Yeah, and never mind that the government agencies have had this type of functionality for the longest time, that's what the police and FBI use to try and catch suspects.
But if you are a private individual or a company with the same type of technology, all of a sudden you are too dangerous.
Al Franken needs to read this book and learn something, specifically that if something is illegal for an individual to do, the government must not be allowed to do it either.
our founding fathers never envisioned that blacks and women would ever have the right to vote. times have changed.
- false. I wouldn't have signed the Constitution the way it was written originally specifically because the blacks weren't considered 'full humans', but I can understand why some of the people who signed it still did it, while allowing the entire amendment process to the Constitution.
Times change and attitudes of the people change, and it wasn't up to the Founders to change the attitudes of people of their time, but they could see that eventually those attitudes would change, and that's what the amendment process was provided for, which eventually was used for this exact purpose.
Teachers in a public school system are overvalued as the entire public schools system is overvalued. There should be no public schools and no public teachers, all of a sudden this 'issue' is a non-issue. Teaching, just like every other business (healthcare, etc.), should be done privately under all circumstances and there should be no gov't involvement in any of it, there should be no gov't laws surrounding what is taught, what is not, when it starts, when it ends, who gets what, none of it.
Teachers should be teaching in private schools and there should be no gov't loans, gov't guarantees for any of this, there should be no minimum wage laws, so people who want to learn on a job could convince an employer to take them as a student, making a nominal wage, while they are learning the profession.
I guarantee you that NOTHING that gov't can do will do anything remotely good unless it's dismantling of the public school system altogether and stopping all of the subsidies and the moral hazard of the gov't guaranteed loans.
You know what a BETTER "stimulus" idea is rather than politicians taking money from people who earned it and giving it to prop up the voter base (or blowing up brown people)?
Reducing the government spending, firing a bunch of people from gov't positions but at the same time actually reducing everybody's taxes, thus allowing the private sector, that in fact EARNED this money to keep it.
This is not the first time somebody does this either, there is an entire industry in Russia built around a business platform (1 s) that prides itself by the fact that they have translated BASIC into Russian, I shit you not.
I wonder if this story was born out of this comment I left here on the "Google Compute Engine" story. However my point was that network neutrality becomes a non-issue with companies laying their own network infrastructure on one hand, and on the other, passing laws like Network Neutrality would HURT those companies that lay their own infrastructure, because it would force them to create uneven pricing between internal and external content from point of view of what it costs the company to move data internally, so prices would RISE.
Again,/. crowd cheers gov't action to ensure this 'network neutrality' and thus in the long run to ensure much higher prices.
The federal gov't didn't have to use the military inside the country to fight all of the people yet, and even if half of the US population is armed, it is still about 150,000,000 people, while the US army is about 3,000,000 (1% of the population as I understand).
So of-course military has weapons advantage, but not numbers or popular support advantage when it is used to fight against the civilians. Afghanistan shows that a military cannot be used to subdue a country, and Afghanistan is really not that big compared to the USA.
You've read what I have written about rights enough times (since you stalk my comments), and you still don't understand what the concept of rights is, so what's there to talk about, when you don't get simplest of terms?
There are no group rights, there are no 'rights' of employers or 'rights' of employees, there cannot be an entitlement given to one group and an obligation piled onto another group by gov't, (which is the case with all labour laws, including minimum wage), this is destruction of rights, not creation of rights. This is what splits individuals into separate categories of those having entitlements and those having obligations, but 'rights'? That's what gov't does to destroy rights and anybody who supports this supports total annihilation of all rights, because again, there can be absolutely no compromise with gov't on any single right.
Once there is a compromise on 1 right, there are no rights, it is the road that is open to destroy all of the rights, and I am correct about it, because this is exactly what happened.
Ron Paul does not "believe in elevating rights of corporations", this is pure pro-government propaganda (pro Democratic government propaganda).
Ron Paul only promotes individual rights and there are no 'corporate rights' at all, there are no group rights of any kind.
