Slashdot Mirror


John McAfee Accused of Murder, Wanted By Belize Police

New submitter thn writes "John McAfee, who started the antivirus software giant named after him, has been accused of murder in Belize and is wanted. McAfee had taken to 'posting on a drug-focused Russian message board...about his attempts to purify the psychoactive compounds colloquially known as "bath salts,"' Gizmodo wrote. The scariest aspect of this story may be the fact that an entire lab was constructed for John McAfee's research purposes. Because of his efforts to extract chemicals from natural chemical plans McAfee was able to justify his experiments in a country that is largely unregulated."

353 comments

  1. When will they make a movie about this? by Quakeulf · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can't wait for the movie to come out!

    1. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for the movie to come out!

      I can. This thread is just fine without video.

      From TFA:

      "Elsewhere, he described his pursuit of "super perv powder" and warned about the dangers of handling the freebase version of the drug: "I had visual and auditory hallucinations and the worst paranoia of my life." He recommended that the most effective way to take a dose is via rectal insertion, a procedure known as "plugging," writing: "Measure your dose, apply a small amount of saliva to just the tip of your middle finger, press it against the dose, insert. Doesn't really hurt as much as it sounds. We're in an arena (drugs/libido) that I navigate as well as anyone on the planet here. If you take my advice about this (may sound gross to some of you perhaps), you will be well rewarded."

      Apparently they did make a movie about it. It was called "2 cores, 1 antivirus."

    2. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by dubbreak · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Forget McAfee. I want a movie about Henry Nicholas of Broadcom. Henry was living large: drugs, prostitutes, secret sex lair being built under his house while his family lived in it.. It's as though he was living his life just to make a crazy movie about it.

      McAfee? I don't want to watch a movie about some some guy that is obsessed with taking drugs rectally.

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Xemu · · Score: 1

      I can't wait for the movie to come out!

      I hope John's 17 year old belizian girlfriend (!!!) will be given a prominent role in the movie
      and that the movie will be set in a sunny, warm, moist climate

      I could do a pretty decent job of playing John, come to think of it

      --
      Tell your friends about xenu.net
    4. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do a lot of drugs and I've probably tried every method to get them into me. All else being equal, I prefer anal.

    5. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope it goes even deeper. I hope somehow Intel gets tied into all this and it leads to a massive sell off of their stocks, they announce Bankruptcy, and they sell Intel Corporation to Symantec!

    6. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by icebike · · Score: 1

      Corporate Name change expected. Film at 11.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      With as many obscenely rich people as there are, why don't we hear more about this type of thing? Is the average hundred millionaire really boring, or are they just better at keeping secrets? If you have a hundred million, why wouldn't you build a sex dungeon?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    8. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of "Breaking Bad". McAfee doesn't have cancer, does he?

    9. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've met expats (aka disgruntled white men) in South America. This is *yawn* typical. They roam the continent looking for their anarchist utopia.** The only thing moderately interesting is that McAfee is super rich. Definitely gonna read up on Nicholas, though.

      ** For the record, I don't mean to be derogatory. I aspire to be one of those disgruntled geeks with the balls to leave the country and build his little kingdom somewhere. Although I'd rather not be as so detached from the local society that I'm building drug labs and having shoot-outs.

    10. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by rubikscubejunkie · · Score: 1

      unless this turns out to be a hoax.

    11. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Funny

      I want a movie about Henry Nicholas of Broadcom.

      I'm sorry, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Nicholas does not confirm any of that, and therefore I can only conclude that your a a troll or a rube.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    12. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only have $10 million and I built a sex dungeon ;)

    13. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by bobstreo · · Score: 1

      Corporate Name change expected. Film at 11.

      Intel bought them a while ago.

    14. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by tekrat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your basement with a computer full of pr0n does not count as a sex dungeon...

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    15. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like this guy who lived one town over from me, you don't need to be rich to build a sex dungeon

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jamelske

      lol captcha is rectify

    16. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Damn, does he have a Dalek down there?

    17. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking that they are 1) better at keeping their secrets, and 2) sex dungeons are just not the big of a deal. They are a lot more common than some people think.

    18. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does address it, though. Looks like Vanity Fair was over-anxious in getting a story.

    19. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? You have to ask?

      They are MUCH better at keeping secrets as well as paying people to keep them. There is plenty of deviance going on but it is not for the public to know about it.

      Only the idiots are public about it. The rest of us quietly have our fun out of the public eye. Personally, I prefer to folly in international waters myself.....

    20. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's more efficient than oral, because it bypasses the first pass metabolism ; a large fraction of many drugs are metabolised by the liver on the first pass of the substance through the bloodstream out of the intestine, whereas the venous plexuses of the anus go straight into the main blood system.

      You can achieve the same effect with a lower dose and fewer toxic effects. Some nations don't have the hangups about their arseholes that we do in the English speaking nations and consider suppositories a normal form of medication.

    21. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The booze and the drugs might explain why Broadcom's wifi devices were such absolute shit during the past decade. Before the B43 Project came out the things were damn near useless on Linux and Broadcom didn't give a fuck back then.

    22. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Charges were dropped, so maybe none of it is true, but the rumors definitely were going around....
      http://techcrunch.com/2008/06/05/broadcom-billionaire-henry-nicholas-indicted-on-cocaine-and-stock-back-dating-charges/

    23. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a dungeon of sorts I guess...

    24. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by metlin · · Score: 1

      Wow, I had no idea. That's a crazy story -- who knew Henry Nicholas was that badass? Thank you for posting that.

    25. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And pills are uncomfortable and humiliating.

    26. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by sheehaje · · Score: 1

      Didn't most (if not all) of that case get thrown out by the Judge?

      Not saying a lot of the stuff didn't happen, but the prosecution definitely exaggerated a lot of their claims, and it was easy to find "witnesses" due to the sheer number of people Henry Nicholas stepped on to get where he is. So as a movie, maybe you have more of Boogie Nights instead of The Departed... of course, I'd watch either one.

    27. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by dubbreak · · Score: 2

      So because a wikipedia article doesn't cover it, it must not be true?

      Here's US v. Nicholas in which (under oath) he admits to drug use. So there's part of it verified. Find the divorce case which was they fought to keep sealed (but the L.A. times fought for) and I'm sure you'll find information about his infidelity with prostitutes. With some quick googling I was only able to find his attempts to keep it sealed.

      Did Vanity Fair possibly exaggerate or sensationalize? Sure, but nothing in there is all that unbelievable. I've seen rich people with a lot less money (only 400-500K/year) do things along those lines. If they had that money it would be the same story. Only thing is they aren't in the tech business.. they are in an inherently shadier business..

      --
      "If you are going through hell, keep going." - Winston Churchill
    28. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      what was that season 01 of the new Dr Who series? good recall.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    29. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Informative

      then you should be responsible and warn people that people die from coffee enemas and alcohol enemas

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee_enema#Effects_and_dangers

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_enema#Effects_and_dangers

      i am not being a prude, you have a right to do anything you want with your body. i am saying it is your responsibility when communicating activities of heightened danger to indicate the heightened danger

      there are many drugs and delivery methods where there is a large tolerance to wildly swinging dosages and rates. then there are many other drugs and delivery methods where slight alterations in dosage and rates means the difference between a good time and death. meaning no one should engage in these efforts casually. but unfortunately, since recreation and escaping responsibility is often the motivation, people die with dangerous dosages and delivery methods

      education and care is the proper antidote to bad experience with drugs. i didn't say prudery. but you can reduce the power of prudery in society by being careful when you communicate, and educating people as to dangers and harsh downsides. it doesn't make you a killjoy. death is a killjoy

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    30. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      why stop there?

      why not a movie with mcafee, nicholas, and hans reiser?

      written by quentin tarantino ideally

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    31. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by circletimessquare · · Score: 2

      it does according to the computer

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    32. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Miseph · · Score: 1

      So they'll spend 97 minutes having an inane conversation ostensibly about how cool and interesting they are, 10 minutes into which most viewers will either walk away or resolve to hang themselves, followed by 8 minutes of frenzied action during which everything they do ends in a colossal fuck up resulting in their messy deaths/captures/anal rapes?

      That sounds shockingly realistic.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    33. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, maaannn, the DIALOGUE maaannn.

    34. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      yes!

      isn't it awesome!

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    35. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because they dont want kids to know that doctors lawyers and police take illegal drugs

    36. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      They roam the continent looking for their anarchist utopia

      In an anarchist utopia, you wouldn't have obscenely rich people who could build their own little kingdom.
      The word you're looking for is "libertarian".

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    37. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by twosat · · Score: 1

      If you think that's bad, did you hear about the guy who injected cocaine into his urethra? It had the intended effect initially, but it ended with him losing both his legs, nearly all his fingers, and his member falling off!

      http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/darwin1993-04.html

      http://www.cocaine.org/health/dangers.html

    38. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you build a sex dungeon? It seems to be one of those things that we're all "supposed" to want, but it doesn't seem to be a particularly frequent theme in ... er, adult entertainment, so perhaps most people just aren't that interested.

      Whips, handcuffs and so on are still a bit of a niche thing (lots of them are sold, but most of them probably only used once), so the full-on sex dungeon is probably pretty rare, even among people who could afford it.

    39. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a Metaltron. I named it myself!

    40. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So in essence you're saying "I allow you to do anything you want with your body.... it just might be a shame if something happened to it..."
      Where "something" is the typical American ultra-fearmongering. Example: American Football vs. Rugby. Everything is wrapped in 10 miles of padding, with warning labels all over it, saying that you need 10 years of training, a helmet, glasses and gloves to drink a fuckin' coffee. Because you are expected to be *that* stupid.

      Seriously, you Americans always act so "'MERICA, FUCK YEAH", but in reality, you're all a bunch of GIANT PUSSIES. Use your brains, and things will work out!

    41. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by ThurstonMoore · · Score: 1

      This doesn't make sense, pure MDPV is not very hard to obtain.

    42. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      You don't need to be a multimillionaire just look at Joseph Fritzl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    43. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      not sure if total moron or bad troll

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    44. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by tibit · · Score: 1

      Man, I would have thought it quite obvious that if you're putting stuff into an area with "direct" access to circulation, you need to be fucking careful. Dr_Barnowl is perfectly informative in this respect.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    45. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by tibit · · Score: 1

      You mean twosat? Did you bother reading the links? It's true.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    46. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by godefroi · · Score: 1

      I dunno. Many hardcore libertarians believe that there's no such thing as personal property. Had to be obscenely rich without that...

      --
      Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
    47. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      bullshit. he doesn't mention any dangers. he even talks about lower doses and less toxic effects, like he's making a one sided sales pitch

      you have to be responsible in what you say, especially for certain drugs and certain delivery methods which can be very dangerous with slight alterations in dose or delivery rate. this is not hysteria. this is medical fact

      when people are aware of the facts, drug use can be responsible and the prudes and hysterics lose. but when idiots die, the prudes and hysterics gain influence. deny them their influence by being responsible when you talk about risky drugs and risky delivery methods

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    48. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by tibit · · Score: 1

      I know that reasoning and logic are perhaps less in popular demand these days, but man, if you get same effect with a lower dose, that means to me that you need to be more careful. I don't know what others make of it, and I don't care.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    49. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      the hysterics and the prudes do care. so you are apparently ceding control of drug policy to them. the only way you wrest control from the prudes and hysterics is someone starts caring about responsible drug use. if no one does that, then the hysterics and prudes win in terms of social policy. social policy is not set by logic and reason by magic. it is set by those who care enough to make the effort to fight for and to define social policy. if you want a world with better drug policy, step up

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    50. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by subnomine · · Score: 1

      Antivirus always has been a fear mongering despicable business.

    51. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Seriously, dude: Whooooooooosh!

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    52. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by mug+funky · · Score: 2

      you've got yourself an uphill battle there. anal administration isn't the last pillar to fall before all recreational drug use is suddenly socially and legally accepted...

    53. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should give Reiser the role of the goofy sidekick!

      It's the perfect match!

      I can imagine the synopsis:

      "The creator of one of the most inferior AV's, teams up with the creator of one of the most inferior FS's.
      An action adventure that takes you from Redwood Regional Park to Belize..."

    54. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by tibit · · Score: 1

      :)

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    55. Re:When will they make a movie about this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So because a wikipedia article doesn't cover it, it must not be true?

      Only true if Netcraft confirms it.

  2. It's about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    He already murdered my computer with his insanely slow Security Suite.

    1. Re:It's about time by partyguerrilla · · Score: 1

      I heard the detection rate is killer.

    2. Re:It's about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's when he was thinking clearly. Now he thinks he's a genius pharmacologist of the mad scientist variety, set up shop in Belize for access to more hardcore shit, and got himself all fucked up on bath salts.

      Imagine what that scary motherfucker is up to now...

    3. Re:It's about time by blind+biker · · Score: 0

      I can top that: F-secure anti-virus. That thing is the most toxic piece of software ever created; it really, quite literally slows your computer to a crawl.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    4. Re:It's about time by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      He already murdered my computer with his insanely slow Security Suite.

      Yes and the millions of other victims are also urged to come forward with their stories.

      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    5. Re:It's about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I would've posted this first, if my system wasn't actually slowed down by McAffee Security Suite.

    6. Re:It's about time by JazzLad · · Score: 4, Funny

      Just how fast do computers literally crawl?

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    7. Re:It's about time by ThatsMyNick · · Score: 3

      So slow, that you could hardly see them crawl.

    8. Re:It's about time by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      Not very fast, even if the hard drive is thrashing really, really hard.

    9. Re:It's about time by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      I submit that anyone insane enough to run McAfee or Norton were not murdered they commited suicide.

    10. Re:It's about time by 21mhz · · Score: 1

      Hey, it's just working as designed: not to let malware any chance to get scheduled for CPU and I/O.

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    11. Re:It's about time by juhaz · · Score: 1

      It works, though. It makes the computer so slow you couldn't possibly manage to install malware on it even if you wanted to!

  3. UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    FTA: Update 1:37 p.m. PT To include additional information from CBS that indicates McAfee is not wanted for the killing of Gregory Faull as Gizmodo previously reported but is only wanted for questioning at this time.

    1. Re:UPDATE by milbournosphere · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up, please.

    2. Re:UPDATE by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No No you got it wrong. News isn't about fact, it is about making people guilty in the eyes of society so they can be shunned from society, because our normal court system is designed to try to make sure innocent people go free.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:UPDATE by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny

      So its was another McAfee false positive?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    4. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gizmodo's article says that the police says that McAffee's neighbor was murdered and robbed. They don't say anything about McAffee's involvement.

      It would seem reasonable to question the neighbors when someone is murdered.

    5. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      An relevant update for McAfee taking too long? Well, I never.

    6. Re:UPDATE by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      Forget the murder... McAfee is taking drugs via his butt? What... the... hell?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:UPDATE by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      Well if he is wanted for questioning with regard to the murder, and is potentially a suspect. Well that is the same thing.

      No one is saying he has been proved guilty, but it sounds like he is a suspect or person of interest.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    8. Re:UPDATE by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      What's so "what the hell" about that? Suppositories are a real thing and they exist for a reason.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:UPDATE by WiiVault · · Score: 1

      I seriously almost fucking died from choking on my lunch reading this. Cheers!

    10. Re:UPDATE by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      We're not talking about Preparation H here.

      Just so we are clear on things.....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    11. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I accept that way of thinking on the medicinal level but when it's a recreational drug? That's a whole different story.

    12. Re:UPDATE by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      FTA: Update 1:37 p.m. PT To include additional information from CBS that indicates McAfee is not wanted for the killing of Gregory Faull as Gizmodo previously reported but is only wanted for questioning at this time.

      You have to cut Gizmodo some slack here - they got their information from a phone they found in a bar.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    13. Re:UPDATE by mrclisdue · · Score: 2

      I'm just trying to do a bong hit anally and no one seems to mind that I'm bogarting.

