The reason Libertarians are moving away from the LP (Libertarian Party) is because like you, nobody knows what that word means anymore. I mean who can blame people for being confused when you have people like Glenn Beck and Bob Barr calling themselves Libertarian. Much less people like you describing it.
Ron Paul's a huge states-rights advocate who runs with the Libertarians, because they share the common goal of reducing the size of the Federal government, even though his views on state government are borderline tyrannical.
Ron Paul not being an anarchist supports the Constitution. You have heard him call himself a Constitutionalist before right? I think you misunderstand the 10th amendment but clearly Paul has the correct understanding of it. States really do have the freedom to enact a varying degree of laws you or I might call tyrannical, that does not mean they will, and even if they did local government is much easier to change than federal government, AND EVEN if you couldn't there are 49 other states to go to that compete with each other for your tax money. Your comments makes it sound like Ron Paul is only a libertarian because he is a closet authoritarian wanting to use the powers of the states, and that is absolutely wrong. If you read Paul's writing you will see that he absolutely understands the danger that government proposes to people, he is on the ball with some of the best libertarian minds that there ever was.. in fact.. many of his campaign positions are out of whack with what could only logically be his philosophy.. It is my believe he takes those positions because he is pandering to the right wing base.
Their belief is generally that the government (at all levels) should only do things that individuals absolutely, positively cannot do for themselves. In many cases this actually does include civil rights and gun control to a certain extent.
So, what you are basically saying is that Some "so called" Libertarians believe that people can not have "civil rights" or gun control without government. If you believe that then you CAN NOT logically have a sound understanding of the nature and concept of rights.
The term "civil rights" is pleonastic description of rights. You have "rights" and they are all the same. You do not need to separate your rights into individually divided groups, such as "civil rights", "existing rights", "breathing rights", etc. Also "civil rights" implies that these are rights awarded to citizens, or that only citizens have rights. It is a ridiculous concept and I will explain why.
To have a right is to have the supreme authority over something. If you have a right to something you do not need to ask anyone for permission to do something with what you have a right to. The reason you have rights is because you own your body, you own your life and you own your liberty. No other person can claim ownership over you, just as you can not claim ownership over other peoples lives. Rights are supreme authority over some piece of property and they can not be given or taken away, they can be infringed upon but are never lost.
The opposite of a right is a privilege. This is where someone with supreme authority over something allows or grants you an ability to use it. To make this simple lets say you buy a pizza from someone else. You have justly acquired your property and now you can do whatever it is you like with it, even stuff it in your mouth, and you do not need to ask anyone for permission to do so. You have a right to this pizza. However if someone else owns this pizza you must ask if you may have some, they own it, and grant you a permission, or a privilege to have some.
So the distinction between rights and privileges is important. Privileges mean you have to ask someone of higher authority, rights means asking a higher authority is not necessary because there is no higher authority. Privileges are granted bu the higher authority
Libertarians on the Civil Rights act have a unique position that is grounded in the philosophy of liberty. It is a complicated thing, but it is quickly described by the party principle statement. "I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."
Understanding that, the Civil Rights Act is a use of force. It is force that was used to repeal another forceful law Segregation. In comes the government to the rescue for the problem it created with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but this law has unintended consequences as all laws do.
From Harry Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work". He is far smarter than I and describes it better than I ever could. ---------- The political process always manages to turn idealistic dreams inside out. For an excellent example, look no further than the civil rights laws passed in the last 40 years.
For almost a century before 1964, governments in many southern states forced segregation on the people. Government prohibited companies from providing racially integrated facilities for their employees or customers. Whites and blacks were forbidden by government to sit together in restaurants or to use the same restrooms and drinking fountains -- and in many cases were forbidden to shop together or work together.
Civil rights advocates fought to repeal these state Jim Crow laws, but they failed. So they appealed to the federal government, which responded with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But this didn't simply repeal state laws compelling segregation. It prohibited racial segregation -- voluntary or otherwise. Overnight, what had been mandatory became forbidden. Neither before nor after the Civil Rights Act were people free to make their own decisions about whom they would associate with.
The civil rights movement wasn't opposed to using government to coerce people. It merely wanted the government to aim its force in a new direction.
Although the activists believed coercion served the noble objective of bringing the races closer together, it was coercion nonetheless.
