Re:Ralph Nader needs a posse - after his head
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Ahh, the infamous line "the enlightened society". If the 10 to 20 % did move off and form their own country, what would the other 80-90% do? I refer you to the book Atlas Shrugged for the answer. Not that I agree with you numbers, mind you, but whatever. The only elightenment I need is that which I choose to take, not that which you will force upon me. If I choose to help those who are in need, than I will do so, picking those that I feel I most worthy. I resent folks such as you would hi-jack my money and give it to people I don't think should get it. This is the difference between a free society and government controlled society. The mark of a free society is that all of it's citizens have the opportunity to live well, and it is their choice as to whether they take it.
The sponging elite? You have famous company. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Mussolini all used that same line. I care little for their "enlightened society".
Who said anything about private police forces? That's the states job. The thing that people always get wrong about Libertarianism is they think we are against all government period. It's simply not true. We simply believe that the fed should be absolutely limited to the constitution and let the states handle the rest. That makes government much more responsive and answerable to the people because they're closer to them.
Yep, you're right. I can't wait to head off to the technological capitals of the world. Countries whose contributions to the world number in the single digits combined.
Vietnamese? Tunisian? Are you kidding me? Have you ever looked at the economies of some these countries? OK, with Sweden and Finland you might have the beginnings of a point. But Vietnam is one of your examples of the success of socialism?
Let's look at the euro's for example. Tax rates beyond belief, snd socialized medicine working so well that people have to leave the country, in many cases, in order get medical attention. Woo Hoo!
The key phrase you use here is "flavor of socialism". Not fully socialist nations. Most if not all of these nations (sorry, not an expert on Tunisia) have a capitalist base for their economy but have various levels of socialist leanings, much like the current U.S. The only fully socialist countries I'm aware of (1 being China, it's chosen form is communism), have human rights abuses that are absolutely atrocious. Because too much power is held by too few people. This is why socialism doesn't work as a complete economic basis for a country, especially a large country.
Re:Voting for Status with Liberals
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Ok, I'm trying really hard to equate free software with the millions of deaths at the hands of avowed socialists like Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, but I'm having a hard time.
Free software is a noble effort by some dedicated folks but it's got a long way to go before it ever really competes with commercial software. And even where it does compete, it's because some bright capitalist came up with a way to market it and make money (read Red Hat). Even the poster child of Free Software, Torvalds, is a member of that big bad capitalistic world which you appear to hold in such disdain (read TransMeta). Make no mistake, business drives this planet. Most of this free software is being made by people who work somewhere else for a living and do it on the side out of fun or dedication. Without money and materialism, motivation goes right straight out the window.
Re:Ralph Nader needs a posse - after his head
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Why do you think this prosperity only benefits the 10-20% of the wealthiest? For the most part these are the people who paid attention, were smart and took advantage of the opportunities presented them. Sure, there are some silver spoons, but they represent a minority of the "wealthy". These are the people who made good decisions with their lives and now their going to be expected to pony up their earnings for people who decided to crank their credit to the max, so they can get a big screen to watch some good wrasslin'. Of course, I'm speaking in generalities, but for the most part, the prosperity is there for all, some people choose to take advantage of it. Wealth is not an entitlement.
And who is it who's telling them the economy's great? Our benevolent, socialist leaning, imperial federal government, of course. Because they want to keep you fat, dumb and happy. Personal responsibility for your life? That's somebody elses problem. We'll take the money from the hated rich (whose votes they don't need) and give to you, the exalted poor (whose votes they do need). Thus the scramble to shift as much of the tax burden on the upper income levels as possible.
This is why schools teach our children that their own needs are not as important as the needs of the group. That the individual is less important than the whole. That's CLASSIC socialism, used by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini.
Alexander Tyler was a Scottish historian who wrote that statement around 200 years ago... talking not about America but the fall of the Athenian Republic over 2000 years prior.
While I respect your opinion, I have to take issue. The last thing a libertarian wants is anarchy. That would mean that anybody could do anything without worrying about trampling the rights of others. Definitely not a Libertarian viewpoint. But what sometimes get lost in the propaganda over constitutional limits, is that any right not specifically designated to the feds is relegated to a state issue. States have every right to make legislation regarding the environment. Peole who cry anarchy are forgetting that there is also a state and local level of government to deal with a lot of these issues, and those are much more answerable to the people.
Like the EPA? Take a trip over to www.lp.org/issues and find out who the biggest polluter in the country is. The answer might surprise you.
nationalize the top 500 corporations.
tax at 100% salaries that exceed 10x minimum wage.
force business to decrease the work week without decreasing pay.
force me, using all the power of government, to fund cradle to grave healthcare for everyone.