A 'right' is only a concept that is meaningful within the context of the relationship between an individual and the collective, because there has to be a limit as to what the collective can do to an individual. This limit must be set and the collective must not be able to step over it unless there are specific circumstances that are authorised for by the Constitution.
Nobody specific can be punished when the collective steps over your individual rights, and thus the rights are the limits that must be observed by the collective without any compromise.
There can be no compromise on the individual right and that is what Ron Paul stands for. There can be no compromise when it comes to protecting individual rights from the collective - the Federal government. (Of-course this also does not mean that the government of a State can automatically be granted authority that the feds are not given, it only means that the feds do not have that authority, the next step is to ensure that the State gov't also cannot abuse an individual).
Corporations are a fiction of government, created to limit liability to individuals but by doing it, the government creates moral hazards, the consequences that happen because of these moral hazards are later blamed on this so called 'free market', which hasn't been free since the Fed and all the other agencies have been set up.
Behind every corporation there is a person or a number of people, so while corporations are a fiction, they are also people by proxy. The corporations shouldn't exist to limit personal liability, the patent and copyright laws shouldn't exist, no business should be able to influence gov't, but no gov't should t be able to influence a business (as long as no criminal offence is committed against an individual by the business), because limiting rights of businesses is exactly the same thing as limiting rights of individuals who run them.
"be all you can be" is not just a powerful message, it is a threat. Realise that what government is really saying there is that all you can really be is only achievable at this point if you are part of that government institution, and people that this message is aimed at cannot get government jobs as press secretaries, congressional staff or even regulators in an executive office. This is a threat and the reason government can issue it is because it is the very institution that creates the conditions, under which this threat is very much a reality.
To you, it would seem, a free market is one in which the government institutes a legal framework for tort settlement
- no, I did not say that, sorry if I somehow made you believe that it is what I meant because I didn't.
In a free market government isn't involved in private dealings, it is not involved in business it is not involved in money, it is not involved in labour, it is not involved in interest rates and it is not involved in trade and it does not have to be involved in contract or civil law either, I would prefer that it wasn't involved in that at all, because if gov't is involved in this, eventually it will become corrupt.
What I am saying is that gov't shouldn't be limiting liability, it shouldn't be offering protections to some people against other people in business, in money, in trade in any commercial interests. Of-course gov't shouldn't be creating a welfare state either, a welfare state is destruction of free market in itself.
As soon as you introduce laws into the market, the market is not completely free. Each law, starting with the first, makes the market less free.
- yeah, you should read my comments on rights, because you are not understanding what I am talking about.
Protection of private property rights means protection of private property against government abuse, against government theft, confiscation, ceasing and taxation of private property.
Natural rights are not a concept that is used to punish a murderer, that would be a legal system or whatever punishment system that exists, and a legal system doesn't have to have 'rights' defined at all to define ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.
An illegal act of murdering somebody does not have to be a right violation at all, and a 'natural right' is a philosophical concept, not a legal one and definitely it's not something that people think of when they just come up with a criminal code. What people should be thinking when coming up with the legal code is basically the golden rule - don't do onto others what you don't want to be done to yourself. And that's enough of a principle to build the entire criminal code system. The other part of law is related to contracts, a contract needs to be protected and it's between 2 or more parties involved in it, but it's not a criminal code and again, it doesn't have anything to do with 'rights'.
A 'right' is your ability not to be abused by the system, and you can definitely live in a system that doesn't recognise any such limits, so you have no rights and yet there can definitely be a criminal code and a legal system set up so that there is punishment doled out to individuals who misbehave. I can argue that when a gov't doesn't recognise your individual rights then the criminal code and the legal system will not really protect you against individuals who have money or against individuals who have power, because those people would be connected to the gov't somehow and the gov't that doesn't recognise your rights will not actually care about you at all, and the justice system won't really be looking at everybody as equals before law. But this does not mean that a concept of a right is necessary to have a legal system and a criminal code at all.
Should a factory be throwing their pollution my way, I immediately have a claim against that company in the free market.
