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."
I can't wait for the movie to come out!
He already murdered my computer with his insanely slow Security Suite.
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.
So is his company then going the way of ReiserFS?
I've always thought McAfee felt a bit over-engineered. This explains a lot.
Looks like this story has the potential to go....
*sunglasses*
Viral.
Yeeeeeeeaaaaahhhhhh!
I'll wait until someone else confirms. Possibly Netcraft.
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.
Look, its another person twisting Libertarianism in to something it isn't so it sounds unpleasent to people who don't know any better.
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
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.
I think that the correct meme is MDPV is as worst as smoked meth, news at 11
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected
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.
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
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
{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.
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.
The Reiser-McAfee project!
FTA:
apparent gunshot wound on the upper rear part of his head
apparently dead
The local CSI team is verifying the facts
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Please help metamoderate.
ReiserFS - For when you need to partition your wife.
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
http://edition.channel5belize.com/?s=mcafee
locally from what is happening in Belize with Mcafee
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!
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.
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.
{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)
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.
Why might the scariest part of the story be that he built a lab?
Korma: Good
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
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
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.
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
Now let's not jump to conclusions here, maybe he was only doing research into detecting and terminating zombie processes.
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.
good point...
Dang! You got here before me!
HexaByte - he's a square and a half!
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.
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
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.
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.
Big deal.
You can always run defrag.
(You might have to develop a utility for it yourself though.)
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
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?
Learn to love Alaska
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?
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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?
Why would they pick someone so irrelevant as McAfee then?
Bow before me, for I am root.
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?
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."
That's a shame.
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.
Monstar L
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
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
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
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).
Right? This is slashdot. They had me at McAfee murdering things other than my Windows PCs.
No need to jump the dollar bill.
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
McAfee, this is Reiser. Reiser, McAfee.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
"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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Sounds almost like Canada! But obviously with better drugs.g
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
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.
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?
McAfee cashed out of the company a long time ago.
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.
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?
"...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.
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)
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!
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
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
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
Ah gotcha. So you strawman it so you can hate it. Glad we got a handle on that.
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?
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.
don't forget Stefan Eriksson
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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
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
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
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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?
Learn to love Alaska
And yet Local Government is far more known for its corruption.
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.
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).
Learn to love Alaska
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
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.
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.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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).
Learn to love Alaska
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
*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?"
Learn to love Alaska
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).
Learn to love Alaska
"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"?
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Learn to love Alaska