Slashdot Mirror
Ron Paul's New Primary Goal Is "Internet Freedom"
Charliemopps writes "Ron and Rand Paul are shifting the central focus of their family's libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom. From the article: 'Kentucky senator Rand and his father Ron Paul, who has not yet formally conceded the Republican presidential nomination, will throw their weight behind a new online manifesto set to be released today by the Paul-founded Campaign for Liberty. The new push, Paul aides say, will in some ways displace what has been their movement's long-running top priority, shutting down the Federal Reserve Bank. The move is an attempt to stake a libertarian claim to a central public issue of the next decade, and to move from the esoteric terrain of high finance to the everyday world of cable modems and Facebook.' This seems like welcome news to me. Let's see if they can get more traction here than they did with the Fed."
Seems like Ron Paul's congressional record is about the same as a paperweight. The guy might have an interesting idea now and then (and a lot of nutjob ideas in between) but those ideas don't translate to anything real.
Given his failure as a representative, why should we pay attention to anything else he says?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Ron Paul is now our friend... for now.
they need to get a clue.
I made a contribution to one of Ron's 2008 "money bombs." From that simple action, I started getting spam from Ron, the Campaign for Liberty, the Rand Paul campaign, and state campaigns. All with "no one's listening" return addresses.
Somehow, this move reeks of opportunism - they have not shown any real understanding of Internet privacy, and certainly haven't "walked the walk."
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
But they still want to ban gay marriage and abortion, right? Just want to make sure we're talking about the same freedom-loving Libertarians, here.
Ron and Rand Paul are shifting the central focus of their family's libertarian crusade to a new cause: Internet Freedom.
Depends what you mean by freedom. According to this Ars Technica Article, he means the freedom of corporations to decide who gets to speak and what they get to say on the Internet.
This seems like welcome news to me.
I'd say that depends pretty heavily on whether you want citizens to be free to speak, or network providers to be free to generate revenue by restricting speech.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
no, that's not what the Pauls want. it's an example of the ``insidious" agenda of collectivists (page 1).
libertarians really can't get a hold on anything unless there's private property, even if it's established by fiat in the first place! their very idea of online freedom will depend on strong copyright and patent laws. to quote again (page 4), internet regulation will be acceptable if it ``protect[s] property rights," presumably even if the government has to define what is private property in the first place. don't even try going federalist with this, as any state which defects from enforcement will gain a ridiculous advantage and could be federally regulated under reasonable application of commerce laws.
any libertarian opposition to strong copyright and patent will be on the fringe of the fringe, although to be fair the Pauls want the regulation to be ``clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations."
my prediction would be that they will be for stronger patent and copyright enforcement, but hopefully with saner (shorter and more specific) terms.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
It seems this relates to regulation of US based provision of services based on the internet and wider ranging issues of US government of monitoring or censoring access to US residents.
To me, a non-US based reader, the dude *seems* like a scaremongering wacko ...
Their rhetoric even sounds like Ayn Rand's tirades in Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead and elsewhere. This is logical since Ayn Rand is their idolized ideological forebear.
Let private industry do whatever they want to the Internet. Smart people and the corporations they heroically work for have made the Internet what it is today. So let the Verizons, the Comcasts, the Cox's, the Rogers' and the Telus' of the world give priority routing of their ad-laden drivel over what some of the customers of these paragons of individualist virtue would like to do, which is to communicate, to learn and and to chose their entertainment from wherever it suits them.
And if our corporate overlords who provide us with their extravagant priced "pipes" wish for us to have no access outside their hallowed walls, what then? What choices do 99% of us have? Zip. Someone said the Pauls are our friends? Not in this lifetime!
It's becoming a creepy world where everyone's movements and activities are tracked and photographed on a moment-by-moment, yard-by-yard, page visit-by-page visit, transaction-by-transaction basis and permanently archived and sliced and diced by hundreds of machine intelligence frameworks for commercial, social, scientific, and political/governmental advantage.
This will change the evolutionary course of the human race in favor of people who relish living in front of the cameras 24x7x365. Think of the Kardashians, Donald Trump, etc.
This is true. For one reason or another (and I'm not sure what it was), he was Not Present at the SOPA vote.
The Pauls want "internet freedom" - which includes the opposite of net neutrality - so that they can better deploy it as a way to bring in new recruits to their cult. By giving more power to corporations (as they propose) it is easier for them to ensure that their message is heard over the messages that counter their own. They'll be able to pay ISPs and search engines to ensure that traffic searching for counter ideas or even related ideas always end up directing to their website instead.
Just remember, the main difference between a religion and a cult is in the number of adherents. Right now Ron Paul has a cult. A few thousand more worshippers and he has a church (with tax exempt status, of course!).
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
"Internet Freedom" sounds like a phrase designed to make being anti-Net Neutrality sounds good.
And no wonder: Verizon and AT&T are heavy contributors to Rand Paul's campaign.
Make no mistake: there's nothing "free" about the state-granted monopolies the wireless and cable industry have. Since they're monopolies, they ought to be regulated.
And if regulation is removed, you know that the telecom industry will be hitting up Google and Netflix for cash right away.
"Internet Freedom" means freedom for Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T to charge siteowners like Google and Amazon just because they feel like it.
"Internet Freedom" means every single thing you do on the Internet is going to cost more because Verizon and Comcast need to keep posting massive increases in profits.
"Internet Freedom" means freedom for the carriers to hold you hostage. ...and if you think that the 'free-market' will solve this, remember: bandwidth is scarce and already monopolized by the big carriers. You won't see landline competition either: the big carriers also have all the local governments locked up so there won't be any competition there. And you know that the Pauls won't be taking on the local governments so that there can be competition in the landline market.
As a non american, I am vaguely aware of US presidential candidates proposals. I here discover the idea to close the Federal Reserve.
Does he propose to create an alternative body for creating dollars? Or does he considers that only private banks should be able to create money? In the later case, what is his plan to save the economy once they will have bursted the next bubble?
"Internet collectivists are clever," the manifesto says, accusing their foes of series of Orwellian linguistic twists. "They are masters at hijacking the language of freedom and liberty to disingenuously pushfor more centralized control. 'Openness' means government control of privately owned infrastructure.'Net neutrality' means government acting as arbiter and enforcer of what it deems tobe 'neutral'."
The irony is that If he gets his way on this issue HE will be among the most likely to be stifled.
As Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a maroon!"
-- QED
We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here.
You can't be serious. This place is a hotbed of anti-free market sentiment, especially when it comes to protectionism. It's also nigh on impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion about something like science funding or healthcare without wading through a morass of snarky comments about the toxic fruit of capitalism. And besides that, the comment you're replying to, which is critical of Paul, is currently at +4. So, yeah.
We pay attention to ron paul on slashdot because he is the source of >90% of the political groupthink here.
What? Are YOU new here?
Hint: The political groupthink here is WAAAAAAY to the left of Dr. Paul.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
From reading the article, it sounds like the Pauls are more afraid of the government than corporations, which is a mistake IMHO. Eisenhower talked of the Military-Industrial complex. It's all slowly merging into one giant GovCorp, where the politicians and top corporate executives entrench themselves further and further, scratching each other's backs.