Of-course gov't prevents the claims, it limits liability, the BP spill is a prime example where gov't limited liability of the company not just personally to the owners and management, but they limited the liability of a spill to 75 Million USD per incident.
A free market is not an anarchy, it requires strong protection of actual few laws that must exist in order for the system to work, and one of those protections is property rights, and I am NOT saying that gov't must protect one individual against another or one individual against a business.
I am saying that gov't shouldn't be protecting a business or an individual against liability claims, and all of a sudden there is no externalities because all such things are simply conflicts between different property owners.
Free markets do not have externalities. It takes a government to allow for such concepts as 'externalities', for example when a company starts drilling for oil on some public property, this means that the company didn't actually get into the agreement with the free market over this drilling, instead the company somehow received an OK from gov't to drill there (and it also got some form of protection and likely fake insurance and limitation of liability from gov't).
Free market means that there is no gov't involvement in business at all, but this also means that there should be no business done on property that is not within the rules of the free market, so only private property can be mined or used by any business for any purpose.
Once the property is in the hands of a gov't, this skews the pricing.
The pricing is what free market does and there are no externalities but what a gov't makes.
If gov't holds an asset it should dispose of it and allow free market to use it, so the asset should be liquidated via an auction for example and the proceeds should be used to offset gov't taxation.
There is no such thing as a 'right' not to be murdered by other individuals, the concept of 'right' is fundamentally artificial and it only exists to counterbalance the fundamentally artificial concept of government.
There is no 'right' for you not to be murdered by me for example, the society may set a rule that should I murder you (and get caught), I'll be punished for it. That's not because you have a right not to be killed by another individual, only because we want to set a standard for acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
If you think you have a RIGHT to live, build a time machine and go a few hundred years back and start showing modern day 'magic', like a flashlight, a helicopter or maybe the effects of tetracycline or doxycycline on some very sick people, and see how long before your so called 'right' is violated by the mob accusing you of witchcraft.
You don't even have to build a time machine, go to Saudi Arabia or some of the African countries, maybe to Kenya and do something, like pretend that you can predict future (maybe again, use some modern tech for that in some village) and you'll quickly find out that what you consider to be a 'right' is no such thing as people burn you, stone you or cut your head off while cheering.
A right is a concept that only applies in a very narrow sense, there has to be a system that is said not to have authority to violate your right and it must be a system, not an individual.
An individual violating your so called 'right' is only punishable by the criminal code (maybe not punishable if he can show self defence or show that you have violated some fundamental religious tenets or some such).
Or maybe you can go to a dictatorship or a virtual dictatorship and attack the system, the dictator and see how quickly you are stripped of what you believe to be your 'rights'.
The main point is this: we do not need a concept of a 'right' to deal with individual (or companies) hurting you in any way.
Concept of a 'right' is fully unnecessary, there are and there were plenty of societies where people had no rights and yet other individuals were punished for murder, for theft, etc.
There is no need to define any such concept as a right, once you define the criminal code. OTOH if you want to counterbalance the power of the State, the power of the collective, the power of the government you DO need a concept of a right, because if you do not have that concept you have no protections whatsoever against the system. In fact in such a system a representative of government power can probably murder you and in most cases not be punished by the criminal code either.
Why do people not understand that many of the freedoms in this country, are freedoms that protect us from our government ONLY, not each other?
- for the same very reason that the people do not understand that the concept of a 'right' is only applicable within a relationship between an individual and the collective (gov't).
A right not to be murdered by gov't is not the same thing as a rule set in the criminal code that if one person murders another then there will be punishment.
Gov't will not be punished if it murders you, it's a system, so the way to deal with gov't is to prevent the system from stepping over the limits that we encode as the concept of 'right'.
People don't understand this either because the education system is set up in a way that prevents them from having clear understanding of such important fundamental things.
First goods step would be to get either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson elected for POTUS.
Second good step would be to vote out EVERY incumbent that's been in Congress fore more than 2 terms, regardless of who they are.
