Its not blind faith, it just shows how little we all seem to trust the US when so many of us are quick to assume that a rape allegation against an individual the US would clearly like to silence is an attempt to smear their reputation.
It shows how little you trust Sweden too if you think that the state prosecutors in one of the least corrupt countries in the world are on the CIA payroll and that Sweden would surrender its own sovereignty in such a blatant way in order to please the US.
She is not commenting on it as an Icelandic politician, which is nothing to do either with WikiLeaks or with the rape case. She is commenting on it as one of the WikiLeaks activists. If she has a reason to think that there is merit to these accusations then it's quite reasonable for her to ask for his resignation.
They will be more exciting when iRobot starts making them more reliable and sell them at a reasonable price again. The low end one used to be around $100 (I owned several) and it worked just as well as the more expensive ones, without some useless features like self-charging, and it came with replacement filters and two virtual walls. These days the cheapest one is $200 (basically the same robot as the one that used to be $100) plus you get zero filters and zero virtual walls. On top of that those are hard to find in stores and they try really hard to sell you the $300+ ones (500 series) which don't really clean any better either and are even less reliable. Where is the Japanese competition when you need it...
Maybe they're scared that Sharon Angle will actually get elected. I mean, a look at her positions SHOULD scare even copyright trolls.
Having Harry Reid re-elected should scare them even more. That Wikipedia article is actually pretty biased and most of the citations come from hit pieces in liberal newspapers on behalf of Harry Reid's campaign. The quotes from Las Vegas Sun are particularly laughable as the Sun is practically a part of Reid's campaign team and it's a "newspaper" with tiny circulation even though it's given away for free.
Thinks global warming is a conspiracy?
No she doesn't. Like many conservatives she thinks that there is enough doubt about causes of warming and the effects, if any, that the proposed policies would have on it not to proceed with measures that could seriously damage the economy.
Eliminating the IRS
Not true. Even according to the Wikipedia article (or the Sun hit piece used as a citation in it), she never said so. She is for replacing the current IRS code with a simpler one, preferably a flat tax, as per Tea Party platform. Where did she say that IRS should be eliminated?
Abortion and pot regulation are frankly silly issues and while I don't agree with her there I don't think it's as big a deal as the issues I do agree with her on, such as decentralizing education, replacing pseudo-welfare Social Security with an actual retirement savings system, auditing the Fed and other government agencies etc. I think we need some anti-government senators even if they are slightly rough at the edges compared with professional Washington sleaze bags like Reid.
So because a copyright troll sued a conservative it is somehow benign or OK?
Nobody actually said that except you. Btw, Righthaven sued plenty of left wing sites too. They are apparently averaging several lawsuits per day so I don't really think there is a political agenda here.
Its copyright trolling at its best. There are several amusing parts to this story. The smug smile on the Righthaven CEOs Steve Gibsons (new Darl?) face as he openly brags about his business plan being all about extorting settlement money which the victims generally would rather pay then spend more on legal fees and not being interested in ending infringements, on the contrary, the more infringements the better. The legally dubious tactic of not sending takedown notices or but going straight to the lawsuit, demanding $150,000 and then settling for a much smaller amount. Also, the fact that the Review Journal is generally seen as a newspaper with conservative/libertarian bias and it strongly endorsed Sharron Angle, and now (through Righthaven) is suing her for posting two articles which praised her on her website.
Socialism is a word with a meaning which can be looked up easily, like all others. It is an economic system which as it's core feature involves collective (state) ownership of industry. There is no way around it, that's what it means, mature or not. It doesn't exist anywhere in the world anymore except in dictatorships like North Korea and Cuba and it is on the way out there as well. You need a different term for what you are talking about, and that term is "welfare state".
When a country moves too far to the left, demand arises for a populist right wing figure to satisfy all the simple people who rightly feel that there is something wrong but lack the understanding of what exactly, and therefore need it explained in simple language with drawings on a chalk board, just like in school. That's where Glenn Beck comes in.