There's the concept of "Creative Destruction." The working classes are well acquainted with it. The problem is that where it's needed most, at the top of the political system and in financial sectors, it's almost completely prevented from occurring.
The Economist had an interesting article entitled "The question of extractive elites."
From that article: "In an extractive economy, such as the Belgian Congo and its successor state, Zaire, a narrow elite seizes power and uses its control of resources to prevent social change... Much of current economic policy seems to be driven by the need to prop up banks, whether it is record-low interest rates across the developed world or the recent provision of virtually unlimited liquidity by the once-staid European Central Bank. The long-term effects of these policies, which may be hard to reverse, are difficult to assess."
the comment you're replying to, which is critical of Paul, is currently at +4. So, yeah.
You're wrong on several things:
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Now, do you celebrate, or find a new Cause...?
the individual's?
or freedom like this?:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/07/04/1538201/verizon-claims-net-neutrality-violates-their-free-speech-rights
the problem the pauls and libertarian fundamentalists like them have is they are incredibly naive about what small government really means: a power vacuum that is filled by corporations. at least with our deeply flawed government, there is actually a pretense that it is supposed to stand for our individual freedoms, and some means of recourse
weaken our government, and you are left with monopolies and oligarchies who are happy to trample on our freedoms in the name of their "freedom", and no recourse whatsoever
oh yeah, you can take your business to a competitor, because without regulation the three dominant players aren't colluding and squashing all real competition
oh yeah, you can sue them in court. like you have 6 months and $100,000 and you lose anyway because they can just wear you down with their legion of lawyer goons
give it up, randroids
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Internet freedom by letting Comcast coagulate with the scum of the earth MPAA/media producers.
That means my internet will suck more, because I refuse to buy a fucking subscription to their shit ass channels. Fuck you Comcast, I just want my goddamn internet and I'm not a fucking pirate.
Anyone like me to dares to suggest that ron paul is not the second coming is generally moderated down quickly and severely.
This is not true. Moreover, everyone on Slashdot knows that if you begin your post with "I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but..." you will in fact get modded up.
This problem is endemic among charities. I maxed out to the Ron Paul campaign ($2500) and now get snail-mail stuff for Romney and even the W Bush library fund. Politics is slightly worse because disclosure requires too much information to be made public (IMO) with few-to-no limitations on sending garbage to my house via USPS (there are methods, but they are both annoying and ineffective possibly based on your local postmaster).
Politicians give themselves free postage and charities and non-profits get a special rate. I believe bulk deserves some discount, but not as much as they get (like paying $0.13 or so for something that might cost me a couple bucks to send).
Many a non-profit has lost my business because I'd rather not donate if they can't better control information and marketing.
Paultards are infamous for vote-rigging Digg/Reddit, flooding online polls, etc, anything to disguise the unpopularity of their movement. Give this story an hour & the pro-Paul modpoints will really be flooding in. See ya at -1.
He's a states-rightser who's masquerading as a libertarian, and he gets away with it because the things he says are anti-federal government.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Just because people disagree with you (and with the other people who unthinkingly agree with you) doesn't make them "groupthink". Spouting nonsense like "to the left" is groupthink. Calling him "Dr. Paul" when he's "Representative Paul" outside his cult is groupthink.
--
make install -not war
Its obvious from reading the comments on this story that a lot of you all think this means Ron Paul is in favor of a free and open internet, and has come out in favor of net neutrality. You all obviously don't know Ron Paul. For him, and his son, "internet freedom" means businesses on the internet are free to do as they please, capitalism rules, and net neutrality will die a quick death.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Very orthodox Jews, like Chhasidic Jews, are among the most highly authoritarian people on the planet. Women are property. Their cult leaders' claims of tradition and "what god really meant" are ironclad laws. Absolute conformity, whether in appearance or in dogma, is mandatory.
It's true that most American Jews are secular, mostly of the assimilated Reform sect, and prioritize justice and equality, social compassion. But Jews aren't any different from any other large(ish) group: they've got their assholes, including their institutional assholes.
--
make install -not war
Real internet freedom needs freedom not only from government interference, but also from corporate interference. And the latter requires strong competition based alternative forms of internet access. Since it is not economical to build up that much duplicate physical connectivity to customers, internet access services will need to be split between a shared physical infrastructure and independent core connectivity and associated access services (DHCP, RADIUS, DNS, and whatever else the chosen technology may need). This common shared infrastructure needs to be regulated by government and operated as a regulated monopoly with a mandate to provide service to all on a level and open playing field.
IMHO, Ron Paul would never agree to any part of the infrastructure to be regulated in any way. Competing companies would not overbuild on each other more than 2 or 3 because of the capital inefficiency. As a result, there would not be sufficient competition for a viable free and open internet.
Ron Paul would certainly reject a single vertical internet provider monopoly which would effectively entrench government interference. At least that much is good about his positions.
Only a hybrid solution can ever really work. See how electricity is delivered in Texas. One company (Oncor Energy Delivery) operates the infrastructure and delivers the electricity to the customers of many competing energy providers which customers choose from. Ron Paul is from Texas, so he should know about this.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Calling him "Dr. Paul" when he's "Representative Paul" outside his cult is groupthink.
Since when is it "groupthink" to refer to a man using the most prestigious of the titles he's earned?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
He has some good ideas, then there's of coarse the rest that are completely insane. Getting rid of the Federal Reserve is near the top of the list. Classic Republican lunacy. Deregulate and dismantle all safeguards because corporations always know best. Look at the history of deregulating. The SNL bailout was from deregulation as was the bank bailout. Net freedom is a good thing up to a point. Leave it in the hands of the corporations and the internet bad guys and the net will be a disaster. Sales taxing the internet is no solution and anything that is legal should be allowed. People can say it's hard to decide which laws should apply to the internet but most people would agree on the obvious ones. Banning kiddie porn, identity thief and scams should be obvious. Letting Congress decide is nuts because most of them are internet illiterate. Better to get together a group that represent all sides to try to find common ground. Either you compromise or one side lords over the rest and the rule making body is Congress so do you really want them deciding?
Considering the groupthink you claimed it's interesting the OP is at +3 insightful with 50% insightful, 30% underrated and 20% flamebait. You're groupthink perception may be biased.
Since when is it "groupthink" to refer to a man using the most prestigious of the titles he's earned?
Which is more prestigious? A title that hundreds of people have, maybe even thousands, in a several county area, or a title that only one person in that area has (and only 435 in the entire country)? A title that comes about because a panel of five to seven people say you've accomplished the prerequisites (for Ph.D doctors, the committee), or one that takes the votes of tens of thousands of people to achieve?
A title that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and the job being performed by that individual, or the title that goes with the job?
I know I'll get modded up for saying this, but I disagree.
ah crap!!! I did it wrong, didn't I.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
One needs to separate "marriage" as a private/religious institution from government reward of the same. The only legitimate interest, IMO, for government giving special privileges to those who marry (tax benefits, primarily) are related to preventing offspring from becoming wards of the state, something which doesn't apply to homosexual couples.