And coercive laws never stand still. No matter what a law's backers say at the time of passage, the law always stretches in surprising directions. The expansion occurs on at least two fronts:
* The law almost always is enforced more broadly than intended;
* When government benefits one group, other groups are encouraged to seek similar benefits.
And this is what happened to the civil rights laws.
In the first regard, the bureaucrats and courts set out to enforce the laws zealously, seeking to root out any kind of discrimination -- even though ending segregation, not discrimination, was the motive behind the original law. Companies were ordered not to consider race in any way when making hiring decisions.
But usually the reasons for a business decision are hard to prove. Unless a businessman is a noisy bigot, who can say whether racial discrimination has affected his decision to hire someone?
To avoid having to read minds, the enforcers examined results to determine whether discrimination had occurred. If you didn't have a suitable racial mix in your workforce (or even among your customers), you were assumed to be discriminating -- and the burden of proof was on you to prove otherwise.
So an employer could avoid charges of discrimination only by, in fact, discriminating -- by using quotas to assure that he hired the right number of people of the right races -- even though the original sponsors of the law had sworn that quotas were no part of it. The law against segregation had been transformed into a law requiring discrimination.
The law also encouraged other groups to demand similar coverage. Once it was established that government should punish racial discrimination, the door was open to using government to punish anything similar. If it's wrong for an employer, landlord, or organization to discriminate according to race, it
KDE has ability and Gnome has usability. The end result of Gnome VS KDE has been that the user of Linux win out because we are not suck with one solution.
This story doesn't seem right to me.. this guy wouldn't reveal his password so they fired him? There are perfectly good reasons why it would be right for a network admin not to reveal a password to someone. OR alternatively they fired him and THEN he wouldn't reveal passwords.. ya know, I might forget too if I lost my job all of a sudden.. It's their job to have a comprehensive security plan, that means using user accounts and not root for a case like this but no no.. The evil "hacker" Childs is to blame.
However they did not just fire him.. they ARRESTED him labeled him a "hacker" and put a $5 million bond on him.
In the original case it says "He is accused of creating a password allowing him root access to e-mail, law enforcement documents and other sensitive info." Damm right the Systems Admin should have the "secret" root password to the mail and database server.
Now the city's IT boobs in attempting to do an audit, found some unknown system on their network (might even be a firggen laptop someone brought from home) and they can't figure out how to map a MAC address to the Cisco Switch port.. So they claim Childs installed some sort of "secret server" that they need to find. How absurd.
It may very well be the City is abusing its powers prosecuting this guy.
yeah, its total incompetence.. what less would you expect from government bureaucrats.
You can find it you can turn the switch port off, you can block the mac you can do all sorts of stuff to deny it access to your network. You don't have to physically find it to disable it.
My understanding is Helium-3 is non-radioactive.. I wonder why NASA (at the guide of the Bush administration) would be looking into such a energy source..
Re:Total Perspective Vortex
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
no sense of proportion.
Re:Total Perspective Vortex
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 1
Hang on; if you had a piece of fairy cake, then couldn't you just use that matter to extrapolate information about hadron collisions elsewhere in space?
In fact we might be able to extrapolate information about hadron collisions everywhere at once.. but could anyone handle such an intense amount of information being presented to them at once?
Total Perspective Vortex
on
LHC Success!
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Seriously, Iraq was a real threat and needed to be dealt with. We could have done a better job with yet, and I think it's time we pull our people out. But saying Iraq had no ties to 9/11, while possibly technically true, does not mean there was no threat or possible justification.
Governments like ours get their powers from the individual people in them right? If that is true then can individual people grant powers to government that they do not possess themselves? No they can not.. you can't grant a group of people power to do something you can not do yourself.
So a nation can go to war and attack other people under the same rules that an individual can attack another person. The only time you can attack another person is in self defense. That is the only justified use of force ever. Likewise a nation can only go to war in self defense. This is what Christians refer to as a "just war".
So we can apply this to the invasion of Iraq. It makes no difference if the people in Iraq were ruled under tyranny, or Saddam was a "bad guy". It does not matter if Saddam cheered on the attacks of 9/11.. We do not police the world and we have no justification to make the world "safe for democracy". I mean honestly, were would we get such justification? If such justification existed could not North Korea user the same justification for "making the world safe for communism"?
