He "favors" cutting the DHS but doesn't propose it.
Then you're not paying attention. He railed against the idea when it was proposed, and has been complaining about it every since its establishment.
What terrible evil does NOAA do? You got something against weather satellites?
It doesn't have to be evil to be unconstitutional.
(Although I think it was a grave mistake) the federal government gave congress the power to operate the post office, but there was no mention of weather satellites.
And as we all know, the Constitution is what makes our federal government possible, and is the Supreme Law of the Land.
If you feel that it should be a legitimate function of the federal government, there's a built-in process to amend the Constitution. But of course, since this country was set up as a loose federation of independent states, the states will have to ratify any proposed amendments.
The agencies Paul is proposing we cut are already illegal simply by existing.
Sorry to reply to my own message, but I just found out the synopsis of the article may be wrong. "To clarify, Google Reader remains a stand-alone product."
Well, at least this is assuming the first commenter "Louis Gray" is correct with his clarification....
That's easy. I like: "the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another". I subscribe to the Axiom of Non-Aggression (a.k.a. the Non-Aggression Principle):
Perhaps it's because I didn't sleep well last night, but I'm having trouble understanding your question. What's the "norm"?
I would say my view on the legitimate function of government varies greatly from what we have now.
As far as morality, I don't speak of it all that much. But I would say that that everything that is right and proper comes from what is moral. The example I used recently was that if it's wrong for me to take $10 from my neighbor's pocket because I'm hungry, it's wrong for the government to take $10 from my neighbor's pocket to feed me. And it's wrong for you to petition the government to take such action. Government-sanctioned (i.e. legalized) theft is still theft, and still wrong.
I have no idea if I've even come close to answering your question.:)
I can't grok this. You've managed to contradict yourself in just 8 words.
Re:Ubuntu doesn't force you to use ANY desktop
on
Ubuntu Turns 7
·
· Score: 1
I think I originally installed 9.something, and have been upgrading along the way.
e16-gnome was an option on the login screen (along with other choices) when I first loaded it from CD.
However, some distro upgrades have broken it (even though it still exists as a choice on the login screen) and I've had to fiddle with it to get it working again (the details of which I've long forgotten).
"Society" simply means people living together as a community. It doesn't depend on a governmental body that strong-arms its will on its citizens.
What's best for an individual (longer term) always benefits society as a whole.
The argument you make regarding "people with difficulties" is that only government can help them, by stealing from the fruits of my labor to give to them. Of course that's preposterous, since the U.S. is the most generous nation on earth in terms of charitable donations. Just think how much more people would be willing to give up if ~50% of their earnings wasn't given back to the government already.
But regardless, nobody, regardless of circumstance has a "right" to education. You want want the right, but it doesn't make it so.
If it's illegal for me to steal $10 out of my neighbor's pocket when I'm hungry, it should be illegal for the government to steal $10 out of my neighbor's pocket to give it to me.
Apparently you're of the mindset that throwing around a bunch of pejoratives somehow lends credence to the myths you propagate.
We've had nothing but government meddling and fascism for the past 30 years. We've had corporatism, not capitalism.
And yet people like you clearly get this mixed up, and blame the free market and capitalism for today's problems, when we've had none of either.
And this "doddering old fool" and his [Austrian] school of economics have accurately predicted the booms and busts we've been dealing with. People like him and Peter Schiff went on CNBC in 2004 and went up against all the talking heads who said the economy was fine and the housing market was in a permanent uptrend, and laughed in Paul's and Schiff's faces when they said it was all going to crash. Economists like Mises and Rothbard have plenty of writings that explain clearly why we're in the mess we're in, and if you didn't know better, you'd think they were clairvoyant. But it's simply that the Austrian school of economics understand reality, unlike today's Keynesians.
For all the pissing and moaning about evil corporations (much of which I agree with), you seem to miss the fact that these wouldn't have the power you abhor in a free market. They only have all these magical, mystical and evil powers over us because the government allows (and encourages) it. Without the guns of government behind them, the largest corporations in the world would be inert.
The U.S. has never been isolationist, and neither are any of the presidential candidates, including Ron Paul. While striving for a noninterventionism, he strives for free trade with all.
Ubuntu doesn't force you to use ANY desktop
on
Ubuntu Turns 7
·
· Score: 2
I'm running the most recent Ubuntu, but I'm running a combination of E16 (Enlightenment) and Gnome2, a.k.a. e16-gnome. Unity is just the default; you're certainly not forced to use it.
The unstated policy of the Federal Reserve and the past umpteen administrations is to debase our currency in order to pay off debts more cheaply. Heck, the value of the dollar has lost about 95% of its value since 1913, and about 25% in the last decade alone. So as this continues, we'll all ultimately become millionnaires, but that money won't buy very much. And this "new tax rate for millionnaires" that all you are supporting will apply to YOU.
I understand what you're saying, but I guess I don't really see it as a major shakeup.
And I don't disagree that it seems to matter to plenty of people. I'm just making the point that it didn't use to matter to many in the slashdot audience. I'm still of the school of thought that to use the word "Microsoft" or "Windows" in the same sentence as "technology" is a sacrilege.
Slashdot Mirror
False.
He "favors" cutting the DHS but doesn't propose it.
Then you're not paying attention. He railed against the idea when it was proposed, and has been complaining about it every since its establishment.
What terrible evil does NOAA do? You got something against weather satellites?
It doesn't have to be evil to be unconstitutional.
(Although I think it was a grave mistake) the federal government gave congress the power to operate the post office, but there was no mention of weather satellites.
And as we all know, the Constitution is what makes our federal government possible, and is the Supreme Law of the Land.
If you feel that it should be a legitimate function of the federal government, there's a built-in process to amend the Constitution. But of course, since this country was set up as a loose federation of independent states, the states will have to ratify any proposed amendments.