      I had chili for lunch tho', so I suspect the others are fearing the blue dart....

      cheers,

    14. Re:UPDATE by Nimey · · Score: 2

      And that's the thread, folks!

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    15. Re:UPDATE by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Eh, people do all sorts of crazy and/or disgusting things under that umbrella. Why not throw suppositories in there too?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    16. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better a thosand wards perish than a single unpermitted act go unpunished

    17. Re:UPDATE by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Recreational suppositories... it is a whole different level of drug addiction. It's similar to my feelings regarding IV drug abuse.

      Did you read TFA? His instructions are to "lick your finger", dip your finger in the powder, and then ram it home. So ignoring the lack of dose control and pure nastiness here... drug abusers aren't exactly known for hygiene. I'm kind of hoping he still retains enough sense to wash his finger between doses!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    18. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So he'll prolly walk into the police station as soon as he has come down and gotten over the worst of the paranoia.

      While he may well be capable of shooting someone in the back of the head, stealing a laptop and iPhone do not seem to fit with his socioeconomic status. More than likely he did not do the murder but does not want to appear before authorities right at the moment, but will cooperate when he feels he can do so.

      Or maybe he's got jello for brains now.

    19. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that made me snort a little.

    20. Re:UPDATE by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      It's not that uncommon. You have lots of blood vessels close to the surface there, so drugs get into your blood stream quickly. There was a story recently about people dying from vodka suppositories - so much alcohol goes into their blood so quickly that it's fatal.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    21. Re:UPDATE by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Strong coffee enemas are also popular among some crazy people.

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    22. Re:UPDATE by Scarletdown · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Le Petomane ever tried smoking a joint (through one of those lengthy cigarette holders of course) or a bong that way?

      --
      This space unintentionally left blank.
    23. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guy worth hundreds of millions gets off murder charges in a country that makes the U.S. congress look good (in terms of corruption). Go figure.

    24. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, better that than to stick the finger up, dip in the powder, and then lick your finger.

    25. Re:UPDATE by NekSnappa · · Score: 1

      Now the name of the governor in Blazing Saddles makes sense to me.

      --
      I want to shoot the messenger!
    26. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The nature of the evidence is irrelevant; it’s the seriousness of the charge that matters.

    27. Re:UPDATE by mrclisdue · · Score: 1

      ...or you could use your partner's finger....

      (cue /. jokes about parents, moms, basements, ad nauseum)

      chores,

    28. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google the origins of "Blowing smoke up your ass" and you will be enthused, not only with the veracity, but the very frenchness of the act

    29. Re:UPDATE by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 3, Funny

      For fuck's sake... the words "Recreational" and "suppositories" should not be used in the same sentence... it just shouldn't.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    30. Re:UPDATE by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Well done sir.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    31. Re:UPDATE by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Just hook it up to a vacuum cleaner in reverse, insert nozzle and presto!

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    32. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er, you do realise people stick inert objects up their arse for recreational purposes, too?

      So it's not that surprising people use it for drugs.

      It's less horrifying to me than dripping LSD in your eyes, or snorting vodka.

    33. Re:UPDATE by antdude · · Score: 1

      Its was?

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    34. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because our normal court system is designed to try to make sure rich people go free.

      There, fixed that for ya.

      Also, the former (calling somebody guilty, when no court has decided on it yet), is a big crime here in Germany, and you can go to jail for it. Which I think is exactly how it should be.

    35. Re:UPDATE by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Dripping something in your eye and snorting something through your nose, while also not the sign of a healthy person, are less disturbing just for the hygiene issues. Drug addicts aren't exactly known for their hygienic behavior, and a method of administration requiring you to lick your finger, dip into the powder drug, and then insert can go bad very quickly.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    36. Re:UPDATE by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Seems like that could be a new twist on that "copy what I do" prank where you stick one finger in your ear, then lick a different finger.

    37. Re:UPDATE by Belizean · · Score: 1
    38. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know nothing about rectal drug administration other than the misinformation you read from this story. You also don't know much about drugs and/or addiction, apparently, if you think you need to be a "drug addict" to use the best route of administration for a substance.

    39. Re:UPDATE by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Congrats, funniest thing I've seen all day!

    40. Re:UPDATE by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Did you skip past the whole part about recreational use?

      People stuffing drugs up their butt for fun have a problem. You may not like that assessment, but such is the fate of opinions.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    41. Re:UPDATE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry that your opinions are homophobic.

    42. Re:UPDATE by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry that you equate sticking things up one's ass with homosexuality.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  4. I'm Confused! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A software anti-virus maker is venturing into real life bio anti-virus?

  5. history repeating itself? by maweki · · Score: 5, Funny

    So is his company then going the way of ReiserFS?

    1. Re:history repeating itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not even March 6th.

    2. Re:history repeating itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt it...
      https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:INTC

    3. Re:history repeating itself? by Coffee+Warlord · · Score: 1

      I was gonna say, he can share a cell with Hans and they can get to work on a cracking new product.

    4. Re:history repeating itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was gonna say, he can share a cell with Hans and they can get to work on a cracking new product.

      An antivirus program that directly integrates with the filesystem, right down to development? Are you really, REALLY sure that's the cracking new product you want?

    5. Re:history repeating itself? by tobiasly · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe soon we can build an entire operating system using only software written by convicted felons.

    6. Re:history repeating itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His company now belomgs to Intel.

    7. Re:history repeating itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I the only one who read that wired article like 10 times trying to figure out wtf was going on?

    8. Re:history repeating itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet it would be really secure, no jailbreak.

    9. Re:history repeating itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll port it to mobile phones, we'll see who becomes the first to "jailbreak" it!

  6. Sounds familiar ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well when Hans Reiser was thrown in jail, work on ReiserFS halted; which was sad because it was halfway useful to some people. Hopefully now, that POS software that McAfee puts out will stop.

    1. Re:Sounds familiar ... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      {partial sarcasm}Well that is the problem with Open Source software when the creator stops being involved in the product the product in essence dies and goes on the waste side, as there is a loss of interest in the product. While commercial apps have teams of people and if it makes money it will continue on with the loss of it leader and it can even move from company to company{/partial sarcasm}

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Sounds familiar ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The reason reiserFS went the way it did is because nobody around understands it the way Hans did (mathematically) that can also do the programming work... and also has the want to do so without compensation.

    3. Re:Sounds familiar ... by TemporalBeing · · Score: 3

      {partial sarcasm}Well that is the problem with Open Source software when the creator stops being involved in the product the product in essence dies and goes on the waste side, as there is a loss of interest in the product. While commercial apps have teams of people and if it makes money it will continue on with the loss of it leader and it can even move from company to company{/partial sarcasm}

      Sarcasm aside, Not necessarily.

      With Open Source (FOSS, FLOSS - whatever you want to call it) if the creator stops being involved, the community behind it can pick it up. If there isn't enough community interest, then it falls by the wayside, but then it was either too early or not interesting enough.

      With Commercial, if the business has a problem (e.g. the CEO gets indicted) and goes under, or is in serious question; then there is no one else to turn to. Your saving grace would be if someone bought it out and continued the product, but there's no guarantee that will happen and most companies won't want to toss the financial resources to buy the company if they don't think the product is worth it - e.g. there's a cheaper alternative.

      For Hans and ReiserFS, RFS4 got continued by the community, but its still problematic and will now never make it to the mainline kernel. For McAfee, well, there's a sufficiently large corportate entity that nothing will happen - it'll go on, and if necessary change its name to avoid bad associated publicity due to any trial or bad outcome for Mr. McAfee.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    4. Re:Sounds familiar ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The reason reiserFS went the way it did is because nobody around understands it the way Hans did (mathematically) that can also do the programming work...

      Eh, no. The thing you may not realize is that Hans Reiser wasn't even the primary author on later versions. He hired Russian programmers willing to work cheap, and seemed focused on being The Globetrotting Wheeling Dealing Genius In Charge rather than coding anything himself. Also, this lone genius mythology about ReiserFS possessing some kind of ineffable brilliance which only Reiser could understand needs to go away. Plenty of people understood every single concept in ReiserFS.

    5. Re:Sounds familiar ... by kenorland · · Score: 1

      For McAfee, well, there's a sufficiently large corportate entity that nothing will happen - it'll go on

      That's a shame.

    6. Re:Sounds familiar ... by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      For some projects you may be right, but something as complicated and critical as a file system doesn't really lend itself very well to the volunteer crowd. The intersection of people who:
      a) Have the time to work on it AND
      b) Have the skill to work on it

      is pretty small. ReiserFS was never a volunteer project before Reiser's arrest, it was developed by him and people he hired(read paid money to) at his company. When his company went bust after his arrest the odds of ReiserFS continuing on in any real capacity without external funding fell to pretty much 0. The efforts of the volunteers is laudable, but unless Hans Reiser gave them access to some sort of machine that makes each day 48 hours long, they were never going to be able to get it production-ready.

    7. Re:Sounds familiar ... by guyniraxn · · Score: 1

      McAfee cashed out of the company a long time ago.

  7. Yep by aquarajustin · · Score: 1

    I've always thought McAfee felt a bit over-engineered. This explains a lot.

  8. Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like this story has the potential to go....

    *sunglasses*

    Viral.

    Yeeeeeeeaaaaahhhhhh!

    1. Re:Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't yeah yourself.

  9. gizmodo is the only source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'll wait until someone else confirms. Possibly Netcraft.

    1. Re:gizmodo is the only source by milbournosphere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You make a good point. Other sources are picking up the story, but they all come back to Gizmodo. Can it be? Did Gawker *gasp* actually get a scoop on something?

  10. What the Heck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Running a rather boring software company to description like some sort of supervillain, thats quite a transition.

    Dear god let his compound contain an active volcano lair.

    1. Re:What the Heck. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      Running a rather boring software company to description like some sort of supervillain, thats quite a transition.

      Dear god let his compound contain an active volcano lair.

      With a shark pool. With...

      Ah, you know the rest!

    2. Re:What the Heck. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Do you realize how much insurance costs for an active volcano lair! Besides you are open to an OSHA suite from your minions.

      Moon base that is where it is at.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:What the Heck. by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Yeah but Nazi's live on the moon : http://ironsky.net/

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    4. Re:What the Heck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad news. No active volcanoes in Belize. But there are plenty over the border in Guatemala. Perhaps he could build a monorail to one of them.

    5. Re:What the Heck. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear god let his compound contain an active volcano lair.

      That's on Ellison's Hawaian island.

  11. haw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Put him in a cell with Reiser...

  12. Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 0, Troll

    Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like: low regulation, freedom to do almost anything you want on your property, etc. Little did they mention that it means having to keep a personal standing army around, negotiating with other local power brokers, securing health care through direct, personal efforts, and all kinds of other fun stuff that makes dealing with the IRS a happy fun time walk in the park.

    To me, this sounds like it's some local payback for McAfee having failed to do much negotiating with local power brokers. If you want to be your own island, it means you also do your own foreign policy. As a result, I have little compassion for McAfee, or little interest in the story. It pretty much just confirm what I always suspected was going to happen to assholes with money pursuing their liberal fantasy.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    1. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look, its another person twisting Libertarianism in to something it isn't so it sounds unpleasent to people who don't know any better.

    2. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      After actually RTFA'ing the whole thing, and not just the first paragraph, it looks like this might be also a lot about the story of a drug abuser falling prey to some subtle secondary effects of his drug of choice. If he was as keen on experimenting with bath salts and other psychotropic drugs as he seems to be, I fully would expect him to lose it at some point. Who knows if he actually committed the murder - but there's all kinds of other lessons in here.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like

      Only people who know fuck-all about Libertarianism.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because no one ever gets murdered in police states? I don't think I understand your premise.

    5. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your imaginary tale of what libertarianism "should look like" says a lot more about your ignorance of libertarianism than it does about actual libertarianism.

      Could you explain where libertarianism enters this story at all? I R'ed TFA, and I sure don't see any mention of it.

    6. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by MrEricSir · · Score: 0

      Funny how whenever someone cites an example of libertarianism not working, a bunch of libertarians jump out and say "No, that's not libertarianism!"

      Why is this funny? Because communists always used to do the same thing. Seems like all political extremists share the same methodology.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    7. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Though you're going to get flamed for this, it definitely has an element of truth.

      Compare to Ayn ("Individual Rights Uber Alles") Rand's positive regard and writing regarding William Edward Hickman, serial-killer and dismemberer of children.

      What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"

      Source, among others

      One might doubt her intent in saying that, if it didn't sound exactly like the "virtues" of all her mainline "heroes" of her novels.

      It's a mistake to evaluate any worldview based on what it would be in an ideal world. The world isn't ideal. The relevant question is what does the worldview result in after "bending" in response to actual reality--as it always does.

    8. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like

      Only people who know fuck-all about Libertarianism.

      Ya! Where's the gold standard, dammit?

    9. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Look, its another person twisting Libertarianism in to something it isn't so it sounds unpleasent to people who don't know any better.

      Looks like you've got your work cut out for you, because what most of my self-described Libertarian friends say would fit right into this stereotype. I.e., indistinguishable from pure anarchy. Basing that on the 2 most of-repeated "Libertarian" maxims:

      A) Government Regulation is Evil. Admittedly if you corner them, you can usually get a self-described Libertarian to confess that there's room for regulation, but when operating on auto-pilot they tend to forget to mention that. There's no clearly-defined ground rules for us outsiders to understand.

      B) Taxes are Theft. Because apparently whatever government functions are admissible under Libertarianism are funded by the fairies. A belief also promoted liberally in recent years by the Conservative crowd who took the "tax" out of tax-and-spend, but not the "spend".

      There's you a starting point. It's up to you to take the ball and run with it. Have fun!

    10. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      Seems like all political extremists share the same methodology.

      What qualifies as 'extreme' is subjective.

      But of course, this is likely not limited to just 'extremists'. People generally don't want to be wrong, after all. Then of course there is the fact that people who really, really don't like something would probably want to blame everything that goes wrong on the thing that they don't like.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    11. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know, Libertarianism always leads to paradise on earth, and ipso facto, anything that isn't paradise isn't Libertarianism. Well, you got that right. Exactly like how communism has never actually been properly implemented.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    12. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      indistinguishable from pure anarchy.

      With all due respect, if you're unable to distinguish anarchy from libertarianism you should probably just shut the fuck up about political systems and go back to jacking it to reruns of Star Trek.

    13. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

    14. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      Spot on. Quite frankly, I think most American Libertarians should call themselves Randians. They worship her books, and are actually pretty far removed from classic Libertarians like Locke.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    15. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      On slashdor Libertarians also get mod points. Almost every post I've ever made here that was critical of Libertarianism has been modded down. Gives you a good idea of how much liberty would be extended to critics in a Libertarian regime.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Funny how whenever someone cites an entirely subjective, blatantly false example of libertarianism not working, a bunch of libertarians jump out and say "No, that's not libertarianism!"

      Of course we do; what would you expect, for us stand idly by as ignorami infect the world with their fallacious thinking? That's just not the Libertarian way.

      Why is this funny? Because communists always used to do the same thing. Seems like all political extremists share the same methodology.

      Kinda like how McCarthy and his ilk would label people he didn't agree with as "communist," then convince the ignorant masses that these "communists" were horrible, horrible 'political extremists,' even in spite of a complete lack of evidence?

      Yea, funny, that.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    17. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like you've got your work cut out for you, because what most of my self-described Libertarian friends say would fit right into this stereotype. I.e., indistinguishable from pure anarchy.

      That's because your friends have realized they've moved from being Libertarian to an AnaCap. When they finally realize it is you'll love the conversations you're going to have.

    18. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by synaptik · · Score: 1

      C) Freedoms always come with responsibilities.
      In fact, that really should be A)...
      And, there is certainly room for regulation in a libertarian mindset, because you will always have to deal with the asshats who forget that freedoms always come with responsibilities.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    19. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know, Libertarianism always leads to paradise on earth, and ipso facto, anything that isn't paradise isn't Libertarianism. Well, you got that right. Exactly like how communism has never actually been properly implemented.