Only one thing matters when it comes to war.. and that is.. "Was The United States under a direct and immediate threat of being attacked by weapons of mass destructions by the nation of Iraq?"
No, perhaps Saddam was some sort of vague supporting terrorism threat (and that itself is questioned), but he was not in a direct and immediate position to attack the United States. If you shot someone who was not a direct and immediate threat to you, you would rightly go to jail for murder.
This war, is "a war for our interests", you have heard that before and it is very much true.. but like the individual.. if you kill because it benefits you.. then may you rot in hell.
It is an unjust war and even if the intelligence was bad, and we thought Iraq could attack us.. but later found out otherwise.. that does not make it just. An invading force can't say.. "Oops our bad, let us fix it." Nothing we can ever do there will make it a just war. The only option is for us to leave and give those people back their country for them to shape in their own way. This is the only moral and just course of action to take.
I'm pretty sure I'm dumber now from watching that..
I think its safe to say Microsoft has fallen flat on its face yet again. Bill Gates demeanor in the add is just off.. its not funny, and its main point is what? "Bill Gates is the smartest guy on the planet and he thinks hes rubbing off on people??".. I don't know its just utterly confusing.
"... it's appalling for Facebook to block anyone from even mentioning the site -- it's plain and simple censorship, and it's unacceptable!"?
Why is it 'appalling' and 'unacceptable'? You do not own Facebook, and when you created an account, you pretty much waived your rights. If I recall correctly, Facebook is still a privately-owned company. They can block whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want.
If you don't like this policy, familiarize yourself with the Terms of Service before you sign up to similar services.
You're always free to build your own alternative to Facebook; until then, you want to play in their playground, you play by their rules.
You are exactly right, the free market requires that we allow them to create any kind of stupid rule they want. I don't like their rule.. but I am powerless to tell them they MUST not do this. At the very best I suggest people find a new social networking site. Someone else with less evil rules will want your business I'm sure.
It's actually the entire system of money that we have. Fractional reserve lending allows these banks to lend money they do not have.
Ever wonder how it is possible that everyone, you, your folks, your friends, small business, the government, corporations, ALL can be in debt at the same time to the same people?? How can there be that much money? Well it is simple.. there isn't. The true answer is the system is rigged, the game is fixed, and it's not a question of "if this money system will eventually fail", its a matter of when.
Being a strong believer in liberty and the free market, I see nothing wrong with allowing groups of similar people to organize for better job conditions or what have you.. however Unions today seem to only operate in the political realm. I'm not interested in using government to enforce laws against my employer, the terms of my employment must be as voluntary for me as they are for my employer.. Nor am I found of sending my union dues directly to the Democrat party.
Generally for these reason I do not favor joining a union. However if a union existed that operated only in the market realm I would join that without any issue.
Yeah, I don't know about Buffy, I think Firefly could be a much more complex and creative universe with people owning ships and being sent out to do job.. maybe even jobs against each other. There is so much there to work with..
The techno-blogs are on fire right now saying "This hurts Firefox, or This hurts Microsoft".. like they are rooting for some kind of baseball team.. but in reality the people that use the web will win out with greater competition and more ideas floating around. I wish people would understand that.. it's like a duopoly model that exists so much in business today blinds people to the fact that more competition is a good thing and overall everyone will win.. I don't think they can see that and they feel they need to cheer on their team, because they will "loose" if another company "wins".
Competition means people people win. So three cheers for Chrome, even though I'll be continuing to use Firefox for now.
Is it processes or threads? I've heard lots of people say threads but nobody has mentioned distinct independent processes per tab.. I find that a little hard to believe..
Slashdot Mirror
Government regulations are the only reason. It HAS GOT to be the only reason. I mean what, do people think the air or ground is diffrent in Europe?
Take a good look at this greenies, this is what over regulation gets us.
What? You clearly do not understand.
The reason Libertarians are moving away from the LP (Libertarian Party) is because like you, nobody knows what that word means anymore. I mean who can blame people for being confused when you have people like Glenn Beck and Bob Barr calling themselves Libertarian. Much less people like you describing it.