Third good step would be to stop paying all of your income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and face the government and its illegal ways, its power, its size, its spending.
It is the government that has destroyed the America, not people, not businesses.
So you think that rising population and unexploited resources is what it takes and NOT freedom for people to do business, actually to build businesses 'exploiting' the natural resources (which are pretty useless until somebody starts 'exploiting' them)? Also you think that population was rising NOT because of increased quality of life but all on its own all of a sudden.
So population was rising slowly all the time up until there was a Constitutional Republic set up in a way that allowed people to be free to do business as they desire, free of government intervention, have actual real property rights, and you think it is a wild coincidence?
The population was rising because the people were able to access free market, because in the free market that the Constitutional Republic allowed, there were people who immediately decided to do business for profit and to make profit they sought out ways to satisfy consumer demand, because the free market capitalism provided the savings and thus the investment necessary to produce so much more and have overproduction that could be sold in the market, so it was no longer subsistence farming - people were producing more than they were consuming personally and this overproduction allowed many people to stop being subsistence farmers and work on satisfying other demands.
The 'unexploited' resources are completely worthless until the moment that somebody starts actually 'exploiting' them. If you don't understand such simple concepts ask yourself a question: how come Saudi Arabia and all the other places where oil was found did not do anything with any of these resources until the free market capitalism allowed the freedom for the people to innovate and so they innovated and quickly found more efficient ways to use energy?
You think resources 'exploit' themselves? You think it does NOT take free market enterprise to do that, to provide these resources in a usable form to the market?
Also what you call 'anti-governmnet schtick' is not anti-all-government, it is anti-illegal-unconstitutional-boundless-unlimited-government-power.
The Constitutional Republic is just fine by me, because it exists within the limits of the law, it is not set up to steal individual freedoms, it is set up to protect individual freedoms.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and never mind that the government agencies have had this type of functionality for the longest time, that's what the police and FBI use to try and catch suspects.
But if you are a private individual or a company with the same type of technology, all of a sudden you are too dangerous.
Al Franken needs to read this book and learn something, specifically that if something is illegal for an individual to do, the government must not be allowed to do it either.
our founding fathers never envisioned that blacks and women would ever have the right to vote. times have changed.
- false. I wouldn't have signed the Constitution the way it was written originally specifically because the blacks weren't considered 'full humans', but I can understand why some of the people who signed it still did it, while allowing the entire amendment process to the Constitution.
Times change and attitudes of the people change, and it wasn't up to the Founders to change the attitudes of people of their time, but they could see that eventually those attitudes would change, and that's what the amendment process was provided for, which eventually was used for this exact purpose.
Teachers in a public school system are overvalued as the entire public schools system is overvalued. There should be no public schools and no public teachers, all of a sudden this 'issue' is a non-issue. Teaching, just like every other business (healthcare, etc.), should be done privately under all circumstances and there should be no gov't involvement in any of it, there should be no gov't laws surrounding what is taught, what is not, when it starts, when it ends, who gets what, none of it.
Teachers should be teaching in private schools and there should be no gov't loans, gov't guarantees for any of this, there should be no minimum wage laws, so people who want to learn on a job could convince an employer to take them as a student, making a nominal wage, while they are learning the profession.
I guarantee you that NOTHING that gov't can do will do anything remotely good unless it's dismantling of the public school system altogether and stopping all of the subsidies and the moral hazard of the gov't guaranteed loans.
You know what a BETTER "stimulus" idea is rather than politicians taking money from people who earned it and giving it to prop up the voter base (or blowing up brown people)?
Reducing the government spending, firing a bunch of people from gov't positions but at the same time actually reducing everybody's taxes, thus allowing the private sector, that in fact EARNED this money to keep it.
This is not the first time somebody does this either, there is an entire industry in Russia built around a business platform (1 s) that prides itself by the fact that they have translated BASIC into Russian, I shit you not.