      Right, because reality is binary - there is no such thing as middle ground, only extremely bad and extremely good.

      That, or you're being obtuse.

      Guess which one my money is on.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    20. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by tobiasly · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now let's not jump to conclusions here, maybe he was only doing research into detecting and terminating zombie processes.

    21. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Funny how whenever someone makes up shit about someplace being some sort of "libertarian dream state," the person making that allegation:

      1) demonstrates their complete lack of knowledge of libertarianism;
      2) demonstrates their complete lack of knowledge of the political system governing the alleged "libertarian paradise;"
      3) is simply launching some bizarre pre-emptive strike against "libertarianism" because every time something bad happens in a country that's not a heavily regulated police state, it's automatically the fault of the country's alleged lack of regulation.

      Go educate yourself about Belize, dipshit.

      Belize is a parliamentary democracy, a Commonwealth realm, and therefore a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

      The structure of government is based on the British parliamentary system, and the legal system is modelled on the Common Law of England. The head of state is Elizabeth II, Queen of Belize. Since the Queen resides in the United Kingdom, she is represented in Belize by the Governor-General. However, the cabinet, led by the Prime Minister of Belize, who is head of government, acting as advisors to the Governor-General, in practice exercise executive authority. Cabinet ministers are members of the majority political party in parliament and usually hold elected seats within it concurrent with their cabinet positions.

      The bicameral National Assembly of Belize is composed of a House of Representatives and a Senate. The 31 members of the House are popularly elected to a maximum five-year term and introduce legislation affecting the development of Belize. The Governor-General appoints the 12 members of the Senate, with a Senate president selected by the members. The Senate is responsible for debating and approving bills passed by the House.

      Belize is a full participating member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), the Central American Integration System (SICA), The United Nations, and the Organization of American States. It is still in the process of acceding to Caricom and SICA treaties, including trade and single market treaties.

    22. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by MrEricSir · · Score: 0

      Of course we do; what would you expect, for us stand idly by as ignorami infect the world with their fallacious thinking? That's just not the Libertarian way.

      Apparently the "Libertarian way" is to make a bunch of vague statements as to what libeterianism actually is, then jump all over anyone who dares ask specific questions.

      It's no different than any other religion.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    23. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by rubikscubejunkie · · Score: 1

      good point...

    24. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      It's the libertarians that are unable to distinguish. They want a powerless government that doesn't tax and doesn't regulate. Why bother? You might as well just mandate private binding arbitration for all disputes, then disband the government.

    25. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 1

      I fully agree with parent post. I, too, have read the whole story and I find it is highly realistic. Unpleasant, but definitely real. So not like Libertarianism at all.

      .

      .

      Nope. Not much room for fantasy in that story.

      --
      Will
    26. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In 1928, the writer Ayn Rand began planning a novel called The Little Street, whose hero, Danny Renahan, was to be based on "what Hickman suggested to [her]." The novel was never finished, but Rand wrote notes for it which were published after her death in the book Journals of Ayn Rand. Rand wanted the hero of her novel to be "A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me." Rand scholars Chris Matthew Sciabarra and Jennifer Burns both interpret Rand's interest in Hickman as a sign of her early admiration of the ideas of Friedrich Nietzsche, especially since she several times referred to Hickman as a "Superman" (in the Nietzschean sense).

      Those phrases were not written about HICKMAN, they were written about the hero of her book, who was "suggested" by Hickman's sociopathic disregard for society and the people around him. It makes for great purple prose to pretend that she wrote those things about the serial killer, but she was talking specifically about her novel's hero, not about the serial killer from whom some qualities were taken.

      But of course, it's no fun being intellectually honest about that, when you get a chance to bash libertarians, is it? Shall we start trotting out Marxist quotes to describe Democrats and their socialist and communist leanings, too? Or would that make you sad?

    27. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by mbunch5 · · Score: 1

      Looks like you've got your work cut out for you, because what most of my self-described Libertarian friends say would fit right into this stereotype. I.e., indistinguishable from pure anarchy.

      Funny how both the fanatical adherents and fanatical opposition will take any -ism to an absurd level for the sake of argument. There are plenty of sources around for what Libertarianism is, but to cut to the chase Libertarianism is not about *no* taxes or *no* regulation, just a much more restricted view of what the government can tax and what it can regulate. Full disclosure: I'm not a Libertarian. But that doesn't mean I have to be willfully ignorant to argue the point.

    28. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look, I agree that libertarianism is a problematic (IMO) ideology. But you're an idiot if you think there isn't a valid distinction between the two. Learn what you are talking about before you go trying to argue a point related to the subject matter at hand.

    29. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >what most of my self-described Libertarian friends say would fit right into this stereotype. I.e., indistinguishable from pure anarchy.

      Anarchy does not equal chaos. In fact, anarchocapitalists expect that entrepeneurs competing to provide arbitration and security services could provide such services at a higher quality and at lower prices than a government monopoly can - just as entrepeneurs excel at providing other economic goods.

      >Admittedly if you corner them, you can usually get a self-described Libertarian to confess that there's room for regulation

      The serious libertarians who study the theory (e.g. of Rothbard and Hoppe) would contend that all government regulation is immoral. Since governments derive their revenues from extortion (taxes), they are criminal organizations.

      >Taxes are Theft. Because apparently whatever government functions are admissible under Libertarianism are funded by the fairies

      So it sounds like you might be amenable to the idea "Taxes are Theft", but you simply don't see a practical alternative to providing neded services. You also don't know how to mine your own raw materials and turn them into a computer. That's where millions of market participants and the spontaneous organizing power of the market comes in.

    30. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you quote for me the relevant sections of the Libertarian Party Platform that specifically state that they want a "powerless government" that "doesn't tax" and "doesn't regulate"? Because having looked at their official statements, I see nothing suggesting that that's their explicit goal. (Hint: Minimizing regulation, reducing taxes, and reducing regulation and market interference does not mean "eliminating" those things.)

      Income taxes are not the only taxes collected by governments. National defense, courts, police forces - all of these are perfectly allowable under the libertarian platform, and all of these must be funded through some government revenues, i.e. taxes.

      Anarcho-capitalism is NOT libertarianism. They're equivalent in the same way that modern American "liberalism" is equivalent to Marxist Communism.

    31. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The spectrum of "libertarianism" is wide. Many that fall into that category are more reasonable that the overly simplistic exposition given above.

      B) Taxes that do not benefit me are theft. The government exists to serve the people. Taking my money and giving it to someone else, so that it does not benefit me is theft. Taking my money and using it for purposes that do benefit me is OK.

    32. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A) Government Regulation is Evil. Admittedly if you corner them, you can usually get a self-described Libertarian to confess that there's room for regulation, but when operating on auto-pilot they tend to forget to mention that. There's no clearly-defined ground rules for us outsiders to understand.

      B) Taxes are Theft. Because apparently whatever government functions are admissible under Libertarianism are funded by the fairies. A belief also promoted liberally in recent years by the Conservative crowd who took the "tax" out of tax-and-spend, but not the "spend".

      It's only crazy if you take a geeky "black or white, all or nothing" view of these things - which admittedly many Libartarians do. Regulation is evil and taxes are theft, sure; that;s means we try to solve problems with the least regulation and taxation that actually solves the problem. That's quite a bit of taxes and regulation, actually. But seeking a solution that minimizes both, out of many possible solutions, is still a valid goal.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    33. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      2) demonstrates their complete lack of knowledge of the political system governing the alleged "libertarian paradise;"

      Are you asserting that "libertarian" is incompatible with a democratic republic? What types of governments is libertarianism compatible with? Anarchy-only?

    34. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead of making vague charges in the form of randomly-assembled political names & phrases, why don't you explain what you're talking about?

      If you actually understood a fucking thing about classical liberalism and libertarianism, you'd understand that libertarianism is pretty clearly descended from classical liberalism, and that Locke would likely agree with a fair amount of the Libertarian party's platform. Locke was the father of Classical Liberalism; It should not be confused with the Social Liberalism with which most people associate "liberal / Democratic" parties today.

      Classical liberalism = negative rights. "Your rights are defined by what other people and governments may not / must not do to curtail your freedoms." It tends to be antagonistic towards the idea of a welfare state, and highly geared towards maximizing individual freedoms, and as an extension of that, individual responsibility.

      Social liberalism = positive rights. "You have the right to living wage, health care, etc., provided by society," and is fairly receptive to the welfare state, where "everybody takes care of everybody." Social Liberalism is fine with reducing some individual freedoms as a trade for maximizing "social good."

      Please, stop talking about political theories that you have no knowledge of.

    35. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Are you asserting the defining body for a term is an organization bearing the same name? Then "democracy" means "whatever is on the Democrat's platform" and republican government means one ruled by Republicans, right?

    36. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Calm down everyone. You're all confusing three distinct phenomena: classic libertarianism, an inconsequential modern political third party, and the contemporary mainstream Randian wannabe sociopolitical movement of the same name that at best is nothing more than a reactionary coalition of political, social, and civic amateurs, some of which are actual liberal pro-legalization college kids that think they are brilliant scholars because they got an A in poli-sci and soc, and in-fact sociopolitical conservative moralists that are anti-tax because they either fear their money going to welfare or are borderline confederacy-seeking states rightists that want a Fed so small they can drown it in a bathtub. Add in a dash of actual anarcho-capitalist industrialists and entrepreneurs and crazed gold standard pushers of alternative currencies for flavor. By and large, the libertarian movement as it is popularized today is a caricature of the original libertarian movement, but populated by low information people that don't read enough, that get all their news from pundits, and who only recently in the last 8 years have taken a real interest in domestic policy and macroeconomics. To put it simply, they don't know what they don't know.

      To put it another way, I have recently in the last decade taken a refreshed interest in physics after sleep walking through it as a student and a professional. But, much of my new learning comes from advocacy sources like Michio Kaku. I enjoy doing fun things with magnets and lasers. My teleportation machine is awesome, but I assure you, none of you should use it no matter how much I tell you I've worked out all the kinks because I'm a physics tourist and my input should be taken as if it came from an enthusiastic child that still believes in Santa.

    37. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not no true scotsman if they really aren't alike.

    38. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      And yet, another post defining libeterianism in the negative.

      Is there even such a thing as libeterianism? Or is there only a list of things that it isn't?

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    39. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the people I associate with are Libertarians and none of them believe either of those. I'm not sure you have even a slight clue what being a libertarian means.

    40. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean `kill -9mm`?

    41. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am asserting that, when you make a claim of the form "Libertarians want X," that you should be able to point me to an official statement by representatives of the libertarian party that supports your claim that they "want X." In much the same way that I would challenge someone who claims that "Democrats want to implement Marxist-style Communism in America!" to point me to any policy proposals from the Democrat party that support this claim.

      Unless you're really claiming that the proposals of the Libertarian party are somehow NOT reflective of the policy aims and goals of Libertarians?

      So, I'll challenge you once again - can you point out the parts of the Libertarian party platform, or major underpinning documents of Libertarian philosophy that would lead you to conclude that "libertarians want to eliminate government, taxes, regulation in toto?"

    42. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there even such a thing as libeterianism?

      I assume you meant "libertarianism." If so, gee, if only there were easily accessible resources to answer these questions for you!

      Since you're obviously too lazy to have found these links on your own already, I'll boil it down here for you: libertarianism, in a nutshell, advocates for a high degree of individual freedom & personal responsibility, paired with minimal government interference in the lives & affairs of its citizens, minimal taxes, and minimal regulation.

      What's funny is that you profess complete ignorance of "what libertarianism is" in one breath, and then argue in the next breath that Belize must be a libertarian's wet dream. If you don't know what libertarianism is, how could you possible know whether or not Belize's system of government is anything remotely resembling what libertarians advocate or desire?

    43. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Once again, you demonstrate your complete inability to read and respond to what was written.

      I am asserting that in no way, shape, or form, is Belize a "libertarian paradise," and any attempt to paint it as such is a foolish bit of sleight of hand that tries to define "libertarianism" as "anything that I think is foolish or want to make fun of."

      Perhaps, since you seem to take issue with my statement, you can explain for us just what makes Belize the "libertarian paradise" you imagine it is? I mean, surely you're not just making this shit up as you go - surely you know ALL ABOUT Belize's government & their policies, and can tell us exactly how the Belize model fits exactly what libertarians everywhere are advocating?

    44. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by MrEricSir · · Score: 1

      What's funny is that you profess complete ignorance of "what libertarianism is" in one breath, and then argue in the next breath that Belize must be a libertarian's wet dream.

      What's funny is that I never made that argument, yet you're still holding me accountable for it. Does being a libertarian involve making shit up? Because that's the impression I'm getting here.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    45. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You took too much man, you took too much, too much
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4Yl_r_CXeA

    46. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably because they aren't libertarian. Libertarianism means that you can do what you want. . . SO LONG AS YOU DON'T HARM ANYONE. There is no current libertarian system on earth. Really: Libertarianism deals more with how you treat others than a "system". Libertarianism is an ethic. . . a method. . . a social one at that.

    47. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really dislike the idea of personal choice, don't you? Bias is what you deal with when you live in a world where people aren't lined up and shot for their opinions. North Korea might be more of your liking. ;) Nobody is forcing you to post on Slashdot, and you do not have any right to have your opinions agreed with on Slashdot.

    48. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The libertarian way is that there IS NO WAY, other than not to harm any other person for any reason. In other words, there is no policing of the thought process like you critics seem to favor. I am not afraid of opinions I don't agree with. As a Libertarian, it doesn't concern me whatsoever to control the thoughts of others. I can attempt to use reason to convince someone freely to come to my way of thinking, but it's not within my rights to coerce anyone to think like me. Social rejection is not coercion. You are free to think, feel, and say whatever you wish, and I would never think to try to stop you from it, but I also have the right to point out your derpery.

      I know. I know. Freedom is so horrible. I do believe your politically correct dystopia is being built by the political creatures that currently run the world, so you might just be artificially winning that argument.

    49. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertarianism is inconsistent with an unelected hereditary monarchy, irregardless of how it's administered. Apparently you missed that whole 18th century enlightenment era thing. . .

    50. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Libertarianism does not = the gold standard. A Libertarian system is whatever people desire. If tehy want sea-shells to be currency, or FIAT money, or whatever . . . they have the ability to determine it. Money should be agreed upon by the needs and wants of the people using it, not by arbitrary decree. In systems that were historically more libertarian, gold was not always agreed upon. There were even paper money systems. . . see: Benjamin Franklin and all the money he made from printing continentals to fund the American Revolution. Nobody was coerced into using continentals as currency. . .

      The biggest fallacy of anti-Libertarians is to assume that Libertarianism is an end, when it is merely a means. There is no such thing as a "libertarian money system". The libertarian part is what MEANS are used to decide on said monetary system. In other words, the lack of coercion is what makes it Libertarian, not what materializes as a result.

    51. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      no one owns or polices the meaning of a word

      you need to understand that the common usage of a word changes, and not necessarily in ways you like, and this is exactly what has happened to the word libertarian

      so find a new word unbesmirched by modern politics to describe the ideology that is important to you and you do not want sullied by any other meaning

      nevermind the irony that any kind libertarian would cling to some sort of authoritarian unchanging source of legitimacy for anything, including word definitions

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    52. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      do you know what the official name of North Korea is?

      the DPRK

      which means the Democratic People's Republic of Korea

      which is a joke

      in politics especially, word meaning is constantly obfuscated and abused. you need to listen to what people say and what they mean, and completely ignore whatever label they use to describe themselves. it is meaningless, and fighting over that label and considering it's usage as some sort of sacrosanct issue is a ridiculous game

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    53. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fallacy with anti-Libertarians is that they are so inundated with the idea of a "central plan" that they can't imagine a mode of thought which does not impose a set agenda upon it's adherents. In reality, Libertarians are far from one group, with one set of answers. . . If anything, being a Libertarian means that you have to admit that you don't have the answers for others, and so you don't wish to impose what you prefer on others.

