Some of the comments here show an amazing degree of short sightedness. I think it may be an example of rational thought being turned off by hearing words like PRISON, CRIMINAL, both of which easily conjure RAPIST.
Anything other way of adapting the constitution and you can just start justifying anything under the it (the same way people interpret their holy book of choice to mean anything they want). That means there is no rule of law, and the powerful will start taking away your rights.
Any other way of adapting the constitution and you can just start justifying anything under it (the same way people interpret their holy book of choice to mean anything they want). That means there is no rule of law, and the powerful will start taking away your rights.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
That sounds to me that any power not clearly delineated in the constitution is left up to the states or the people (anyone but the feds). If the situation has changed, an amendment should be made to change the constitution to be more in line with reality.
Anything other way of adapting the constitution and you can just start justifying anything under the it (the same way people interpret their holy book of choice to mean anything they want). That means there is no rule of law, and the powerful will start taking away your rights.
So are you saying we should amend the constitution if we don't like the second amendment, or want the Federal government to tell the states what to do with regards to abortion, education, etc? Or should we just ignore the constitution and do whatever "makes sense"? I am genuinely confused as to what your position is.
1) Can you make a paperclip from scratch by yourself? How much more expensive would that be than just buying one? 2) Open source projects are currently functioning on the back of (being subsidized by) a closed-source ecosystem. 3) Have you considered what the effects of the adoption of a deflationary (or inflation-neutral, or even inflation random) money supply would be on individual economic decision making, and thus sustainability at the population level?
#3 seems to me to be a much more elegant solution to the problem of sustainability. I really am no expert in this though.
The counter point is that no one is forcing you to support any given corporation. You are forced to support your government. Which you can say is ok as long as the actions of the government represent the will of the majority (or the tempered will of the majority in the case of a republic). Many people think the system has been hijacked by corporations and so it does not represent the will of the people. The issue is whether this is unavoidable once the people legitimatize government use of force (which can be hijacked by private interests) or if you can have a large government without it being eventually corrupted as long as the right rules are put in place.
Most "libertarian-ish" people bought into the Ayn Rand (tm) brand and are convinced that they are a unique and special flower who should be worshiped by the rest of the world for gracing them with their existence because they read it in a book.
This has not been my experience (although those people do exist, which was mentioned in my original post). What is your source for that claim? Do you understand the distinction between objectivists and libertarians? For example, Ron Paul is a christian, so he has clearly not bought into the Ayn Rand brand. Murray Rothbard was a prominent libertarian economist, he wrote an essay called The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult, writing things like:
If the glaring inner contradictions of the Leninist cults make them intriguing objects of study, still more so is the Ayn Rand cult... [f]or not only was the Rand cult explicitly atheist, anti-religious, and an extoller of Reason; it also promoted slavish dependence on the guru in the name of independence; adoration and obedience to the leader in the name of every person's individuality; and blind emotion and faith in the guru in the name of Reason.
Unfortunately I think your last point may be spot on.
Its scary how people just repeat whatever they got told without thinking about it, and usually very smugly and emotionally too. Most libertarian-ish people have to find that way of thinking on their own (or at least seek out alternative literature), this makes them, as a whole (of course there are still idiots), much more educated than normal. I worry that if it ever becomes mainstream, the idiots will turn it into a religion or sports team, as has been done with the other political platforms. I haven't seen much discussion about that possibility.
You are very very wrong. Government support of unions is one of the worst things that could have happened to them. It was only when they became too dangerous that this occurred. And anyway, a forced increase in wages, etc (eg france in 1968) is usually dealt with by concurrently inflating the currency to pay for it. It may treat the symptom for a short time but won't cure the disease. In the end, everyone is worse off except those who have access to the fresh capital.
To those that believe that there is morality legislated, I say instead, that there's inclusion mandated, so that the majority race and religion capitalists don't continue their evil ways.
So you do want to legislate morality. Just call it what it is. What do you think that power will be used for if the "majority race and religion capitalists" gain control of the government?
Also, with regards to the red tape, I thought this was interesting (plot of corruption vs economic freedom): http://i43.tinypic.com/2my582p.png
There is natural selection going on here. Societies can only be judged in the context of their neighbors. For example, perhaps the USSR would have been able to win out in the end if they had been competing with modern western civilization rather than that of the 20th century. The robustness of a culture to different types of competition is part of what gives it value. I would assume that the simpler plan is more robust and therefore less likely to fail on average, even if specific implementations of it fail due to unique circumstances. Obviously, there are many factors at play here which makes it difficult (if not impossible) to use historical evidence in judging which idea has the most merit. I have yet to see an example of an anarchist society that was not consumed by its statist neighbors and religion appears to be very robust (although that may be changing due to increased education and information about the world around us).