I wonder if this story was born out of this comment I left here on the "Google Compute Engine" story. However my point was that network neutrality becomes a non-issue with companies laying their own network infrastructure on one hand, and on the other, passing laws like Network Neutrality would HURT those companies that lay their own infrastructure, because it would force them to create uneven pricing between internal and external content from point of view of what it costs the company to move data internally, so prices would RISE.
Again, /. crowd cheers gov't action to ensure this 'network neutrality' and thus in the long run to ensure much higher prices.
The federal gov't didn't have to use the military inside the country to fight all of the people yet, and even if half of the US population is armed, it is still about 150,000,000 people, while the US army is about 3,000,000 (1% of the population as I understand).
So of-course military has weapons advantage, but not numbers or popular support advantage when it is used to fight against the civilians. Afghanistan shows that a military cannot be used to subdue a country, and Afghanistan is really not that big compared to the USA.
You've read what I have written about rights enough times (since you stalk my comments), and you still don't understand what the concept of rights is, so what's there to talk about, when you don't get simplest of terms?
There are no group rights, there are no 'rights' of employers or 'rights' of employees, there cannot be an entitlement given to one group and an obligation piled onto another group by gov't, (which is the case with all labour laws, including minimum wage), this is destruction of rights, not creation of rights. This is what splits individuals into separate categories of those having entitlements and those having obligations, but 'rights'? That's what gov't does to destroy rights and anybody who supports this supports total annihilation of all rights, because again, there can be absolutely no compromise with gov't on any single right.
Once there is a compromise on 1 right, there are no rights, it is the road that is open to destroy all of the rights, and I am correct about it, because this is exactly what happened.
Ron Paul does not "believe in elevating rights of corporations", this is pure pro-government propaganda (pro Democratic government propaganda).
Ron Paul only promotes individual rights and there are no 'corporate rights' at all, there are no group rights of any kind.
A 'right' is only a concept that is meaningful within the context of the relationship between an individual and the collective, because there has to be a limit as to what the collective can do to an individual. This limit must be set and the collective must not be able to step over it unless there are specific circumstances that are authorised for by the Constitution.
Nobody specific can be punished when the collective steps over your individual rights, and thus the rights are the limits that must be observed by the collective without any compromise.
There can be no compromise on the individual right and that is what Ron Paul stands for. There can be no compromise when it comes to protecting individual rights from the collective - the Federal government. (Of-course this also does not mean that the government of a State can automatically be granted authority that the feds are not given, it only means that the feds do not have that authority, the next step is to ensure that the State gov't also cannot abuse an individual).
Corporations are a fiction of government, created to limit liability to individuals but by doing it, the government creates moral hazards, the consequences that happen because of these moral hazards are later blamed on this so called 'free market', which hasn't been free since the Fed and all the other agencies have been set up.
Behind every corporation there is a person or a number of people, so while corporations are a fiction, they are also people by proxy. The corporations shouldn't exist to limit personal liability, the patent and copyright laws shouldn't exist, no business should be able to influence gov't, but no gov't should t be able to influence a business (as long as no criminal offence is committed against an individual by the business), because limiting rights of businesses is exactly the same thing as limiting rights of individuals who run them.
The Internet is the computer.
They finally figured out that women are the end of us.
When apocalypse comes, Mann will be there, taking pictures.
(oh, I had him as a prof back in the nineties, he was always taking chances with the surrounding population)
Be all you can be - kill some people.
That is the message. If that's not 'evil', then what is?
"be all you can be" is not just a powerful message, it is a threat. Realise that what government is really saying there is that all you can really be is only achievable at this point if you are part of that government institution, and people that this message is aimed at cannot get government jobs as press secretaries, congressional staff or even regulators in an executive office. This is a threat and the reason government can issue it is because it is the very institution that creates the conditions, under which this threat is very much a reality.
Wrong. There is no need for a gov't to have a court system.
To you, it would seem, a free market is one in which the government institutes a legal framework for tort settlement
- no, I did not say that, sorry if I somehow made you believe that it is what I meant because I didn't.