I know, you said 3 but I couldn't help myself. I'll use the same old phrase I've used at least 40 times in replies to this article. Nader is a socialist. He may be a well-intentioned socialist, but a socialist all the same. And socialism does not work. Never has, never will.
I have no data to back this up, but I will try to find some evidence that if it weren't for private industry there would be no internet. It would still be used by two professors on opposite ends of the country sending pings back and forth. It was business that came up with old WWW and transformed it into what it is now, with all the good and bad that goes with it.
And one more thing. As you said, the invention of the internet was in response to military needs, a vital and necessary function of federal government. So that in no way refutes the possibility of it's existence under a libertarian government.
I'll go you one better. Drew, after reading your statements, you seem like you are most closely aligned with Browne 1st, Bush 2nd. Same here. Congratulations;>.
So let's be realistic here. If you vote Browne, you can A) be reasonably assured he won't be elected this year and B) enough votes for him will tell the current powers that we want smaller government. A message they can't ignore, without worrying about complete gun deregulation and the other Libertarian ideas that make you uncomfortable.
And also, even if Harry, by some miracle, DID get elected, do you really think he'd actually be able to get ALL of those policies implemented. There's only a finite amount of time available and congress to deal with. So likely you'd end up with something between what we have now, and what Harry is describing, i.e. repeal most gun laws but maintain registration or something like that. It's just the nature of compromise.
I can see how the Libertarian concept taken in cold, hard reality might be difficult to accept at this time. But the reality is, 100% of his goals won't get accomplished. It's not humanly possible. So send your republicans a message. Tell them to get back to their small government message and break ranks with the religious right who want to control our collective morality. You have the power.
Wow! You're steady stream of logical, well-thought out arguments as reduced me to cowering jellyfish. I guess I'll just have to bow to your superior intellect.
But I won't be replying to anymore flamebait. If you did have half a brain, you'd realize I'm a Browne supporter. But, once again, that does require the use of logic and intelligence, a deficiency you display all too plainly.
Do you really think private industry would have never thought of the internet? I'm guessing they would have, except that they would have started out with a secure protocol instead of waiting 20 years. I've yet to see any government program that couldn't be handled better privately. It's the naderites who amaze me. I see him as big brother incarnate, and it's beyond me how a freedom loving people could vote for him.
You're right! I vote for Nader... to pack his bags and zip right off to the USSR where they love things like dominant central government, government seizure of all their assets, having no civil liberties at all, and best of all, no constitution to be wiped on the ass of some celebrity, socialist consumer advocate!
Oh I forgot. There is no USSR anymore. I think that's because SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK! HELLO? IS THIS THING ON!?!
Great idea, Brainiac!
I'm trying desperately to figure out what in the hell you're talking about, but I can't get any logic around it. Of course, you are obviously a Nader supporter, so logic wouldn't be your strong point.
Some people tell me that "51% is not some magic number that makes an evil thing a right thing". Indeed you are right. But how come you seem to think that 51% of the people voting for a candidate, who then does this very evil thing, somehow can make it right?
Since we live in a constitutional republic, the elected leader cannot do things that violate the constitution, making him incapable of doing something evil. This is what most people fail to realize when they look at Libertarians and cry "anarchy!". A free populace has nothing to fear from a government "bound from mischief by the chains of the constitution". And a government has little to fear from a populace that is left to be free, so long as they do not violate the freedoms of others.
Unfortunately, the country has been slowly bastardized beginning with FDR's "Raw" deal, which , not so ironically, came about when the socialist party was the third largest party in America. The "forward thinking" intellectual set was bound and determined to take us in the direction of communist russia. It was the new grand experiment, and it failed miserably. America has stood this long due to it's roots in the constitution. But until we take it more seriously, rather than giving it the token nods that Bush and Gore do, we will continue to slide down the path of socialism. A direct democracy, no matter how well meaning, is a path to complete disaster. This is not pessimism, it is human nature. I'd suggest you take a look at www.lp.org and read their issues. Then read Harry Browne's piece called "trusting people" on his web site, www.harrybrowne.org. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Re:Voting for Status with Liberals
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Well, as an avowed objectivist, I can state with some authority there are no sexy pictures of Ayn Rand. She wasn't all that attractive. But she was brilliant. You reek of Nader and Gore. You use the standard line of anyone supporting Nader (read communism) "money and materialism". Have you ever stopped and thought where we would be without money and materialism? You'd be reading slashdot by candlelight, on parchment paper and replying by horsebacked messenger.
Here's a quote from the master objectivist herself: "America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued
their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's
industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every
scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of
the way."
But maybe you wouldn't understand. You're probably more interested in the words of Hitler:
"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the
individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the
spirit and will of an individual..... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every
truly human culture.... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man."
There are direct flights out of the country for those who feel they'd be better off in a commune, living in dirt and eating organic veggies, rather than living under constitutional law where personal freedom and responsibility reign supreme. I humbly suggest you'd be much more comfortable there.
