorter than their lifespan. With exception, too, I suspect authors and entertainers who begrudge the money the media companies keep out of sales of their work would quite happily keep it all if the corporation disappeared. (I guess I don't believe that "artist" equates to "saint".)

Re:Libertarian...

[DaveAtFraud]

Suggest that you read (or re-read) "Atlas Shrugged" for a really good exposition of how IP != government backed monopolies.

The issue is that some people, either as individuals or as part of a corporation, try to exploit existing laws and/or influence new laws to their specific benefit. This includes no only IP laws such as copyright and patent laws but also any other law (or lawmaker) that they can subvert for their own advantage. If you want an example of this, I suggest you research the restrictions that were placed on Southwest Airlines when they decided to operate out of Love Field rather than pay the fees that were required to operate out of Dallas-Ft. Worth airport. I'm sure Rep. Jim Wright would still insist that these restrictions are "in the public interest" as Southwest continues to make money while the airlines that lobbied for the restrictions are barely staying out of bankruptcy.

IP law is not the problem. Politicians making laws that benefit the few at the expense of the many in return for campaign contributions are the problem. I'm not saying that changes aren't needed in the IP laws but I don't see the legal concept of IP (both of individuals and corporations) going away. Again, read "Atlas Shrugged" for what this would mean.... and it ain't pretty.

Re:Libertarian...

[mochan_s]

Let me ask your opinion on another scenario. Suppose you put a CD out and your local library buys a copy and puts it on the shelf so anyone (with a valid library card) can take it home and listen to it.

Suppose you don't like library patrons listening to your music for free. Should you be allowed to release your CD stating that this CD cannot be put in a library to be loaned? What about a book or a movie?

So, this is not music piracy and does not violate any of your 4 canons. Now, with P2P sharing of your work, no-one is gaining any money and thus would not put under music piracy but maybe 'unauthorized copying'. So, in a way, this does not violate your 4 canons as well.

My point is that maybe P2P sharing of copyrighted work is not so bad at all. Libraries do it. The idea that anyone can just download your song and appreciate it without charge is similar to anyone can go and borrow a book and read it. Maybe the music industry has reached a point where it is going in the way of the book publishing industry. Let go of the massive promotions and just cut the cost to recording and reproduction, and live with P2P. That, I think, would be culturally optimal.

Re:Libertarian...

[jcast]

In short, there are two types of libertarians: those that believe IP is a government-backed monopoly, and those that believe IP is just another form of property rights.

Re:Libertarian...

[reflector]

I am a Libertarian
I don't believe in music piracy
I do believe in P2P.
I disagree with how the RIAA/MPAA is trying to solve their problem.

I agree with you on all 4 counts. However, I do not consider P2P filesharing of copyrighted works to be piracy. The notion that a company can sell me a CD, and then claim to still have ownership of the music on it, and to still have a right to tell me what I can do with it, is absurd. Selling something involves giving it up, relinquishing a claim to it.

Piracy, as I see it, is the use of others' copyrighted works for commercial gain without their permisson. It is reasonable for the government to give a monopoly to creators of IP as an incentive to create, but the current laws in the US go too far, taking away peoples' liberties with respect to such legally obtained IP works in an effort to inflate demand for such works.

Re:Libertarian...

[DaveAtFraud]

I usually describe myself as a "Randian" rather then "Libertarian" for this and other reasons. Too many people seem to equate Libertarianism with Anarchism. What I find sad but still somewhat humorous is that the people who do this are both those who describe themselves as "Libertarians" and those who are opposed to "Libertarianism".

I've also tried using "19th century liberal" to describe my politco/economic beliefs but this seems to just confuse even more people.

Re:Libertarian...

[jcast]

Well, people try to equate anarchism with anarcho-socialism, too. The reason why the opponents do it is obvious---make your opponent seem extreme enough, and people will accept you no matter what you think.

I think the reason proponents of libertarianism and anarchism (lower-case `l'; I hope nobody thinks the LP is the Anarchist Party!) confuse things is that, since both anarchism and (normal) libertarianism are (essentially) deductive processes, people tend to think there can be only one form of each, and so argue vehemently over which form it is. Just IMHO.

Re:Libertarian...

[volkris]

Just because you put resources into making something does not mean it has value.

I think you have some of your reasoning backwards. If a company creates something that ends up being more valuable than the resources that went into it then they will go far. If not they won't. The value of the product is independent of the amount of resources that went into it.

In the end I say that since the industry's business model relies on artificial scarcities brought about through the IP laws, they business model is simply flawed. Since this neabs kess governmental interference into non-essential matters it's an arguably "more" libertarian POV.

Re:Libertarian...

[Peridriga]

Just because you put resources into making something does not mean it has value.

Of course... I completely understand this.. If I take a $30k diamond and crush it, I put $30k into it but, I certainly won't get $30k out of it. But, that wasn't my original quote. My original quote was that produced music is an "item that really does have actual value".

This is to say that a master recording of a song has a value. Not of it, itself physically but, in potential sales.

Now.. the "artifical scarcites"...
I really like that phrase. I'm adding it to my vernacular for other uses. In this case though although artifically (I will agree. The only reason they have value is because of the protection offered by law) inflated in value, it is a valid law on the face. Regardless of your opinions of IP music, code, and manifestation of the human mind is attributed to it's creator, like it or not. If you compose a classic piece of music you own it. You own the specific arrangement of notes and chords.... Why? Because it is of your creation....

Why is this important? Without some protection of IP there would be no desire to create IP. If in your head you had an idea for a program that has great fiscal possibilties for you (Make you the next Bill Gates) would you bother investing your time and your energy into something that you could never profit from? I don't think so... The IP laws (the original ones) are there to protect peoples idea's in order to encourage them to create more ideas. Without this fundemental right to ones own ideas progress would stagnate.

Re:Libertarian...

[Sunnan]

"I agree w/ the idea of copyprotected music. It is a produced object."

Huh? You produce an object, a song by writing it, performing it, recording it.

Then someone else can produce objects by doing "cp peridriga's-song.ogg copy-of-peridriga's-song.ogg".

That's beneficial for society (assuming that the song is good), and you don't have to be afraid that some stalinist is going to come to your house and take the song or prevent you from making copies of your song.

And we have the same freedom. We may also make copies of the song.

That's fair, that's free, that's just.

Re:Libertarian...

[CashCarSTAR]

The problem is...would a Libertarian government repeal the DMCA? Maybe....but then again maybe not. I don't see very much in the DMCA that would go against the Libertarian (big L) ideology. Most Libertarians I've talked to support IP. I believe that most of the big Lib. groups have thrown support behind IP (Cato institute for example).

Copy Protection can be seen as a complex form of IP. Thereby breaking the copy protection can be seen as a violation of IP, thereby a violation of property which makes the bad parts of the DMCA just fine.

Want to protect our online rights? So do I! That doesn't mean going for knee-jerk reactions that in the long run are going to result in the SAME problems we have now. Like it or not an unregulated society will result in our freedoms being trampled by the corps...just the same as is happening now.