If you're going to take that line of thought, then "marriage" in that sense should be automatic between any couple who have children together, and excluded from anyone who doesn't yet have children. If marriage is to be about childrearing, then there should be (legally) no such thing as a childless marriage or a child out of wedlock. If you have a kid, you're "married"; if not, you're not. No contesting it.
Of course, there are other things involved in marriage besides the rights and responsibilities of children. Mutual rights in each others' property and lives (e.g. medical decisions in case of incapacitation). I can see a reason why people who aren't romantically or sexually involved at all might want to do something like that. Say you have two very straight guys who have no intention of ever settling down with one woman but plan to play the field their entire lives; but they are very close friends, have been housemates for years, etc, and want to buy a house together, file joint taxes on their mutual incomes and expenses, and have the other guy watch out for them if anything horrible should ever happen to them. Neither has any sexual or romantic interest in the other, and they each plan on having a different girl over every night, in their separate rooms, for the rest of their lives.
Why shouldn't they be able to make such financial and legal arrangements so resembling what we now call marriage? We don't have to call that marriage, call it a kind of incorporation, partnership, or union... a civil one, you might say. And let men and women in love with each other planning to raise a family get that exact same thing, and call it the exact same thing. And if those two guys want to make that arrangement, and are also having sex with each other, what difference does that make? What if more than two people want to live together and pool their lives and finances together -- whether or not any of them are having sex with each other -- what's wrong with letting them? And the slippery slope stops there, because children, dead people, goats, and furniture can't enter into contracts at all, and so there's no worry about anybody "marrying" any of those things if we replace marriage with a generic civil contract.
And then there's the social ceremony. This is legally meaningless, and should be the thing that gets the term "marriage". Let your favorite church, temple, mosque, coven, social club, or renaissance faire guild decide who they want to give what ceremony and recognize what title to, and let the law not give a shit about any of that. "Marriage" should be legally meaningless. Civil unions for everyone!
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Those who want gay marriage don't seem to want to settle for a legal status that doesn't include the term "marriage". Civil unions aren't good enough. Fixing bad civil union laws isn't good enough, even though they're trying to fix what they consider to be bad marriage laws, so they're trying to get laws changed either way.
If civil unions are good enough for gay couples, shouldn't they be good enough for straight couples too?
Get the government out of marriage entirely. Call it a civil union and forget about the sex of the people involved. Leave "marriage" to the churches, and give that no legal weight whatsoever.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I wonder how much Ron Paul even knows what it means, or is it just another digital age buzzword to stay relevant with the undergrads.
Don't worry, he knows precisely what it means: the death knell for net neutrality.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I`d rather be a doctor than a representative, regardless of how few or many can be of either.
Which, besides being bad for end users, in the long term would have prevented much of the private economy that today is revolving around the internet from taking off.
It's generally more prestigious to earn something than to win something.
You're wrong in a very fundamental way. Obama most certainly is proud of his accomplishments, as are most Democrats who voted for him. Among other things, he's dramatically changed the health care landscape for the better, he's helped to radically shift society's perception of homosexuality, and militarily he's kicked ass, accomplishing the destruction of the most hated person on earth since Adolph Hitler. Am I in love with everything the guy's done? No, but on the whole, I am extremely proud to proclaim that I supported him in 2008, and I am happily doing so again this year.
You seem to be buying Republican attempts to make him out as ineffectual. I know it's pretty difficult with right wing politicians, Fox News and a whole bunch of talking heads on the radio constantly spewing out lies and misrepresentations about his record and corporations who want the unfettered ability to run roughshod over our freedoms spending hundreds of millions, possibly even billions of dollars on 24x7x365 slick well-planned marketing campaigns designed to get the poor and middle class to vote against their own self-interest. It's clearly a case of the old adage of telling a lie enough until even the person telling it believes it's true.
But make no mistake, I am not supporting him because of any kind of "I'm not GWB" campaign. The fact is that he inherited a hell of a mess caused by eight years of bad policy, and he's done an amazing job turning things around. Most Democrats knew this well enough in 2009 that they really haven't needed to constantly remind everyone except when Republicans keep trotting out things like the massive job losses that the U.S. sustained in Obama's first year when we were still operating under Bush's economy. If Republicans would stop pitching these losses as Obama's fault before he even had a chance to enact any policies, we would stop reminding everyone why those numbers were so bad.
But yeah, it's most certainly not more of the same. Ask anyone who is getting mortgage relief now. Ask any gay member of the military. Ask anyone who had their insurance policy canceled during the Bush years because they had an incurable condition. Ask the brave members of SEAL Team Six. Ask any young immigrant who is here through no decision of their own but, until a couple of weeks ago, faced the threat of deportation to a country they've never known. Anyone who thinks that the past four years have been more of the same is either lying, stupid, or grossly not paying attention.
We still have HOPE and we've seen CHANGE. Backtracking on that now would be one of the dumbest things the American electorate could ever do.
Just because people disagree with you (and with the other people who unthinkingly agree with you) doesn't make them "groupthink". Spouting nonsense like "to the left" is groupthink. Calling him "Dr. Paul" when he's "Representative Paul" outside his cult is groupthink.
Why? I'm a Romney supporter and I'd call him Dr. Paul. After all, he's done far more as an ob-gyn doctor than he's ever done as a legislator. Even he'd probably tell you that.
I suspect that Americans have more respect for physicians than they have for Congress.
Child molestor has more prestige than politican these days.
Hint: The political groupthink here is WAAAAAAY to the left of Dr. Paul.
Hell, Ayn Rand is way to the left of Ron "Dr. No" Paul.
When he says "freedom", he really means it - as in freedom to oppress, freedom to fuck the individual, freedom to discriminate based on color and creed, freedom to do anything as long as it's not the government doing it. The government only exists to protect business interests, impose protectionist tariffs, and enforce christian morality.
Likewise with the "Internet Freedom" - in his view, the freedom isn't on the part of the user, but the freedom of carriers and monopoly/oligopoly ISPs to do what they want, including abusing their position to restrict the individual's freedoms and stifle competition.
Ron Paul's ideology is quite frankly scary. Thankfully, he's in no position to become president before he dies. Even his cadre of brown shirts can't get a majority to take him seriously.
Which is more prestigious? A title that hundreds of people have, maybe even thousands, in a several county area, or a title that only one person in that area has (and only 435 in the entire country)? A title that comes about because a panel of five to seven people say you've accomplished the prerequisites (for Ph.D doctors, the committee), or one that takes the votes of tens of thousands of people to achieve?
Given what those who hold the title of "Representative" have done to the title, I'm pretty sure a great many of us would agree that rarity =/= prestige, and go with "Doctor"
Why? I'm a Romney supporter and I'd call him Dr. Paul. After all, he's done far more as an ob-gyn doctor than he's ever done as a legislator. Even he'd probably tell you that.
I'd love to ask him "Dr. Paul, have you ever turned away a patient because she wanted an abortion?"
The Hippocratic oath is an oath/EM., not a guideline to be bent for superstitious beliefs.
I would prefer he focus on patent reform.
Max.
If the delegates at the RNC learn about Ron Paul's message, they can choose to vote their conscience and nominate him.
http://elektable.com/
In other words, a shameless attempt to jump on the bandwagon.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Since when is it "groupthink" to refer to a man using the most prestigious of the titles he's earned?