      The whole point of Libertarianism is that there IS NO CENTRAL PLAN. Some Libertarians will think this, or some will think that. The thing that binds them all together is that nobody forces their way of life on anyone else.

      Taxes and regulation needn't be anti-libertarian, so long as they're being freely agreed upon by individuals. Anti-Libertarians just can't imagine a way of thinking that does not include forcing people to do things at the point of a gun. That's the big hurdle we face, IMO.

    54. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Taxes and regulation needn't be anti-libertarian, so long as they're being freely agreed upon by individuals.

      So, conversely, taxes and regulation are anti-libertarian, so long as at least one individual to which they're being applied is not freely agreeing to that - do I get that correct?

      Which, in practice, amounts to no taxes and no regulation in any society larger than a few dozen people (and I'm being generous here).

    55. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nevermind the irony that any kind libertarian would cling to some sortof authoritarian unchanging source of legitimacy for anything, including word defintions.

      This is one of the most bizarre and mind-bendingly absurd rationalizations for Newspeak that I've ever heard. Libertarians recognize rational thinking, and it's clear that you're not a libertarian, or you'd recognize the difference between "authoritative" definitions and "authoritarian" definitions. You seem to be conflating the two terms.

      Can we apply the same reasoning to math & science? Because I always rather liked the idea of dividing when I see a + sign, and calculating a tangent when I see the symbol "cos". Because words change, man. Who cares that you've defined 'tan' and 'cos' certain ways? I like to swap them around!

      If you mean "anarcho capitalism" when you say "libertarianism," then disabuse yourself of the notion that anything you say is a valid criticism of ACTUAL libertarianism when all of the stuff your criticizing are elements of anarcho capitalism. I know it's hard to remember more words than you've read in Dr. Seuss, but if you want to be taken seriously in any rational discussion, you don't get to redefine words and pretend that your new definition is the same as the actual definition of the word when it suits your argument.

    56. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how whenever someone cites an example of libertarianism not working, a bunch of libertarians jump out and say "No, that's not libertarianism!"

      Let's recap:

      1) OP: "Belize is a libertarian's wet dream, because total anarchy is libertarianism."
      2) Someone else: "That's not libertarianism."
      3) (YOU) - "Funny how when somebody says libertarianism doesn't work, libertarians jump out to say that's not libertarianism."

      What are we supposed to conclude from this exchange except that you agree with #1 - that Belize *is* a libertarian utopia, and any attempt to correct the original idiot poster is simply libertarians circling the wagons trying to defend their philosophy when it's CLEAR that this is yet another example where libertarianism is "considered harmful" and has failed?

      Your entire line of argument in these comments has been "Hurr durr, nobody will define libertarianism, because they can't, they just argue that whenever something bad happens as a result of their policies, that it wasn't REALLY libertarianism."

      I defined libertarianism for you. I gave you relevant links to go read. If you were REALLY interested in learning the basics of the philosophy, you would have already. Instead, you're trying to score some cheap shots by pretending that libertarians are trying to "silence" you, all while claiming with wide-eyed innocence, "I WAS JUST ASKING SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, and they got all mad at me!"

      I'm holding you accountable for what you've said. If you don't like it, don't make ignorant statements that are easily corrected.

    57. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      Libertarians recognize rational thinking

      i didn't know that was part of the definition of libertarianism, sounds like a "no true scotsman" fallacy, but let's encourage your embrace of rationality, because that's what i do when i say what i do

      Can we apply the same reasoning to math & science? Because I always rather liked the idea of dividing when I see a + sign, and calculating a tangent when I see the symbol "cos". Because words change, man. Who cares that you've defined 'tan' and 'cos' certain ways? I like to swap them around!

      wait, you're not doing rationality anymore, you're doing appeal to authority. you constructed a lame analogy that doesn't work because we are talking about political meanings which is not rational, at all. but to completely dismantle your lame analogy, yes: there are plenty of words in math whose meaning is ambivalent and changing:

      http://mathoverflow.net/questions/7389/what-are-the-most-overloaded-words-in-mathematics

      you have to understand human language. you have to get used to the fact that you can't, don't, and will never control the meaning of a word. you seem like someone who has invested a lot of passion in a starkly defined political philosophy which absolutely has to mean libertarianism. in your mind, sure. in society at large? no, sorry, you don't get to do that. you will never ever get to do that. especially an overloaded word with a complex meaning like "libertarianism" which will most certainly change in meaning over the passage of time, and most certainly does, and has. someone calling themselves a libertarian in the 1970s would look at you like an alien

      from this page

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

      here's the third sentence, it should make your brain explode:

      There is no consensus on the precise definition of libertarianism.

      sorry dude

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    58. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the UK Bath Salts is a legal and non-psychoactive aromatic dissolvable substance that you put in the bath to make your long hot soak more relaxing. I think the purer it is the cheaper it is to distribute to shoppers in Tesco's. What the hell is the problem with that?

    59. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by kenorland · · Score: 1

      By and large, the libertarian movement as it is popularized today is a caricature of the original libertarian movement, but populated by low information people that don't read enough, that get all their news from pundits, and who only recently in the last 8 years have taken a real interest in domestic policy and macroeconomics. To put it simply, they don't know what they don't know.

      As opposed to the Democratic and Republican parties, who are run by saints and scholars, and whose members all have IQs upwards of a hot day in Death Valley?

      I'm sorry that your political understanding is so limited that you can only think in Democratic and Republican categories, and don't understand how movements and political ideas (progressivism, Christian conservatism, libertarianism, Tea Party, etc.) function within US politics. But your ignorance doesn't make make those movements irrelevant. Modern US libertarianism represents a combination of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism that represents the preferences of many voters, and it is having an impact.

    60. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Unless you're really claiming that the proposals of the Libertarian party are somehow NOT reflective of the policy aims and goals of Libertarians?

      And are you seriously claiming that only people who are members of the Libertarian party are libertarians?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    61. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Taxes and regulation needn't be anti-libertarian, so long as they're being freely agreed upon by individuals.

      The reason that you have to impose taxes, laws and regulations is precisely because people won't freely agree on them as individuals.

      If Bill Gates or one of the partners in Goldman Sachs decide that paying the same flat amount of tax as one of their cleaners is sufficient, how are you going to get any more tax off them except by threatening them with jail (or as libertarians always say, death at the barrel of a gun) if they don't obey the tax laws and pay what everyone else has decided is fair?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    62. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      AnaCap

      If by that you mean Anarcho-Capitalist, you should go outside and hang yourself from a tree. There is no legitimate crossover between the philosophical ideas of Anarchism and those of Capitalism. They are two different things that libertarians try to yoke together to make their beliefs sound more radical and less based on pure economic and ethical selfishness by grafting on the Anarcho- part.

      If you want a society where brute economic power reigns through the imaginary "free market" then just have the guts to say so. You want a return to Nineteenth Century Capitalism? Just fucking admit it. Don't try to pretend you've got some bold, noble liberty-based alternative to the present, clearly imperfect system.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    63. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      In fact, anarchocapitalists expect that entrepeneurs competing to provide arbitration and security services could provide such services at a higher quality and at lower prices than a government monopoly can - just as entrepeneurs excel at providing other economic goods.

      The rest of just don't see why being forced to do something by an employee of a for-profit organisation is an improvement over being forced to do something by an employee of a democratically elected government.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    64. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Taxes that do not benefit me are theft. The government exists to serve the people. Taking my money and giving it to someone else, so that it does not benefit me is theft. Taking my money and using it for purposes that do benefit me is OK.

      And this is where the essential sociooathy of libertarianism is exposed. As a society, most normal people think it good that the old, poor, ill or otherwise disadvantaged are provided for in some way. We also think it is a good idea to have roads, power grids, clean water and so on available to everyone. Having a justice system and police force is a good idea too, to protect the weak and vulnerable from the strong and ruthless. Giving everyone a good education helps to promote general well being, prosperity and happiness.

      And so on.

      There are many more important things than some rrich cock's ability to spend all his money on buying new yachts if he feels like it. Society as a whole trumps the individual, or else you should just admit you have no interest in deomocracy.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    65. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like

      Only people who know fuck-all about Libertarianism.

      It's not a question of what a libertarian paradise should look like, it's what in practice it would look like. Libertarians are free to believe that if government disappeared everything would be perfect, it just doesn't convince the rest of us.

      The reason that people always taunt libertarians with "go and live in Somalia then" is because there is no particular reason why a country, in the effective absence of any sort of government, shouldn't end up that way. You might want a society magically balanced between lots of free-spirited entrepreneurs with no one person able to achieve excessive control or power over a market, but in reality you'll just end up with Nineteenth Century capitalism again and hugely wealthy and powerful Robber Barons.

      The reason that life isn't a living hell for the majority of people in the West nowadays is precisely because of the ameliorating effects of democratic socialism in requiring shorter working hours, safe working conditions, the right to strike, the abolition of child labouur and so on.

      Marx was quite right about how evil pure capitalism is, he just didn't have the benefit of hindsight to see that democratic change was and is possible.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    66. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Freedom is so horrible.

      Non-libertarians are not opposed to free thinking, or free speech. We just don't think that the economics of "leave everything to the free market" will cause an increase in liberty, fraternity or equality for the vast majority of people.

      The fact that taxation also impinges on the absolute freedom of billionaires is something we can live with.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    67. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      Actually, I am inclined to say that taxation, like all other financial industries, naturally tends towards theft: when your job is to take money from A, transfer it mostly to B, and put a portion of it in your pocket as a 'fee', then your basic feedback of job performance is that the more money you stick in your own pocket, the better you are doing your job. As such, taxes do tend towards theft, and further attract thieves. But I do not mean weLfare recipients, so much as I mean political hacks, contractors, bankers, and corporate bigwigs, mostly because a powerless person is much less able to steal than a powerful person.

      As a corallary, I might add that social tax and spend programs will never be effective at combatting poverty, because money is a form of power, and the powerless will never be effective at using power to take power from the powerful.

      So then, what do I mean by libertarianism? I mean that I hate bullying and corruption, and that I think that freedom is a pretty good thing. But I cannot,often, vote for what is presented as libertarian.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    68. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Once again, you demonstrate your complete inability to read and respond to what was written.

      I am asserting that in no way, shape, or form, is Belize a "libertarian paradise," and any attempt to paint it as such is a foolish bit of sleight of hand that tries to define "libertarianism" as "anything that I think is foolish or want to make fun of."

      Perhaps, since you seem to take issue with my statement, you can explain for us just what makes Belize the "libertarian paradise" you imagine it is? I mean, surely you're not just making this shit up as you go - surely you know ALL ABOUT Belize's government & their policies, and can tell us exactly how the Belize model fits exactly what libertarians everywhere are advocating?

      The point about Belize is not that it fits in with some theoretical libertarian model of paradise, it's simply that it's the sort of country where if you're a rich cunt you can get away with a lot. And to those of us opposed to libertarian politics that is precisely what a libertarian system would lead to, even more than is the case at present.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    69. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      The biggest fallacy of anti-Libertarians is to assume that Libertarianism is an end, when it is merely a means. There is no such thing as a "libertarian money system". The libertarian part is what MEANS are used to decide on said monetary system. In other words, the lack of coercion is what makes it Libertarian, not what materializes as a result.

      So you don't care what society actually ends up like, just so long as your perfect libertarian ideals are followed on the way there? That is an interesting reverwsal of the normal model of progress, where you have an agreed-on end in sight but have to be prepared to be flexible about the means of getting there.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    70. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by sherpajohn · · Score: 1

      Sounds almost like Canada! But obviously with better drugs.g

      --

      Going on means going far
      Going far means returning
    71. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

      Funny how both the fanatical adherents and fanatical opposition will take any -ism to an absurd level for the sake of argument.

      You're living in the wrong century. We have computers and can only think in binary terms. You're either with us or with the Enemy. Every problem can be solved if you hit it with my hammer hard enough and long enough. The opposing side (notice we can only have 2 sides?) has no worthy contributions to make, and following even the least of their ideals will lead to the End of the World in right short order.

      It's SOOO much more satisfying to be able to simply quack "Taxes are Theft" and things like that. Saves actually having to switch on one's brain. To say nothing of how absolutism gets everyone's adrenaline up, thus ensuring that instead of solving problems we can simply all be angry at each other.

    72. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      I'd GLADLY accept 19th century capitalism over today's centrally planned, government micro-managed welfare/warfare state and the BS smoke and mirrors economy. Whatever problems the USA had then pale by comparison to the ones it has now.

      In the 19th century, the USA grew into an economic super power. The per-capita GDP grew so rapidly that it eclipsed that of any country in Europe. Food production soared, the rail infrastructure saw major expansion, industrial output increased rapidly and the USA was a beacon of opportunity for anyone willing to work. All this with a federal government that spent LESS THAN 5% of GDP!

      Today, the USA federal government spends 25% of GDP, has accumulated debt > 100% of GDP and is borrowing an additional 10% of GDP every year. The industrial infrastructure of the USA is a hollow shell. The monetary system is controlled by a secret cartel of central bankers for the benefit of a few wealthy elites. The pseudo-economy exists on government bailouts, handouts, subsidies and personal debt accumulation.

      Your government is 5X as large and there is more human misery and wealth inequality in today's "clearly imperfect" system than there was in the "imperfect" 19th century. Even worse, there are far fewer economic opportunities, even for those willing to work.

      That's OK however. Soon, the government is going to bankrupt itself and then we'll all be libertarians. Time for you to learn how to peacefully coexist with your neighbors.

    73. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you seriously claiming that you can't read & understand the few very simple sentences that I wrote? The logic failures here are mind-boggling - if the only way you can "score points" is by completely misrepresenting and deliberately misinterpreting what I just wrote and ignoring the point I did make, then do everybody a favor and just shut the fuck up. If you have nothing substantial to say, acknowledge that your dislike for libertarianism has no basis in rational thought, and is rooted in fabrication and misrepresentation.

      One guy talking online and confusing anarcho-capitalism with libertarianism doesn't "represent" libertarian thought any more than one "liberal" guy talking online about nationalizing the US financial system represents "Democratic" thought.. If you don't like the Libertarian Party's platform - since it doesn't contain any of the elements you and your friends have been hammering on in this thread - as an example, perhaps you can point out some other reasonably large, voluntary association of libertarians who have all agreed on a platform that sounds anything like what's been proposed?

      You know, something that would indicate a large number of libertarians DO, in fact, agree with the type of policies you're talking about?

    74. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Can you provide an example of where a non-government, for-profit organization forced you to do something with the penalty for refusal being incarceration or violence?

    75. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, conversely, taxes and regulation are anti-libertarian, so long as at least one individual to which they're being applied is not freely agreeing to that - do I get that correct?

      No, you don't get that correct.

      100% voluntary agreement is anarchy - it is not libertarianism. Libertarianism acknowledges the need for laws, regulations, national defense, courts, and other "social services." Libertarianism focuses on minimizing government interference in the decisions and lives of citizens, minimizing taxation (to support ONLY those social services which are absolutely required to protect the rights of citizens and provide for common self defense), and minimizing government regulation of the market. Libertarians DO tend to believe that "local" government is better, more responsive government than a massive federal government thousands of miles away, but it *is* possible to advocate for "minimal taxes, regulation, and interference," without going to the extreme that "ALL taxes, regulation, and interference must be abolished in their entirety." You should try holding a nuanced view in your mind some time - I promise your head won't explode.

      Your attempt to characterize an entire spectrum of political thought as a binary "either / or" choice is childishly naive. Assuming you're a Democrat, or a Social Liberal of some sort - would you characterize your political views as "nationalize everything, all the time, and redistribute all wealth the way good comrade Marx suggested?" Social liberals are not "militant communists," though liberals & communists have some common elements in their policy proposals. Libertarians are not "militant anarchists," though libertarians and anarchists have some common elements in their policy proposals. The thing you're missing is that there's a difference of degree in both of these distinctions.