What can we do? Like it or not we have to convince Joe-Sixpack that this is a very important cause. Unfortunantly I don't think WE can do it. The only people that can do it will be groups like the RIAA who eventually cross the line.

To paraphrase a line from the Baen website. People are honest. They will pay money for things they enjoy. However, if they feel that those they would be paying money to are gouging them, the people feel no remorse, shame or guilt in doing them harm.

In other words, who gets upset when a conman gets conned?

Re:Libertarian...

[reflector]

and when you share mp3s of songs that you just ripped/downloaded, what exactly are you relinquishing??? that's right, nothing

That's untrue. I'm relinquishing bandwidth. But that's irrelevant. I said SELLING involves relinquishing the property in question. Sharing is not selling, nor am I receiving $ for doing so.

where does logic enter into your argument?

It doesn't. I'm simply stating my values and/or opinions.

but making copies of it, and distributing it without making any sort of acknowledgement or payment to the artist (don't confust that with the record industry, fuck them) responsible is just plain wrong

When I copy the CD and clearly label who the artist is, that IS an acknowledgement. I've never copied a work and tried to take credit for it as my own.

If you want to argue that copying a song without paying the artist is wrong, explain why.

Saying it's "just plain wrong" is simplistic, to say the least. You've stated your own belief, without any rationale or justification. Is such a statement supposed to mean anything to me?

Re:Libertarian...

[Khaed]

Are you high? How is owning things you create a monopoly?
Everyone can create something. That kind of loses the definition of monopoly right there.

Re:Libertarian...

[Gooba42]

A leech is typically not immoral. They are usually amoral.
An immoral leech steals because stealing is wrong
An amoral leech steals because it's convenient.

Re:Libertarian...

[Gooba42]

Formerly in economics there was a notion of relative worth. When you made an exchange of money and/or goods the perception of both parties was that they were giving up something worth relatively less than the item they were receiving in exchange.
Fast forward to the present and the producers in industry want to have it all. They give up nothing, no rights, no priveleges and no real ownership of the items in question.

Re:Libertarian...

[volkris]

Without some protection of IP there would be no desire to create IP.

One of the biggest falsehoods brandished about today. Just go look at history before these laws. Things still got done!

Now it's arguable that not as much IP would be created, but it's certainly wrong to say "no IP would be created".

After all, if nobody makes IP then nobody will profit from it. If someone makes IP and everyone gets to share it, then at least people will still profit from it, though not as much.

Perhaps it wuold be more correct to say that with looser IP laws there would be more incremental improvement as companies rely on "first to market" sales for their biggest profit margins, while stronger laws lead to more jumps in developent. Eh, there's a balance there somewhere, I'm sure.

Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish

[Lemmy Caution]

When seeking to avoid drowning, one should also be wary not to perish of thirst.

Re:OK, I'm not cool...

[gentlewizard]

The phrase "drank the Kool-Aid" is a reference to the cults whose followers drank poisoned Kool-Aid to commit suicide, because they were true believers in the cult and its charismatic leader. So to "drink the Kool-Aid" means you believe enough to stake your life on that belief.

Probably a bit exaggerated when it comes to weblogs, which are hardly a life-or-death proposition; but still, it shows she believes enough in the collaborative technology to use it as the centerpiece of her campaign. (Not to mention the fact that as a Libertarian, she probably has only enough funds for her 56K modem Internet account to get the campaigning done!)

Learn some Grammar, then run for office.

[captain_craptacular]

UT--that doesn't mean the public health department is gonna shut down the day after I take office. That doesn't mean the elementary schools are gonna close their doors.

I suppose I'm being pedantic, but christ. Why should I vote for anyone with such poor grammar?

Re:Learn some Grammar, then run for office.

[fizban]

You didn't vote for Bush, I hope.

Re:Learn some Grammar, then run for office.

[Zebbers]

because in the end, grammar doesnt really matter. Sure, it may be somewhat indicative of their intelligence but most certainly not of their ability to help lead our country. We don't need ivy schooled ceos. We need farmer bob. We need to get back to the basics of PEOPLE representing PEOPLE. Not elite representing the common people. "Politician" shouldnt really be a career choice. Or, if it must be...it should come with a more reasonable civil service salary so as to discourage all but the truely service-oriented to run and serve.

Re:Learn some Grammar, then run for office.

[DNS-and-BIND]

I suppose I'm being pedantic, but why should I read a spelling flame by someone who doesn't know to capitalize proper nouns?

Re:Learn some Grammar, then run for office.

[RebelTycoon]

"alittle" But his girlfriend does!

Re:Learn some Grammar, then run for office.

[SVDave]

"A lot" is two words. You wouldn't say "alittle", would you?

Maybe.

How to Tar a Grubb

[jukal]

[jukal@doh jukal]$ tar -a grubb
tar: illegal option -- a
Try `tar --help' for more information

But hey, I got an idea:

[jukal@doh jukal]$ man -k grubb
grubb: nothing appropriate

Damn!

Refreshing

[shd99004]

Read her weblog, and Grubb seems like an honest person, with great ideas and views. Enthusiastic. Libertarian. We need more of those kinda people...

If there was no P2P....

[McFly69]

we would have to get out files like THIS!!! Hmm perhaps we can use that solar power Lazzer to create a portable optical network :)

Vote = Corporation - Money

[cpeterso]

Vote = Corporation - Money


Does this equation simply mean that to get a vote, a corporation must pay some money? We already knew that! ;-)

Re:Vote = Corporation - Money

[halftrack]

They knew that things fell to the ground even before Newton was born too.

Leftist Socialist....

[friedmud]

Seems like a leftist socialist to me (the whole thing about mandatory 6 month maternity leave - and tax breaks for helping further).

I am sorry but I am not for this at all. If we didn't have so many damn taxes taking our money away and giving it to other people women could afford to take off 6 months from work and still be ok.

We DONT need a bigger government. All the people trying to create laws to keep computer users down (dmca, sssca, anti p2p) are just doing the same thing that she is doing.... Overstepping the bounds of a democratic government.

If you want 6 months maternity leave then move to france - or some other socialist community. Meanwhile we here in america need to get back to what made this country tick in the first place... healthy competition. FDR's New Deal has put this country on a path to distruction.

Lets get rid of the patent bullshit. Lets get rid of the monopolies. Let's get rid of the damned congress people accepting "donations". And let's get back on track.

Derek

Re:Leftist Socialist....

[ErikTheRed]

Her view on government-mandated maternity leave is certainly in conflict with libertarian values. However, she is certainly cuter than her competition. After all, politics is just a beauty contest, right?

Re:Leftist Socialist....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want 6 months maternity leave then move to france - or some other socialist community. Meanwhile we here in america need to get back to what made this country tick in the first place...

Pregnant women in work-houses?

Let's get rid of the damned congress people accepting "donations".

Ok, do you mean the pregnant women you deplore for sitting around at home without fear of failing to get their jobs back when they're ready to begin working again are bribing congressmen?

Or are you opposed to people giving money to congressmen to further their commercial interests, and if so, doesn't that make you a communist?

Re:Leftist Socialist....

[jcast]

Wait a second --- she said ``encourage''. Am I not reading far enough down the page to where she said ``require''?

