Abortion shouldn't belong on your list. Both sides view their position as pro-liberty; it's just a question of whether you consider an unborn baby an entity deserving of human rights.
The rest of your issues truly are cases of greater vs lesser liberty.
He was modded down because he used insulting language, not because of the views he expressed. I could have written a similar post objecting to Ron Paul, couched in a more civil tone, and been modded up.
I think that every president in the last few hundred years has been in the top 1%. That's just one out of a hundred, you know? Several of the kids in your graduating high-school class are 1-percenters now, as are a good chunk of the small-business owners you deal with every day.
Much of what you said is incorrect, but that's pretty obvious. Nobody expects objectivity from a poster when they post a multi-paragraph rant about how a particular candidate is wrong on twenty-one separate issues.
That narrative is starting to crumble. He finished 3rd in Iowa and likely 2nd in New Hampshire, is picking up a larger portion of independents than other candidates, and only he and Romney poll as competitive to Obama.
He certainly may not win; I'd still say it's a long shot... but the constant harping about how he's unelectable has been obviously proven wrong.
The problem is that geeks think Net Neutrality as debated by congress or the FCC is the same thing they mean when they talk about Net Neutrality on an internet forum. The term is being used for very different purposes, and you can be all for the original, geek-defined net neutrality, while deeply opposed to what the government would do in the NAME of net neutrality.
I'd rather have somebody that opposes SOPA because they care about constitutional issues, not because they're aware of technical difficulties with implementation.
I think it would be more correct to say that Austrians believe it impossible to create an accurate scientific model out of something as complex as the "free market,"
Which is the view of any sensible person with any knowledge of the subject. In fact, if a portion of the economy could be accurately mathematically modeled, economic forces would promptly move to capitalize on that, destroying its predictability as a side-effect.
Another thing; sometimes parents know exactly what they need, but have to go to a pediatrician because certain tests or medicines are illegal to prescribe unless you are licensed by the government. Often, the $100 office visit is just a formality, a surcharge you're forced to pay to be given the privilege of purchasing an antibiotic or a throat swab.
Larry Niven said libertarianism was a vector, not a coordinate; you'll never reach an actual libertarian society, but you can always move toward or away from libertarianism.
Same with totalitarianism, I suppose; you'll never be able to create a completely totalitarian society. You just move further along that axis.
I'd turn it around. If you really have liberty, you have to have a free market as a side effect. It's a necessary consequence of being granted freedom to associate and trade.
If you just stick a straw in the ocean and make it long enough, the end will be in space. The vacuum will obviously start sucking the water up immediately, and it will continue to flow until you pinch the end.
Why do you think so? Global warming is certainly much more pleasant than global cooling, and the warmer periods in Earth's history have generally been more conducive to life. The only real problem with warming will be the social-political instability that results.
You realize that the top 1% is... one out of a hundred people, and that many thousands of people browse slashdot?
I have this feeling that the bottom 10% think that the top 1% are off sipping champagne on their yacht while planning world domination. There's over 3,000,000 people in America that fall into the top 1%.
The Raspberry Pi is a good litmus test for imagination. If you read or talk about it and have a tingle, you have an imagination. If you think it's pointless, you're dead inside.
The old faithful answer is that rights grant you those freedoms that you can possess without forcing anybody else into servitude as a consequence. I.E., the government can't stop you from using the internet, or coming to free agreement with anybody else about accessing the internet with their help, but cannot force anybody to give you internet access without their consent.
I have been toying with another definition of rights: That set of limitations on interpersonal dealings which maximizes individual freedom. I'm not concerned with safety, comfort, OR pleasure; that presupposes forcing your value judgements on somebody else. Rather, laws should be created that maximize an individual's ability to live their life as they see fit, balanced with the minimization of that individual's infringement of other people's freedom.
You would think that at some point in grade school a teacher would spend a couple minutes explaining what a right IS, since it's the building block of our nation. But... evidently they don't.
The 'right to internet' is a discussion that simply wouldn't happen if people even understood what rights are. This thread is like watching alternative healing nuts arguing about whether life energy loses efficiency when transferred from a crystal.
It's nonsensical to declare something which didn't exist thirty years ago a human right. What other trendy things can we make human rights for a couple decades? Disco?
Slashdot Mirror
Education and wealth. It's worked in every western country, and in advanced eastern countries.
Abortion shouldn't belong on your list. Both sides view their position as pro-liberty; it's just a question of whether you consider an unborn baby an entity deserving of human rights.
The rest of your issues truly are cases of greater vs lesser liberty.