There is nothing impressive or good about a dictator enjoying something useful while denying it to the people he oppresses. Do you realize that in 2009 Cubans were allowed to own cell phones and personal computer (with a government permit) for the first time ever? Even so, the access to the Internet is practically non-existent except when it comes to senior party members. Having the power to keep 11 million people in darkness as a matter of policy is evil pure and simple, nothing good about it.
Equality of outcome would only be a good thing if all people were of equal ability, otherwise it can only be achieved by oppression. The problem with socialism is that it sacrifices liberty in order to achieve equality which is a bad bargain to start with. Then it fails to achieve equality as well.
It might be. Cell phones are a great example of how developing world can use technology to leapfrog certain stages of development that they missed out on. Countries without functioning telecommunications infrastructure can (contract foreign companies to) slap a bunch of cell phone masts around the major population centers and combined with cheap handsets practically overnight you got 80% of your population connected. Of course there is a bit more to it, but it's a lot easier than wiring up the country.
In itself, a budget deficit isn't a bad thing. It's a problem for the state government, but it may be a good thing for the state economy in the long run because it forces the state has to cut spending which it should be doing anyway. While all the states are feeling the recession, Texas unemployment rate is substantially lower than California's (8% v. 13%) and its economy is the strongest of any state (http://www.cnbc.com/id/37516041/) by a variety of measures including GDP growth. Btw I don't live in Texas, I live in Nevada which is the worst state in the nation by most measures thanks to our beloved communist senator Harry Reid.
I would put that as "no physical force => moral => legal" actually, with two qualifications: (1) it applies to responsible adults only of course, and (2) physical force can take many forms. For example theft and fraud are forms of physical force. Can you explain what is wrong with it? Either those women have a choice or they do not. If they do, then where is the problem? You are one human being, they are another. You don't have any more right to decide what they should do than I have to decide what you should do as long as you are not harming somebody else. If they do NOT have a choice and only do it because they will genuinely starve if they don't, then what kind of a monster are you to suggest that it is immoral to hire a person who will die of hunger if you don't? If they don't have a choice because another person is physically forcing them to do it then that is a very serious crime already and we have laws dealing with kidnapping, slavery etc.
You can't equate prostitution with serving fast food. The former carries all sorts of risks
Yep, and it pays $300/hr+ (here in Vegas, possibly less elsewhere) and serving fast food pays $8/hr. 1 hour of easy work or 40 hours of hard work for the same money. Some women decide that the risk is worth it, some don't.
Two alternatives: you either let them do it or you force them to publish their ranking algorithms.
Two alternatives: you either enforce the law or you don't.
I'm not saying that Google did break the law, but I am saying that your or anybody else's consideration of practical results of either action should have no bearings on the issue at all. If the law causes bad consequences, then that law should be changed, not applied selectively.
When you can't fix the real problems plaguing your shitty state, distract attention by opening up a pointless investigation on a very well known, big company.
Strange, I would expect to see the AG of the failed state of California to be opening this kind of investigations then, not Texas which is doing pretty well these days.
I'd heard that part of the new plan for NASA involved changing how they did procurement -- paying for results, not for development. I'm highly excited to see it put into action.
The problem is that this approach only works for a subset of projects, mostly those where the contractor is already developing that technology regardless of NASA or where the cost is low. No company is going to invest millions into developing something on the off chance that NASA might like it once it's done. They want detailed requirements so they know when they are done.
Ok, this will be my last reply since it's pointless arguing with an overexcited child or a loon (in case you are actually an adult).
The "Contract" you gave is just propaganda.
No it is not. That is exactly what the Tea Party movement is about. To say anything else, you will need to provide some evidence.
The point of the Tea Party (it's not a party)
Of course it is not. It's a reference to the Boston Tea Party. It's nothing to do with political "party".
is for Republicans to call yourselves something else
Not at all. Republicans tend to be closer to the ideals of the Tea Partiers, but by no means automatically. Did you even see what happened in the primaries this year. A whole crap load of established Republicans got voted out by the Tea Party preferred candidates because they did not stand for those ideals.