    76. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "...you should just admit you have no interest in deomocracy(sic)"

      I have no interest in a democracy where the majority can use arbitrary force against the minority. The 99% vote to kill the 1% and divide up their wealth, and the 1% shouldn't complain because they got their chance to vote.

      If "most normal people" want to take care of the old, poor, ill, disadvantaged, protect the weak and vulnerable and provide education to others, let them do it. No libertarian would interfere in such a noble effort. What you REALLY mean is that most people want all of these things, but want others(The RIch!) to pay for them.

      From what I'm observing, your government is more often protecting and enriching the strong and the ruthless at the expense of the weak and under-privileged.

      The pitfall of a central planning paradise is that the planners are inherently corruptible and will always end up serving a minority at the expense of the majority. The more centralized the power, the worse the corruption.

    77. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason that people always taunt libertarians with "go and live in Somalia then" is because there is no particular reason why a country, in the effective absence of any sort of government, shouldn't end up that way.

      Great, now explain to us how you reached the conclusion that libertarians advocate - in any way - "no government."

      Misrepresenting the position you're criticizing just makes you look like a buffoon, fyi.

    78. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Anarcho-capitalism is NOT libertarianism. They're equivalent in the same way that modern American "liberalism" is equivalent to Marxist Communism."

      So, the same way that Obama is a socialist and/or communist?

      Sorry, that was really cheap. Okay, let's agree that there's plenty of misconception among people who disagree politically. But I've learned something. I've often thought that libertarians regarded all taxes and government as evil, and then I couldn't quite understand how they expected anything to work that is normally funded through taxes or managed by government services (e.g., justice system, policing, military security). Taken to its logical conclusion, it *does* sound like what's being proposed is practically anarchy. But instead we actually agree: minimizing taxes and services from government to what is essential is a good idea. I'm all for that principle, and more broadly I like the libertarian principles outlined on that site. Seriously.

      It's the implementation details that I end up disagreeing with. Some of them I strongly support (e.g., almost all of them in Personal Liberty). Some I as strongly don't (e.g., "We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition." -- sorry, but I wouldn't accept this lack of regulation for cars, so why should guns be THAT free of regulation?). To pick a few others, I strongly support balanced budgets, I think abolishing income tax is crazy without specifying what alternative way necessary taxes would be collected; while I think having a free market economy for education could be effective, I think the practical reality would be a sub-standard result even worse than what public education already achieves. It's also a mystery to me where the funds for education of a sizable fraction of the population would come from.

      In any case, we can argue about what qualifies as "essential" for the residual government. I'm just afraid that in my case that might be more than what some people prefer (e.g., some kind of basic universal healthcare so that nobody has to go without medical treatment for an illness because they don't have enough money, some kind of basic education that nobody has any excuse for not making available to their children, etc.). I'm just not a big fan of the "tough shit" approach to the needs of fellow citizens, be they a person working at minimum wage who has a family member with a chronic illness, or a person whose house and community has been flattened by a hurricane. Yeah, I cringe at the thought that people's money is being taken to fund government policies that they may not like. I feel the same way for things I don't want. On the other hand, there will always be such things in a democracy determined by majority, and there are some things *everybody* relies on, whether they think about it or not. Just because you haven't used the criminal justice system today doesn't mean there doesn't need to be one, or that if it were chronically underfunded it wouldn't eventually affect things you *do* care about and notice.

      On the plus side, I do agree with the principle that people should be able to opt-out of a lot if they want to do it all themselves, and not pay corresponding taxes. Paying the real costs could be really high, though, if they find out they do want that government-funded option later (if they decide to take the "no free ride" approach, they have to live by it if they change their mind later, and be denied the services they opted-out of unless they pay the corresponding "back taxes" to buy back in). I think some complaints could be solved with this kind of "itemized" tax accounting and service opt-in/opt-out system, although the accounting would be a nightmare.

      I also think that expecting the self-interests of corporations to automatically align with the broader goals of the people they employ and that of their customers is naive, particularly in light of the recent demonstra

    79. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The point about Belize is not that it fits in with some theoretical libertarian model of paradise,

      So when NeutronCowboy said, "Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like," he meant that "Belize is nothing like some theoretical libertarian model of paradise?"

      Guess it's opposite day - thanks for clearing that misunderstanding up for us!

    80. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Apparently the "Libertarian way" is to make a bunch of vague statements as to what libeterianism actually is, then jump all over anyone who dares ask specific questions.

      Please show me where anyone I responded to asked a specific question. Or any question, for that matter.

      Apparently the "non-Libertarian way" is to make a bunch of bullshit accusations and then play the victim when someone who actually knows what they're talking about calls you on it.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    81. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Freedom is so horrible.

      Non-libertarians are not opposed to free thinking, or free speech. We just don't think that the economics of "leave everything to the free market" will cause an increase in liberty, fraternity or equality for the vast majority of people.

      Well, good news - unlike the duopolistic parties of Extreme Left and Extreme Right, Libertarians are not forced to think in lock-step with one another. I, for example, see how ridiculously simplistic the official Libertarian economic platform is, and do not agree with it, but am still able to refer to myself as Libertarian because I agree with pretty much everything else the party stands for.

      I do understand, individual expression is probably a bit of an abstract concept to folks used to going through life without cogent thought.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    82. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're an idiot.

    83. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Sounds a lot like what people think a libertarian paradise should look like

      Only people who know fuck-all about Libertarianism.

      It's not a question of what a libertarian paradise should look like, it's what in practice it would look like. Libertarians are free to believe that if government disappeared everything would be perfect, it just doesn't convince the rest of us.

      Ah, I see your folly - you've somehow confused the term "Libertarian" with "Anarchist."

      Contrary to what you've convinced yourself, they are not confluent philosophies. Please do us all a favor and banish your ignorance, rather than comment on matters you obviously know little to nothing about.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    84. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This thread is a great example to point to when people wonder how far Slashdot has fallen. So thanks for that I guess.

    85. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny how in your haste to "prove me wrong" by quoting the third sentence of the wikipedia page on Libertarianism, you skipped right over the first two sentences. Here, I'll reproduce them for you here:

      Libertarianism is the group of political philosophies that advocates minimizing coercion and emphasizes freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarians generally advocate a society with significantly less government compared to most present day societies.

      There's no consensus on a "precise" definition of libertarianism. But there are common elements that definitions of libertarianism share... and "no taxes," "no regulation," and "no government" are NOT found in those common elements.

      I didn't know that was part of the definition of libertarianism.

      Because you've apparently never thought about it for more than the second or two it takes to knee-jerk a "haha libertarians are doodoopoopooheads" response on Slashdot. Any philosophical system that is not destructively nihilistic or oppressive must have, as its foundation, an acknowledgement and an embrace of logic and rationality. Note that I do not say that "libertarians are the ONLY ones who are logical and rational."

      you're doing appeal to authority.

      It is not an "appeal to authority" to recognize that words have defined, commonly agreed upon meanings. It is not an "appeal to authority" to recognize that taking a word and saying, "X is now Not-X," means that any criticism of "Not-X" is not a criticism of X. If you want us to understand "anarcho-capitalism" when you say "libertarianism," do not expect us to treat any criticism you make of what you call "libertarianism" as a valid criticism of actual libertarian philosophy. You can't have your cake and eat it too - if you want to criticize the thing Libertarians call libertarianism, you can't criticize anarcho-capitalism and say "look, I've thoroughly debunked libertarianism."

      someone calling themselves a libertarian in the 1970s would look at you like an alien.

      But when I say alien, I mean "someone who I love like a brother and who I have lots in common with." Therefore, I agree - someone calling themselves a libertarian in the 1970's would look at me like a brother, because we'd have lots in common! See, I've disproved your point. You don't get to define what "alien" means to me.

      If you wish to have a conversation with other people, you're stuck with language. Language has words, and words have commonly accepted meanings. If you want to redefine them, then it's on YOU to make clear that "when I say X, I really mean not-X." If you want libertarian to mean "not libertarian," then great - criticize "not libertarianism" all you want. But again - don't pretend that you're critiquing what the language defines as libertarianism when you're really critiquing the made-up-concept you've decided to associate with the word "libertarianism".

    86. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      Ah gotcha. So you strawman it so you can hate it. Glad we got a handle on that.

    87. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      So you don't care what society actually ends up like, just so long as your perfect libertarian ideals are followed on the way there?

      Looks around...

      Project much?

    88. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      I don't think there's many (certainly I don't know any) libertarians that are looking for Utopia (that's your lot's job), we merely believe that libertarian policies would be better than what we have right now.

    89. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm just not a big fan of the "tough shit" approach to the needs of fellow citizens, be they a person working at minimum wage who has a family member with a chronic illness, or a person whose house and community has been flattened by a hurricane.

      It's worth noting that libertarian policy does not say (or even suggest) that the response should be "oh well, tough shit" to those people. The appropriate response to someone in need is, "how can *I* help?" Personal responsibility also means it's up to the individual to decide for him or herself whether or not somebody's appeal for assistance warrants a response - libertarians would say it's not the government's job to force people to help.

      Libertarianism and charity are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any prominent libertarian who would argue that freely choosing to help your neighbors out is a bad thing - they'd encourage it. What they wouldn't encourage is saying, "we're going to pass a law that says you MUST help these people."

      I think the implementation of them still needs work.

      Indeed, they do. I disagree with fellow libertarians all the time over the "appropriate" level of taxation and regulation that a society "should" have - it's an active discussion. But by the same token, let's not pretend that the Democrats' & Republicans' alternatives are flawless implementations that will work exactly as expected every time, either. None of the parties has all the answers. But dismissing any of them out of hand without evaluating their actual proposals (rather than a straw man created for the purposes of karma whoring on slashdot, as others have done above) is just silly.

      As far as guns, and financial market regulation: these are specific implementation details, and opinions vary significantly within the libertarian party itself. I think there's certainly room for improvement and discussion. In general, however, bear in mind that libertarians believe people should bear the consequences of their decisions, as well as be given the latitude to make the decisions that are best for them. This means that, if you buy a gun and misuse it, you should bear the consequences of the crime you've committed. This means that, if you take on too much risk as a bank and end up insolvent, the bank should bear the consequences of the fraud they committed, or excessive risk they've taken on - that is, no TARP bailouts, no "too big to fail," no "we'll save you by giving you taxpayer money."

      Having an honest discussion about the appropriate levels of government oversight is valuable, and constructive. Dismissing an entire school of thought (again, as others have done in this thread) by misrepresenting it as a caricature of itself is destructive, and society is the poorer for it.

    90. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

      people who dig in their heels and concede not even the obvious (about language evolving, about words with complex meanings, about no one controlling a word's meaning) are the exact opposite of rational. they are called stubborn fools

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    91. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      This thread is a great example to point to when people wonder how far Slashdot has fallen. So thanks for that I guess.

      I concur.
      Let's get back to discussing what McAfee dipped his finger in, where he put it, which finger he licked, and in what order.


      Oh, and let's not forget that Belizian police raided McAfee's home last April.

      Rich white men who come to Belize and act strangely are kind of a type

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    92. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you read as well as you write. By which I mean - not well at all.

      I'll repeat the important details for you:

      "If you wish to have a conversation with other people, you're stuck with language. Language has words, and words have commonly accepted meanings. If you want to redefine them, then it's on YOU to make clear that "when I say X, I really mean not-X." If you want libertarian to mean "not libertarian," then great - criticize "not libertarianism" all you want. But again - don't pretend that you're critiquing what the language defines as libertarianism when you're really critiquing the made-up-concept you've decided to associate with the word "libertarianism"."

      Here's the logical form of what you're doing:
      Assert: A = !A
      !A = bad lol awful stupid thing.
      Therefore,
      A = bad lol awful stupid thing.

      On its surface, that looks reasonable, iff your assertion that A and !A are equivalent is true. Unfortunately for your shitty, reductionist logic, it's been pointed out repeatedly that A and !A are not equivalent in this discussion - and so your logic fails. A and !A may still both be "bad lol awful stupid things," but if they are not the same thing, you cannot pretend that "debunking the lie" of one means you've legitimately "disproved" the other. Pointing to something bad and screaming "libertarianism" does not mean you've criticized libertarianism if what you've pointed to has no resemblance to libertarianism.

      I know this is probably some advanced stuff for you, but please, try to keep up. Or remain silent and learn more before you run your stupid mouth.

    93. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I am asserting that in no way, shape, or form, is Belize a "libertarian paradise," and any attempt to paint it as such is a foolish bit of sleight of hand that tries to define "libertarianism" as "anything that I think is foolish or want to make fun of."

      And to support your assertion it is in no way a "libertarian paradise," you said

      Belize is a parliamentary democracy,

      As part of the response as to why it is not a "libertarian paradise." Yes, there was more to it than that, but that sums up the main point of the section you quoted as "proof" it couldn't possibly be a "libertarian paradise."

      That indicates you believe a democracy couldn't be libertarian. What's the matter, two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner is what you think democracy is, but you are trying to describe libertarianism in a manner that isn't incompatible with a democracy? After all, two wolves and a sheep voting on a Constitutional Amendment on dinner, the wolves still have a 2/3 majority, so a constitutional republic offers no protection from mutton dinner.

    94. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Last someone described the monarchy to me, it has no political power and pays more into the government than it receives. Isn't "libertarianism" all about force? If the monarchy never forces anything, ever, how is that in any way incompatible with libertarianism?

    95. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by able1234au · · Score: 1

      And yet Local Government is far more known for its corruption.

    96. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      Take a break from slapping bumper stickers on your car and look at what I wrote. Where did I imply that either of the major parties are automatically run by saints or scholars or intellectuals? If you require citations that show that the Tea Party libertarian movement is compromised mostly of self-described political amateurs who only recently took an interest in politics, pick your favorite cable news network and watch one of their documentaries on them. With the exception of MSNBC's tendency to underplay the role of socially liberal pro-legalization voters and overplay the input of super-rich svengalies, the three cable nets have been virtually identical in pointing out that the Tea Party movement is a populist movement of outsiders. Also, nowhere do I say that the libertarian movement is irrelevant. You might have read into my calling the Libertarian party inconsequential. If you think they aren't, count their successes at swaying ideology or just winning major elections. What I did say is that there is little value in what the Tea Party stands for when you pin them down to specifics, and I stand by that.

    97. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, if only our local town and city governments were less corrupt - like that shining bastion of spotless purity, the federal government.

    98. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, let me explain for you, the slow one:

      The person I responded to asserted that Belize is a "libertarian paradise." I said "You should really go learn about Belize." And then I quoted the first few paragraphs of the wikipedia entry about Belize - in an effort to help him learn a little more about Belize.

      As for how it's incompatible with libertarianism, the simple fact that it's a member of the Commonwealth and recognizes the authority of Queen Elizabeth as the head of state certainly makes it incompatible with a "libertarian" system of thought - libertarians don't generally recognize the legitimacy of a hereditary line of rulers who are granted some mystical "god given" right to rule.

      Nowhere in anything I've said is a statement which can be construed to suggest that I believe a "democracy" and libertarianism are incompatible. You're trying to put words in my mouth, and only underscoring your own ignorance and the childishly ineffectual nature of your own reasoning.

    99. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      As for how it's incompatible with libertarianism, the simple fact that it's a member of the Commonwealth and recognizes the authority of Queen Elizabeth as the head of state certainly makes it incompatible with a "libertarian" system of thought - libertarians don't generally recognize the legitimacy of a hereditary line of rulers who are granted some mystical "god given" right to rule.

      So what government types are compatible with libertarianism? All the libertarians on Slashdot seem to bash democracy (two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner - fucking wolves always vote lasagna). You are stating that monarchy is incompatible with libertarianism, even if the "head of the government" has no power (theoretically infinite power, but no vetos in 300+ years (though that's second hand and not verified, but fits with the amount of power they currently wield).

    100. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what government types are compatible with libertarianism? All the libertarians on Slashdot seem to bash democracy (two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner - fucking wolves always vote lasagna).