He was modded down because he used insulting language, not because of the views he expressed. I could have written a similar post objecting to Ron Paul, couched in a more civil tone, and been modded up.
I think that every president in the last few hundred years has been in the top 1%. That's just one out of a hundred, you know? Several of the kids in your graduating high-school class are 1-percenters now, as are a good chunk of the small-business owners you deal with every day.
Much of what you said is incorrect, but that's pretty obvious. Nobody expects objectivity from a poster when they post a multi-paragraph rant about how a particular candidate is wrong on twenty-one separate issues.
So you hate him because of stated position A, because you refuse to believe related stated opinion B.
Ron Paul isn't a viable candidate.
That narrative is starting to crumble. He finished 3rd in Iowa and likely 2nd in New Hampshire, is picking up a larger portion of independents than other candidates, and only he and Romney poll as competitive to Obama.
He certainly may not win; I'd still say it's a long shot... but the constant harping about how he's unelectable has been obviously proven wrong.
The problem is that geeks think Net Neutrality as debated by congress or the FCC is the same thing they mean when they talk about Net Neutrality on an internet forum. The term is being used for very different purposes, and you can be all for the original, geek-defined net neutrality, while deeply opposed to what the government would do in the NAME of net neutrality.
I'd rather have somebody that opposes SOPA because they care about constitutional issues, not because they're aware of technical difficulties with implementation.
I think it would be more correct to say that Austrians believe it impossible to create an accurate scientific model out of something as complex as the "free market,"
Which is the view of any sensible person with any knowledge of the subject. In fact, if a portion of the economy could be accurately mathematically modeled, economic forces would promptly move to capitalize on that, destroying its predictability as a side-effect.
Another thing; sometimes parents know exactly what they need, but have to go to a pediatrician because certain tests or medicines are illegal to prescribe unless you are licensed by the government. Often, the $100 office visit is just a formality, a surcharge you're forced to pay to be given the privilege of purchasing an antibiotic or a throat swab.
Larry Niven said libertarianism was a vector, not a coordinate; you'll never reach an actual libertarian society, but you can always move toward or away from libertarianism.
Same with totalitarianism, I suppose; you'll never be able to create a completely totalitarian society. You just move further along that axis.
Veterinarians. That's a much more free market than pediatricians. Seems to work ok, and much less expensive.
I'd turn it around. If you really have liberty, you have to have a free market as a side effect. It's a necessary consequence of being granted freedom to associate and trade.
This is absolutely the only sensible option. Pity that nobody takes it seriously.
If you just stick a straw in the ocean and make it long enough, the end will be in space. The vacuum will obviously start sucking the water up immediately, and it will continue to flow until you pinch the end.
It will kill a lot more of us than a bit of warming would.
Why do you think so? Global warming is certainly much more pleasant than global cooling, and the warmer periods in Earth's history have generally been more conducive to life. The only real problem with warming will be the social-political instability that results.
You realize that the top 1% is... one out of a hundred people, and that many thousands of people browse slashdot? I have this feeling that the bottom 10% think that the top 1% are off sipping champagne on their yacht while planning world domination. There's over 3,000,000 people in America that fall into the top 1%.
The Raspberry Pi is a good litmus test for imagination. If you read or talk about it and have a tingle, you have an imagination. If you think it's pointless, you're dead inside.
(To completely mangle a quote whose source I don't immediately recall.)
P.J. O'Roarke.
The old faithful answer is that rights grant you those freedoms that you can possess without forcing anybody else into servitude as a consequence. I.E., the government can't stop you from using the internet, or coming to free agreement with anybody else about accessing the internet with their help, but cannot force anybody to give you internet access without their consent.
I have been toying with another definition of rights: That set of limitations on interpersonal dealings which maximizes individual freedom. I'm not concerned with safety, comfort, OR pleasure; that presupposes forcing your value judgements on somebody else. Rather, laws should be created that maximize an individual's ability to live their life as they see fit, balanced with the minimization of that individual's infringement of other people's freedom.
You would think that at some point in grade school a teacher would spend a couple minutes explaining what a right IS, since it's the building block of our nation. But... evidently they don't.
The 'right to internet' is a discussion that simply wouldn't happen if people even understood what rights are. This thread is like watching alternative healing nuts arguing about whether life energy loses efficiency when transferred from a crystal.
The UN declared it a human right.
It's nonsensical to declare something which didn't exist thirty years ago a human right. What other trendy things can we make human rights for a couple decades? Disco?
They simply have nothing to do with it. They don't forbid you, they don't assist you.
(Constitutionally, at least. What we are doing now is far removed from that.)