Which is more prestigious? A title that hundreds of people have, maybe even thousands, in a several county area, or a title that only one person in that area has (and only 435 in the entire country)? A title that comes about because a panel of five to seven people say you've accomplished the prerequisites (for Ph.D doctors, the committee), or one that takes the votes of tens of thousands of people to achieve?
A title that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and the job being performed by that individual, or the title that goes with the job?
No, how about a title that MOST people actually recognize and understand the weight and relevance of it, sans the sting of political crossfire.
A "Doctor" is viewed as someone who has shown dedication and intelligence to obtain that degree, via methods that "thousands" of voters can actually RELATE to.
A "Representative" is viewed as just another political asshole who might have bought that title with little or dedication or intelligence that hardly anyone can relate to.
His degree title does have relevance in that it conveys a fairly clear message as to his ability and accomplishments to the average layman, which constitutes the bulk of voters.
I mean, does the entire American society boils down to "RNC-DNC" ?
Don't you think America deserves much more than that?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Doctor implies that he helps people.
I can't correct it all right now...
I personally disagree with homosexuality, but even I can see the change has been occurring since long before Obama reached office.
There was a clear inflection point in polls though when Obama publicly stated his support for gay marriage.
Obama has had 3.5 years to do something and the unemployment rate has not only EXCEEDED the HIGHEST he said it would go, it has STAYED there for a long long time.
We've been doing doing about a million jobs a month better lately than the economy he took over in 2009. As economists know, spending is what pulls an economy out of a recession. You can clearly see when the stimulus worked in the unemployment numbers, but Congress blocked the jobs bill and has forced austerity, which is a drag on the economy.
How much voter fraud do we have in this country?
Almost none. Well, there was that O'Keefe guy. Got any others?
The Internet wouldn't even EXIST if the Ron/Randoms had been in power in the 1970's, and now they figure they have something useful to say about how it ought to work? I suppose their "Internet Freedom" must mean that they want us to be free of the Internet entirely...
I think Ron Pauls goal has consistently been to create a sustainable society. I don't believe he has an agenda outside of providing service to humanity.
My comment mentions Ron Paul and it's unmodded. So there you have it.
If this new "goal" of libertarianism applied to the internet means that huge corporations like Comcast can do whatever they want...including throttle bandwidth to customers, block/censor websites, block competing web services (ex: video on demand), and pay off politicians in order to pass laws in their favor (ex: Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal)...then I'm against it.
When Ron Paul says freedom, he does really mean it.
Freedom of an individual IS freedom of business, individuals run business.
To Ron Paul freedom literally means freedom from government oppression. The government cannot exist to protect business interests, the government exists to protect INDIVIDUAL interests and not group interests.
Business interests are not individual interests, and freedom requires that government does not discriminate by groups. Thus there can be no special interest that is business interest in government.
In Ron Paul's government the government cannot steal individual liberties from people and thus it cannot sell them to businesses.
Your comment is not just a Troll but also the hight of ignorance.
Calling people who support individual freedoms 'brown shirts' gives the final touch on your completely trollish comment, you are equating people who do not want government to run their lives with nazis.
What I find scary is /., because the popular moderation chose to prop up your comment to Insightful
I would NOT mind your comment at +5 Crazy Fucking Nazi Troll, but Insightfull it is not.
You can't handle the truth.
Let me play the devil's advocate with you about access to rights of way. The way I understand it, the municipality owns the rights of way, and anyone who has a cable they want to run must get their permission and follow their rules. Public roadways work the same: the municipality controls them, but anyone can use them provided they get permission (in the form of licenses, inspections, etc.) and follow the rules.
No one, however, expects that automobile drivers have to act in the public interest because they use public roadways. It's their car, they own it, they control it. How is that not like a cable operator who runs a line down Main Street?
Granted, not everyone has the funds to be a cable operator, but then not everyone can afford a car either.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
The Hippocratic oath is an oath/EM., not a guideline to be bent for superstitious beliefs.
Yes, but in that case you are asking a doctor to do harm to what some feel is life. "Do no harm" is then applied with precedent (Do no harm to the mother first, then no harm to the baby). That is the both moral and ethical issue surrounding abortion so your point is weak.
Doctors certainly face this type of issue many times in their careers, not just with a pregnant mother, but with choices on who to save first. It is not a black and white oath when looked upon in that context.
If Dr. Paul turned away a mother for a routine abortion it could be viewed as his "superstitious beliefs" trumping his oath, or it could be viewed as his belief that he is doing harm to an unwitting life versus a mother who is otherwise in good health. Hmmmm, then he is following his oath. The SC legalized abortion, it did not compel doctors to perform them.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Ron Paul for Internet Freedom.
It's like having Elmer Fudd as spokesperson for the second amendment.
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
*Keep in mind this surely means libertarian freedom, as in minimal regulation regardless of what that regulation is (i.e. no net neutrality) and ISPs' strong property and free speech rights on the "internets they own." No thanks, keep it.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
a statist (one who believes in the system)
You are redefining terms IMHO. My view is that a statist is a derogatory term for someone who for whatever reason strives or believes in stronger, more powerful government either directly or as a fairly obvious consequence of their other aims.
What Ron and Rand Paul call freedom may not be what you call freedom. Foe example they oppose government regulations that requirenet neutrality.
Sorry, but I also disagree with you. There is small but vocal group of libertarians on Slashdot and an overlapping vocal group of Ron Paul supporters but I'm convinced from observation that they are both small minorities. They are, perhaps, larger in comparison to what you would find on other sites with different demographics but Ron Paul supporters are a definitely a minority of Slashdot posters.
The pro-Ron Paul group's voice is magnified because they tend toward boorish krankerism which means they never shut up about their dear leader, but you should be careful to not confuse a small but loud group with a large group.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
>Freedom of an individual IS freedom of business, individuals run business.
But individuals have conscience and free choice. They cannot be actively PREVENTED from doing good (or at least avoiding harm) by a law that REQUIRES them to put profit above all other considerations.
In other words, individuals may run businesses, but busineses don't BEHAVE like individuals do. More-over there is a natural constraint to the power and money an individual can achieve - because individuals die. Businesses don't die, they live as long as it's possible to make profit (often far longer than humans do) which skews the balance a lot, and frequently their future paths will be in direct contradiction to their founding principles. Compare Henry Ford's attitude to wage calculations with that of the Ford Corporation today.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
what is the point you are trying to bring across? Ron Paul is not for government giving special privileges to businesses, he is not for government giving special privileges to individuals either, he is against government stealing freedom from individuals and against government selling power also.
So what's your point?
You can't handle the truth.
My point is that calling businesses the same individuals is stupid. Even for a one-man business it's a logical fallacy as it allows people to double-dip their rights.
I have civil right X as me, and AGAIN as my business.
My point is that because businesses don't behave like people and are not constrained like people they cannot have equal rights to people - the only way to get a level playing field is to counter-act their power by reducing their rights.
Businesses ought to have LESS rights than private individuals - that's what the government is for, to protect the rights of private citizens from all that threaten it - be it foreign invaders or private companies.