Re:Vote to support Free Software
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
I'm not getting your point here. Are you for or against the governments intrusions into a private businesses affairs?
Tell you what, I won't assume either and just give you my opinion. The government had no right to try to break up Microsoft. Or AT&T in the 80's(?) or Standard Oil earlier in the century. These are activities that actually stifle competition, in direct contrast to their intended purpose. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched government achieve the exact opposite of what they set out to do, almost without fail. Nobody put a gun to anyone's head and forced them to buy microsoft products. They worked their asses off and built a tremendous strategic advantage and used it. Years ago, IBM was thought to be untouchable for the same reasons. Several times the government looked into breaking them up, but did nothing,which was correct. Eventually Microsoft and Intel kicked their suit-clad asses in an un-fettered free market.
I can sympathize with you, but not agree. I believe that the death penalty is a good deterrent, that it *may* be a little over-used in texas, but the law was on the books before Bush got there. And as Bush has said, he was elected to uphold the law, and that's what he's done. He cannot grant clemency, only a 30 day reprieve, which he has done a few times. You have to respect that uphold the law bit. It's more than Clinton/Gore have EVER done in eight years. Their flagrant disregard for the law sickens me
Of course, I support Browne and not Bush anyway, but I think Bush has gotten a bad rap on a lot of things due to a big time left-media slant. But, you have to vote your conscience.
As well intentioned as this, it's horribly mis-guided. The tyrrany of the majority is to avoided at all costs. 51% is not some magic number that makes an evil thing a right thing. Here's something to chew on from Alexander Tyler:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
We are quickly moving from apathy to dependancy. Vote Libertarian, before it's too late.
Re:Why do you blindly follow the founders?
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
This statement in itself is a wonderful statement in support of the constitution. Let's assume for a moment that your statement "The founders also though that black people are subhuman, and that women should not vote" were true. There's a lot of evidence to suggest it wasn't, but whatever.
The Constitution supported black civil rights from the beginning! Just because a majority might have though blacks were subhuman, it was still unconstitutional to deny them there rights. Same for women. It's proof that 51% is not some magic figure that can make something right. That's why we follow the founders. They were far more prescient than they could have ever hoped, and made every attempt to protect the Republic from themselves.
Thanks for making my point!
Re:Ralph Nader needs a posse - after his head
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Our survival as a country depends on NOT voting Nader. Nader would reduce to the level of every other socialist nation, whose people have few rights, are taxed to the point of bankruptcy in order to "take care" of the idiots who made bad decisions all of their lives and demand that the government take care of them.
America is the grandest and noblest experiment in personal freedom and liberty ever attempted on this planet. Ever. With this freedom comes personal responsibility, a notion escaping any misinformed fool supporting Nader.
Browne: A candidate for the tech community
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
More detail on all of these positions can be found at here.
Don't like censorship? Libertarians are adamantly against any infringement upon the first amendment.
Tired of the War on Drugs and it's flagrant abuses of the 1st and 4th amendment? Libertarians oppose any form of prohibition, including drugs. They believe that morality can not be legislated and any attempt to prohibit a victimless, consensual act only leads to the violence, and overbearing government control we see in reaction to the drug war.
Sick of seeing 20 to 40 percent of your paycheck disappearing each pay period? Libertarians will do away with the income tax by making the federal government so small, it will be unnecessary. The limited government functions outlined in the constitution could easily be paid on the existing excise taxes and tarrifs.
Sick of America being the world's police force and bully? Tired of America trying to impose it's will on foreign governments? Libertarians would withdraw all American troops and establish a military focused only on defense of the nation, while ceasing the efforts of current politicians to impose American values on foreign soil. Never again will American soldiers die on foreign soil when America is not directly threatened.
How about social security? Do you think it will be there when you need it? Libertarians don't. That's why they will privatize Social Security, opening personal accounts for all those who have been made dependant on it, freeing you to put the money you earned into a private account, with a private company that can't change the rules on you every time they realize they've bankrupted the system.
I could go on and on, but check out their position page. Libertarians are the ONLY ones who can save this country from sliding farther and farther towards the socialist and communist governments we've fought for so long.
What really ticks me off is someone like you who is obviously only voting against gore and doesn't get what bush stands for. Name one specific proposal that bush has made to reduce government. Go ahead, I'm waiting. Right, there are none. As Boortz says bush is nothing more than gore lite, just as willing to confiscate my money to buy votes as gore is.
My vote will go to Browne, as he is the only candidate who has specific proposals to reduce government to it's constitutional limits (there is also Phillips, but he as falwell like problems), and is most closely aligned with my political philosophy.
What have I proven? That I will no longer tolerate being lied to by these two figureheads. That no longer will I tolerate the their intrusions into my personal life. That no longer will I continue to be a willing victim to their bi-monthly confiscation of my earnings.