In a free market government isn't involved in private dealings, it is not involved in business it is not involved in money, it is not involved in labour, it is not involved in interest rates and it is not involved in trade and it does not have to be involved in contract or civil law either, I would prefer that it wasn't involved in that at all, because if gov't is involved in this, eventually it will become corrupt.
What I am saying is that gov't shouldn't be limiting liability, it shouldn't be offering protections to some people against other people in business, in money, in trade in any commercial interests. Of-course gov't shouldn't be creating a welfare state either, a welfare state is destruction of free market in itself.
As soon as you introduce laws into the market, the market is not completely free. Each law, starting with the first, makes the market less free.
- yeah, you should read my comments on rights, because you are not understanding what I am talking about.
Protection of private property rights means protection of private property against government abuse, against government theft, confiscation, ceasing and taxation of private property.
Natural rights are not a concept that is used to punish a murderer, that would be a legal system or whatever punishment system that exists, and a legal system doesn't have to have 'rights' defined at all to define ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.
An illegal act of murdering somebody does not have to be a right violation at all, and a 'natural right' is a philosophical concept, not a legal one and definitely it's not something that people think of when they just come up with a criminal code. What people should be thinking when coming up with the legal code is basically the golden rule - don't do onto others what you don't want to be done to yourself. And that's enough of a principle to build the entire criminal code system. The other part of law is related to contracts, a contract needs to be protected and it's between 2 or more parties involved in it, but it's not a criminal code and again, it doesn't have anything to do with 'rights'.
A 'right' is your ability not to be abused by the system, and you can definitely live in a system that doesn't recognise any such limits, so you have no rights and yet there can definitely be a criminal code and a legal system set up so that there is punishment doled out to individuals who misbehave. I can argue that when a gov't doesn't recognise your individual rights then the criminal code and the legal system will not really protect you against individuals who have money or against individuals who have power, because those people would be connected to the gov't somehow and the gov't that doesn't recognise your rights will not actually care about you at all, and the justice system won't really be looking at everybody as equals before law. But this does not mean that a concept of a right is necessary to have a legal system and a criminal code at all.
No they don't.
Should a factory be throwing their pollution my way, I immediately have a claim against that company in the free market.
Of-course gov't prevents the claims, it limits liability, the BP spill is a prime example where gov't limited liability of the company not just personally to the owners and management, but they limited the liability of a spill to 75 Million USD per incident.
A free market is not an anarchy, it requires strong protection of actual few laws that must exist in order for the system to work, and one of those protections is property rights, and I am NOT saying that gov't must protect one individual against another or one individual against a business.
I am saying that gov't shouldn't be protecting a business or an individual against liability claims, and all of a sudden there is no externalities because all such things are simply conflicts between different property owners.
I left a journal entry on the ACA ruling fiasco and I use the example of what the 16th amendment is actually about and how it is used by the federal gov't. Personal income taxes are unconstitutional and are collected unconstitutionally against the decisions by SCOTUS.
Free markets do not have externalities. It takes a government to allow for such concepts as 'externalities', for example when a company starts drilling for oil on some public property, this means that the company didn't actually get into the agreement with the free market over this drilling, instead the company somehow received an OK from gov't to drill there (and it also got some form of protection and likely fake insurance and limitation of liability from gov't).
Free market means that there is no gov't involvement in business at all, but this also means that there should be no business done on property that is not within the rules of the free market, so only private property can be mined or used by any business for any purpose.
Once the property is in the hands of a gov't, this skews the pricing.
The pricing is what free market does and there are no externalities but what a gov't makes.
If gov't holds an asset it should dispose of it and allow free market to use it, so the asset should be liquidated via an auction for example and the proceeds should be used to offset gov't taxation.
There is no such thing as a 'right' not to be murdered by other individuals, the concept of 'right' is fundamentally artificial and it only exists to counterbalance the fundamentally artificial concept of government.
There is no 'right' for you not to be murdered by me for example, the society may set a rule that should I murder you (and get caught), I'll be punished for it. That's not because you have a right not to be killed by another individual, only because we want to set a standard for acceptable and unacceptable behaviour.