You never call for cutting the military/intelligence budget down from the $TRILLION+ to something actually justifiable like $200B.
And how did you pull that number out of your ass? A strong military is of course necessary for us to have but if we spend excessive amount on it, that is mainly the result of the government corruption (i.e. pork) that exists in both parties.
You want to get government out of healthcare, but hands off your Medicare.
No, we want all government programs including Medicare audited for constitutionality and for waste and cut back as necessary. I personally want Medicare completely eliminated, as well as the Medicaid, Social Security and all Unemployment Benefits. If we want to help our fellow citizens (and I do) we should do it voluntarily through charity. We have no right to do it with other people's money.
You talk about entitlement as if people aren't entitled to things like Social Security they paid into and which don't add a penny to the deficit.
Both parts of your statement are laughable. Social Security is a broken and bankrupt system, I can provide as much evidence for it as you like. Even so, I have not heard of any Tea Party supporters calling for it to be abolished without paying out the benefits to those who paid into the system. Even those who are open about ending social security like Sharon Angle would only phase it out for new people entering the workforce, not for those who already paid into it.
You never complained while you were voting for Bush/Cheney twice, but the moment a Democrat is elected you answer the call of your corporate funders and organizers like Dick Armey and Glenn Beck to "take back" your country - that you and your fellow Republicans brought to ruin.
The country has never actually had a government that was as fiscally irresponsible as the current one. The Obamacare alone will over time (esp if Dems stay in power and eventually turn it into a fully socialized system as they intend to) bankrupt the country. Along wioth SS, and other programs, we are heading for European style 70%+ income tax burden for our children just to fund all the entitlements.
As for the Constitution, you want to gut the 14th Amendment,
Who does? Some Republicans do want to stop the deliberate abuse of it with the "anchor babies" and I agree with it, but that has really nothing to do with the Tea Party. Even so we only want to do this through a constitutional amendment. We don't want to bypass or ignore the constitution, we want to amend it. There is a procedure for that provided in, guess what, the constitution.
ignore the 4th Amendment add a homophobia amendment...
All I can say to that is... What!?
and march with racists who really just prefer the original intent of the Constitution that protects slavery.
There is not once single piece of evidence that Tea Party is in any way racist. I might as well say that the Democrats want to burn live babies. Stating something doesn't make it true. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that there is a deliberate policy among the liberals to smear the Tea Party, and in fact any opponent, as racist. Would you like me to provide some?
Sorry, I didn't realize who I was arguing with, otherwise I would never have started. But ok, let me reply even though your post doesn't deserve it.
Yes. The Teabaggers out in the streets and on TV will never pay any taxes if they can avoid them.
Can you provide some evidence for that? If there is a policy behind the Tea Party movement, it is described in the Contract linked in my signature. The 10 points were voted on by over 1/2 million Tea Party members and supporters. Where does it says that we should have no government, no regulation or no taxes? The point of the Tea Party movement is that our government is now bloated out of all proportion and that it should be cut back to the duties that the constitution intended it to perform. So, yes we should have laws, we should have law enforcement and we should have military and those should be paid for by taxes. We should not NOT have vast and expensive entitlement and welfare programs which make up more than 70% of the budget. We should NOT have 100s of government agencies and their spending programs most of which are nothing but a waste of time and our money on an enormous scale.
By the way, just for future reference, name calling does absolutely nothing to further your arguments. It only makes you appear childish. Arguing is about trying to convince the other person in the validity of your position, not about trying to win a contest of who can offend the other person more.
My point was that the existence of the rule of law provided by the government under objective laws is a necessary condition for a free market. I was correcting your apparent misunderstanding of that fact. It's not either the rule of law (i.e government action to provide mechanism for compensation when harm, in this case pollution, is done) OR the free market. Your initial post saying that the free market cannot correct pollution is equivalent to saying that the free market cannot punish people for murder. Pointless nonsense, just as I said.