Interesting that both of those concepts are based on a similar principle:
1) "If you don't constantly inflate the money supply, people won't invest or spend" 2) "If you don't grant monopolies, people won't invent"
Um... don't people invest in something because someone has a good idea, and buy things because they want them. In the same vein, people invent things because they have a good idea and want to improve their own lives, as well as those of the people around them. What went on for the 99% of human history before IP and central banking?
This is an important point. Implementing any single once of these "libertarian ideas" on its own may result in an even worse situation than what we get using the current patchwork. Changing everything at once would be very difficult and likely lead to a period of chaos. Changing things gradually means they never get done. So what can be done?
I still disagree with this. It seems to me that you cannot have socialism without a central authority to enforce sharing, etc. The society will fall apart as soon as people are born into it, etc who don't necessarily think like their parents. With capitalist anarchism, there is nothing stopping people from forming whatever kind of social hierarchies they want.
It is even worse than that. They just measured various blood nutrient levels. The study says nothing about diet at all. The purpose of the study was to develop an assay to detect vitamin levels, because people with dementia cannot remember well enough to accurately fill out questionnaires. And why can't the journalist cite the study? It is not difficult, they must have the paper right in front of them. What is the problem?
Abstract: Objective: To examine the cross-sectional relationship between nutrient status and psychometric and imaging indices of brain health in dementia-free elders.
Methods: Thirty plasma biomarkers of diet were assayed in the Oregon Brain Aging Study cohort (n = 104). Principal component analysis constructed nutrient biomarker patterns (NBPs) and regression models assessed the relationship of these with cognitive and MRI outcomes.
Results: Mean age was 87 ± 10 years and 62% of subjects were female. Two NBPs associated with more favorable cognitive and MRI measures: one high in plasma vitamins B (B1, B2, B6, folate, and B12), C, D, and E, and another high in plasma marine Ï-3 fatty acids. A third pattern characterized by high trans fat was associated with less favorable cognitive function and less total cerebral brain volume. Depression attenuated the relationship between the marine Ï-3 pattern and white matter hyperintensity volume.
Conclusion: Distinct nutrient biomarker patterns detected in plasma are interpretable and account for a significant degree of variance in both cognitive function and brain volume. Objective and multivariate approaches to the study of nutrition in brain health warrant further study. These findings should be confirmed in a separate population.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of the comments here show an amazing degree of short sightedness. I think it may be an example of rational thought being turned off by hearing words like PRISON, CRIMINAL, both of which easily conjure RAPIST.
7 X 18= ???
Sorry, this got mangled:
Any other way of adapting the constitution and you can just start justifying anything under it (the same way people interpret their holy book of choice to mean anything they want). That means there is no rule of law, and the powerful will start taking away your rights.
So...
That sounds to me that any power not clearly delineated in the constitution is left up to the states or the people (anyone but the feds). If the situation has changed, an amendment should be made to change the constitution to be more in line with reality.
Anything other way of adapting the constitution and you can just start justifying anything under the it (the same way people interpret their holy book of choice to mean anything they want). That means there is no rule of law, and the powerful will start taking away your rights.
Does this sound reasonable?
So are you saying we should amend the constitution if we don't like the second amendment, or want the Federal government to tell the states what to do with regards to abortion, education, etc? Or should we just ignore the constitution and do whatever "makes sense"? I am genuinely confused as to what your position is.
This old discussion got archived but I meant to respond:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2589936&cid=38501946
1) Can you make a paperclip from scratch by yourself? How much more expensive would that be than just buying one?
2) Open source projects are currently functioning on the back of (being subsidized by) a closed-source ecosystem.
3) Have you considered what the effects of the adoption of a deflationary (or inflation-neutral, or even inflation random) money supply would be on individual economic decision making, and thus sustainability at the population level?
#3 seems to me to be a much more elegant solution to the problem of sustainability. I really am no expert in this though.
Sorry for the delay on this.
The counter point is that no one is forcing you to support any given corporation. You are forced to support your government. Which you can say is ok as long as the actions of the government represent the will of the majority (or the tempered will of the majority in the case of a republic). Many people think the system has been hijacked by corporations and so it does not represent the will of the people. The issue is whether this is unavoidable once the people legitimatize government use of force (which can be hijacked by private interests) or if you can have a large government without it being eventually corrupted as long as the right rules are put in place.
Godspeed then.
Ok, sorry for being a smart ass.
This has not been my experience (although those people do exist, which was mentioned in my original post). What is your source for that claim? Do you understand the distinction between objectivists and libertarians? For example, Ron Paul is a christian, so he has clearly not bought into the Ayn Rand brand. Murray Rothbard was a prominent libertarian economist, he wrote an essay called The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult, writing things like:
If the glaring inner contradictions of the Leninist cults make them intriguing objects of study, still more so is the Ayn Rand cult... [f]or not only was the Rand cult explicitly atheist, anti-religious, and an extoller of Reason; it also promoted slavish dependence on the guru in the name of independence; adoration and obedience to the leader in the name of every person's individuality; and blind emotion and faith in the guru in the name of Reason.