The agencies Paul is proposing we cut are already illegal simply by existing.
The only way that could be true is if you believed that you had a "right" to the fruit of your neighbor's labor, which is quite the abhorrent notion.
Whew!
Sorry to reply to my own message, but I just found out the synopsis of the article may be wrong. "To clarify, Google Reader remains a stand-alone product."
Well, at least this is assuming the first commenter "Louis Gray" is correct with his clarification....
Since Google+ is blocked at work, I will no longer be able to use Google Reader on my lunch hour!
I vehemently disagree. Anti-trust laws, like so many other laws, are paved with good intentions but in reality they are an abomination.
I wish I had more time and energy to expound here and now. For now, check out http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/brown-c4.html
That's easy. I like: "the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another". I subscribe to the Axiom of Non-Aggression (a.k.a. the Non-Aggression Principle):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dYNk0QGdBw
Enjoy,
-Mike
But of course that would be a legitimate function of a government: to stop one from aggressing upon another.
And to my knowledge, no form of government resembles a corporation.
Perhaps it's because I didn't sleep well last night, but I'm having trouble understanding your question. What's the "norm"?
I would say my view on the legitimate function of government varies greatly from what we have now.
As far as morality, I don't speak of it all that much. But I would say that that everything that is right and proper comes from what is moral. The example I used recently was that if it's wrong for me to take $10 from my neighbor's pocket because I'm hungry, it's wrong for the government to take $10 from my neighbor's pocket to feed me. And it's wrong for you to petition the government to take such action. Government-sanctioned (i.e. legalized) theft is still theft, and still wrong.
I have no idea if I've even come close to answering your question. :)
I would describe myself as an anarcho-capitalist, and the single biggest source of ideas come from LewRockwell.com and the Mises.org blog.
...the only free market is a regulated market
I can't grok this. You've managed to contradict yourself in just 8 words.
I think I originally installed 9.something, and have been upgrading along the way.
e16-gnome was an option on the login screen (along with other choices) when I first loaded it from CD.
However, some distro upgrades have broken it (even though it still exists as a choice on the login screen) and I've had to fiddle with it to get it working again (the details of which I've long forgotten).
Sorry I'm of no help here....
"Society" simply means people living together as a community. It doesn't depend on a governmental body that strong-arms its will on its citizens.
What's best for an individual (longer term) always benefits society as a whole.
The argument you make regarding "people with difficulties" is that only government can help them, by stealing from the fruits of my labor to give to them. Of course that's preposterous, since the U.S. is the most generous nation on earth in terms of charitable donations. Just think how much more people would be willing to give up if ~50% of their earnings wasn't given back to the government already.
But regardless, nobody, regardless of circumstance has a "right" to education. You want want the right, but it doesn't make it so.
If it's illegal for me to steal $10 out of my neighbor's pocket when I'm hungry, it should be illegal for the government to steal $10 out of my neighbor's pocket to give it to me.
Of course Paul is dead-set against the Military Industrial Complex. If you think otherwise, you simply haven't been paying attention.
Personally, I don't think they should.
Apparently you've made an assumption about my beliefs that isn't true in the least.
Apparently you're of the mindset that throwing around a bunch of pejoratives somehow lends credence to the myths you propagate.
We've had nothing but government meddling and fascism for the past 30 years. We've had corporatism, not capitalism.
And yet people like you clearly get this mixed up, and blame the free market and capitalism for today's problems, when we've had none of either.
And this "doddering old fool" and his [Austrian] school of economics have accurately predicted the booms and busts we've been dealing with. People like him and Peter Schiff went on CNBC in 2004 and went up against all the talking heads who said the economy was fine and the housing market was in a permanent uptrend, and laughed in Paul's and Schiff's faces when they said it was all going to crash. Economists like Mises and Rothbard have plenty of writings that explain clearly why we're in the mess we're in, and if you didn't know better, you'd think they were clairvoyant. But it's simply that the Austrian school of economics understand reality, unlike today's Keynesians.
Hello clueless Mr. Anonymous.
For all the pissing and moaning about evil corporations (much of which I agree with), you seem to miss the fact that these wouldn't have the power you abhor in a free market. They only have all these magical, mystical and evil powers over us because the government allows (and encourages) it. Without the guns of government behind them, the largest corporations in the world would be inert.
Paul would favor cutting DHS and is constantly mouthing off about closing all foreign bases and bringing all the troops home.
Some nut job.
Seems to me a nut job would think that any of the listed government agencies actually do more good than harm.
Why should "society" pay for your children's education?
By what moral right can one demand that others give up some of the fruit of their labor for the benefit of your children?
The U.S. has never been isolationist, and neither are any of the presidential candidates, including Ron Paul. While striving for a noninterventionism, he strives for free trade with all.
I'm running the most recent Ubuntu, but I'm running a combination of E16 (Enlightenment) and Gnome2, a.k.a. e16-gnome. Unity is just the default; you're certainly not forced to use it.
inflation.
The unstated policy of the Federal Reserve and the past umpteen administrations is to debase our currency in order to pay off debts more cheaply. Heck, the value of the dollar has lost about 95% of its value since 1913, and about 25% in the last decade alone. So as this continues, we'll all ultimately become millionnaires, but that money won't buy very much. And this "new tax rate for millionnaires" that all you are supporting will apply to YOU.
I am. Have you see my user number? :-)
I understand what you're saying, but I guess I don't really see it as a major shakeup.
And I don't disagree that it seems to matter to plenty of people. I'm just making the point that it didn't use to matter to many in the slashdot audience. I'm still of the school of thought that to use the word "Microsoft" or "Windows" in the same sentence as "technology" is a sacrilege.
But, I'll drop it.