The point is that in a purely free market as espoused by many libertarians, sans tax and regulation, they don't HAVE to pay for the external costs like pollution.
That is simply not true. Can you name some examples of those "many" libertarians who promote not having ANY taxes and regulation? Is Ayn Rand libertarian enough: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html The mainstream view of libertarians (not anarchists) is that you cannot have liberty for all individuals without government providing laws and law enforcement that protects all individuals from harm caused by others (in this case by pollution). That is the main (some would say the only) proper role of the government. There is nothing inconsistent about it. If you have anarchy, you cannot have liberty for everybody because the first person with more power than you can and probably will take your liberty away from you. Anarchy and liberty are incompatible.
If only people like you understood that free market != anarchy the amount of pointless nonsense written on slashdot would decrease. If you cause harm to others, including polluting their environment, you ARE supposed to pay for it. This is NOT inconsistent with the free market. If you don't believe me to accurately represent the position of free market libertarians, would you believe Milton Friedman? He supported tort in cases where it is practical (obviously measurable harm) and taxing where harm is hard to measure ( second half of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH0O_JjH06k )
I personally have more respect for him for being a rich founder of MS than for giving money away. The first was difficult, the second was easy. The first brought about a revolution in mass available cheap computing, the second, despite the size of his fund, is a drop in the ocean in the way he is using it. If he actually wanted to make a difference in the third world, he would invest in the only things that possibly can make a real difference:
- investment in local businesses and providing substantial startup money for local entrepreneurs, not pittance for starting some miniature home based businesses, - promoting emancipation of women and political stability (so yes it needs to get a bit political), - investment in education primarily at the university level. As in every case in history it is the small number of exceptional leaders in every field who drag their societies forward. Investing at the earlier levels might make everybody barely literate but doesn't do as much good for the country's future.
.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not blind faith, it just shows how little we all seem to trust the US when so many of us are quick to assume that a rape allegation against an individual the US would clearly like to silence is an attempt to smear their reputation.
It shows how little you trust Sweden too if you think that the state prosecutors in one of the least corrupt countries in the world are on the CIA payroll and that Sweden would surrender its own sovereignty in such a blatant way in order to please the US.
She is not commenting on it as an Icelandic politician, which is nothing to do either with WikiLeaks or with the rape case. She is commenting on it as one of the WikiLeaks activists. If she has a reason to think that there is merit to these accusations then it's quite reasonable for her to ask for his resignation.
Your post inspired me to type in a url and guess what comes up: http://bitchbots.com Maybe you can find what you need there.
They will be more exciting when iRobot starts making them more reliable and sell them at a reasonable price again. The low end one used to be around $100 (I owned several) and it worked just as well as the more expensive ones, without some useless features like self-charging, and it came with replacement filters and two virtual walls. These days the cheapest one is $200 (basically the same robot as the one that used to be $100) plus you get zero filters and zero virtual walls. On top of that those are hard to find in stores and they try really hard to sell you the $300+ ones (500 series) which don't really clean any better either and are even less reliable. Where is the Japanese competition when you need it...
Maybe they're scared that Sharon Angle will actually get elected. I mean, a look at her positions SHOULD scare even copyright trolls.
Having Harry Reid re-elected should scare them even more. That Wikipedia article is actually pretty biased and most of the citations come from hit pieces in liberal newspapers on behalf of Harry Reid's campaign. The quotes from Las Vegas Sun are particularly laughable as the Sun is practically a part of Reid's campaign team and it's a "newspaper" with tiny circulation even though it's given away for free.
Thinks global warming is a conspiracy?
No she doesn't. Like many conservatives she thinks that there is enough doubt about causes of warming and the effects, if any, that the proposed policies would have on it not to proceed with measures that could seriously damage the economy.
Eliminating the IRS
Not true. Even according to the Wikipedia article (or the Sun hit piece used as a citation in it), she never said so. She is for replacing the current IRS code with a simpler one, preferably a flat tax, as per Tea Party platform. Where did she say that IRS should be eliminated?