One of those rights is equal access to markets, which cannot EXIST unless corporate power is regulated because in the absence of regulation corporate power can and WILL be used to prevent market-access for competitors, especially smaller and newer competitors.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Part of me just can't let some of these claims you're making rest, without some sort of rebuttal.
Sure, I agree that Obama is proud of what he's accomplished (or tried to accomplish, depending on the situation). But at the same time, these accomplishments are being questioned by nearly half of the American people, according to most polls. These certainly aren't "clear win" items where the vast majority agrees it moves America forward!
The military situation is a prime example! We're STILL at war, though most people can't really tell you anything concrete that we've accomplished so far. All we seem to hear is more of the same propaganda about "Helping keep us free from the terrorists!" (Those who read Orwell's 1984 or watched the movie "Brazil" will recognize this tactic immediately for what it is.) What I *do* know is, we've sent more American citizens home in body bags or with missing limbs or at least with post-traumatic stress disorder than we've had so much as remotely THREATENED by the terrorists. Never-mind the COST of the war, which puts our nation many billions of dollars further in debt, at a time when we can ill afford it. Obama insinuated that if he was elected in '08, he'd bring the troops home and put and end to what W started. For anyone who voted for him expecting that to happen (you know, maybe as part of that whole "hope and change" thing he went on about?), it was a total FAIL!
You want another example of Obama's good intentions not producing real results? Take his energy policies.... In his zealousness to promote all things "Green", we've watched company after company take government funds to the tune of millions of dollars, produce none of the products they promised, and turn around and file for bankruptcy. He managed to shutter the last U.S. based company producing incandescent light-bulbs too, while convincing the public to switch mostly to CFL's -- exclusively foreign-made lights with inferior lighting properties and containing hazardous mercury inside. And that's progress??
And right now, this whole "gay rights" thing sure is getting a lot of attention, but IMO - that's such a side issue. Obama's wishy-washy responses throughout his presidency on gay marriage were nothing to praise the man about anyway.
Let me be clear... I don't consider myself a Republican at all. I'm very much independent. But an honest, unbiased analysis of things leads me to conclude that wherher we have Romney as our next president OR Obama for another 4 years, we're in trouble as a nation. Obama couldn't end a senseless war he inherited in *4* years, and Romney is already talking about spending much MORE on military buildup if he's elected. War-mongers, the whole lot.
When he says "freedom", he really means it - as in freedom to oppress, freedom to fuck the individual, freedom to discriminate based on color and creed, freedom to do anything as long as it's not the government doing it
He is a little crazy, and I dont know that I would ever vote for him, but as with most things there is a kernel of truth there. See, those individual "freedoms" you mentioned only cause a little evil; whereas the government has almost unlimited potential for evil by "fixing" problems. See, for instance, China's forced late-term abortions-- designed to "fix" the country's population problem.
again, again, again, this here is about Ron Paul, the fucking OP says: Ron Paul is a fascist (that's his argument, read his comment).
Ron Paul is the guy who does NOT want government to give any specific privileges to businesses, he is the guy who does not want the government to steal any rights from people and sell those to other people (or businesses).
There is NOTHING that Ron Paul stands for that would provide businesses with anything from government.
Everything Ron Paul stands for is about making sure that the individuals have their rights and that government cannot steal these rights and sell them.
Where do you get this idea that Ron Paul would give any specific privileges to businesses? I don't understand what you are talking about.
You can't handle the truth.
Darn that bastard that modded me up! Now the whole esthetic of just the right post inserted exactly on the right spot on the internet, is ruined!
the comment you're replying to, which is critical of Paul, is currently at +4. So, yeah.
You're wrong on several things:
And now it gone from negative to +4 and yours is +2. That doesn't mean your comment or his comment was wrong, only that the scores change as people score them.
You're wrong on several things: The comment is at +3, not +4 My comment which you replied to was pushed down to -1 before you even replied The parent comment was only questioning ron pauls effectiveness as a legislator - it said nothing about the validity of his ideas
The comment is now at +5
Your original comment is at +3
Slashdot is ruled by statists whose every solution involves "more government, and at the highest level"
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
He wants to leave it open for corporate take over.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
>Ron Paul is the guy who does NOT want government to give any specific privileges to businesses, he is the guy who does not want the government to steal any rights from people and sell those to other people (or businesses).
Wow, you are stupid. I specifically said that not giving business less right IS to sell them our freedom. Ron Paul doesn't want to RESTRICT businesses EITHER.
If he doesn't actively SUPPORT regulation to RESTRICT business, then he ALREADY sold us out.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Let me play the devil's advocate with you about access to rights of way.
Always a healthy thing. Thanks.
The way I understand it, the municipality owns the rights of way, and anyone who has a cable they want to run must get their permission and follow their rules.
That sounds pretty close to me, though I think some rights of way have federal involvement? Not sure, but I'm thinking interstate highways, interstate pipelines, etc. Not important in our discussion, though.
Public roadways work the same: the municipality controls them, but anyone can use them provided they get permission (in the form of licenses, inspections, etc.) and follow the rules.
Not exactly the same -- cars are more like packets. Roads are more like cables. It isn't necessary to make the distinction at the broad level we are discussing (see next section), but an extra factor with roads, cables, and spectrum is that there's only enough room for a very small number of them (at least relative to packets or cars). This means there is usually a small-order n-opoly in communications, for cost efficiency's sake. Likewise in roadways (see Manhattan bridges and tunnels). In some cases there is even an extra artificial monopoly granted to the network provider, regardless of whether space is available for more cabling.
No one, however, expects that automobile drivers have to act in the public interest because they use public roadways.
They pay society cash for their licenses, and must act in the public interest in a number of ways: They must not drive while intoxicated, they must keep their emissions system properly maintained, they must give way to emergency vehicles, and they must obey traffic laws which are designed in the public interest of maximizing the safe flow of traffic.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
No, you are stupid. Businesses do NOT have rights, only individuals do. What can I say, you don't understand what rights are.
As to restricting businesses in any way - this does mean restricting individual rights of people to do business, that's all it means. A corporation for example is fiction, it is a front, the people behind it drive the business, business doesn't drive itself. You are talking about restricting individual rights, but you call me stupid. What a let down.
You can't handle the truth.
Ok, so it officially isn't intended to be derogatory (though I don't buy the Wikipedia claim that it is merely the negation of a fringe belief, anarchy). You still are wrong, by the definition cited in your link. It's not someone who "believes in the system", but someone who believes in a fairly high level of control by a government.
those ideas don't translate to anything real.
A full audit of the Fed just passed out of committee unanimously. When he wrote the book "End the Fed" in 2008, he was the lone voice in the Congress even showing an interest in the subject. He's spent the past four years building support for it (Bernie Sanders, of all people, is his key ally in the Senate), and if it happens it will cause the single largest power shift in the USG is the past century.
But, go ahead and measure success based on bills brought forward if that's what keeps your narrative comfortable.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
This place is a hotbed of anti-free market sentiment
No, it's not. It's a hotbed of sane, rational regulation, which is necessary for a free market to actually work. No one here is advocating state control of all industry, like you seem to think.