Ron Paul's a huge states-rights advocate who runs with the Libertarians, because they share the common goal of reducing the size of the Federal government, even though his views on state government are borderline tyrannical.
Ron Paul not being an anarchist supports the Constitution. You have heard him call himself a Constitutionalist before right? I think you misunderstand the 10th amendment but clearly Paul has the correct understanding of it. States really do have the freedom to enact a varying degree of laws you or I might call tyrannical, that does not mean they will, and even if they did local government is much easier to change than federal government, AND EVEN if you couldn't there are 49 other states to go to that compete with each other for your tax money. Your comments makes it sound like Ron Paul is only a libertarian because he is a closet authoritarian wanting to use the powers of the states, and that is absolutely wrong. If you read Paul's writing you will see that he absolutely understands the danger that government proposes to people, he is on the ball with some of the best libertarian minds that there ever was.. in fact.. many of his campaign positions are out of whack with what could only logically be his philosophy.. It is my believe he takes those positions because he is pandering to the right wing base.
Their belief is generally that the government (at all levels) should only do things that individuals absolutely, positively cannot do for themselves. In many cases this actually does include civil rights and gun control to a certain extent.
So, what you are basically saying is that Some "so called" Libertarians believe that people can not have "civil rights" or gun control without government.
If you believe that then you CAN NOT logically have a sound understanding of the nature and concept of rights.
The term "civil rights" is pleonastic description of rights. You have "rights" and they are all the same. You do not need to separate your rights into individually divided groups, such as "civil rights", "existing rights", "breathing rights", etc. Also "civil rights" implies that these are rights awarded to citizens, or that only citizens have rights. It is a ridiculous concept and I will explain why.
To have a right is to have the supreme authority over something. If you have a right to something you do not need to ask anyone for permission to do something with what you have a right to. The reason you have rights is because you own your body, you own your life and you own your liberty. No other person can claim ownership over you, just as you can not claim ownership over other peoples lives. Rights are supreme authority over some piece of property and they can not be given or taken away, they can be infringed upon but are never lost.
The opposite of a right is a privilege. This is where someone with supreme authority over something allows or grants you an ability to use it. To make this simple lets say you buy a pizza from someone else. You have justly acquired your property and now you can do whatever it is you like with it, even stuff it in your mouth, and you do not need to ask anyone for permission to do so. You have a right to this pizza. However if someone else owns this pizza you must ask if you may have some, they own it, and grant you a permission, or a privilege to have some.
So the distinction between rights and privileges is important. Privileges mean you have to ask someone of higher authority, rights means asking a higher authority is not necessary because there is no higher authority. Privileges are granted bu the higher authority
Libertarians on the Civil Rights act have a unique position that is grounded in the philosophy of liberty. It is a complicated thing, but it is quickly described by the party principle statement. "I certify that I do not advocate the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals."
Understanding that, the Civil Rights Act is a use of force. It is force that was used to repeal another forceful law Segregation. In comes the government to the rescue for the problem it created with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but this law has unintended consequences as all laws do.
From Harry Browne's book "Why Government Doesn't Work". He is far smarter than I and describes it better than I ever could.
----------
The political process always manages to turn idealistic dreams inside out. For an excellent example, look no further than the civil rights laws passed in the last 40 years.
For almost a century before 1964, governments in many southern states forced segregation on the people. Government prohibited companies from providing racially integrated facilities for their employees or customers. Whites and blacks were forbidden by government to sit together in restaurants or to use the same restrooms and drinking fountains -- and in many cases were forbidden to shop together or work together.
Civil rights advocates fought to repeal these state Jim Crow laws, but they failed. So they appealed to the federal government, which responded with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
But this didn't simply repeal state laws compelling segregation. It prohibited racial segregation -- voluntary or otherwise. Overnight, what had been mandatory became forbidden. Neither before nor after the Civil Rights Act were people free to make their own decisions about whom they would associate with.
The civil rights movement wasn't opposed to using government to coerce people. It merely wanted the government to aim its force in a new direction.
Although the activists believed coercion served the noble objective of bringing the races closer together, it was coercion nonetheless.
And coercive laws never stand still. No matter what a law's backers say at the time of passage, the law always stretches in surprising directions. The expansion occurs on at least two fronts:
* The law almost always is enforced more broadly than intended;
* When government benefits one group, other groups are encouraged to seek similar benefits.