Abortion and pot regulation are frankly silly issues and while I don't agree with her there I don't think it's as big a deal as the issues I do agree with her on, such as decentralizing education, replacing pseudo-welfare Social Security with an actual retirement savings system, auditing the Fed and other government agencies etc. I think we need some anti-government senators even if they are slightly rough at the edges compared with professional Washington sleaze bags like Reid.
So because a copyright troll sued a conservative it is somehow benign or OK?
Nobody actually said that except you. Btw, Righthaven sued plenty of left wing sites too. They are apparently averaging several lawsuits per day so I don't really think there is a political agenda here.
Its copyright trolling at its best. There are several amusing parts to this story. The smug smile on the Righthaven CEOs Steve Gibsons (new Darl?) face as he openly brags about his business plan being all about extorting settlement money which the victims generally would rather pay then spend more on legal fees and not being interested in ending infringements, on the contrary, the more infringements the better. The legally dubious tactic of not sending takedown notices or but going straight to the lawsuit, demanding $150,000 and then settling for a much smaller amount. Also, the fact that the Review Journal is generally seen as a newspaper with conservative/libertarian bias and it strongly endorsed Sharron Angle, and now (through Righthaven) is suing her for posting two articles which praised her on her website.
Socialism is a word with a meaning which can be looked up easily, like all others. It is an economic system which as it's core feature involves collective (state) ownership of industry. There is no way around it, that's what it means, mature or not. It doesn't exist anywhere in the world anymore except in dictatorships like North Korea and Cuba and it is on the way out there as well. You need a different term for what you are talking about, and that term is "welfare state".
When a country moves too far to the left, demand arises for a populist right wing figure to satisfy all the simple people who rightly feel that there is something wrong but lack the understanding of what exactly, and therefore need it explained in simple language with drawings on a chalk board, just like in school. That's where Glenn Beck comes in.
There is nothing impressive or good about a dictator enjoying something useful while denying it to the people he oppresses. Do you realize that in 2009 Cubans were allowed to own cell phones and personal computer (with a government permit) for the first time ever? Even so, the access to the Internet is practically non-existent except when it comes to senior party members. Having the power to keep 11 million people in darkness as a matter of policy is evil pure and simple, nothing good about it.
Equality of outcome would only be a good thing if all people were of equal ability, otherwise it can only be achieved by oppression. The problem with socialism is that it sacrifices liberty in order to achieve equality which is a bad bargain to start with. Then it fails to achieve equality as well.
Maybe he reads left wing tabloids with plummeting circulation such as New York Times?
It might be. Cell phones are a great example of how developing world can use technology to leapfrog certain stages of development that they missed out on. Countries without functioning telecommunications infrastructure can (contract foreign companies to) slap a bunch of cell phone masts around the major population centers and combined with cheap handsets practically overnight you got 80% of your population connected. Of course there is a bit more to it, but it's a lot easier than wiring up the country.
In itself, a budget deficit isn't a bad thing. It's a problem for the state government, but it may be a good thing for the state economy in the long run because it forces the state has to cut spending which it should be doing anyway. While all the states are feeling the recession, Texas unemployment rate is substantially lower than California's (8% v. 13%) and its economy is the strongest of any state (http://www.cnbc.com/id/37516041/) by a variety of measures including GDP growth. Btw I don't live in Texas, I live in Nevada which is the worst state in the nation by most measures thanks to our beloved communist senator Harry Reid.
no physical force => legal => moral
I would put that as "no physical force => moral => legal" actually, with two qualifications: (1) it applies to responsible adults only of course, and (2) physical force can take many forms. For example theft and fraud are forms of physical force. Can you explain what is wrong with it? Either those women have a choice or they do not. If they do, then where is the problem? You are one human being, they are another. You don't have any more right to decide what they should do than I have to decide what you should do as long as you are not harming somebody else. If they do NOT have a choice and only do it because they will genuinely starve if they don't, then what kind of a monster are you to suggest that it is immoral to hire a person who will die of hunger if you don't? If they don't have a choice because another person is physically forcing them to do it then that is a very serious crime already and we have laws dealing with kidnapping, slavery etc.