When Ron Paul says freedom, he does really mean it.
No, he doesn't. Ron Paul is for the "freedom" of an ISP to fuck with your traffic however they see fit. That is not freedom in any sense of the word, unless you believe someone has the "freedom to oppress".
To Ron Paul freedom literally means freedom from government oppression
Because him and most of his followers are too stupid to realize that the private sector can oppress you just as easily. In fact, following their rhetoric, they can do it much more efficiently.
Freedom of an individual IS freedom of business, individuals run business.
No. A business is NOT a person, and should not have anywhere near the rights of one. That individual can still express their freedoms as an individual. Why should they be given double rights?
In Ron Paul's government the government cannot steal individual liberties from people and thus it cannot sell them to businesses.
And in Ron Paul's government, they don't have to, because the business will be free to do that on their own.
Calling people who support individual freedoms
Ron Paul doesn't support this. He supports corporate freedoms. Huge fucking difference.
Except it won't. One of the things they want to do is remove Government regulation from the Carriers and let them set terms and usage based on the "free market". In my area (SE Va) you can get Verizon or Cox cable. There is no competition and lacking any regulation we would be pretty much screwed. The concept of "Net Neutrality" where you can get what you want from whom you want would be out the door and gone. Because there is virtually no viable alternative you would be helpless in the face of your Carrier. But I'm sure they would do the right thing, that's how the "invisible hand' works isn't it?
Here on Slashdot many of us have been championing Internet freedom for years, except that we call it net neutrality. Oh wait; Ron Paul is AGAINST net neutrality regulation. Labeling this pig as the opposite of what it really is doesn't change the fact that it's a pig.
IMO: Ron "Mr Constitution" Paul has very little interest protecting the mass of the U.S. citizenry from government "tyranny." Although Paul has spoken in favor of the Constitutional right of Jury Nullification, the last I looked, his campaign web site fails to mention the issue. A little over a month ago they added some very minor rights for trial lawyers. When I first searched the site for the words 'trial' and "jury," they where not found!
Thomas Jefferson felt the subject was more important. Quote: "I consider...[trial by jury] as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.. [1789 in correspondence to Thomas Paine]
I'd be for jury nullification if - and this is IMO important - the prosecutors and defendants lose the ability to dismiss jurors they don't like, and the concept of a hung jury ceases.
This is 2012; it should be possible to pick random peers. In state cases, from the whole state - in federal cases, from the whole federation. If anything, I'd like to see the jurors being unaware of who the other jurors are, to avoid bias and peer pressure.
So yes, if seven out of twelve random jurors decide to dismiss a case with prejudice, they should be allowed to do so. But cherry-picked jurors who have to all agree? That's stacking the odds and moving the power from the people into the hand of judges and lawyers.
... Ron "Dr. No" Paul.
When he says "freedom", he really means it - as in freedom to oppress, freedom to fuck the individual, freedom to discriminate based on color and creed...
Nice Straw Man.
In the future, please consider criticizing what he has actually said and written, instead of using words put in his mouth by people who hate him.
Thanks in advance.
In times of universal deceit, telling the truth gets you modded -1 Troll
Paul is just another in a long line of elected officials who do not understand "The Internet". I use that term to encompass all of the issues and technologies that surround it and make it go.That's a lot of stuff to understand. Used to be that we appointed experts to advise the policy makers on such things so that they had at least some hope of getting it right and that the interests of the people whom they (the policy makers) represented were looked after. Now, we appoint "industry experts", which is the polite term for "paid lackey" to advise the policy makers so that they can see to the interests of the industry. "Fuck 'the people'. They don't write the checks." Paul has clearly been taking his "advice" from this lot. Still, I would almost be inclined to go with a completely hands-off approach when it comes to government meddling in defining how we use the Internet. Almost. Sadly, the telecommunication industry, who effectively owns and runs the Internet in the U.S. has pretty sorry history of looking out for our rights, much less our interests as consumers. Every single major telco save one (QWest) happily held the chair whilst our rights were then bent over it and given a good ass-ramming. That's called fascism and I'll have part of it, thank you. And the Paul's can shove it.
Creating a system that forces people to buy things (Obamacare) is unconstitutional
The conservative Supreme Court disagrees. Your slippery slope is not slippery and not a slope. And health care does make for a better life.
greedy people seeking to milk the system
Insurance companies? Unnecessary middlemen.
people from countries with socialized medicine come to the USA for treatment
Nobody I've heard disagrees that the U.S. has some of the best care that money can buy. The disagreement is regarding those that can't afford quality care.
Sure, Obama gets credit for saying, "Make it so," but ANY president would have said that.
Except that other potential presidents said they would not have said that, and criticized Obama for his stance.
As for mortgage relief ...
Did you read anything about the excesses and dirty tricks in the mortgage industry? And you still don't want any regulation? I do agree that the mortgage relief was not enough to make much of a difference.
As for people having insurance canceled...
Wendell Potter, former VP of Cigna says it happens. But even if it didn't happen, why fight against the provision barring that practice? What's the harm in it?
I would be livid to put it mildly
You would be livid at someone brought here as a child, who knows no other country? Seems rather extreme.
(1) raising the debt
Who's the last one who didn't?
(2) increasing racial tension
IOW, why is he so provocatively black?
Zimmerman...let alone presented in court?
I don't know what you wanted Obama to say, but the general outrage around the case was mostly that there wasn't going to be any facts presented in court.
(3) adding mountains of legalese to the U.S. Code
A single payer system would have been much simpler, so I agree with that.
If someone wanted to collapse a government
That's some serious paranoia.
My view is that a statist is a derogatory term...
Your view is worthless when it comes to defining words. Here's what the dictionary says:
Wikipedia:
There's absolutely no point in arguing about definitions when there are dictionaries and encyclopedias.
Free Martian Whores!
This matches my observations as well.
Some anarchists use the term statist in a derogatory sense.
It's more than "some anarchists".
Maybe you should read the 13th amendment of the constitution sometime. It's illegal in the US, period.
Why? I'm a Romney supporter and I'd call him Dr. Paul. After all, he's done far more as an ob-gyn doctor than he's ever done as a legislator. Even he'd probably tell you that.
I'd love to ask him "Dr. Paul, have you ever turned away a patient because she wanted an abortion?"
The Hippocratic oath is an oath/EM., not a guideline to be bent for superstitious beliefs.
You're seriously talking about superstitious beliefs, but implicitly accepting the notion that a child doesn't become human until she passes through the birth canal? Your position is actually more superstitious than what Christians believe, which at least specifies a distinct biological process.
Seriously, explain to me, scientifically, at what point abortion becomes infanticide. If a foot is still in the birth canal, is that still an abortion? Once the child is fully born, can you use something like the "three-second" rule to kill it? Maybe if you change your mind, you could stuff it back in there and it'd be cool? If the mother delivers prematurely, do you get up until the 9 months? How about children born through Caesarian, can they be killed at any point because they were never technically born of woman, kinda like how Macduff was able to kill Macbeth?
His degree title does have relevance in that it conveys a fairly clear message as to his ability and accomplishments to the average layman, which constitutes the bulk of voters.