And this is what happened to the civil rights laws.
In the first regard, the bureaucrats and courts set out to enforce the laws zealously, seeking to root out any kind of discrimination -- even though ending segregation, not discrimination, was the motive behind the original law. Companies were ordered not to consider race in any way when making hiring decisions.
But usually the reasons for a business decision are hard to prove. Unless a businessman is a noisy bigot, who can say whether racial discrimination has affected his decision to hire someone?
To avoid having to read minds, the enforcers examined results to determine whether discrimination had occurred. If you didn't have a suitable racial mix in your workforce (or even among your customers), you were assumed to be discriminating -- and the burden of proof was on you to prove otherwise.
So an employer could avoid charges of discrimination only by, in fact, discriminating -- by using quotas to assure that he hired the right number of people of the right races -- even though the original sponsors of the law had sworn that quotas were no part of it. The law against segregation had been transformed into a law requiring discrimination.
The law also encouraged other groups to demand similar coverage. Once it was established that government should punish racial discrimination, the door was open to using government to punish anything similar. If it's wrong for an employer, landlord, or organization to discriminate according to race, it
One size fits all, does not fit all.
KDE has ability and Gnome has usability. The end result of Gnome VS KDE has been that the user of Linux win out because we are not suck with one solution.
This story doesn't seem right to me.. this guy wouldn't reveal his password so they fired him? There are perfectly good reasons why it would be right for a network admin not to reveal a password to someone. OR alternatively they fired him and THEN he wouldn't reveal passwords.. ya know, I might forget too if I lost my job all of a sudden.. It's their job to have a comprehensive security plan, that means using user accounts and not root for a case like this but no no.. The evil "hacker" Childs is to blame.
However they did not just fire him.. they ARRESTED him labeled him a "hacker" and put a $5 million bond on him.
In the original case it says "He is accused of creating a password allowing him root access to e-mail, law enforcement documents and other sensitive info." Damm right the Systems Admin should have the "secret" root password to the mail and database server.
Now the city's IT boobs in attempting to do an audit, found some unknown system on their network (might even be a firggen laptop someone brought from home) and they can't figure out how to map a MAC address to the Cisco Switch port.. So they claim Childs installed some sort of "secret server" that they need to find. How absurd.
It may very well be the City is abusing its powers prosecuting this guy.
yeah, its total incompetence.. what less would you expect from government bureaucrats.
You can find it you can turn the switch port off, you can block the mac you can do all sorts of stuff to deny it access to your network. You don't have to physically find it to disable it.
My understanding is Helium-3 is non-radioactive.. I wonder why NASA (at the guide of the Bush administration) would be looking into such a energy source..
no sense of proportion.
Hang on; if you had a piece of fairy cake, then couldn't you just use that matter to extrapolate information about hadron collisions elsewhere in space?
In fact we might be able to extrapolate information about hadron collisions everywhere at once.. but could anyone handle such an intense amount of information being presented to them at once?
What do you mean all the cake is gone?
fairy cake.. yeah we had to use it for the LHC.
..and we have a winner!
Seriously, Iraq was a real threat and needed to be dealt with. We could have done a better job with yet, and I think it's time we pull our people out. But saying Iraq had no ties to 9/11, while possibly technically true, does not mean there was no threat or possible justification.
Governments like ours get their powers from the individual people in them right? If that is true then can individual people grant powers to government that they do not possess themselves? No they can not.. you can't grant a group of people power to do something you can not do yourself.
So a nation can go to war and attack other people under the same rules that an individual can attack another person. The only time you can attack another person is in self defense. That is the only justified use of force ever. Likewise a nation can only go to war in self defense. This is what Christians refer to as a "just war".
So we can apply this to the invasion of Iraq. It makes no difference if the people in Iraq were ruled under tyranny, or Saddam was a "bad guy". It does not matter if Saddam cheered on the attacks of 9/11.. We do not police the world and we have no justification to make the world "safe for democracy". I mean honestly, were would we get such justification? If such justification existed could not North Korea user the same justification for "making the world safe for communism"?
Only one thing matters when it comes to war.. and that is.. "Was The United States under a direct and immediate threat of being attacked by weapons of mass destructions by the nation of Iraq?"