Unless you vote your conscience; vote for the candidate who really believes the way that you do, you are the vote waster, my friend, not I.
Ahh, but this is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. America as a democracy is a fallacy indoctrinated through the government controlled schools.
BTW, while it is true that the president cannot "enact" legislation, he has the power of executive order, a power Clinton has used quite often to get around congress and generally flaunt the rule of law. As a White House insider was quoted, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool!"
It's very surprising to me that so many readers here are avowed socialists. Much of the focus of converstations on this site deal with our individual liberties and how the current, moderately socialist (some would say highly) government is slowly stripping them away.
Socialism is about stripping you of your individual liberties and making you merely a part of the whole. You are only important in that you serve that society, and are completely expendable if you cease to serve that function.
These were the underlying principles in Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, and Mussolini's Italy. Yet we continue down those same paths due to an idealism that everyone is gauranteed a happy, trouble free life.
But you're not gauraneed that. Life is fraught with difficulties that you must overcome as an individual. If any party represents the views most loudly intoned on slashdot, it is the Libertarians, whose views are quite simple. You, the individual, are responsible for your life. You, the individual, are most qualified to make your own decisions. Liken this to an example of Linux. If you don't like the way it runs, you change it, and you're changes affect no-one save yourself. This is precisely what Libertarians want to bring about. A country based on individuals and individual liberties.
Do not be fooled by socialist plans that claim to be for the greater good of all. Socialism is meant to prey on our feelings of sympathy for those "less fortunate". But, without exception, socialism has produced a more "empowered few" scenario than any other socio-economic system.
In the end, the only way to ensure that all people are taken care of is to allow them to care for themselves. When they are allowed to be free, they will always have time to assist those who are truly misfortunate.
Here are some direct quotes from your online chat.
LARS: It's important to understand this is not about MP3 as a format. It's a vehicle that carries music, like a CD. Q/C: So is Napster. So why the problem?
LARS: The ideal situation is clear and simple - to put Napster out of business. LARS: We're not saying that bands who want to be part of Napster should not be allowed to. Q/C: How can you possibly reconcile these two statements? Are you trying to put them out of business, or just get Metallica off of Napster? You need to jump down to one side of the fence or the other. You can't claim both sides.
LARS: We're suing Napster for one reason and one reason because they exist to pirate music, nothing more, nothing less. Q/C: Neat. So any band wanting be a part of napster also exists only to pirate music? Have you ever actually listened to yourself?
JASON: There is no way to have it the same quality, or to make CD's like you can off the computer. Q/C: To do this is trivial. What do you think they use on the radio? Albums? With a decent quality reciever, and a strong signal, I can make recordings that would be nearly indistinguishable from CD.
LARS: Two weeks ago when we served Napster with a lawsuit, there was a high degree of ignorance about this issue. Q/C: Hardly. This has been a huge issue for some time, dating back at least a year involving similar cases with DeCSS, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the MPAA, the RIAA and many others. You guys are just the first ones silly enough to act on they're behalf. Who is the "master of puppets" again?
LARS: If Napster removed "Metallica Studio Masters", It's not about interviews, or bootlegs. If they would just do that, thank you, we're done, bye bye Q/C: Really? Ok then, you're done goodbye. Napster just banned 345,000 users. Oh but wait, you're goal is to put Napster out of business. See, I keep forgetting which side of the fence you're on at any given point in time. And, by the way, THEY DON'T HAVE YOUR STUDIO MASTERS! Your fans do, and they're using Napster (or CD copiers, or cassette tapes or some other media to share it)! You cannot stop those who are going to break the law by shutting down companies who make tools for legitimate reasons, that just happened to be used for this purpuse. Napster CAN be used for LEGITIMATE uses. You cannot sue the conduit, I don't care what some technologically incompetent judge was told by some overpaid RIAA lawyers. So if Napster banned the users trading you're music, why are you continuing with the lawsuit?
LARS: I've never been on any of these internet sites. Q/C: Oh goody, an educated opinion. My god how can you pontificate about something you know NOTHING about?
I've read your arguments for what you're doing, yet I remain unconvinced of you're position that you're "protecting young artists". So far most of the "young artists" I've heard comments from, both personally and on news sites, etc. say a vehicle like Napster helps them get their music out. To say that you're doing this to protect them is repulsive. I believe you're doing this to protect the RIAA and you're bottom line. You're industry takes so much money from fans in the form of $15 cd's and $60-100 concerts where the beer is 6 bucks and a hot dog is 4. If you really wanted to protect the artists and the fans you'd be fighting the bastards at the RIAA like the rest of us.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, the infamous line "the enlightened society". If the 10 to 20 % did move off and form their own country, what would the other 80-90% do? I refer you to the book Atlas Shrugged for the answer. Not that I agree with you numbers, mind you, but whatever. The only elightenment I need is that which I choose to take, not that which you will force upon me. If I choose to help those who are in need, than I will do so, picking those that I feel I most worthy. I resent folks such as you would hi-jack my money and give it to people I don't think should get it. This is the difference between a free society and government controlled society. The mark of a free society is that all of it's citizens have the opportunity to live well, and it is their choice as to whether they take it.