      Democracy - in its unperverted, non-ochlocratic form, is compatible with libertarianism. Or, to simplify for your benefit: "mob rule" is not legitimate democracy, "mob rule" is democracy collapsing under its own weight and turning into a many-headed tyranny. Any legitimate, lasting democracy requires the rule of law - that is, the fundamental acknowledgement & protection of minority rights from the "tyranny of the majority". Any society which says it's okay for the wolves to vote away the life of the sheep does not acknowledge the fundamental rights of its citizens, and does not acknowledge one of the fundamental guiding principles of most modern western democracies: that government exists to protect the rights of its citizens.

      If it be admitted that a man, possessing absolute power, may misuse that power by wronging his adversaries, why should a majority not be liable to the same reproach? Men are not apt to change their characters by agglomeration; nor does their patience in the presence of obstacles increase with the consciousness of their strength. And for these reasons I can never willingly invest any number of my fellow-creatures with that unlimited authority which I should refuse to any one of them.

      (Alexis de Tocqueville, "Democracy In America." Book 1, Chapter 15 - source)

      If we can agree that an ochlocracy is a fundamentally immoral perversion of democracy, then I will happily stipulate that pretty much any other form of democracy *is* compatible with libertarianism.

      You are stating that monarchy is incompatible with libertarianism, even if the "head of the government" has no power (theoretically infinite power, but no vetos in 300+ years (though that's second hand and not verified, but fits with the amount of power they currently wield).

      Yes, I am stating that monarchy is incompatible with libertarianism. In the UK form, the monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth) is the head of state; the prime minister (currently David Cameron) is appointed by the monarch and serves as the head of the government. The monarch's powers are limited by both constitution and tradition, which is a fine and noble thing - but the monarchy is hereditary, which means it is unelected, unelectable, and completely outside of any democratic process expressing the will of the people. It is, therefore, incompatible with libertarianism. It doesn't matter if "no monarch has abused their power in hundreds of years" - any system which requires the recognition of a god-given and/or hereditary right to rule isn't compatible with classical liberal philosophy or its philosophical descendants, and libertarianism is most definitely one of those.

      Go read up on the emergence of classical liberalism during the Age of Enlightenment. I bet you'll be absolutely SHOCKED at what you find there. Learn about how Enlightenment era philosophers rejected the divine right of kings, and hereditary privilege. About how they believed in negative rights (that is, restrictions on what other people & government are allowed to do to you), rather than positive rights (that is, the current "social liberal" concept that everybody has rights to be provided with things by their society).

      If you're even remotely intellectually honest, you'll admit to yourself that you know nothing about these things if you're asking such obtuse questions, and need to remedy your ignorance through study and research. Once you've remedied that inadequacy, you may still have criticisms of liberal and libertarian philosophy, but at least they won't be these buffoonish misrepresentations and distortions, and

    101. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The queen appoints the head of the government. The queen is not elected. The queen is granted her right to rule by heredity and divine right.

      Libertarianism takes a stand on the use of force, but it is certainly not "all about force." Libertarianism is about maximizing personal liberty & responsibility, eliminating the use of aggressive/coercive force between people and states, and minimizing government interference and meddling in the interpersonal affairs of its citizenry. Arguing that it's "all about force" is like saying that the Democrats are "only about healthcare," or Republicans are "only about DoD spending."

      Your arguments are stupid, specious, and completely invalid, and you should just publicly acknowledge your ignorance and ask for help, if you've reached a point where:
      1) You're old enough to type these questions on Slashdot;
      2) You're STILL dumb enough to ask them without even bothering to do a cursory investigation into what libertarians *actually* believe;

      20 seconds of reading about libertarian philosophy would have answered your willfully obtuse (or is it willfully ignorant? Do tell!) questions. Instead, you elect to ask idiotically leading questions in an attempt to "trip up" those rascally libertarians with your amazing insights. Unfortunately for you, you're nowhere near as bright or well informed as you seem to think, and so your questions are pathetically obvious attempts to score points without actually expending the effort of thought.

    102. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by kenorland · · Score: 1

      What I did say is that there is little value in what the Tea Party stands for when you pin them down to specifics, and I stand by that.

      The Tea Party articulated its positions in the Contract from America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_from_America

      The Libertarian Party has specific, clearly articulated positions in its party platform on http://www.lp.org/

      Compare those with the democratic party platform, which is quite a bit more vague: http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

      Also, nowhere do I say that the libertarian movement is irrelevant. You might have read into my calling the Libertarian party inconsequential. If you think they aren't, count their successes at swaying ideology or just winning major elections.

      You keep playing word games, sometimes talking about the "libertarian movement" (whatever that may be), then whether the "Libertarian party" wins elections.

      Most people with libertarian views don't identify as "libertarians" or vote libertarian, just like most "atheists" don't identify as such or go to atheist meetings and most homosexuals also didn't use to identify as "homosexuals" and didn't use to go to gay hangouts. People stigmatize the names of their political opponents and eventually people react by changing names.

      Many people who hold libertarian beliefs vote Republican, represented by "the Enterprisers". For better or worse, they tend to be well-informed, well-educated rich white males, with a strong interest in macroeconomics. There's a smaller group of libertarian-leaning voters voting Democrat, mostly because they dislike social conservatism even more than progressive economics.

      And these voters have an impact. They prevent social conservatives and progressives from succeeding as presidential candidates in both parties. And they have successfully pushed issues such as drug legalization, gay marriage, economic liberalization and free trade, etc. And as libertarian ideas succeed, they just get co-opted by the two major parties who pretend they really always stood for these ideas in the first place, leaving libertarian groups with the next batch of controversial ideas to push.

      Sorry, but your analysis of libertarianism and its demographics are just out of touch with reality. The "Libertarian party" is inconsequential, but libertarian-leaning voters are a major political force in the US today.

    103. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You're STILL dumb enough to ask them without even bothering to do a cursory investigation into what libertarians *actually* believe;

      I think the problem is that I've done enough investigation into what "libertarians actually believe" (as opposed to what they claim libertarians believe) to know that libertarianism is even less sustainable than communism. Libertarianism is anti-democracy (two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner implies violence against the sheep, so democracy, or any government, exists only through use of force).

      20 seconds of reading about libertarian philosophy would have answered your willfully obtuse (or is it willfully ignorant? Do tell!) questions.

      I've read plenty, and had people link me lots of libertardian proopganda YouTube videos. Just because I didn't end up brainwashed, but actually listened, I noticed that it's a religion based on irrational belief, not a philosophy based on logic. Even libertarians don't agree on the basis of rights. Some claim it's the right to be free from violence. Others from the right of ownership. One claimed it was from the right of personhood (back before "personhood" meant citizen at conception, not birth as coded in the Constitution), but the basis of personhood was from the right of ownership, where you owned yourself.

      So it usually boils down to the right of ownership, and all other rights derived from property. So libertarians believe that those who own land have more rights than those who don't. I've never met a libertarian who disagreed with that when I asked the question more delicately. But they almost all get angry when I point it out bluntly, even if they rarely disagree with anything other than "nuh uh."

      No, the problem is that I know too much about libertarians to buy into that hokey religion.

    104. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If we can agree that an ochlocracy is a fundamentally immoral perversion of democracy, then I will happily stipulate that pretty much any other form of democracy *is* compatible with libertarianism.

      And what if we agree that ochlocracy is a necessary evolution of democracy? Has any democracy *not* experienced it?

      Yes, I am stating that monarchy is incompatible with libertarianism. In the UK form, the monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth) is the head of state; the prime minister (currently David Cameron) is appointed by the monarch and serves as the head of the government.

      What legislative powers rest in the "head of state"? Being more familiar with another commonwealth country, the head is appointed by the Queen as well, and he holds absolute theoretical power, under the authority of the queen, but has, to my knowledge, never done anything other than attend dinners, meet dignitaries, and politely request things.

      When looking at the power of the crown as exercised, it looks like you are objecting to the title, not the power.

      If you're even remotely intellectually honest, you'll admit to yourself that you know nothing about these things if you're asking such obtuse questions, and need to remedy your ignorance through study and research.

      You are funny. I've done the research. I've done the reading. I've read the bible, but I've being told I'm ignorant because I've read the Word of God and do not believe. I've read your prophets. I do not believe. That doesn't make me ignorant. That means I have come to a separate conclusion and I think you are wrong. THe misrepresentations and distortions are points where libertarians don't agree. Though you are one of the few to not just immediately chant "no true Scotsman" and leave it at that. You assert that if I knew better, I'd agree with you, because you know The One True Word of God.

      Have fun with your religion. You've done nothing to convince me that my opinion that 100% of libertarians are clinically insane is incorrect (just as DSM explicitly excludes religious beliefs from insanity, even if a non-religious invisible friend would otherwise meet all the requirements for a clinical diagnosis).

    105. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what if we agree that ochlocracy is a necessary evolution of democracy? Has any democracy *not* experienced it?

      No, I don't agree that it's a necessary evolution of democracy. Since you seem to feel that it's necessary, why don't you provide us with a handful of examples of ochlocracy in action today that we could consider?

      What legislative powers rest in the "head of state"?

      Whatever legislative powers are defined as part of the role? In the US, no legislative power rests in the head of state - the President, being the head of the Executive branch, has very little legislative power - only the ability to approve or veto laws passed by the legislature, and then enforce those laws as a member of the executive branch. In other countries, the division of legislature and executive branches is less distinct (see: Queen In Parliament, as it relates the UK's system of government - the monarch *is* a member of parliament; the monarch may also enact secondary legislation as they see fit, that is typically enforceable as long as Parliament doesn't explicitly *disapprove.*

      The monarch ALSO appoints the Prime Minister, who selects the other cabinet ministers in the government who are all members of parliament - again, a fusion of the executive & legislative branch. If you can't see how a monarch - selecting the Prime Minister, who then selects the cabinet, which advises the queen and exercise the authority delegated to them by the queen (who is, again, "head of state" by virtue of an unelected accident of birth combined with divine providence), then I can only control that you're just trolling in your continued questioning of this point.

      When looking at the power of the crown as exercised, it looks like you are objecting to the title, not the power.

      The queen has ultimate authority, and can choose to exercise her powers, or delegate them to ministers and other representatives as she sees fit. "She hasn't abused her powers lately" is not the equivalent of "she can't abuse her powers." You seem to think that they're the same thing - they are not.

      You are funny. I've done the research. I've done the reading. I've read the bible, but I've being told I'm ignorant because I've read the Word of God and do not believe.

      No, you clearly HAVE NOT done the research. You may have done the reading, but it's clear that NONE of the information in that reading sank in. You're being told you're ignorant because you ARE ignorant - of libertarian thought, of how classical liberalism and monarchies got along (which is to say, not at all), of the necessary elements of a democratic system, and a host of other points that you've questioned. If your questions were earnest, than they show exactly how LITTLE you know about any of these topics. If your questions were NOT earnest, then as I said, you're simply trolling and making yourself look like an idiot.

      This has nothing to do with whether or not you have "accepted the truth" of libertarianism. This has EVERYTHING to do with you misrepresenting, misunderstanding, and being ignorant of, key - and readily available online - elements of libertarian thinking. I am not a libertarian, in the interests of full disclosure. I am simply tired of seeing ignorant people smugly asserting things about political systems that they do not understand, and clearly have not made even a brief, cursory effort to understand.

      You assert that if I knew better, I'd agree with you, because you know The One True Word of God.

      I have done no such thing, and I defy you to quote for me a single point where I said "if you only knew better, you'd be a libertarian too." I do not AGREE with many libertarian proposals. I tend more towards social liberalism (modern day "Democrats" in the US) personally. But your obstinate unwillingness to understand what libertarians

    106. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner implies violence against the sheep, so democracy, or any government, exists only through use of force).

      *sigh* Okay, as part of your education, it's now important that you go read up on Hobbes', Locke's and Rousseau's vision of social contracts. Add those to your reading list.

      So it usually boils down to the right of ownership, and all other rights derived from property.

      Correct. Self-ownership and self-determination are fundamental aspects of any "free" society. The right to determine your own course, the right to own the product of your labors, and the right to associate (or not associate) freely as you see fit are all derived from this. Corollary to this is the right to be free of coercive violence (which carries with it an implicit rejection of coercive violence on the part of all citizens, as well. Anybody using coercion in a "free" society is violating the rights of other citizens).

      So libertarians believe that those who own land have more rights than those who don't.

      Annnnnd... you just went right the fuck off the rails. Care to provide a single citation to support this claim? Or are we supposed to believe that your ravings are in any way related to reality?

      I've never met a libertarian who disagreed with that when I asked the question more delicately.

      Okay, ask it delicately, right now - trap me with your amazing logical queries. If I'm able, I will then explain to you both why you're wrong, and why your question is laughably ignorant. If I'm unable, then you can claim the title of "AK MARC, GRAND HIGH DEBUNKER OF LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT AND ALL AROUND SWELL GUY WHO'S NOT IN ANY WAY A FOAMING MANIAC."

      You're not arguing in a vacuum, you know - this is the real world, where real references explaining what real libertarians really mean really exist. And I would dearly love to review a single one of them that supports a SINGLE THING you've said that isn't an unsourced blog post by somebody saying, "Let me tell you why libertarianism is evil."

    107. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Keen+Anthony · · Score: 1

      I'm not playing word games. I mentioned the Libertarian party losing elections because your last remark about my ignorance of the libertarian movement being irrelevant made me wonder if you were trying to argue that the Libertarian party has had an impact. What do you by "whatever that may be"? I made it pretty clear that the modern libertarian movement consists of people from across the board. You've only restated my points here. I never said that libertarian minded voters don't have an impact, I said that mainstream popular libertarian movement, which has been defined by the Tea Party, should not be listened to, and I am correct. So far, they (the Tea Party) have been an embarrassment. They constantly show that they haven't put much out int their beliefs and they are mostly a reactionary element that has no real direction. yes, of course, there are other kinds of libertarians, and I pointed that out already. If you weren't so fast to foe me, you might have noticed that we don't disagree with each other on those points, instead you kept in with assumptions.

    108. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by kenorland · · Score: 1

      You've only restated my points here.

      You tried to portray people who hold libertarian beliefs as uneducated people who blindly follow pundits: "By and large, the libertarian movement as it is popularized today is a caricature of the original libertarian movement, but populated by low information people that don't read enough, that get all their news from pundits, and who only recently in the last 8 years have taken a real interest in domestic policy and macroeconomics."

      That isn't just insulting, it is factually wrong. Libertarian views today correlate with a high degree of independence, distrust of experts/pundits, and high education.

      I said that mainstream popular libertarian movement, which has been defined by the Tea Party, should not be listened to, and I am correct. So far, they (the Tea Party) have been an embarrassment

      The Tea Party is not a "popular libertarian movement", it is a movement under which a lot of people of many different political views came together to advocate primarily fiscal responsibility. Those views appealed to libertarians, conservatives, and many others. It was quite successful politically and threw a monkey wrench into the political arrangements of both parties, which is why Democrats demonized and stigmatized it and Republicans didn't do much to defend it.

      they are mostly a reactionary element that has no real direction

      If you think that libertarians are "reactionary", you really have no idea what the word means. And you should figure out whether you really want to associate yourself with the terminology used by communist and socialist revolutionaries to characterize Western democracies during the cold war.

      If you weren't so fast to foe me, you might have noticed that we don't disagree with each other on those points, instead you kept in with assumptions.

      We disagree on pretty much every point you have made. And if you don't want to piss off people, you shouldn't start off by insulting them.

    109. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Okay, as part of your education, it's now important that you go read up on Hobbes', Locke's and Rousseau's vision of social contracts. Add those to your reading list.

      I've read them. Though I did so many years ago in public school, so I'm sure they censored them to only give me the socialist version.

      Correct. Self-ownership and self-determination are fundamental aspects of any "free" society. The right to determine your own course, the right to own the product of your labors, and the right to associate (or not associate) freely as you see fit are all derived from this. Corollary to this is the right to be free of coercive violence (which carries with it an implicit rejection of coercive violence on the part of all citizens, as well. Anybody using coercion in a "free" society is violating the rights of other citizens).