Capital "L" Libertarian?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think not. Although, I would consider supporting Tara Grubb, but do you actually expect me to believe that Tara is a capital-L Libertarian? Not a chance. Take, for instance, this quote: "I belong to the WORLD Party and so do you". Highly indicative of a person that wants to claim Libertarian without actually holding Libertarian beliefs (and barely libertarian-little l-beliefs).

There are actually only 2 uses of the word libertarian on her weblog. Where did you get the idea that this woman was a Libertarian? Please!

Whoever submitted the initial post, could you please change "Libertarian" to read "libertarian"? You should know better.

A Vote For Grubb Is A Vofe For The First Amendment

[hotgrits]

For the love of God, please vote for her!

Vote for her because her ideas rock.

But also vote for her because she is running against Howard Coble, who is in the back pocket of the RIAA.

If you love the First Amendment and hate the DMCA, send Grubb to Congress!

obvious

[teslatug]

Can Grubb boot Congress? *ducks behind the couch*

Internet = Wiser World?

[eander315]

"The web is going to make a smaller, wiser world."

I know she said she's not the most computer-savvy person around, but has she seen the web lately? It's about 90% porn! (The other 10% is taken up by failed dot-coms who haven't figured it out yet) Sure, I use that 90% just as much as anyone else, but I don't think I'm any wiser for it.

Re:Internet = Wiser World?

[Buck2]

I bet you feel smaller, though.

Re:Internet = Wiser World?

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Well, then all he needs to do is read his spam, and find out how to ADD THREE TO FOUR INCHES -- GUARANTEED!

Re:Internet = Wiser World?

[Buck2]

I was thinking the same thing, but I didn't know how to incorporate it into the same joke.

Thankya. Thankyaverymuch.

Re:Internet = Wiser World?

[Degrees]

Certainly - as far as your core beliefs go. P2P networks are an obvious way for people to connect to other people with similar beliefs. It seems to me as clear as day. When you find someone agreeable, (and intelligent / likable / trustworthy ) whether it be through IRC or USENET or Weblogs or private P2P channels (of any data type), you will be able to invite them into your circle of trust. Eventually, there will be great power in that focused community.

The Masonic Lodge (Free and Accepted Masons, Freemasonry, whatever you want to call it), was a great example of this. What were they?* A group of guys that gathered together down at the lodge on Wednesday nights, and discussed the future of their town. It is that simple. Sure you will hear all sorts of crackpot theories, but the real impact was that these guys planned things, built consensus, planned some more, and made them happen. They specifically did not invite jerks to the party.

The difference today is that the communities are virtual, and that jerks get modded down to -1 where we don't bother looking at them.

Finally, regarding an already wiser world: do you think you would know as much about the DMCA if you did not frequent /. ? :-)

*Yes, I know - I should not have said "What were they?" but "What are they?". That is a topic for another time....

Then the debate becomes

[hackwrench]

the matter of other parties neglecting the issue.

I'm concerned about corporate misdeeds...

[radicalsubversiv]

... like the big guys in the RIAA and MPAA using their power and influence to shape laws for the protection fo their industry. We shouldn't have big corporations deciding how we use our computers.

Plus, I really think corporations should offer maternity leave, enough so that I think the government should intercede to provide tax incentives.

Hence, I am running for congress as a Libertarian, because only the Libertarians truly understand the way to deal with corporate power is to repeal every regulatory counterbalance imaginable.

In the end, The Market will cure all our ills.

Re:I'm concerned about corporate misdeeds...

[DoctaWatson]

In the end, The Market will cure all our ills.

What if "the Market" is really a fabrication of corporate executives who plan on using invested capital for their own gains while they watch their company crash and burn, knowing that they can get off scott-free because the government doesn't have effective tools to audit and regulate corporations to see if "the Market" is truly what it seems?

Re:I'm concerned about corporate misdeeds...

[radicalsubversiv]

Not real good on picking up sarcasm, eh? As it happens, I agree with you.

Re:I'm concerned about corporate misdeeds...

[BrookHarty]

I recently signed up for the Washington State LP newsletter, quite a bit of stuff going on up here in the Pacific Northwest. I'm really tired of both the Republicans (tax cuts for corps) and Democrats (spend my money on everything) doing the wrong thing time after freaking time.

I dont believe in socialism, but I REALLY dont believe in corporations having carte blanche freedom, which LP seems to lean towards. HMO's in point, Good idea in theory.. But after a friends baby almost died because the HMO didnt run tests (A way to save money). I found out they actually get BONUSES for cost cutting. Bean counters who calculate infant deaths vs insurnace costs should be outlawed.

Just looking around at how capitalism effects you on a daily basis, insurance for medical, auto, health, power costs, savings/stocks/401k, medical expenses, income taxes, state taxes, license fees, etc, you can see some issues with everything. Take Insurances companies as an example, underwriting together to raise your rates no matter which company you use. Credit card companies charging both the seller and buyer and charging interest, Not even mentioning all the other fees.

Maybe I'm the only one getting tired of "Business as Usual", and looking for a way to vent my anger. Supporting the LP has helped some, as I agree with most of thier platform. (And a long list at that, but its scary at how much affects us.)

Re:I'm concerned about corporate misdeeds...

[TheSync]

Evidently, a demopublican government has not quite een able to stem corporate misdeeds...

Moreover, libertarians of all types do believe that fraud is a crime.

On HMOs - an HMO is a way of making your health care expenses be less by combining mutual insurance with centralized health care rationing. HMOs have a higher chance of killing you than straight insurance or just paying your doctor yourself. It just happens that either of those safer alternatives are more expensive. You roll the dice when you stick to your HMO doctor. At any time, you are free to go to a full-cost doctor as well.

Unfortunately, medicine is an imperfect art. Even full-paying a doctor doesn't assure a mistake or a bizarre reaction won't happen.

Should medical care be more affordable? Perhaps, but the Federal Government pays 50% of medical bills in the US, leading to higher utilization of medical care and higher prices (especially for those outside of Medicare/caid).

You make the call if this is good or bad.

The Libertarin Party has been a supporter of tax-deducatable self-insurance through expansion of medical savings account laws. It's another option.

Re:I'm concerned about corporate misdeeds...

[DoctaWatson]

Doh!

Boy is there egg on my face.

Libertarian candidate for Congress, eh?

[Trepidity]

When the last time a Libertarian came even close to getting elected to Congress?

Re:Libertarian candidate for Congress, eh?

[jcast]

I don't know. However, in 2000 the LP ran candidates for a majority of Congressional seats. According to the LP (don't have time to hunt down documentation right now) every third party to manage that feat in the last century has elected at least one Congressional candidate. So, she may not win, but the odds are good somebody will.

Re:Libertarian candidate for Congress, eh?

[ronfar]

I suppose that depends upon your perspective:

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?

Re:Libertarian candidate for Congress, eh?