You can't equate prostitution with serving fast food. The former carries all sorts of risks
Yep, and it pays $300/hr+ (here in Vegas, possibly less elsewhere) and serving fast food pays $8/hr. 1 hour of easy work or 40 hours of hard work for the same money. Some women decide that the risk is worth it, some don't.
Two alternatives: you either let them do it or you force them to publish their ranking algorithms.
Two alternatives: you either enforce the law or you don't.
I'm not saying that Google did break the law, but I am saying that your or anybody else's consideration of practical results of either action should have no bearings on the issue at all. If the law causes bad consequences, then that law should be changed, not applied selectively.
When you can't fix the real problems plaguing your shitty state, distract attention by opening up a pointless investigation on a very well known, big company.
Strange, I would expect to see the AG of the failed state of California to be opening this kind of investigations then, not Texas which is doing pretty well these days.
I'd heard that part of the new plan for NASA involved changing how they did procurement -- paying for results, not for development. I'm highly excited to see it put into action.
The problem is that this approach only works for a subset of projects, mostly those where the contractor is already developing that technology regardless of NASA or where the cost is low. No company is going to invest millions into developing something on the off chance that NASA might like it once it's done. They want detailed requirements so they know when they are done.
Ok, this will be my last reply since it's pointless arguing with an overexcited child or a loon (in case you are actually an adult).
The "Contract" you gave is just propaganda.
No it is not. That is exactly what the Tea Party movement is about. To say anything else, you will need to provide some evidence.
The point of the Tea Party (it's not a party)
Of course it is not. It's a reference to the Boston Tea Party. It's nothing to do with political "party".
is for Republicans to call yourselves something else
Not at all. Republicans tend to be closer to the ideals of the Tea Partiers, but by no means automatically. Did you even see what happened in the primaries this year. A whole crap load of established Republicans got voted out by the Tea Party preferred candidates because they did not stand for those ideals.
You never call for cutting the military/intelligence budget down from the $TRILLION+ to something actually justifiable like $200B.
And how did you pull that number out of your ass? A strong military is of course necessary for us to have but if we spend excessive amount on it, that is mainly the result of the government corruption (i.e. pork) that exists in both parties.
You want to get government out of healthcare, but hands off your Medicare.
No, we want all government programs including Medicare audited for constitutionality and for waste and cut back as necessary. I personally want Medicare completely eliminated, as well as the Medicaid, Social Security and all Unemployment Benefits. If we want to help our fellow citizens (and I do) we should do it voluntarily through charity. We have no right to do it with other people's money.
You talk about entitlement as if people aren't entitled to things like Social Security they paid into and which don't add a penny to the deficit.
Both parts of your statement are laughable. Social Security is a broken and bankrupt system, I can provide as much evidence for it as you like. Even so, I have not heard of any Tea Party supporters calling for it to be abolished without paying out the benefits to those who paid into the system. Even those who are open about ending social security like Sharon Angle would only phase it out for new people entering the workforce, not for those who already paid into it.
You never complained while you were voting for Bush/Cheney twice, but the moment a Democrat is elected you answer the call of your corporate funders and organizers like Dick Armey and Glenn Beck to "take back" your country - that you and your fellow Republicans brought to ruin.
The country has never actually had a government that was as fiscally irresponsible as the current one. The Obamacare alone will over time (esp if Dems stay in power and eventually turn it into a fully socialized system as they intend to) bankrupt the country. Along wioth SS, and other programs, we are heading for European style 70%+ income tax burden for our children just to fund all the entitlements.