      So, on to another question that I never get a straight answer from: "So, if I have the right to my own course and the product of my labor, do I have the right to sign myself into slavery?"

    110. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't read. He said the tea party is mostly a reactionary element, but you can't admit that can you? They definitely consider themselves a popular libertarian movement. You said it first. Libertarians are made up of different political views. The tea party is one facet of that movement. You definitely have got to be one of the wing nuts. You're already making comparisons to communism!

    111. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The monarch ALSO appoints the Prime Minister, who selects the other cabinet ministers in the government who are all members of parliament - again, a fusion of the executive & legislative branch. If you can't see how a monarch - selecting the Prime Minister, who then selects the cabinet, which advises the queen and exercise the authority delegated to them by the queen (who is, again, "head of state" by virtue of an unelected accident of birth combined with divine providence), then I can only control that you're just trolling in your continued questioning of this point.

      My continued questioning of this point is because I live in a commonwealth country, and that's most certainly *not* how it works here. When you are factually wrong on so many points you assert you are 100% sure on, then your opinions will get similar treatment (considered to be 100% wrong, even if, because they are opinions, not provably so).

    112. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, on to another question that I never get a straight answer from: "So, if I have the right to my own course and the product of my labor, do I have the right to sign myself into slavery?"

      You keep claiming you've read all these references and know all about libertarianism, yet you're asking questions which have been explored at length by fairly influential thinkers in the classical liberal school. Color me skeptical that you "know all about it," if you haven't been able to find answers to these questions with even a minimal amount of reading.

      The answer to your question, though, is, "no, you do not have the right to sign yourself into slavery," for two important reasons:

      1) "Voluntary slavery" is a contradiction in terms. "Volunteering" for slavery means you entered into an arrangement with someone else of your own free will - which is pretty much the polar opposite of slavery, where someone else dominates you and controls you against your will.

      2) You do not have the right to coerce your "future self," and neither does the person you are trying to enter into the slavery agreement with. As such, your agreement is inherently un-enforceable the moment you decide "i'm tired of this slavery thing, and don't want to do it anymore." Again - "slavery" that ends the moment you decide you don't want to be a slave is not slavery. And if your "master" tries to enforce his will, it is no longer a 'voluntary' arrangement, and thus - immoral and unenforceable in a free society.

      See: Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 7, where he writes:

      In short, a man can naturally expend his labor currently for someone else’s benefit, but he cannot transfer himself, even if he wished, into another man’s permanent capital good. For he cannot rid himself of his own will, which may change in future years and repudiate the current arrangement. The concept of “voluntary slavery” is indeed a contradictory one, for so long as a laborer remains totally subservient to his master’s will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary; whereas, if he later changed his mind and the master enforced his slavery by violence, the slavery would not then be voluntary.

    113. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep claiming you know all these things, and yet you are demonstrably factually wrong on numerous points. In response, you claim that I'm wrong because you live in some unspecified Commonwealth country and "that's not how it seems to work here."

      So, yet another challenge to put up or shut up: explain what country, and "how it works there", with adequate references. If you're so knowledgeable on these points, you should be trivially able to point out the many, many points where I'm wrong. Nothing I've stated about the monarchy & commonwealth governments is "opinion," so please don't try and dodge out by saying that you can't disprove my "opinions" - everything I've said are accurate factual statements to the best of my knowledge, so I'd dearly love to hear you explain what points I've misunderstood or misapprehended.

      Please note that "I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way because I've never seen it work that way" is NOT a sufficient answer. If you can't give clear explanation of why and how I'm "factually wrong on so many points," then I'll assume you're simply trying to backpedal and save face after being schooled so thoroughly in political systems.

    114. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      The issue is that I'm not arguing about the theoretical libertarian ideal, but the practical application of it, and the modern people who claim to follow it.

      "Voluntary slavery" is a contradiction in terms. "Volunteering" for slavery means you entered into an arrangement with someone else of your own free will - which is pretty much the polar opposite of slavery, where someone else dominates you and controls you against your will.

      You seem to be declaring that the practice of selling ones self into slavery (uncommon, but still was widely practiced) never existed because you find it inconvenient for your argument. And what about indentured servitude?

      You do not have the right to coerce your "future self," and neither does the person you are trying to enter into the slavery agreement with.

      Then how are any contracts valid when no commitments can be made that could be considered to "coerce" your "future self"?

    115. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be declaring that the practice of selling ones self into slavery (uncommon, but still was widely practiced) never existed because you find it inconvenient for your argument. And what about indentured servitude?

      You are, once again, completely wrong. Nothing I wrote said "slavery and indentured servitude never existed, or in fact, don't exist today." What I wrote is that arguing that "voluntary slavery" is a legitimate contract that two people can enter into is null and void in any "free" society. You cannot "choose" to be a slave - if you choose, you are submitting of your own free will. As soon as you withdraw your consent, you are not a "voluntary slave" any more, and so your "owner" has zero right to "keep" you - the only way he could do so is by force, and his exercise of force to oppose your free will is illegitimate, and immoral. Therefore, disallowed under any sane law in a "free" society.

      You asked, "CAN I sell myself into voluntary slavery in a libertarian system?" Not "HAVE people ever entered into slavery-like arrangements, anywhere in history?" The answer to the first is, "no, not in an enforceable contract in a free society," for the reasons I outlined. The answer to the second is, "Yes, people are coerced into doing all kinds of shitty, awful things in non-free societies." Can you spot the difference? I sure can.

      Then how are any contracts valid when no commitments can be made that could be considered to "coerce" your "future self"?

      Contracts between two people should have time limits, and/or clearly defined procedures (and penalties) for terminating the contract early - any contract that does not runs a grave risk of being held unenforceable by a court - this is why contracts are so long and detailed, and only get longer and more detailed the more valuable the agreement.

      You certainly may be required to pay restitution for damages caused by breaching the contract, but you cannot be compelled to fulfill the original terms of the contract (i.e., those that assume you never breached) against your will, because you cannot legitimately contract away the possibility that you may change your mind at some future point. You may need to convince a court to declare the contract unenforceable or void to avoid paying penalties and/or damages for breaching the contract, but the other party cannot force you to honor the original contract and leave you no option to terminate.

    116. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are, once again, completely wrong. Nothing I wrote said "slavery and indentured servitude never existed, or in fact, don't exist today." What I wrote is that arguing that "voluntary slavery" is a legitimate contract that two people can enter into is null and void in any "free" society.

      You correct me when you are the one that's wrong. You said ""Voluntary slavery" is a contradiction in terms." as if your personal opinion is fact. I pointed out that hundreds of years and all that proves you wrong. You are now saying that your unique and historically inaccurate definition is more valid that everyone else on the planet. Now, you are writing something completely new and unrealted to your previous. Changing history doesn't work so well when I can scroll up and see your statents are incorrect.

    117. Re:Pitfalls of a libertarian paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ, you're thick!

      You asked: "So, on to another question that I never get a straight answer from: "So, if I have the right to my own course and the product of my labor, do I have the right to sign myself into slavery?" This question was asked in the context of a discussion about what libertarians believe. Not in a discussion about "whether slavery has, at any time in history, existed under some form of government, ever?"

      I answered by explaining to you the libertarian take on slavery: it is not slavery if it is voluntary, and you *cannot* sign away your free will in perpetuity - you will always retain your ability to change your mind. In libertarian philosophy, you are asking if you have the ability to enter into an unbreachable, unvoidable contract - and there is no such thing, in libertarian philosophy. It is impossible because enforcing such a contract would require coercion, and libertarians, as I have explained exhaustively, do not recognize one man's right to coerce another.

      You are now saying that your unique and historically inaccurate definition is more valid that everyone else on the planet.

      You asked for the libertarian view on "voluntary slavery" - I gave it to you. In a libertarian system, "voluntary slavery" would not be allowed, because there can be no such thing in a libertarian society - it requires coercion to enforce. If any of the political systems under which indentured servitude and slavery existed could be said to be libertarian, then you would at least have a point in calling libertarians hypocrites... but to suggest that my point about "what libertarians believe" is wrong because "nuh uh, slavery totally used to exist," is just... weak sauce.

      Your muddy thinking, weak points, and generally shoddy logic do not lend themselves to a rational discussion. You keep claiming that I'm wrong, yet you cannot actually demonstrate a single point where I'm incorrect other than to manufacture non sequiturs like these. Again: your question was, "what do libertarians believe?" I answered it. Your question was not, "Has slavery or indentured servitude ever existed anywhere in the world?"

      Seeking to lay the responsibility for that on libertarianism is rather curious - will you next claim that libertarianism is to blame for every plague, famine, drought, war, pestilence, rape, and murder that's occurred anywhere in the world throughout history? Let me be clear: libertarianism bears zero responsibility for something happening, unless it occured at the behest of "libertarian thinking" in a "libertarian society," and was fully and roundly endorsed BY that society. If you can point to a "libertarian" society which endorses (or has endorsed) slavery and indentured servitude, I'd sure love to hear of it.

      There is a vast gulf of difference between "the ability to do something" and "having the *right* to do it." And that line is further muddied by the fact that various political systems have different takes on what rights citizens hold. Using the form your argument just took, I could somehow paint you as supporting people's "right to murder", simply because "murder happens in the world, so clearly you're wrong to say that people don't have the right to murder."

      You are asking about libertarian philosophy. I am answering your questions - and PATIENTLY, I might add. It would be wiser if you would just shut your mouth and stop seeking to "prove me wrong" with idiotic non sequiturs until you've done a LOT more reading, a LOT more listening, and a LOT more thinking about these points before you put that mouth in gear. Libertarian philosophy has plenty of valid questions and criticisms that may be leveled at it - trying to invent these childishly naive "gotchas" just makes you look ignorant.

  13. Whigger ran out of money by Rogerborg · · Score: 0

    Went from "honoured guest" to "undesirable individual" in one bounced check.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  14. Links to the previous McAfee story ... by thrill12 · · Score: 2

    As reported on Slashdot here ? I wonder if they were tracking him down back then for posession of a Luger 9mm.

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
    1. Re:Links to the previous McAfee story ... by TheMathemagician · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't advise trying to live in a compound in the Belize jungle without a large amount of firepower.

  15. I thnik that the correct meme is by JonySuede · · Score: 1

    I think that the correct meme is MDPV is as worst as smoked meth, news at 11

    --
    Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
  16. This is just bizarre. by AwesomeMcgee · · Score: 1

    Really, just trying to imagine in my head any of the countless software engineers I've ever known moving on to generate a story like this.. It's just weird.

  17. hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when a legalized money laundering country screws you for murder your fucked....

  18. Not wanted for murder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's wanted for questioning, not murder at this point in time.

  19. That being said... by thrill12 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    These guns found in the McAfee place and this Luger 9mm do have similarities to the untrained eye.

    --
    Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
    1. Re:That being said... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      What's so special about that? I'm more curious as to WTF is with all those shotguns. Especially the one with the rifle scope (slugs or sabot then?)

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:That being said... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Not sure what he used them for, but in places where rifles are not allowed for deer hunting scoped slug guns are pretty popular. Also pretty popular for turkey guns, since a very tight choke is used.

    3. Re:That being said... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      @100 yards a 12 guage slug has dropped about 10 inches.

      There is no reason to ever put a scope on a shotgun. Unless you think it looks cool. Iron sights work fine to 100 yards. You aren't hitting anything past 100 yards with a shotgun anyhow.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:That being said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor eyesight's a good reason. Whether you go with a 1x red-dot sight or a low-power scope, you get everything (target and reticle) in one plane -- vs. iron sights having three planes (target, bead, and rear sight) to deal with. Just ask someone with both myopia and presbyopia how that works out for them.

      And the red dot's pretty popular for some applications because of the illuminated reticle giving better sight-on-target visibility in poor lighting conditions. More combat-oriented than hunting, but some hunters go for it, too.

    5. Re:That being said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So aim 10 inches above the intended target, increasing as necessary for distance.

    6. Re:That being said... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      and this Luger 9mm

      That is a Highpoint 9mm - it shoots a cartridge known as "9mm Luger" (more commonly just 9mm).

    7. Re:That being said... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Buy better slugs. 200 yards is achievable with hornady SSTs.
      Also your groups will improve with a low power scope over iron sights.

    8. Re:That being said... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      For that reason very low power/ no power red dot scopes are popular for turkey hunting.

    9. Re:That being said... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Brush is so think you never get long shots around here. Sabots will do better but are pointless given the cover.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:That being said... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      100 yards it's dropping so fast it's becoming very difficult to put on target.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:That being said... by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Not that big a deal where I am. We tend to hunt the edge of fields. BTW the hornady SSTs only drop a few inches at 200 yards. You should check them out.
      They also group very well for shotgun. 2-3" at 100 yards. Just a satisfied customer.

  20. Surprising...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also surprisingly, in yesterdays news from Belize, he donated a whole bunch of equipment to the same police that now wants to question him....:)

    http://www.7newsbelize.com/index.php#story12 [7newsbelize.com]
    http://edition.channel5belize.com/archives/78161 [channel5belize.com]

    Maybe not so surprising!! :)

  21. Can anyone parse the final sentence? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 2

    Because of his efforts to extract chemicals from natural chemical plans McAfee was able to justify his experiments in a country that is largely unregulated."

    Err... what? What's meant by "natural chemical plans" here? And why would he have to justify his experiments if the country is largely unregulated?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Can anyone parse the final sentence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, it's poorly constructed and that makes it vague, and open to multiple interpretations.

      Could mean:

      Because of his efforts to extract chemicals from sources using processes generally regarded as "natural" (ie: boiling, heating, mixing, but not involving unusual or caustic solvents), McAfee was able to justify his experiments (as legal) in a country that does not regulate such practices.

      Or maybe:

      Because of his efforts to extract naturally occurring chemicals from plan(t)s[sic] using simple plans freely available on the internet, McAfee was able to justify his experiments (as legal) in a country that does not regulate such practices.

    2. Re:Can anyone parse the final sentence? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      They are expressing their horror at the very thought of people doing things without permission.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:Can anyone parse the final sentence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because of his efforts to extract chemicals from natural chemical plans McAfee was able to justify his experiments in a country that is largely unregulated."

      Err... what? What's meant by "natural chemical plans" here? And why would he have to justify his experiments if the country is largely unregulated?

      Ummm, he forgot to bribe the local officials?

      Hence the "murder" charge to remind him?

    4. Re:Can anyone parse the final sentence? by Netdoctor · · Score: 1

      One of my pet peeves...

      "Natural chemical plans" probably means non-synthesized, where "synthesizing" chemicals usually means making the exact same -molecularly identical- chemical through cheaper, more economical and more easily reproducible ways.

      Ergo, we can't have cheaper, better, or faster, because people are non-natural and science is dumb and we all are going to die from cancer. /rant

    5. Re:Can anyone parse the final sentence? by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 1

      [natural plant chemicals]

    6. Re:Can anyone parse the final sentence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cathinones from Khat presumably, since the story lists MDPV explicitly. Seems like an odd route to take if you're in a country that doesn't care you're synthesising recreational drugs though, you might as well buy proper clean reagents and save yourself the hassle. Or better yet not do it at all, since MDPV is arguably more addictive than crack.

  22. I can see a collaborative project coming on by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    The Reiser-McAfee project!

  23. CSI: Belize by Ardipithecus · · Score: 4, Funny

    FTA:
    apparent gunshot wound on the upper rear part of his head
    apparently dead

    The local CSI team is verifying the facts

    1. Re:CSI: Belize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "[...] where they saw 52 year old U.S National Mr. GREGORY VIANT FAULL, of the said address, lying face up in a pool of blood with an apparent gunshot wound on the upper rear part of his head apparently dead."

      They are describing what the police reported seeing upon their arrival: Mr. Faull, lying face up in a pool of blood, with what appeared to be a gunshot wound on the upper rear part of his head, apparently dead when they arrived.