[Chris Johnson]

Oh come on, there SHOULD be a Libertarian rep in Congress. My state, Vermont, has a Socialist :) that's our Bernie Sanders. He's been upsetting some of the antiwar leftists in recent years but he's about as strongly anti-corporate-abuses and pro campaign reform as Nader- except he IS in office, and we're keeping 'im (Bernie is well liked in Vermont- he's our guy, not Disney's guy or whatever)

I see no reason why there shouldn't be a Libertarian in Congress- and some types of libertarianism I see as about the worst, most destructive thing out there. Interestingly, Tara seems not to be following out the libertarian philosophy to its extremes regardless of the result- for instance, she seems to be privy to some information about FedEx moving into her state and apparently hosing the state pretty good in some way, and she sides with the people who live there, rather than the corporation. She could just as easily have gone the other way, and to my mind this is encouraging that she isn't.

I've seen a poster excoriate her for not being Libertarian enough. Good! Good for her. I'd excoriate her for not being socialist enough, but eh- even if she's not I think she deserves to be in the House and would be an asset. And it sounds like she researches stuff rather than just philosophizing, which is more valuable still.

Now what would really be cool is if she got in, and ended up being able to work with Bernie, Vermont's Socialist congressman. He's about as capital S socialist as she is capital L libertarian, so maybe they'd have an easy time finding common ground on the many issues that they agree strongly on :)

Re:Libertarian candidate for Congress, eh?

[TheSync]

Ron Paul, a former Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, is in Congress...

Re:Libertarian candidate for Congress, eh?

[Dr.Dubious DDQ]

He's about as capital S socialist as she is capital L libertarian[...]

Somehow I don't think a "Capital-L Libertarian" would be supporting even the slightest government influence over companies' maternity leave policies (as her weblog shows she would).

As a staunch "little-l libertarian", I like her position on this. Her idea is to reward companies who offer substantial maternity leave benefits with reduced taxes (rather than to MANDATE maternity leave policies at the federal government level or to "punish" employers for NOT offering really nice maternity leave policies).

That position bespeaks of a fairly moderate but still libertarian outlook - recognition that a government entity CAN do things to improve society, but for best effect MUST do so with a MINIMUM of meddling...I think a true, hardcore "Capital L Libertarian" would be advocating that the government not take any position whatsoever on the matter, and let the pressures of the employee "market" set the level of benefits necessary to attract good employees.

Always remember that extremist libertarians may be the LOUDEST, but are far from being the most common. Libertarians who want to sell off ALL public/government owned land (for example) or abolish ALL environmental regulations and so on are really no more common than Ruperticans who want to mandate Christianity in the constitution as the State Religion or Disneycrats who want to turn the US into a tax-funded nationwide Socialist Worker's Paradise(tm).

I honestly believe that if you could get the majority of voters to stop being driven by fear of "the other party" (whichever party that may be) for a little while, and convince them to quit robotically voting "the party line", a large proportion of them might very well coalesce into a "moderate libertarian" voting block, ex-Ruperticans being attracted by the "fiscal freedoms" (i.e. engage in nearly any non-fraudulent, mutually agreeable buying or selling transaction) and direction and ex-Disneycrats attracted by the "personal freedoms" and "end corporate welfare" (Yes, this IS a 'plank' in the libertarian 'platform') direction, and BOTH being attracted by the "power should move back from the federal level down towards more local levels" aspects (which means BOTH that [to indulge in a ridiculously extreme set of examples to illustrate the point] Texas could mandate gun-safety training for all 6th-grade students while California could organize itself into almost a small socialist country with its own state-run health-care system and a ban on all firearms...[Hey, I SAID they'd be ridiculously extreme examples!])

But enough babbling from me. Suffice to say that the only reason Libertarianism sounds so extreme sometimes is that unlike the wide variety of Disneycrats and Ruperticans who get air-time on national news media (because they are already in positions of power and therefore "interesting"), the only libertarian viewpoints generally shown are "sensational" ones from relatively "radical" libertarians, since the more rational viewpoints from more moderate libertarians are too "boring" to waste precious broadcast time on (There can be a whole crowd of libertarians protesting drug policy on rational grounds of excessive laws and costs to society and disparity of punishment when compared with more traditional violent crimes, and the news media will invariably take a picture of the one guy there with a marijuana leaf painted on his face in a torn T-shirt yelling "DUDE! Toke for Peace!" or something of the sort)...

Re:Libertarian candidate for Congress, eh?

[neocon]

I'm quite fond of Ron Paul, though I don't agree with him on all matters.

On the other hand, I'm a Republican, so YMMV. :-)

Why is the American legal system like this?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

Plotkin, who has written frequently on what he sees as a lack of political effectiveness in the technology sector, thinks the geeks who decry Hollywood's donations to politicians should stop looking for clever hacks around the system and start making donations of their own.

"We don't show up at the fundraising events, and nobody's made a $100,000 contribution on this issue," he said. "Other people do that regularly on things like whether diapers should go into landfills. Where is Scott McNealy? Where is Steve Jobs? Where is anyone that has the juice to get things done? They're all busy looking out for their stock options."

And what about you... mr. politician? what are you doing? You are WAITING for DONATIONs before you act on any ISSUE.

Honsetly, it sounds like "Give me your money before I do anything." From someone outside of USA, it sounds likes bribery to me.

Okay, I know it is called Lobbying .... but why does lobbying HAVE to involve money/donations?? It simply corrupts/discriminates the whole process in favor of people/organizations who has more money than the other. It sounds like, looks like, pure and simple corruption.

Any American beg to differ?

Re:Why is the American legal system like this?

[reallocate]

I'll bite.

It isn't the legal system, it's our political system. It is outrageously expensive to run for office here. Even candidates for House seats -- like Grubb -- often spend 7-figure sums for advertising and other campaign publicity. Get into state-wide or national offices and the cost escalates. We can't seem to get our collective head around real campaign finance reform, and spend endless cycles of legislative energy talking it to death.

End result: If your running for office, or in office planning for the next campaign, the first thing on your mind is going to be paying for it. Whether or not that constitutes bribery is, I suppose, a matter of definition, but there's no argument that it influences politicians behavior to the detriment of the public.

As for lobbying: If you want a politician to pay attention to you, the first thing you have to do is get in front of his or her face. I.e., on the calendar and in the office. By and large, any organization or "movement" with one or a few specific interests it wants to push isn't going to sway votes in Washington unless they have an office in D.C. actively working on their behalf. (Yep, that's called "special interests".) Of course, when a there's a genuine groundswell of opinion shifting with a constituency on a particular issue, even novice politicians pay attention (or lose the next election.)

So... i agree with Plotkin and Lessig that if those opposed to the DMCA/RIAA/MPAA/Berman et al legislation don't start playing the game, there's little chance that many politicians will be moved to change their votes. They would if this issue becomes visibly important to the broad U.S. electorate, but that kind of awareness isn't there . Elections are still won on bread-and-butter issues. Copyright infringement isn't one of those issues.

Re:Why is the American legal system like this?

[reallocate]

Not to rant, but most other countries behave the same, or worse. I've lived in 3 countries in addition to the U.S. Only one (the UK) actually held free elections, and I don't see many UK politicos running for sainthood.

WTF?