The sponging elite? You have famous company. Hitler, Stalin, Lenin and Mussolini all used that same line. I care little for their "enlightened society".
Who said anything about private police forces? That's the states job. The thing that people always get wrong about Libertarianism is they think we are against all government period. It's simply not true. We simply believe that the fed should be absolutely limited to the constitution and let the states handle the rest. That makes government much more responsive and answerable to the people because they're closer to them.
Yep, you're right. I can't wait to head off to the technological capitals of the world. Countries whose contributions to the world number in the single digits combined.
Vietnamese? Tunisian? Are you kidding me? Have you ever looked at the economies of some these countries? OK, with Sweden and Finland you might have the beginnings of a point. But Vietnam is one of your examples of the success of socialism?
Let's look at the euro's for example. Tax rates beyond belief, snd socialized medicine working so well that people have to leave the country, in many cases, in order get medical attention. Woo Hoo!
The key phrase you use here is "flavor of socialism". Not fully socialist nations. Most if not all of these nations (sorry, not an expert on Tunisia) have a capitalist base for their economy but have various levels of socialist leanings, much like the current U.S. The only fully socialist countries I'm aware of (1 being China, it's chosen form is communism), have human rights abuses that are absolutely atrocious. Because too much power is held by too few people. This is why socialism doesn't work as a complete economic basis for a country, especially a large country.
Ok, I'm trying really hard to equate free software with the millions of deaths at the hands of avowed socialists like Lenin, Stalin and Hitler, but I'm having a hard time.
Free software is a noble effort by some dedicated folks but it's got a long way to go before it ever really competes with commercial software. And even where it does compete, it's because some bright capitalist came up with a way to market it and make money (read Red Hat). Even the poster child of Free Software, Torvalds, is a member of that big bad capitalistic world which you appear to hold in such disdain (read TransMeta). Make no mistake, business drives this planet. Most of this free software is being made by people who work somewhere else for a living and do it on the side out of fun or dedication. Without money and materialism, motivation goes right straight out the window.
Why do you think this prosperity only benefits the 10-20% of the wealthiest? For the most part these are the people who paid attention, were smart and took advantage of the opportunities presented them. Sure, there are some silver spoons, but they represent a minority of the "wealthy". These are the people who made good decisions with their lives and now their going to be expected to pony up their earnings for people who decided to crank their credit to the max, so they can get a big screen to watch some good wrasslin'. Of course, I'm speaking in generalities, but for the most part, the prosperity is there for all, some people choose to take advantage of it. Wealth is not an entitlement.
And who is it who's telling them the economy's great? Our benevolent, socialist leaning, imperial federal government, of course. Because they want to keep you fat, dumb and happy. Personal responsibility for your life? That's somebody elses problem. We'll take the money from the hated rich (whose votes they don't need) and give to you, the exalted poor (whose votes they do need). Thus the scramble to shift as much of the tax burden on the upper income levels as possible.
This is why schools teach our children that their own needs are not as important as the needs of the group. That the individual is less important than the whole. That's CLASSIC socialism, used by Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini.
I think someone else needs a review on socialism.
Alexander Tyler was a Scottish historian who wrote that statement around 200 years ago... talking not about America but the fall of the Athenian Republic over 2000 years prior.
While I respect your opinion, I have to take issue. The last thing a libertarian wants is anarchy. That would mean that anybody could do anything without worrying about trampling the rights of others. Definitely not a Libertarian viewpoint. But what sometimes get lost in the propaganda over constitutional limits, is that any right not specifically designated to the feds is relegated to a state issue. States have every right to make legislation regarding the environment. Peole who cry anarchy are forgetting that there is also a state and local level of government to deal with a lot of these issues, and those are much more answerable to the people.
Like the EPA? Take a trip over to www.lp.org/issues and find out who the biggest polluter in the country is. The answer might surprise you.
Oh, geez, I have to limit myself to three? :)
nationalize the top 500 corporations.
tax at 100% salaries that exceed 10x minimum wage.
force business to decrease the work week without decreasing pay.
force me, using all the power of government, to fund cradle to grave healthcare for everyone.
I know, you said 3 but I couldn't help myself. I'll use the same old phrase I've used at least 40 times in replies to this article. Nader is a socialist. He may be a well-intentioned socialist, but a socialist all the same. And socialism does not work. Never has, never will.