Unfortunately I think your last point may be spot on.
Proof of point.
Its scary how people just repeat whatever they got told without thinking about it, and usually very smugly and emotionally too. Most libertarian-ish people have to find that way of thinking on their own (or at least seek out alternative literature), this makes them, as a whole (of course there are still idiots), much more educated than normal. I worry that if it ever becomes mainstream, the idiots will turn it into a religion or sports team, as has been done with the other political platforms. I haven't seen much discussion about that possibility.
You are very very wrong. Government support of unions is one of the worst things that could have happened to them. It was only when they became too dangerous that this occurred. And anyway, a forced increase in wages, etc (eg france in 1968) is usually dealt with by concurrently inflating the currency to pay for it. It may treat the symptom for a short time but won't cure the disease. In the end, everyone is worse off except those who have access to the fresh capital.
So you do want to legislate morality. Just call it what it is. What do you think that power will be used for if the "majority race and religion capitalists" gain control of the government?
Also, with regards to the red tape, I thought this was interesting (plot of corruption vs economic freedom): http://i43.tinypic.com/2my582p.png
That's pretty speculative, I will look into it. You have a good source (on patents + steam engine)?
There is natural selection going on here. Societies can only be judged in the context of their neighbors. For example, perhaps the USSR would have been able to win out in the end if they had been competing with modern western civilization rather than that of the 20th century. The robustness of a culture to different types of competition is part of what gives it value. I would assume that the simpler plan is more robust and therefore less likely to fail on average, even if specific implementations of it fail due to unique circumstances. Obviously, there are many factors at play here which makes it difficult (if not impossible) to use historical evidence in judging which idea has the most merit. I have yet to see an example of an anarchist society that was not consumed by its statist neighbors and religion appears to be very robust (although that may be changing due to increased education and information about the world around us).
Whats the difference? Seriously, what do you mean?
Good point.
Interesting that both of those concepts are based on a similar principle:
1) "If you don't constantly inflate the money supply, people won't invest or spend"
2) "If you don't grant monopolies, people won't invent"
Um... don't people invest in something because someone has a good idea, and buy things because they want them. In the same vein, people invent things because they have a good idea and want to improve their own lives, as well as those of the people around them. What went on for the 99% of human history before IP and central banking?
Um, you figure it out using context just like when listening. The different spellings are just convenient.
You realize Americans pay around twice as much for most brand name drugs, right? We are subsidizing your "medical system."
This is an important point. Implementing any single once of these "libertarian ideas" on its own may result in an even worse situation than what we get using the current patchwork. Changing everything at once would be very difficult and likely lead to a period of chaos. Changing things gradually means they never get done. So what can be done?
As is the small government with strong military utopia. Ditto on the big government that ends poverty utopia.
I'm pretty sure most people don't expect ron paul to actually get much of anything accomplished. It would be a step in the right direction though.
I still disagree with this. It seems to me that you cannot have socialism without a central authority to enforce sharing, etc. The society will fall apart as soon as people are born into it, etc who don't necessarily think like their parents. With capitalist anarchism, there is nothing stopping people from forming whatever kind of social hierarchies they want.
Votes are not the same as money. Just think about all the ways they are different...it is really obvious. Your analogy kinda sucks.
It is even worse than that. They just measured various blood nutrient levels. The study says nothing about diet at all. The purpose of the study was to develop an assay to detect vitamin levels, because people with dementia cannot remember well enough to accurately fill out questionnaires. And why can't the journalist cite the study? It is not difficult, they must have the paper right in front of them. What is the problem?
Abstract:
Objective: To examine the cross-sectional relationship between nutrient status and psychometric and imaging indices of brain health in dementia-free elders.
Methods: Thirty plasma biomarkers of diet were assayed in the Oregon Brain Aging Study cohort (n = 104). Principal component analysis constructed nutrient biomarker patterns (NBPs) and regression models assessed the relationship of these with cognitive and MRI outcomes.
Results: Mean age was 87 ± 10 years and 62% of subjects were female. Two NBPs associated with more favorable cognitive and MRI measures: one high in plasma vitamins B (B1, B2, B6, folate, and B12), C, D, and E, and another high in plasma marine Ï-3 fatty acids. A third pattern characterized by high trans fat was associated with less favorable cognitive function and less total cerebral brain volume. Depression attenuated the relationship between the marine Ï-3 pattern and white matter hyperintensity volume.
Conclusion: Distinct nutrient biomarker patterns detected in plasma are interpretable and account for a significant degree of variance in both cognitive function and brain volume. Objective and multivariate approaches to the study of nutrition in brain health warrant further study. These findings should be confirmed in a separate population.
http://www.neurology.org/content/early/2011/12/28/WNL.0b013e3182436598.abstract?sid=eb3fd0d2-1d51-4d8f-b8b3-7fdfb6904a7b