As for the Constitution, you want to gut the 14th Amendment,
Who does? Some Republicans do want to stop the deliberate abuse of it with the "anchor babies" and I agree with it, but that has really nothing to do with the Tea Party. Even so we only want to do this through a constitutional amendment. We don't want to bypass or ignore the constitution, we want to amend it. There is a procedure for that provided in, guess what, the constitution.
ignore the 4th Amendment add a homophobia amendment...
All I can say to that is... What!?
and march with racists who really just prefer the original intent of the Constitution that protects slavery.
There is not once single piece of evidence that Tea Party is in any way racist. I might as well say that the Democrats want to burn live babies. Stating something doesn't make it true. On the other hand there is plenty of evidence that there is a deliberate policy among the liberals to smear the Tea Party, and in fact any opponent, as racist. Would you like me to provide some?
Sorry, I didn't realize who I was arguing with, otherwise I would never have started. But ok, let me reply even though your post doesn't deserve it.
Yes. The Teabaggers out in the streets and on TV will never pay any taxes if they can avoid them.
Can you provide some evidence for that? If there is a policy behind the Tea Party movement, it is described in the Contract linked in my signature. The 10 points were voted on by over 1/2 million Tea Party members and supporters. Where does it says that we should have no government, no regulation or no taxes? The point of the Tea Party movement is that our government is now bloated out of all proportion and that it should be cut back to the duties that the constitution intended it to perform. So, yes we should have laws, we should have law enforcement and we should have military and those should be paid for by taxes. We should not NOT have vast and expensive entitlement and welfare programs which make up more than 70% of the budget. We should NOT have 100s of government agencies and their spending programs most of which are nothing but a waste of time and our money on an enormous scale.
By the way, just for future reference, name calling does absolutely nothing to further your arguments. It only makes you appear childish. Arguing is about trying to convince the other person in the validity of your position, not about trying to win a contest of who can offend the other person more.
My point was that the existence of the rule of law provided by the government under objective laws is a necessary condition for a free market. I was correcting your apparent misunderstanding of that fact. It's not either the rule of law (i.e government action to provide mechanism for compensation when harm, in this case pollution, is done) OR the free market. Your initial post saying that the free market cannot correct pollution is equivalent to saying that the free market cannot punish people for murder. Pointless nonsense, just as I said.
The point is that in a purely free market as espoused by many libertarians, sans tax and regulation, they don't HAVE to pay for the external costs like pollution.
That is simply not true. Can you name some examples of those "many" libertarians who promote not having ANY taxes and regulation? Is Ayn Rand libertarian enough: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html The mainstream view of libertarians (not anarchists) is that you cannot have liberty for all individuals without government providing laws and law enforcement that protects all individuals from harm caused by others (in this case by pollution). That is the main (some would say the only) proper role of the government. There is nothing inconsistent about it. If you have anarchy, you cannot have liberty for everybody because the first person with more power than you can and probably will take your liberty away from you. Anarchy and liberty are incompatible.
If only people like you understood that free market != anarchy the amount of pointless nonsense written on slashdot would decrease. If you cause harm to others, including polluting their environment, you ARE supposed to pay for it. This is NOT inconsistent with the free market. If you don't believe me to accurately represent the position of free market libertarians, would you believe Milton Friedman? He supported tort in cases where it is practical (obviously measurable harm) and taxing where harm is hard to measure ( second half of the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH0O_JjH06k )
I personally have more respect for him for being a rich founder of MS than for giving money away. The first was difficult, the second was easy. The first brought about a revolution in mass available cheap computing, the second, despite the size of his fund, is a drop in the ocean in the way he is using it. If he actually wanted to make a difference in the third world, he would invest in the only things that possibly can make a real difference:
- investment in local businesses and providing substantial startup money for local entrepreneurs, not pittance for starting some miniature home based businesses,
- promoting emancipation of women and political stability (so yes it needs to get a bit political),
- investment in education primarily at the university level. As in every case in history it is the small number of exceptional leaders in every field who drag their societies forward. Investing at the earlier levels might make everybody barely literate but doesn't do as much good for the country's future. .