I have no data to back this up, but I will try to find some evidence that if it weren't for private industry there would be no internet. It would still be used by two professors on opposite ends of the country sending pings back and forth. It was business that came up with old WWW and transformed it into what it is now, with all the good and bad that goes with it.
And one more thing. As you said, the invention of the internet was in response to military needs, a vital and necessary function of federal government. So that in no way refutes the possibility of it's existence under a libertarian government.
I'll go you one better. Drew, after reading your statements, you seem like you are most closely aligned with Browne 1st, Bush 2nd. Same here. Congratulations ;>.
So let's be realistic here. If you vote Browne, you can A) be reasonably assured he won't be elected this year and B) enough votes for him will tell the current powers that we want smaller government. A message they can't ignore, without worrying about complete gun deregulation and the other Libertarian ideas that make you uncomfortable.
And also, even if Harry, by some miracle, DID get elected, do you really think he'd actually be able to get ALL of those policies implemented. There's only a finite amount of time available and congress to deal with. So likely you'd end up with something between what we have now, and what Harry is describing, i.e. repeal most gun laws but maintain registration or something like that. It's just the nature of compromise.
I can see how the Libertarian concept taken in cold, hard reality might be difficult to accept at this time. But the reality is, 100% of his goals won't get accomplished. It's not humanly possible. So send your republicans a message. Tell them to get back to their small government message and break ranks with the religious right who want to control our collective morality. You have the power.
Wow! You're steady stream of logical, well-thought out arguments as reduced me to cowering jellyfish. I guess I'll just have to bow to your superior intellect.
But I won't be replying to anymore flamebait. If you did have half a brain, you'd realize I'm a Browne supporter. But, once again, that does require the use of logic and intelligence, a deficiency you display all too plainly.
Do you really think private industry would have never thought of the internet? I'm guessing they would have, except that they would have started out with a secure protocol instead of waiting 20 years. I've yet to see any government program that couldn't be handled better privately. It's the naderites who amaze me. I see him as big brother incarnate, and it's beyond me how a freedom loving people could vote for him.
You're right! I vote for Nader... to pack his bags and zip right off to the USSR where they love things like dominant central government, government seizure of all their assets, having no civil liberties at all, and best of all, no constitution to be wiped on the ass of some celebrity, socialist consumer advocate!
Oh I forgot. There is no USSR anymore. I think that's because SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK! HELLO? IS THIS THING ON!?! Great idea, Brainiac!
I'm trying desperately to figure out what in the hell you're talking about, but I can't get any logic around it. Of course, you are obviously a Nader supporter, so logic wouldn't be your strong point.
Some people tell me that "51% is not some magic number that makes an evil thing a right thing". Indeed you are right. But how come you seem to think that 51% of the people voting for a candidate, who then does this very evil thing, somehow can make it right?
Since we live in a constitutional republic, the elected leader cannot do things that violate the constitution, making him incapable of doing something evil. This is what most people fail to realize when they look at Libertarians and cry "anarchy!". A free populace has nothing to fear from a government "bound from mischief by the chains of the constitution". And a government has little to fear from a populace that is left to be free, so long as they do not violate the freedoms of others.
Unfortunately, the country has been slowly bastardized beginning with FDR's "Raw" deal, which , not so ironically, came about when the socialist party was the third largest party in America. The "forward thinking" intellectual set was bound and determined to take us in the direction of communist russia. It was the new grand experiment, and it failed miserably. America has stood this long due to it's roots in the constitution. But until we take it more seriously, rather than giving it the token nods that Bush and Gore do, we will continue to slide down the path of socialism. A direct democracy, no matter how well meaning, is a path to complete disaster. This is not pessimism, it is human nature. I'd suggest you take a look at www.lp.org and read their issues. Then read Harry Browne's piece called "trusting people" on his web site, www.harrybrowne.org. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Well, as an avowed objectivist, I can state with some authority there are no sexy pictures of Ayn Rand. She wasn't all that attractive. But she was brilliant. You reek of Nader and Gore. You use the standard line of anyone supporting Nader (read communism) "money and materialism". Have you ever stopped and thought where we would be without money and materialism? You'd be reading slashdot by candlelight, on parchment paper and replying by horsebacked messenger.
... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the
spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every
truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man."
Here's a quote from the master objectivist herself:
"America's abundance was created not by public sacrifices to "the common good," but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America's industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance -- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way."
But maybe you wouldn't understand. You're probably more interested in the words of Hitler:
"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole
There are direct flights out of the country for those who feel they'd be better off in a commune, living in dirt and eating organic veggies, rather than living under constitutional law where personal freedom and responsibility reign supreme. I humbly suggest you'd be much more comfortable there.
I'm not getting your point here. Are you for or against the governments intrusions into a private businesses affairs?