[sielwolf]

The phrase "drank the Kool-Aid" is a reference to the cults whose followers drank poisoned Kool-Aid to commit suicide, because they were true believers in the cult and its charismatic leader. So to "drink the Kool-Aid" means you believe enough to stake your life on that belief.

Ok, I assume you meant to be talking about Jim Jones and the People's Temple.

Of course you are completely wrong in this coloquialism. It is not a reference to the People's Temple suicide pact but Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test.

How am I so damn sure? Because Jim Jones and the People's Temple did not drink Grape Kool-Aid, but cyanide laced Flavor-Aid, a cheap Kool-Aid rip off.

Moral of this story: Do some research before making up facts.

Re:WTF?

[dogfart]

Of course you are completely wrong in this coloquialism. It is not a reference to the People's Temple suicide pact but Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test [dragonet.es].

So right now some Libertarian is watching the wallpaper turn colors and melt?

Re:WTF?

[Dolly_Llama]

How am I so damn sure? Because Jim Jones and the People's Temple did not drink Grape Kool-Aid, but cyanide laced Flavor-Aid, a cheap Kool-Aid rip off.

I never understood this. I mean, if you're going out, why not go out in style? Only genuine Kool-Aid (tm) brand for my suicide!

Re:WTF?

[spectral]

Damn, the people are there killing themselves and they can't even afford a freaking 25c pack of koolaid mix? Not much support shown from the people up above to the people killing themselves, at least let them go out in style..

Re:WTF?

[randombit]

Because Jim Jones and the People's Temple did not drink Grape Kool-Aid, but cyanide laced Flavor-Aid, a cheap Kool-Aid rip off.

Never trust someone who doesn't drink the Real Stuff, that's my motto.

that's a rather unfortunate name

[Trepidity]

I don't think "GeekPAC" is necessarily the best name one could've picked if you want to be taken seriously. What's wrong with something a little more professional, like say "TechPAC"?

Re:that's a rather unfortunate name

[chris_mahan]

How about "SixPAC"?

or "WFTPAC" (World Fund for Technology)

Re:that's a rather unfortunate name

[eMilkshake]

If it's Microsoft-related, perhaps it should be ServicePAC!

Re:that's a rather unfortunate name

[chris_mahan]

Sorry, that was too obfuscated.

WTFPAC (World Technology Fund)

I'd like her more if she didn't use an MSN account

[berchca]

I guess that about sums it up.

Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish

[Hayzeus]

Chernobyl was a paradise.

Maybe not ... but at least it was warm.

Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish

[DunbarTheInept]

That sounds great on paper. But in reality how are you going to enforce that payment for pollution damage with a small government with no teeth? Pollution damage is not going to be counted into the cost of producing a thing unless someone is there to enforce that cost. Left to it's own devices, the market doesn't end up measuring that cost because it takes too long to manifest. Where is the funding going to come from to engage in scientific research to figure out that, for example, a rise in a particular disease in a city is being caused by the pollutants coming from a particular factory?

Yes, I agree that the path to less pollution is to actually attach an accurate price tag to it so it appears in the ledgers of companies. I don't agree that that would happen in a lassiez-faire market, though. Long term effects are not acurately reflected in the finances of a typical company.

The truth is

[Chardish]

There is nothing wrong with P2P. Nothing. What the real problem is, is knee-jerk Congressmen who see the music piracy war as some sort of drug war that they can actually win. (I'm reminded of the Disney executive who thought that DRM software can be installed in the processor "because all the bits go through there, right?") They realize that it's easier to shut down P2P companies than to actually go after the music pirates.

The problem with a P2P subscription service is that the money for subscriptions goes to the RIAA. Meaning? Independent artists get gypped. This means the easier way for them to make money is to side with the RIAA, who apparantely hates the idea of people listening to music for free.

What's my solution? Micropayments, in a different form. $2 nets you 100 song downloads, and the P2P service monitors the completed downloads, and logs what artists are being downloaded. So for every song you download, 2 cents goes to the artist.

Let's say that, on average, a typical ~obscure~ song gets 100 downloads per day. That's $2 right there for the artist. Now, spread that out over 365 days. $730 in the pocket for the artist. That's a pretty penny for our musician pals.

And if he gets popular, and starts getting 500 downloads per day? $3,650 a year. Those 2 cents add up. A very popular artist who gets, perhaps, 1,500 downloads per day would be looking at $10,950. And remember that people would still be buying CDs.

Considering that the average musician actually sees about 6 cents out of every CD sale, I doubt they'll argue against this idea.

-Evan

Re:The truth is

[rlangis]

Okay...but who's going to download the pay client when there are free clients? Kazaa has been hacked to keep the ads out, why couldn't the pay client be hacked to keep you from paying?

It's a good idea, but when people just don't want to pay for something, there isn't ANY idea that's good enough, or cheap enough. Unless the FastTrack network is completely shut down, and any clones or off-shoots are killed before they can gain *any* foothold, and the pay client network is the ONLY network available, it won't be a viable solution.

Kook Aid and rabid blog zealots

[kvhaz]

the most interesting part of this post is the debate over whether "drinking the kool aid" is a reference to the jonestown massacre or the electric kool aid acid test. i always assumed the former.

anyway, i thought the post's use of "drinking the kool aid" was in reference to the fact that this politician has joined the blog community. I'm assuming others have noticed how eerily enthusisatic bloggers are about the fact that they are bloggers. Read scripting.com sometime and you'll see what i mean.

Re:Kook Aid and rabid blog zealots

[Gooba42]

I'd always been told that Jonestown had been Kool-Aid. I'm not convinced the actual brand name matters in this instance as I think it's fairly widely "known" that they drank poisoned Kool-Aid.
In any case, I think this was a reference to the suicides. By taking a stance for P2P I think she's politically suicided but it might have been for a worthy cause.

Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish

[voisine]

I suppose people being polluted on would bring a
suit against the company. People who own the
property with the wildlife on it would get pretty
pissed about the polution. We already have a fairly
good idea about what's bad and what's okay. If it
doesn't naturally occur in nature, then don't put it
there. The government has the teeth it needs.
They're the government. I propose they use thier
teeth only to protect people from fraud or force.
They'll find that they have more teeth than
necessary.

...and, by the way...

[reallocate]

...the businesses selling all that outrageously expensive media time -- and also donating big money to politicians -- are usually the same media corporations raising a fuss about copyright infringement. In the end, it gets back to oligarchic and monopolistic control of technology versus dispersed control of technology.

Re:...and, by the way...

[kcbrown]

Nice setup the media corps have, isn't it? They "give" a lot of money to politicians, who then turn right around and give that money right back to the media corps so they can get their exposure.

So in the end, the media corps pay little to nothing and wind up with lots of politicians in their pockets. What a wonderful racket!

One Party System

[EyeBase]

reminds me of a simpsons episode...
check out Democrats and Republicans two Factions of a One Party System

background

[flollywebfrog]

i have been following Tara Sue for about a week now. Ed Cone, an opinion writer for the North Carolina News and Record introduced her to the online world last Friday and has been mentioning her on an almost daily basis.