Yes, his MD conveys the information that he's been qualified to be a physician, which says nothing about his abilities to be a member of the House of Representatives. I've had many doctors in my life, and not a single one of them would I consider qualified to be a politician. The closest was a DDS who was on the community college board, which he was marginal at.
Considering the amount of time he's had to spend, or should have spent doing lawmaker work, his MD title is not even a good indicator of how good a doctor he is now.
As for the other comment about earning vs. winning: silly boy, everyone knows that politicians buy votes with advertising dollars.
Yup, just like that SOPA bill he was against. It's a good thing he empowered the corporations by shooting that down.
And the opposing ideology is for the "freedom" of the government to fuck with your traffic however they see fit. That is not freedom in any sense of the word, unless you believe someone has the "freedom to oppress".
Because you and most of your followers are too stupid to realize that the public sector can oppress you just as easily. In fact, following your rhetoric, they can do it much more efficiently.
Could you explain the difference between abuse cases? (other than the government having WAY more dogs/weapons/money/power at their disposal to have their way). Or do you believe the government really does care about you? You do? Aww, how adorable.
Which is more prestigious?
How many congresscritters do you believe could have made it through Duke medical school? Most of those people can't even count.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
batshit insane ass clown
How clever of you to offer up such an insightful criticism of his policy objectives.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You're seriously talking about superstitious beliefs, but implicitly accepting the notion that a child doesn't become human until she passes through the birth canal? Your position is actually more superstitious than what Christians believe, which at least specifies a distinct biological process.
Strawman argumentation. You ascribe me views I have never stated.
My point, which I think went whoosh over the head of many because they feel strongly about abortion, was that a doctor can't refuse to see a woman who wants an abortion, even if their conscience won't let them perform the abortion.
As for when a human being becomes a human being? I'd think having a self identity should be part of that judgment call. A being who doesn't think of itself as "me" I can't think of as human, no matter what it looks like. We can make robots that look pretty convincing, but they aren't humans (yet). And if I chop off a finger, it isn't a human being either, despite what genes it may have.
But let me reverse the question - when, logically, does an embryo become more than a parasite with a potential to either become a human or kill its host?
Oh look, I made them mad. Hee hee.
You are welcome on my lawn.
First of all, I really appreciate the effort you put into your reply. That may be one of the most intelligent responses I've ever gotten on a message board when having this sort of debate/discussion!
You probably noticed that in my criticism of Obama's presidency, I didn't even touch on the healthcare issue. That's because to a large extent, I agree with you. It's a topic charged with so much political mud-slinging, it's hard to step back from the mess and try to sort it all out rationally. As you say, it's largely a plan proposed by the Republicans (and specifically, by the guy now trying to challenge the plan as presidential contender!).
I guess my biggest problems with it as it now stands are as follows though:
1. Yes, the mandate portion is a problem (and I don't really care WHICH party came up with it first). I really believe almost all of the other big changes/points people like about the whole plan could have remained in place if the Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate part unconstitutional. In fact, insurance companies were ALREADY voluntarily agreeing to insure kids through age 26, no matter WHAT happened with the healthcare law, because it proved to be so popular with customers. By giving the individual mandate a green light, they created this "it's a tax, but no, it's not really a TAX you see" double-speak. I really do get the dilemma the Justices faced with this one. (How can you say Federal govt. doesn't have the legal power to mandate you pay for your healthcare insurance, when you've already decided it's ok to do so for Medicare, by way of a mandatory payroll deduction from each paycheck?) But maybe that just means we needed to dig a little deeper, and start questioning the way that whole system works? IMO, the Medicare and social security system is severely broken too -- and constitutes part of what needs addressing to truly fix the nation's healthcare problems.
2. The healthcare act is an absolutely HUGE piece of legislation, and it's really not a fair explanation of what it does to simply list off the 5 or 6 "bullet points" people like to hear about what it claims to change. There are certainly other "devils in the details" of that multi-hundred page law that we've not yet even begun to realize. Off the top of my head, I can think of one potential issue right away. Many of our hospitals are essentially owned or partnered up with the Catholic church -- a group strongly opposing the idea of paying for health insurance giving its employees free birth control. As a former Catholic myself (born and raised a Catholic but decided to reject it as an adult), I'm just as likely as a lot of other people to laugh it off and say, "Pppftt.... Time they get out of the dark ages anyway, isn't it?" But at the same time, I realize this is still a serious issue for these people. Government is directly interfering with their religious beliefs, and if some kind of exception isn't made? I could easily see the Church deciding they can no longer support these hospitals and medical facilities -- which means a big loss for everyone.
3. I've always thought a big, and necessary part of healthcare reform comes by way of addressing medical malpractice lawsuits -- and Obama seemed afraid to so much as touch any of that. That's actually one area where I'm not surprised the Republicans wouldn't tread, but you'd hope a Democrat might be more likely to go there. I know a number of doctors who have to pay so much for malpractice insurance, it results in adding at least 1/3rd. to the prices they'd otherwise charge their patients. That wouldn't have to be the case if it was regulated on both sides of the fence -- meaning caps on what insurers could charge a doctor (especially one with no prior claims) AND caps on awards possible to award in court cases. IMO, we all know that medicine offers us no guarantees. Almost all of it involves various levels of risk -- and eventually, some people will wind up with the short end of the stick. I don't think it really makes sense to raise the costs of healthcare
You make Romney sound quite appealing: a candidate who isn't trying to reshape American society or the world, who doesn't have a grand economic plan, and who isn't trying to fix everybody's little booboos with photogenic, costly and ineffective government programs.
But let me reverse the question - when, logically, does an embryo become more than a parasite with a potential to either become a human or kill its host?
Ok, logically an embryo is never a parasite because it is not a different species than the "host". Check your dictionary if you object to me using the correct definition of "parasite".
I know, I know, that's just semantics, blah blah blah, etc. When arguing logically, the correct meaning of words is irrelevant.
Should I question you on why you feel the need to use deceptive arguments (since you certainly must know what a parasite is and that an embryo is not one) or just refer to you as Humpty Dumpty from now on?
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Ok, logically an embryo is never a parasite because it is not a different species than the "host". Check your dictionary if you object to me using the correct definition of "parasite".
Your reading comprehension appears to be low, because again, you jump to conclusions based on what you think someone meant, not what was actually written.
I never said "an embryo is a parasite". The phrase "more than" implies equivalence, not identity. Check a dictionary if you object to my (not "me") using the correct definition of "more".
I also think you need to read Lewis Carroll again, because the way you are reading, you must have missed a lot of nuances, which is a large part of his works. Your (frequent and trite) reference to Humpty Dumpty also reinforces my suspicion that you have a real problem comprehending what you read. It's not, as you seem to think, Humpty Dumpty in retrospect changing the definition of his word to fit what he said because he's defensive. It's an absurdity, which Carroll's works are littered with, and not an example of someone doing something wrong. If that's what you read the Humpty Dumpty conflict as, Carroll's tale went whoosh over your head.
Oh, and you didn't answer the question either.
Your reading comprehension appears to be low, because again, you jump to conclusions based on what you think someone meant, not what was actually written.