No, perhaps Saddam was some sort of vague supporting terrorism threat (and that itself is questioned), but he was not in a direct and immediate position to attack the United States. If you shot someone who was not a direct and immediate threat to you, you would rightly go to jail for murder.
This war, is "a war for our interests", you have heard that before and it is very much true.. but like the individual.. if you kill because it benefits you.. then may you rot in hell.
It is an unjust war and even if the intelligence was bad, and we thought Iraq could attack us.. but later found out otherwise.. that does not make it just. An invading force can't say.. "Oops our bad, let us fix it." Nothing we can ever do there will make it a just war. The only option is for us to leave and give those people back their country for them to shape in their own way. This is the only moral and just course of action to take.
I don't understand what the DoD has to do with time, standards or measurements.
Is the DoD trying to say now Muhahaha! Now we control time itself, submit all ye to "civilian time"?
We need to get the opinion of an expert, not some random poll.. perhaps the DoD should seek the advice of the master of timecube theory Dr. Gene Ray.
That is what I said, they can do it if they like, but I feel that censorship is a stupid idea.
I'm pretty sure I'm dumber now from watching that..
I think its safe to say Microsoft has fallen flat on its face yet again. Bill Gates demeanor in the add is just off.. its not funny, and its main point is what? "Bill Gates is the smartest guy on the planet and he thinks hes rubbing off on people??" .. I don't know its just utterly confusing.
Bill looks incredibly odd.. because he is. Socially inept I think its called.
From your 'blog':
"... it's appalling for Facebook to block anyone from even mentioning the site -- it's plain and simple censorship, and it's unacceptable!"?
Why is it 'appalling' and 'unacceptable'? You do not own Facebook, and when you created an account, you pretty much waived your rights. If I recall correctly, Facebook is still a privately-owned company. They can block whatever they want, whenever they want, for as long as they want.
If you don't like this policy, familiarize yourself with the Terms of Service before you sign up to similar services.
You're always free to build your own alternative to Facebook; until then, you want to play in their playground, you play by their rules.
You are exactly right, the free market requires that we allow them to create any kind of stupid rule they want. I don't like their rule.. but I am powerless to tell them they MUST not do this. At the very best I suggest people find a new social networking site. Someone else with less evil rules will want your business I'm sure.
It's actually the entire system of money that we have. Fractional reserve lending allows these banks to lend money they do not have.
Ever wonder how it is possible that everyone, you, your folks, your friends, small business, the government, corporations, ALL can be in debt at the same time to the same people?? How can there be that much money? Well it is simple.. there isn't. The true answer is the system is rigged, the game is fixed, and it's not a question of "if this money system will eventually fail", its a matter of when.
Being a strong believer in liberty and the free market, I see nothing wrong with allowing groups of similar people to organize for better job conditions or what have you.. however Unions today seem to only operate in the political realm. I'm not interested in using government to enforce laws against my employer, the terms of my employment must be as voluntary for me as they are for my employer.. Nor am I found of sending my union dues directly to the Democrat party.
Generally for these reason I do not favor joining a union. However if a union existed that operated only in the market realm I would join that without any issue.
Yeah, I don't know about Buffy, I think Firefly could be a much more complex and creative universe with people owning ships and being sent out to do job.. maybe even jobs against each other. There is so much there to work with..
I can't see that there is any way they can release something that is just *impossible* to copy. If you can read it, you can copy it.
What a story.
Lazy bureaucrats failed to do what was required of them.. film at 11.
The techno-blogs are on fire right now saying "This hurts Firefox, or This hurts Microsoft" .. like they are rooting for some kind of baseball team.. but in reality the people that use the web will win out with greater competition and more ideas floating around. I wish people would understand that.. it's like a duopoly model that exists so much in business today blinds people to the fact that more competition is a good thing and overall everyone will win.. I don't think they can see that and they feel they need to cheer on their team, because they will "loose" if another company "wins".
Competition means people people win. So three cheers for Chrome, even though I'll be continuing to use Firefox for now.
I guess we now know why it uses so many resources then.
Is it processes or threads? I've heard lots of people say threads but nobody has mentioned distinct independent processes per tab.. I find that a little hard to believe..