Dave Winer and others bloggers who have been writing for some time now about the need to find a challenger against Howard Coble quickly linked with support. Tara Sue has become an online ray of hope for many.

Re:Libertarian ways

[Wandering Idiot]

What, exactly, is this supposed to say? That Libertarians are pacifists? That Lenin was evil? I'll agree with the second, but I would imagine the first depends on the individual Libertarian.

Be carefull of Libertirians

[linuxislandsucks]

Remember Libertirians wnat to roll back all judgment and law precedents on many laws and the constitiutin to late 1700s....

The view of drugs is that all drugs should be legal per the 1700s definition now just imagine what that woudl mean ofr copyright law? we did not have copyright laws in US unti 1800s..

Re:Be carefull of Libertirians

[codepunk]

Legalizing drugs would be a good move, I cannot even begin to tell you how much money could be saved by doing so. I don't do drugs and never have but if others wish to do it than so be it.

Re:Be carefull of Libertirians

[T.E.D.]

I don't do drugs and never have but if others wish to do it than so be it.

So you never have drunk anything with alcohol or caffine, and have never taken an asprin or cold remedy? No laxitives? No perscription medication?

I think you meant illegal drugs. We live in a society where its tough to get through a week without taking any drugs whatsoever. So it really shouldn't suprise anyone that a lot of people end up abusing them. However, our biggest drug problems come not from the illegal ones, but from the legal ones. All the illegal drugs put together are just a drop in the bucket against the big 2 of alcohol and tobacco.

Re:Be carefull of Libertirians

[kcbrown]

Remember Libertirians wnat to roll back all judgment and law precedents on many laws and the constitiutin to late 1700s....

Considering that the Supreme Court decision in the late 1800s, in which they ruled that corporations have the same rights as individuals (sans the right to vote), was directly responsible for the vast majority of the corporate ills we are forced to deal with today, I'd say that rolling back to the late 1700s wouldn't be an entirely bad thing. There are certain amendments to the Constitution, like the abolition of slavery and women's right to vote, that should remain. But others, like the income tax amendment, should probably go.

Send Lawyers, guns, and money...

[epcraig]

OK, so send money, the lawyers will follow (one hopes the guns are superfluous).

But if you don't want this election to go as expected, send Ms. Grubb the money she needs to get her message out to the voters.

And if you do happen to live in the district, do remember to vote. (Hell, even if you live elsewhere, you too can probably find some candidates to vote for who weren't in Congress in 1998).

Breast feeding

[littleRedFriend]

From the weblog:

The first six months of life are the most critical for a developing child. It is during this time that all neural pathways are developed through the sense of touch. A baby's mind, body and trust is developed by being held and loved. This is why breast feeding is a major advantage to any child.

She might be a women, and even be cool, but she obviously doesn't know a lot about breast feeding. Of course touch and feeling is important for a child. However, maternal antibodies in the mothers milk do most of the good work. They give a child protection against inflammation and help build the immune system.

Now, of course, if you give your infants kool-aid, they may become /. readers.

Get an Interview, Slashdot !

[linzeal]

Put her in the chair, we need to see what she is made of.

Brand names

[Anonymous Coward]

How am I so damn sure? Because Jim Jones and the People's Temple did not drink Grape Kool-Aid, but cyanide laced Flavor-Aid, a cheap Kool-Aid rip off.

I'm not sure what this proves. If they'd suffocated themselves with generic-brand facial tissue, people would invariably say that they choked on Kleenex.

How else to determine whether u like a recording?

[yerricde]

if you don't like it - don't buy it

Before buying a record[1], how do you expect to know whether you will like a recording or not, except by sampling a few singles through file-sharing networks? I'm not claiming that this justifies abuse of P2P technology, but what other solution is there?

[1] USA copyright law defines "phonorecord" to refer to a slab of vinyl, a CD, or any other medium in which a sound recording has been fixed.

Question for Libertarians

[small_dick]

One of the libertarian ideas is selling the national park system to private parties.

Any estimates on what you folks figure America's park system is worth? Or is it just "for sale to the highest bidder"?

Re:Question for Libertarians

[kawika]

There are extremists in every group, so don't go there. Earth First, Greenpeace, John Ashcroft, slavery reparations, ...

The library analogy is flawed

[jesterzog]

Well to me personally the difference is that the library has temporarily transferred the rights of listening to the music to the borrower. It can be clearly defined that when one person or entity has paid for the use of the music, and only one person or entity is using that music at any given time.

Software companies, even Microsoft, used to state in their standard EULA's that you were allowed to make several copies of their software as long as it was only being used in one location at any time. These allowances (which imho should be declared as implicit anyway) have now dissapeared from the EULA's -- possibly because the companies believe it's too hard or inefficient for them to enforce. Instead "independent" organisations like the BSA, the MPAA and the RIAA have been formed by the corporate cartels to crack down on and frighten by legal threats anyone doing what the company decides it doesn't like, under the guise of IP law and in a way that they hope will never be decided on at a court that actually matters.

A peer-to-peer information sharing network doesn't naturally have this transferral of rights, because the information isn't moved. It's copied. Letting someone else use it doesn't prevent you from using it at the same time. If you look at a typical peer-to-peer music sharing network, this is exactly what happens. A few people buy something, and their versions of it are duplicated and shared many times between many thousands of people, all of whom are using it simultaneously and independently when often very few people have actually paid for it. Irrespective of how right or wrong anyone might believe it to be, this is nothing like how a library works.

Re:The library analogy is flawed

[mochan_s]

Music on P2P is not a tool or a utility. Once a person has used or listened to a CD a number of times or read a book, he or she is not going to keep doing that for the rest of the useful life of the CD or book, in contrast to software which you use over and over again. However, the people who buy books are one who have a collection or use it for more than just reading thru it once. I am suggesting maybe it could be the same with CDs, except that instead of a library we have P2P. Sometimes a library is out of a certain book and have to put the item on hold. It serves no use that something is not available to checkout in a library except that it is a physical constraint. Sure, music is being duplicated via P2P but maybe that isn't so bad. Maybe this is the next level of what a library should be like where there are no checked out items, just all available.

If it was software, then it is a valid point. That is why I think the only software that libraries have are ones that are multimedia discs like GRE exams that are not utilities but something that you use once or a finite number of times.

Re:The library analogy is flawed

[jesterzog]

Out of interest, would you object to not being able to play your music at the specific time that someone else is playing a duplicate that you authorised for them to borrow? (Obviously this assumes it were possible to track.)

nice..

[Dr. Awktagon]

Wow, I totally agree with her hollywood stance, and her views on children and giving parents opportunities to better raise them. I hope she fleshes out more details and issues in her campaign.

From what I saw on the weblog, she's young and enthusiastic and intelligent and has a lot of potential. I hope she has the power to learn and grow from her interactions with the people she meets on the internet. A lot of people will be willing to help out.

She definitely needs the ol' slashdot interview treatment eh? And I'd like to know where to send the campaign donation, because she's getting one from me. (But only after I hear more of what she has to say, of course.)

Go Grubb!

Grrr

[Nailer]

Grub for congress? Lilo works fine, damnit!