Tell you what, I won't assume either and just give you my opinion. The government had no right to try to break up Microsoft. Or AT&T in the 80's(?) or Standard Oil earlier in the century. These are activities that actually stifle competition, in direct contrast to their intended purpose. This should come as no surprise to anyone who has watched government achieve the exact opposite of what they set out to do, almost without fail. Nobody put a gun to anyone's head and forced them to buy microsoft products. They worked their asses off and built a tremendous strategic advantage and used it. Years ago, IBM was thought to be untouchable for the same reasons. Several times the government looked into breaking them up, but did nothing,which was correct. Eventually Microsoft and Intel kicked their suit-clad asses in an un-fettered free market.
As usual government solves nothing.
I can sympathize with you, but not agree. I believe that the death penalty is a good deterrent, that it *may* be a little over-used in texas, but the law was on the books before Bush got there. And as Bush has said, he was elected to uphold the law, and that's what he's done. He cannot grant clemency, only a 30 day reprieve, which he has done a few times. You have to respect that uphold the law bit. It's more than Clinton/Gore have EVER done in eight years. Their flagrant disregard for the law sickens me
Of course, I support Browne and not Bush anyway, but I think Bush has gotten a bad rap on a lot of things due to a big time left-media slant. But, you have to vote your conscience.
As well intentioned as this, it's horribly mis-guided. The tyrrany of the majority is to avoided at all costs. 51% is not some magic number that makes an evil thing a right thing. Here's something to chew on from Alexander Tyler:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."
We are quickly moving from apathy to dependancy. Vote Libertarian, before it's too late.
This statement in itself is a wonderful statement in support of the constitution. Let's assume for a moment that your statement "The founders also though that black people are subhuman, and that women should not vote" were true. There's a lot of evidence to suggest it wasn't, but whatever. The Constitution supported black civil rights from the beginning! Just because a majority might have though blacks were subhuman, it was still unconstitutional to deny them there rights. Same for women. It's proof that 51% is not some magic figure that can make something right. That's why we follow the founders. They were far more prescient than they could have ever hoped, and made every attempt to protect the Republic from themselves. Thanks for making my point!
Our survival as a country depends on NOT voting Nader. Nader would reduce to the level of every other socialist nation, whose people have few rights, are taxed to the point of bankruptcy in order to "take care" of the idiots who made bad decisions all of their lives and demand that the government take care of them.
America is the grandest and noblest experiment in personal freedom and liberty ever attempted on this planet. Ever. With this freedom comes personal responsibility, a notion escaping any misinformed fool supporting Nader.
More detail on all of these positions can be found at here.
Don't like censorship? Libertarians are adamantly against any infringement upon the first amendment.
Tired of the War on Drugs and it's flagrant abuses of the 1st and 4th amendment? Libertarians oppose any form of prohibition, including drugs. They believe that morality can not be legislated and any attempt to prohibit a victimless, consensual act only leads to the violence, and overbearing government control we see in reaction to the drug war.
Sick of seeing 20 to 40 percent of your paycheck disappearing each pay period? Libertarians will do away with the income tax by making the federal government so small, it will be unnecessary. The limited government functions outlined in the constitution could easily be paid on the existing excise taxes and tarrifs.
Sick of America being the world's police force and bully? Tired of America trying to impose it's will on foreign governments? Libertarians would withdraw all American troops and establish a military focused only on defense of the nation, while ceasing the efforts of current politicians to impose American values on foreign soil. Never again will American soldiers die on foreign soil when America is not directly threatened.
How about social security? Do you think it will be there when you need it? Libertarians don't. That's why they will privatize Social Security, opening personal accounts for all those who have been made dependant on it, freeing you to put the money you earned into a private account, with a private company that can't change the rules on you every time they realize they've bankrupted the system.
I could go on and on, but check out their position page. Libertarians are the ONLY ones who can save this country from sliding farther and farther towards the socialist and communist governments we've fought for so long.
I hope you never make more that 10x the minimum wage -- because Nader will tax 100% of it.
I hope you don't work for one of the top 500 corporations -- because Nader will nationalize them.
I hope you think that the government should regulate every aspect of your personal life -- because Nader can make it happen
People, Nader is a socialist, 100% US(SR)DA, prime. How could any American possibly support this man? Did we learn nothing from recent history?
What really ticks me off is someone like you who is obviously only voting against gore and doesn't get what bush stands for. Name one specific proposal that bush has made to reduce government. Go ahead, I'm waiting. Right, there are none. As Boortz says bush is nothing more than gore lite, just as willing to confiscate my money to buy votes as gore is.
My vote will go to Browne, as he is the only candidate who has specific proposals to reduce government to it's constitutional limits (there is also Phillips, but he as falwell like problems), and is most closely aligned with my political philosophy.