I do that AGAIN do I? Since my post that you are replying to is the only other post I've made on this story, I'd like you to explain your use of the word "again" for those of us with impaired reading comprehension. I always thought that to do something again, you must have previously done it at least one other time. Educate me, please!
When you say something has become more than something else there is a direct implication that it was previously less than or equal to that thing. I checked dictionary.com for "more" and neither equivalence nor identity were on the page anywhere. Offspring is not equivalent to parasite, except in the case that you want to kill the offspring and are seeking a term with negative connotations to justify yourself.
Check a dictionary if you object to my (not "me") using the correct definition of "more".
You apparently aren't superior enough at grammar to be a grammar nazi, so let's just leave it at that, shall we.
As for the reference to Humpty Dumpty, both my understanding of it and use of it are fine. I wasn't doing a book review or exegesis, I was mocking you. You seem to be upset but I won't be walking on eggshells for you, Humpty.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
When you say something has become more than something else there is a direct implication that it was previously less than or equal to that thing.
Yes, but not that it was that thing. Which is what you must have read because you tried to ridicule it.
Only government can obtain actual monopoly. Corporations can have dominant position (usually temporarily) and make it difficult for new entrants, but they CANNOT block entry. Only government has true monopoly power.
If there is respect for private property then there is free speech online. You can host your own server or rent space. You can host your video on a competitor's website if the big and evil corporations don't want to help you. You can even create your own protocol and means of diffusing information.
Corporations may have some competitive advantages, but they don't have power to stop you. In return they should not be forced to abide to your wishes.
From your comment I sense that you recognize the evil of corporation and government symbiosis. Your error is to blame corporations over government. Government, unlike the rest of civil society, has unique powers (monopoly on taxation and legislation, all backed by guns). Such power is uncivil and harms society. Such power cannot be controlled and used for good, it is corrupt. The end (well-intentioned goals) don't justify the means (force and disrespect of individuals).
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
What evidence do you bring to support your claim?
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
Nevertheless you haven't demonstrated any equivalence between embryos and parasites. Is there a scientific journal that regards them as equivalent? I doubt you can find one reference to the equivalence of parasites and embryos that isn't part of pro-abortion propaganda. The difference between fertilization and infestation is such that I do not regard them as even close to equivalent.
Clearly an embryo is human if it is a human embryo. The real question is when will we give legal protection to that human. Society decides it is ok to kill humans for a variety of reasons so we shouldn't need to pretend they aren't human if it is ethical to do so. If a person takes a gun and commits a robbery, at that point (in countries with decent self-defense laws) they have lost their right to life in that you may kill them during the robbery if you are able to do so. If you don't kill them and they get away, leave the gun at home and go out, nobody can just kill them, their right to life is restored. At no point do we declare them to be legally non-human.
So what I'm trying to say is that humans are human from conception until death. The right to life is variable depending on circumstance. You can be completely innocent and the government decides it is ok to kill you, for example if you are standing next to someone on the president's hit list. So if you think it is ok to kill an embryo, don't pretend they aren't human, just give your reasons. Lots of people support euthanasia, we don't have to pretend old people aren't human to justify it.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Every single thing you said is insane. Short term: you need medication. Longer term: therapy. Alternately: straitjacket.
Really. The only surprise in your post was that when you said "helicopters" you didn't start raving about some kind of aliens, too.
--
make install -not war
The document is loaded with contradictions and seems to call for more Internet regulation, according to their "7 questions" list.
#1 Is this a core function of the federal government?
#2 Does it execute Constitutionally defined duties?
#3 Does it protect Constitutionally defined rights?
#4 Does it protect property rights?
#5 Does it protect individual rights?
#6 If the federal government does not do this, will others?
#7 Will this policy or regulation allow the market to decide outcomes or will it distort the market for political ends?
#8 Is this policy or regulation clear and specific, with defined metrics and limitations?
In addition, he seems to be hinting at trying to ban voluntary use of copyleft, permissive licensing, and banning public domain status as much as he possibly can. He is calling voluntary contracts like GPL and CC "collectivism" which according to every libertarian figure is the exactopposite of collectivism.
Why regulate the Internet at all?
That should be the only question:
#1 Will it regulate the Internet?
I am extremely disappointed in the Pauls for having abandoning libertarianism in favor of statist regulation.
Yes, wrong-headed attempts like INVENTING THE INTERNET. The fact is that the private sector didn't even arrive at the Net until the infamous Green-Card spam some *25* years after the net was conceived, designed and built by scientists funded by the US government-funded DARPA. Argh. There's a reason the average age of a Libertarian fanboy is under 25: people grow up and start grasping how economics *actually* works. They discover that the world is not -- and never was -- the black-and-white free market so lovingly depicted by Libertarian utopianists -- and never will be. [SOP] On the plus side, it is good that Libfans exist -- their constant screeching keeps the creeping fascism of neoliberalism somewhat at bay.[/SOP]. Hooray for dynamic tension.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
No, OP said " a statist (one who believes in the system" therefore implying that if you're not a libertarian/anarchist then you approve of everything about the current political system.
There are a wide variety of "state systems" (in the country not the US State sense) ranging from North Korea to Japan, Egypt to Norway, so that it is absurd to say there is a simple division between Statists (bad) and Libertarians/Anarchists. (good).
Extreme right wingers in America appear to have the belief that everything that is wrong with your country is because of government/statism, and that the abolition of the state and the introduction of "libertarianism" (which has precious little to do with classic anarchism) and the unfettered rule of the free market will create Shangri La.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This place is a hotbed of anti-free market sentiment
Where do you get that from? What I see is a lot of deranged ultra right wingers who think the problem with current capitalism is too much government interference in the sacred Market.through such evil methods as legalising Unions, introducing health and safety at work legislation and socialistically propping up banks and insurance companies.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Hint: The political groupthink here is WAAAAAAY to the left of Dr. Paul.
Being to the left of Ron Paul really isn't saying a great deal, you know. It's a bit like being to the left of Chuck Norris, except not as funny.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Doctors who refuse to do abortoins on the grounds that they are killing another human being should be struck off on the grounds of being fucking stupid.
If you want to do a job where you impose your ridiculously outdated religious views on other people, go and become a priest: at least the adult congregation have chosen to expose themselves to your poisonous filth, and you can "only" do psychological rather than actual physical harm to them.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Freedom of an individual IS freedom of business, individuals run business.
Yes, in the theoretical world of the perfect free market, with perfect information, perfect competition, and probably perfect pink ponies for everyone too.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the freedom to amass vast quantities of money gives you power over other people, and thus deprives them of their freedom (e.g. by making it illegal/impossible for them to go on strike, complain about their working conditions and pay, or whatever).
You may not be able to abolish injustice and inequality completely, but you can certainly try, and to do that you need democratic government to stand up to those with money and power.
That money and power may try to corrupt government, but it is nowhere near as bad as if they were left to run things with no interference at all.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Anyone like me to dares to suggest that ron paul is not the second coming is generally moderated down quickly and severely. This is not true. Moreover, everyone on Slashdot knows that if you begin your post with "I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but..." you will in fact get modded up.
I know I'll get modded down for saying this, but Linux sucks and Windows ME is the greatest piece of software ever written.
Er...
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it