Bootloaders don't need shells, and they certainly don't need to run for congress, damnit!

About $10,000,000 per park is the going rate...

[tlambert]

Tthe going rate is about $10,000,000 per park.

That's what Bill Clinton charged the Phillipine coal producers in capmaign donations to lock up the single largest reserve of clean coal in the United States into a national park in Southern Utah, right before he shepparded legislation through congress requiring coal-fired power plants use cleaner coal.

-- Terry

Re:Libertarian ways

[charon_on_acheron]

No. Pacifists want all fighting to end, and will not engage in any violence themselves.

From what I see, the Libertarians want the US out of all other countries wars and governmental affairs, but would react with violence towards any invasion of the US.

Basically, Britain was run by pacifists while Hitler built his military, and 'annexed' a couple areas. But Britain attacked Germany after the invasion of Poland, and so was not pacifist anymore.

The Libertarians would have not attacked until they were attacked, much like the US declaring war after the Pearl Harbor attack.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:How else to determine whether u like a recordin

[charon_on_acheron]

Have you ever heard of:
Radio
MTV
VH1
CMT
friends who have a copy of the CD
concerts
commercials on TV for SamGoody
CowboyNeal Karaoke Night

Re:Stop the bot already!!!

[Equinox]

Better idea...if "goatse" is located in a submission...censor the post. I'm usually the last person for censorship, but this is rediculous. Besides, would you really want to read a post about some guys giant infected ass? Maybe then the idiots will get bored and leave and /. will be somewhat closer to what it used to be. I can dream...

Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That sounds great on paper. But in reality how are you going to enforce that payment for pollution damage with a small government with no teeth?

Guns, BIG GUNS

Small does not equal toothless, just better directed.

P2P networks should reject music from bad sources

[r6144]

I think popular P2P clients should ask the user to confirm three times if they want to download something from a bad source (like riaa), use language like "This song is from riaa. If you download it, you are supporting them by promoting their music, and giving them more reason to crank up laws to crush down this network, which will harm everyone including you. Please think thrice about your action".

Well, there are technical difficulties in identifing a song's source because many songs don't have the right tags, but I think it is an interesting idea.

I don't agree with you

[Sanity]

Firstly, even you use of the term "piracy" with respect to copying some bytes betrays our disagreement as I think it is rediculous to equate sharing mp3s with illegally boarding a ship, murdering the crew, raping and murdering the passengers, stealing their cargo, and sinking the ship when you are done.

Libertarian?

[Sanity]

You do us a disservice when you assume that anyone in the tech community which disagrees with the abuse and corruption of government by corporate interests must, of course, be a Libertarian.

A Viable Democratic Candidate

[Drew_Arrowood]

In North Carolina has come out against the DMCA, and is sympathetic to the cause. See Tripp Helms' website. He has been profiled by Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, and is ahead in the polls. He's been featured on Greplaw and John Perry Barlow has made information about him available by electronic listserv. If you are thinking about helping a candidate this election cycle, listen to some of the mp3's of Tripp speaking.

Copy protection racket

[epeus]

You start from the wrong premise.

The problem is not copying, the problem is paying the creators for their work.

Historically, some companies have tried to solve this problem using various techniques (publishing, advances, royalty payments, advertising-supported broadcasting, pledge drives). All of these are predicated on economies of scale for large runs, and high costs of entry for competitors.

When a new technology comes along that changes these economics, it is time to look fora new model to solve the underlying problem, not construct a technical and legislative framework to restore the old barriers.

Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish

[Kwil]

This only works so long as the company is in business.

Consider such things as shell corporations. Created and then destroyed strictly for the purpose of dumping pollutants from another company? By the time folks on the land realize "You know, my crops have all gone to shit.." the shell company is gone, and the actual polluting company can easily proclaim, "Goodness, no! We had no idea that's what Toxicorp was doing. We're as upset as you are, we paid for our waste to be disposed of properly, after all. You should sue them.. oh right.. they're gone. Hm. We really feel for your loss, but it's not our fault. We did what we were supposed to."

Libertarianism tends to assume perfect information, or at least, perfect honesty. Neither of which exist in the real world.

Re:Libertarian?

[shd99004]

I didn't assume she was a libertarian until I heard about her... and everyone said she was. Yes I agree she could be more laissez faire about a few things, I thought so too after I read the blog. But, that is also the only thing I've read from Grubb.

Who is libertarian and who is not? I myself am a liberal to the most part, but I'm probably moving towards libertarianism more and more. Question is if there's a complete and absolute definition on what libertarianism is? To me, some libertarians seem to be less libertarians and more liberal, and some of them seem to be anarchocapitalists. I am pretty sure that if you ask two libertarians whether we should have a central government or not, one might say "yes" while the others say "no". Then even those who are for a central government will very likely have different ideas as to how big it should be and what authorities it should have. And what about intellectual property laws? It seems to me that some libertarians want IP laws, others do not.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that libertarians aren't identical copies of each other and their views may differ. But that thing about 6 months maternal leave is clearly NOT for the government to decide.

now that is classic

[Trepidity]

A Libertarian named Carole Ann Rand.

only singles?

[yerricde]

Radio

1. I called several stations and tried to request some of the songs on the albums from which they regularly play songs, and the DJ said: "Sorry, we don't have those songs because they were not released as a single."[1]

2. The sound quality of radio is no indicator of the sound quality of the CD itself because of all the dynamic squeezing the engineers do to fit the sound within the limited dynamic range of FM radio. Many CDs sound like crap because they're mastered to sound louder than other CDs, not to sound better than other CDs.

MTV, VH1, CMT

For one thing, music videos are made only for singles, so we're back to the same problem as radio if an album has only one or two singles. For another, if I don't have the money to buy an album based on one song, how can I have the money for cable television?

friends who have a copy of the CD

Most of my friends live far away from me and often aren't willing to mail me their copy. Is this normal?

concerts

Should I be expected to be willing to drive 200 miles (320 km) to a venue where 1. the band is playing, and 2. no alcoholic beverages are served? Many bands play mostly at bars, and not all people in my exact situation are old enough to enter bars in their home jurisdiction.

commercials on TV for SamGoody

Again, the problem of only singles.

CowboyNeal Karaoke Night

Again, the problem of geographical distance.

[1] My favorite song (nine inch nails - into the void) on one of the albums I have bought on recommendation from one of the few friends who live near me (nine inch nails - the fragile) was not released as a single in the United States.

Re:only singles?

[charon_on_acheron]

It seems your best bet is to find more friends closer to you. ;^) Or have your distant friends electronically loan you their CDs. Then it isn't a matter of Napster/Morpheus/etc. (And to the common joe, Napster is still the only network sharing music.) Just you and a friend trading music to see if you like it.

I understand that the P2P networks let people find music they like that they can't hear any other way. But to say it is the 'only' option is being a little unrealistic. It may certainly be the quickest and simplest, but there are other ways.

And just for the record, I don't use any of the P2P networks, I have never downloaded an MP3 file, I have never ripped a song from one of my CDs, I haven't bought a CD in a year or two, and I think the recording industry is showing itself for the stupid greedy selfish bastards they are. If I ever find out they invaded my system on their assumption that I have copies of their music, which I don't, I would immediately bring a $50 million lawsuit against them.

more like scary....