What have I proven? That I will no longer tolerate being lied to by these two figureheads. That no longer will I tolerate the their intrusions into my personal life. That no longer will I continue to be a willing victim to their bi-monthly confiscation of my earnings.
Unless you vote your conscience; vote for the candidate who really believes the way that you do, you are the vote waster, my friend, not I.
Ahh, but this is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. America as a democracy is a fallacy indoctrinated through the government controlled schools.
BTW, while it is true that the president cannot "enact" legislation, he has the power of executive order, a power Clinton has used quite often to get around congress and generally flaunt the rule of law. As a White House insider was quoted, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool!"
It's very surprising to me that so many readers here are avowed socialists. Much of the focus of converstations on this site deal with our individual liberties and how the current, moderately socialist (some would say highly) government is slowly stripping them away.
Socialism is about stripping you of your individual liberties and making you merely a part of the whole. You are only important in that you serve that society, and are completely expendable if you cease to serve that function. These were the underlying principles in Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, and Mussolini's Italy. Yet we continue down those same paths due to an idealism that everyone is gauranteed a happy, trouble free life.
But you're not gauraneed that. Life is fraught with difficulties that you must overcome as an individual. If any party represents the views most loudly intoned on slashdot, it is the Libertarians, whose views are quite simple. You, the individual, are responsible for your life. You, the individual, are most qualified to make your own decisions. Liken this to an example of Linux. If you don't like the way it runs, you change it, and you're changes affect no-one save yourself. This is precisely what Libertarians want to bring about. A country based on individuals and individual liberties.
Do not be fooled by socialist plans that claim to be for the greater good of all. Socialism is meant to prey on our feelings of sympathy for those "less fortunate". But, without exception, socialism has produced a more "empowered few" scenario than any other socio-economic system.
In the end, the only way to ensure that all people are taken care of is to allow them to care for themselves. When they are allowed to be free, they will always have time to assist those who are truly misfortunate.
Here are some direct quotes from your online chat.
LARS: It's important to understand this is not about MP3 as a format. It's a vehicle that carries music, like a CD.
Q/C: So is Napster. So why the problem?
LARS: The ideal situation is clear and simple - to put Napster out of business. LARS: We're not saying that bands who want to be part of Napster should not be allowed to.
Q/C: How can you possibly reconcile these two statements? Are you trying to put them out of business, or just get Metallica off of Napster? You need to jump down to one side of the fence or the other. You can't claim both sides.
LARS: We're suing Napster for one reason and one reason because they exist to pirate music, nothing more, nothing less.
Q/C: Neat. So any band wanting be a part of napster also exists only to pirate music? Have you ever actually listened to yourself?
JASON: There is no way to have it the same quality, or to make CD's like you can off the computer.
Q/C: To do this is trivial. What do you think they use on the radio? Albums? With a decent quality reciever, and a strong signal, I can make recordings that would be nearly indistinguishable from CD.
LARS: Two weeks ago when we served Napster with a lawsuit, there was a high degree of ignorance about this issue.
Q/C: Hardly. This has been a huge issue for some time, dating back at least a year involving similar cases with DeCSS, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the MPAA, the RIAA and many others. You guys are just the first ones silly enough to act on they're behalf. Who is the "master of puppets" again?
LARS: If Napster removed "Metallica Studio Masters", It's not about interviews, or bootlegs. If they would just do that, thank you, we're done, bye bye
Q/C: Really? Ok then, you're done goodbye. Napster just banned 345,000 users. Oh but wait, you're goal is to put Napster out of business. See, I keep forgetting which side of the fence you're on at any given point in time. And, by the way, THEY DON'T HAVE YOUR STUDIO MASTERS! Your fans do, and they're using Napster (or CD copiers, or cassette tapes or some other media to share it)! You cannot stop those who are going to break the law by shutting down companies who make tools for legitimate reasons, that just happened to be used for this purpuse. Napster CAN be used for LEGITIMATE uses. You cannot sue the conduit, I don't care what some technologically incompetent judge was told by some overpaid RIAA lawyers. So if Napster banned the users trading you're music, why are you continuing with the lawsuit?
LARS: I've never been on any of these internet sites.
Q/C: Oh goody, an educated opinion. My god how can you pontificate about something you know NOTHING about?
I've read your arguments for what you're doing, yet I remain unconvinced of you're position that you're "protecting young artists". So far most of the "young artists" I've heard comments from, both personally and on news sites, etc. say a vehicle like Napster helps them get their music out. To say that you're doing this to protect them is repulsive. I believe you're doing this to protect the RIAA and you're bottom line. You're industry takes so much money from fans in the form of $15 cd's and $60-100 concerts where the beer is 6 bucks and a hot dog is 4. If you really wanted to protect the artists and the fans you'd be fighting the bastards at the RIAA like the rest of us.