      "Looks on first inspection like a gunshot wound" doesn't necessarily mean it *is* a gunshot wound, and that assessment needs to be confirmed by a coroner. So yes, it was "an apparent gunshot wound."

      "Dead when we arrived," is different than "alive when we arrived, but died en route," and they're both different from "Alive when we arrived, but died 3 days later in the hospital," and "no apparent heartbeat or breathing, but we started CPR and he resuscitated." All of these can be consistent with someone "apparently dead" upon arrival, but not actually dead after further investigation and treatment.

      But you know, I guess it's more important to be a smug twat and demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension than it is to actually learn to read, huh?

    2. Re:CSI: Belize by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      If they don't have a publicly releasable autopsy report available then of course you're going to get these "apparently" statements. It's obvious when you look at it but you can't be legally "certain" until someone pronounces them dead and determines the cause of death.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:CSI: Belize by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      They're still working on making a GUI using Visual Basic.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:CSI: Belize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they don't have a publicly releasable autopsy report available then of course you're going to get these "apparently" statements. It's obvious when you look at it but you can't be legally "certain" until someone pronounces them dead and determines the cause of death.

      Yeah, you never know, all that brain matter on the wall might suddenly spring to life and hop back in the guy's head.

    5. Re:CSI: Belize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a "Graphical User Interface Interface", not just a GUI.

    6. Re:CSI: Belize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dead eh? Well, let me know if there's any change in his condition.

    7. Re:CSI: Belize by X0563511 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't know the gunshot killed him until the coroner does his thing. He could have already been dead. Hell he might have been dead from natural causes, and the gunshot was just desecration of a corpse.

      There's a big difference between first degree murder and mutilating a corpse. They have to be sure. It's their job to be sure.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:CSI: Belize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FTA:
      apparent gunshot wound on the upper rear part of his head
      apparently dead

      The local CSI team is verifying the facts

      Enhance!

    9. Re:CSI: Belize by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      There have been cases of people with self inflicted gunshots to the head living through the event. It's possible, even if unlikely, that he's asleep in a coma when the initail responders arrive. And if there's that much blood and it's in matted hair, he could have been killed with a pick-axe or hammer with a similar look and result, at least until he's thoroughly examined.

    10. Re:CSI: Belize by tsotha · · Score: 1

      All of these can be consistent with someone "apparently dead" upon arrival, but not actually dead after further investigation and treatment.

      This. Also, it's not that uncommon for people to survive gunshot wounds to the head, depending on the weapon and the exact path of the bullet, so even with a gunshot wound to the head there's no reason to jump to conclusions.

    11. Re:CSI: Belize by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      . Q: "Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for
                          a pulse?"
                  A: "No."
                  Q: "Did you check for blood pressure?"
                  A: "No."
                  Q: "Did you check for breathing?"
                  A: "No."
                  Q: "So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you
                          began the autopsy?"
                  A: "No."
                  Q: "How can you be so sure, Doctor?"
                  A: "Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar."
                  Q: "But could the patient have still been alive nevertheless?"
                  A: "It is possible that he could have been alive and practicing
                          law somewhere."

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  24. But unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it's far from being Gangnam Style.

    1. Re:But unfortunately... by someone1234 · · Score: 0

      It is Ganxta Style

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  25. The plight of the nerd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The specific properties of the drugs he was attempting to isolate also fit in well with what those closest to him have reported: that he is an enthusiastic amateur pharmacologist with a longstanding interest in drugs that induce sexual behavior in women. Indeed, former friends of McAfee have said he could be extremely persistent and devious in trying to coerce women who rebuff his advances to have sex with him.

    You see ladies, what we male nerds have to turn to? Stop being so uptight.

    1. Re:The plight of the nerd by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      You see ladies, what we male nerds have to turn to? Stop being so uptight.

      They know.
      Boon: Now, she should be good-looking, but we're willing to trade looks for a certain... morally casual attitude.
      Katy: You mean you want someone he can screw on the first date.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
  26. The weirdest thing is the choice of drug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What I find the most strange about this, by far, is that the drug was MDPV. It is awful, dangerous, unpleasant stuff in general (based on reports - I've never taken it). The market for "bath salts" is pretty much 99% people who live in isolated areas or don't know the people to get something better. It's legal (or used to be), and can be ordered online easily. That's it. That's it's only appeal.

    For actual people who enjoy mind-expanders and occasional responsible drug use, if they can get it they'll take vastly safer and more enjoyable things like LSD and MDMA.

    MDPV is dangerous and for desperate people. McAfee really should be able to do better.

    Weird I say.

    1. Re:The weirdest thing is the choice of drug. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what makes me think this article smells. It sounds like more "whoo.. the bath salts are going to get you!" propoganda. It's not a drug of choice for anybody unless they have no other options and somebody as rich as McAfee can sure as hell afford a lifetime's supply of coke / whatever.

  27. Gizmodo was the primary source? by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A Gawker Networks site got something wrong?

    In a sensationalist fashion?

    SHOCKING.

    Seriously, why does everyone still put up with those fucktards? Their level of incompetence has crossed from believable to they-must-be-doing-it-on-purpose-for-page-hits.

  28. Maybe he'll share a prison cell with Hans Reiser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ReiserFS - For when you need to partition your wife.

  29. Fall from grace (space) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm safe in an undisclosed location plotting something "hypersexual" with my left hand.

    BTW all ur computers are infected with bathsalt zombie goo.

    --stuffmonger

  30. More drug hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the link between the murder, and bath-salts is....
    The hysteria in the U.S. over recreational drug use is amazing. For example, all the news stories about Johnny Lewis mentioned police speculation that he was on the drug "smiles" when he went berserk, despite there being no evidence whatseover of this. e.g.
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/actor-johnny-lewis-suspected-taking-drug-smiles-killings/story?id=17346564
    Time and time again, these speculative drug links make a big splash in the media, and then by the time they prove false, no one cares.
    I would have thought Slashdot was a bit more into looking at the evidence before making wild speculation, but apparently not.

    1. Re:More drug hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one calls that drug smiles. It's called 2C-I. It's only called smiles by the media, probably because they feel their audience is too stupid to remember 2C-I.

    2. Re:More drug hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    3. Re:More drug hysteria by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Bath-salts is the zombie drug of choice. In what way would you find turning yourself into a ZOMBIE an act of recreation?! Pretty fucked up sensibilities you go there.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:More drug hysteria by ehiris · · Score: 1

      Right? This is slashdot. They had me at McAfee murdering things other than my Windows PCs.
      No need to jump the dollar bill.

    5. Re:More drug hysteria by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have thought Slashdot was a bit more into looking at the evidence before making wild speculation

      It's not at all clear why you would think that, ever.

  31. More drug hysteria by wwwrench · · Score: 4, Interesting

    And the link between the murder, and bath-salts is.... The hysteria in the U.S. over recreational drug use is amazing. For example, all the news stories about Johnny Lewis mentioned police speculation that he was on the drug "smiles" when he went berserk, despite there being no evidence whatseover of this. e.g. http://abcnews.go.com/US/actor-johnny-lewis-suspected-taking-drug-smiles-killings/story?id=17346564 Time and time again, these speculative drug links make a big splash in the media, and then by the time they prove false, no one cares. I would have thought Slashdot was a bit more into looking at the evidence before making wild speculation, but apparently not.

    --

    Deconstruct the State
  32. Belize News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    http://edition.channel5belize.com/?s=mcafee

    locally from what is happening in Belize with Mcafee

  33. Why? by biodata · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why might the scariest part of the story be that he built a lab?

    --
    Korma: Good
    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      There is no link. There is no discovery of hidden risk.

      But if you were going to go there, would the scariest part of the story be chemical/medical/drug/whocares research performed somewhere without known impact to anyone, or that a substantial volume of computers in the world are running software that... that.....

      I forgot, no link there either.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, was wondering that myself. OH NO he might be doing SCIENCE, related to DRUGS! HELP HELP!

  34. Rape Drugs by ZombieBraintrust · · Score: 2

    The specific properties of the drugs he was attempting to isolate also fit in well with what those closest to him have reported: that he is an enthusiastic amateur pharmacologist with a longstanding interest in drugs that induce sexual behavior in women. Indeed, former friends of McAfee have said he could be extremely persistent and devious in trying to coerce women who rebuff his advances to have sex with him.

    I wonder how much of this article is true. Sounds like a total douche.

    1. Re:Rape Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://edition.channel5belize.com/?s=mcafee

    2. Re:Rape Drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how much of this article is true. Sounds like a total douche.

      It's character assasination. It's a way for prosecutors to win a case.

  35. McAfee wouldn't pay local police protection $ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McAfee wouldn't pay local Belize police protection money.

    He had complained the new government thugs were shaking him down before any of these charges were filed.

    This sort of thing happens happens to rich people who leave the US or EU and our governments look the other way because they didn't pay their protection money (taxes).

  36. Re:Maybe he'll share a prison cell with Hans Reise by HexaByte · · Score: 1

    Dang! You got here before me!

    --
    HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
  37. Journalistic integrity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you want a source that is taken seriously, you don't use gizmodo.

  38. All I can say is..... WOW! by madirad · · Score: 2

    Jeez - I knew this guy. For me this is what makes this story incredibly interesting.

    He used to frequent a fairly small yoga class in Aptos about 10 years ago with his wife at the time. I remember he brought in a bunch of yoga books which he wrote and gave copies to everybody. I didn't know he was the McAfee guy at first but he seemed like an interesting person.

    He later suffered from the local small-town rumor mill for something he did that I didn't pay attention to.

    But this story is astounding to me! It reads like a gangster movie script.

  39. Not the first time... by jomcty · · Score: 0

    His name sake virus scanner murders my PCs performance daily.

  40. bogus? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds like some half baked troll that anonymous would put up after hacking a news website.

    1. Re:bogus? by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

      Why would they pick someone so irrelevant as McAfee then?

      --
      Bow before me, for I am root.
  41. Re:Maybe he'll share a prison cell with Hans Reise by aliquis · · Score: 1

    Big deal.

    You can always run defrag.

    (You might have to develop a utility for it yourself though.)

  42. Re:Maybe he'll share a prison cell with Hans Reise by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    He really did mean literally. Obviously the hard drive is thrashing constantly causing the machine to vibrate and move slowly across his desk.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  43. Did I read two different stories? by epp_b · · Score: 1

    First, a headline and one sentence about someone accused of murder, then it goes off on a complete, random tangent about butt-drugs?

    Is it too much to expect a summary that is related to the headline? Seriously, guys, this is getting pathetic.

  44. Forget McAfee.. by Phoeniyx · · Score: 1

    Why didn't people make such a big deal with Edward Norton was caught curb stomping some black guy b/c his daddy's truck was shot up?

  45. A No Brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. He long ago lost his brain. And the authorities will find him! ,,,, he used the internet to reply to a reporter's questions about this! Tagged (on the street).... Soon to be Bagged (after being shot in the head) ... Toe Tagged ... with a tag on his right foot big toe in the morgue.

    No tears from me.

    Oh. When the body is unclaimed they will grind him up and burn him. Then send the ash to the dump. What a way to go! But he bought this ... like Obama ... didn't he.

    XD

  46. Here's the TLDR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dude's a drug addict trying to get back to his first high:

    "P.S. I have found many of "The One" in my past relationships - where nothing else exists except the object of my heart's desire, and it was certainly awesome each time, and I'm sure many of the other contributors to this forum have also found "The One". It would be odd to be an adult and not to have done so. So don't assume that we all just "haven't found the One yet". It's just that history, and observation of daily life, predicts that "The One" burns out just as rapidly as all of the "not the ones", if not more rapidly. "A light twice as bright burns half as long" after all.

  47. false alarmism is a problem in this world by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    so is false sense of complacency

    the class of drugs we are talking about are incredibly powerful, and the important thing is to emphasize care and the danger involved with using them. education is the proper antidote to hysteria

    minimizing the danger and just calling that danger hysteria is just as ignorant and problematic as the hysteria over drugs that bothers you

    a good drug user is a careful, educated drug user

    this should be the primary focus any time you talk about a drug like bath salts

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  48. There were these 2 guys in a holding cell by Provocateur · · Score: 1

    McAfee, this is Reiser. Reiser, McAfee.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  49. Stop smoking crack - Mcafee AV is not open source by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) or as the illiterate OP said "whatever you want to call it" CAN and DOES
    in fact get taken up by the community.

    Mcaffee AV software is NOT free or open source or any combination thereof.

    The whole reason there exists Malware / AV software / criminals abusing it / phishing, etc. is because
    of the fact that Microsoft CHOSE to make all its software be able to run Windows 3.1 software forever and ever.

    That one choice by one company, and the choice by billions of people to blindly run their operating systems
    instead of FOSS operating systems... THAT'S why we have a big problem today.

    Mcafee is not FOSS and it will die.
    Microsoft is not FOSS and -- surprisingly enough -- it too will die.

    Now stop smoking crack and talking about things you won't understand till you're old enough to drive.

    M

  50. Wait, what? by matunos · · Score: 1

    "The scariest aspect of this story may be the fact that an entire lab was constructed for John McAfee's research purposes."

    Um, no. The scariest aspect is that he is implicated in the murder of someone.

    1. Re:Wait, what? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      "The scariest aspect of this story may be the fact that an entire lab was constructed for John McAfee's research purposes."

      Um, no. The scariest aspect is that he is implicated in the murder of someone.

      Once someone is absurdly wealthy, entirely selfish and focussed only on his own pleasure, why is it a surprise if he kills someone who gets in the way?

      Murder laws are just for the little people, like any other law.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  51. Government regulation for drugs? by mangu · · Score: 1

    Little did they mention that it means having to keep a personal standing army around, negotiating with other local power brokers,

    All that can be avoided if there exists a government which makes recreational drugs illegal, right?

  52. Was the vicim infected with something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just sayin'

  53. Re:Stop smoking crack - Mcafee AV is not open sour by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1
    While I agree with your point, I do dissent in one aspect:

    FOSS (Free and Open Source Software) or as the illiterate OP said "whatever you want to call it"

    I am hardly illiterate about the Open Source community, my main point in stating it that was was recognizing that there are different groups - some simply call it Open Source, others Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), and still others Free, Libre, Open Source Software (F/LOSS). Each does so for its own reason. The GP called it Open Source; you called it FOSS - and honestly, while I certainly understand what each is trying to signify - namely how much freedom - it's not really important what it is called; rather the principles behind them all are important.

    --
    Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
  54. That's nice, honey by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " it's simply that it's the sort of country where if you're a rich cunt "

    Ah, and a "rich cunt" is someone who doesn't want to support you through life.

    Lets face it, you're what would normally be called "excess population" if people were allowed to tell the truth.

    You demand food, you demand health care, you demand early retirement, you demand a nice place to live.

    And all the while you're fucking your girlfriend/wife and sitting by starbucks complaining about those "rich cunts" who are paying your way through life.

    What is it like being so dependent on other people? What is lit like being envious of people who actually produce something of value?

    In short: what is it like being something that is a parasite on the earth, and your fellow man?

    Your existence is not one to be proud of. If you were to disappear tomorrow, everyone would be better off. Everyone.

  55. MDPV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does MDPV really works like an aphrodisic? from my quick readings of the russian bluelight it doesn'l look like it works - maybe for a few people. maybe women? i read comments from men i suppose.

  56. you forgot Gizmondo by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    don't forget Stefan Eriksson

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  57. a housewarming present from the realator by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't advise trying to live in a compound in the Belize jungle without a large amount of firepower.

    They probably came with the house.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  58. Antivirus messages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    keep getting weirder: https://twitter.com/McAfeeMessages

  59. Paranoid delusional by Captain_Chaos · · Score: 1

    The government wants to kill him? Sorry, but this guy has clearly gone off the deep end. Not hindered by any actual knowledge about the case I'd say there's a good chance he did this. What a bizarre story.