[fantomas]

"...with great ideas and views"

Aren't you a wee bit nervous of a politician who makes statements like "The history of the Middle East is the history of oil".?

I am really worried about a politican who thinks history = 90 years. This feels so close to the views of the European 19th Century powers that believed that African history started when they colonised the continent. Don't forget the earliest cities in the world (Ur, Akkad..) are in Iraq, the birthplace of our civilisation; there is 5000 years of history there. The foundation of the USA started there...

Hmm, just because somebody can use a weblog doesn't mean they are all right.

Re:more like scary....

[CynicTheHedgehog]

I agree. Statements like that are somewhat shortsighted. Buf it you read between the lines you see, "I don't really know or care what the conflict over there is about, because it doesn't really concern me unless oil prices get out of hand," which is a typical American viewpoint. Granted, there are plenty of reasons for us to be over there, some of them justified and some of them not, but your average American doesn't give a shit. They want cheap gas and a sense of security, which is what they get by objectifying the conflict in the middle east.

Apparently she's more concerned with domestic policy, which, in my opinion, is what the legislative branch needs to concern itself with.

Re:Libertarian ways

[the-intersocialist]

No, libertrians are not pascifist. They call for pascifism from the side of the people and for violence from the side of the state. The libertarians are organised in parties set up to serve the interests of the ruling class, what i wanted to point out was meerely that the bloody libertarians doesnt give a damn about freedom of speach, except for when it interferes with the interests of the ruling class. She is carrying this demand as a means of getting publicity because she knows that it will not be implemented. As for wheather Lenin is evil or not, i dont belive that ther is a good and evil scale when it coms to these things. Some sacrifices has to be made, the ends justiy the means. See for example the French revolution or the American civil war. Was the 'yankees' "evil" because the killed confederates in order to abolish slavery? I think not, and i dont think that Lenin was evil because he called for a revolution against Kerensky's pupet regime that was sending the workers of Russia in to the gigantic slaughterfest known as the first world war.

Re:Libertarian ways

[the-intersocialist]

Examplify how the libertarians in the US wants all fighting to end. Are you mayble referring to the the Korean war, the Vietnam war or the global civil war branded as "the war of terrorism"? Well, i guess that exterminating all opponents is one way to finish all fightings. It is also quite interesting that you call a country that at this time has colonised and brutally supresses the whole India, pascifist. It seems a bit incoherent with your previous definition of pascifists, so please clarify your standpoint. I belive that state administered pascifism is hypocrisy (well, i belive that all pascifism is either hippocritical or incensecuential) as every state are founded on a violence monopoly, where the state alone has the sole right to exercise violence (in form of repression through police forces, armies, secret services etc).

Re:What does that prove?

[Gooba42]

What he's saying is that deregulation only gives more power to the people who already have it.
Do you actually propose that we produce legislation blocking such "shell corporations" from existing? Or do we expect the situation to magically disappear by shrinking the government?
Bottom line, youre implying that people should be free to dump toxins into the environment as long as they pay for the clean up. Which is all well and good for existing dump sites, but I would really prefer we didn't dump them to begin with and I think a lot of people would agree with this sentiment.
Likewise, it's the owner of the land who has to make them pay? What if the owner is the government? Probably don't want the government having land holdings, right? Everything should be sold to private interests to be developed into a modern, productive, urban environment worth gads of $$$?

Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish

[Andyrew2000]

>Markets are easily manipulated [by whom?]and the true idea of a completely free market will never happen [why not?].

Let me answer those implied questions. The only thing that can kill a free market is government medleing. The reason why a completely free market would be extremely difficult to acheive is because of ideologies that permit and encourage people to sacrafice (with physical force through government) other people's rights.

>If there were no regulation, our world would be an over-exploited toxic dump.

Also, the Great Depression nevery would have happened, prices would be lower on every product you can imagine, and the general prosperity of humanity would be immeasureably greater.

Re:A Vote For Grubb Is A Vofe For The First Amendm

[fantomas]

What's a vofe?

Re:Libertarian ways

[charon_on_acheron]

Many valid points, but I think that you have the wrong idea of what a "pacifist country" means. Even though England was ruling India with an iron fist, they felt they had the right, because England claimed it as a colony. It wasn't a foriegn nation in the 1930's, just a colony that they had to control.

Pacifism for a country means they wouldn't attack the devil himself, as long as he is at the head of a different country. Even if he is trying to take over the rest of the continent, pacifists want to talk peace. But at the same time, the pacifist country could be a totalitarian regime as well. Foriegn policy and internal policy to not need to coincide.

Of course, I am not a foreign affairs scholar, and my previous post was simply an example. If I am not using a standard definition of 'pacifism', so be it. This is how it seems to me.

Here's the link

[gentlewizard]

Your version may be correct; I've not read the book.

My source of info is The Word Spy, a fascinating site and one that's usually trustworthy with etymologies.

Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish

[DunbarTheInept]

But once you talk about supporting the idea of a government that is well-armed enough to enforce it's will on people, you are making a huge departure from the standard Libertarian Party line.

Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Not that I am aware of. Standard Libertarian Party Line has always put national defense as one of the few legitimate roles of government. If it takes a big military to do it, I don't see many Libertarians balking at that. Now, if it takes a big WASTEFUL military, that's another story.

Re:libertarianism is extremely foolish

[DunbarTheInept]

National defense is about conflicts with OTHER countries. That's something entirely different from policing within the country. It's the difference between a Navy SEALS special forces unit sneaking onto a beach and sabotaging an enemy radar station, versus a police SWAT team breaking down the door to someone's house looking for drugs.

The standard Libertarian line I've always heard is that if the government needs to use threat of overwhelming force to make people obey a law, then that law is not one the people actually want and it shouldn't exist.

And that's why I stated that this concept of making polluters pay an appropriate price reflecting the actual cost of the damage they cause will NEVER happen under a libertarian government. Making such costs work requires a number of practices that go against Libertarian dogma, one of which is forcing the market to incur a cost by artificial government rule that would not have been incurred otherwise. (While it might be true that there is a *real* cost associated with polluting, the marketplace left to it's own devices has failed to account for it. Based on past history, I have no reason to believe that it would happen unless the government forces it to happen.)

fair comment but scares the rest of us

[fantomas]

Fair comment Hedgehog, but this is the kind of USA politician which scares us in the rest of the world. We don't mind if they are your local mayors or town councillors and are in charge of the local park or keeping teenagers from becoming muggers but for goodness sake don't let them have any influence over international policy, which I believe would be one of this person's roles. So I do think it matters what her opinions on the rest of the world are.

Lazy thinking like this gets other people more directly affected rather twitchy, it really undermines any positive work other US politicians may be doing. We're all pretty shocked / bemused over here by Rumsfeld's comparison of Bush to Churchill. "Poorly read" and "lazy thinking" seems to be the general consensus.

We're just worried that such poorly educated people are in charge of the world's greatest military arsenal, what happens if they get a dumb idea in their heads?