If you think you have a RIGHT to live, build a time machine and go a few hundred years back and start showing modern day 'magic', like a flashlight, a helicopter or maybe the effects of tetracycline or doxycycline on some very sick people, and see how long before your so called 'right' is violated by the mob accusing you of witchcraft.
You don't even have to build a time machine, go to Saudi Arabia or some of the African countries, maybe to Kenya and do something, like pretend that you can predict future (maybe again, use some modern tech for that in some village) and you'll quickly find out that what you consider to be a 'right' is no such thing as people burn you, stone you or cut your head off while cheering.
A right is a concept that only applies in a very narrow sense, there has to be a system that is said not to have authority to violate your right and it must be a system, not an individual.
An individual violating your so called 'right' is only punishable by the criminal code (maybe not punishable if he can show self defence or show that you have violated some fundamental religious tenets or some such).
Or maybe you can go to a dictatorship or a virtual dictatorship and attack the system, the dictator and see how quickly you are stripped of what you believe to be your 'rights'.
The main point is this: we do not need a concept of a 'right' to deal with individual (or companies) hurting you in any way.
Concept of a 'right' is fully unnecessary, there are and there were plenty of societies where people had no rights and yet other individuals were punished for murder, for theft, etc.
There is no need to define any such concept as a right, once you define the criminal code. OTOH if you want to counterbalance the power of the State, the power of the collective, the power of the government you DO need a concept of a right, because if you do not have that concept you have no protections whatsoever against the system. In fact in such a system a representative of government power can probably murder you and in most cases not be punished by the criminal code either.
Why do people not understand that many of the freedoms in this country, are freedoms that protect us from our government ONLY, not each other?
- for the same very reason that the people do not understand that the concept of a 'right' is only applicable within a relationship between an individual and the collective (gov't).
A right not to be murdered by gov't is not the same thing as a rule set in the criminal code that if one person murders another then there will be punishment.
Gov't will not be punished if it murders you, it's a system, so the way to deal with gov't is to prevent the system from stepping over the limits that we encode as the concept of 'right'.
People don't understand this either because the education system is set up in a way that prevents them from having clear understanding of such important fundamental things.
What are you talking about? I am pretty sure he didn't keep it to himself, he shared it with the world!
So how about fixing this problem?
First goods step would be to get either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson elected for POTUS.
Second good step would be to vote out EVERY incumbent that's been in Congress fore more than 2 terms, regardless of who they are.
Third good step would be to stop paying all of your income taxes, payroll taxes, corporate taxes and face the government and its illegal ways, its power, its size, its spending.
It is the government that has destroyed the America, not people, not businesses.
So you think that rising population and unexploited resources is what it takes and NOT freedom for people to do business, actually to build businesses 'exploiting' the natural resources (which are pretty useless until somebody starts 'exploiting' them)? Also you think that population was rising NOT because of increased quality of life but all on its own all of a sudden.
So population was rising slowly all the time up until there was a Constitutional Republic set up in a way that allowed people to be free to do business as they desire, free of government intervention, have actual real property rights, and you think it is a wild coincidence?
The population was rising because the people were able to access free market, because in the free market that the Constitutional Republic allowed, there were people who immediately decided to do business for profit and to make profit they sought out ways to satisfy consumer demand, because the free market capitalism provided the savings and thus the investment necessary to produce so much more and have overproduction that could be sold in the market, so it was no longer subsistence farming - people were producing more than they were consuming personally and this overproduction allowed many people to stop being subsistence farmers and work on satisfying other demands.
The 'unexploited' resources are completely worthless until the moment that somebody starts actually 'exploiting' them. If you don't understand such simple concepts ask yourself a question: how come Saudi Arabia and all the other places where oil was found did not do anything with any of these resources until the free market capitalism allowed the freedom for the people to innovate and so they innovated and quickly found more efficient ways to use energy?
You think resources 'exploit' themselves? You think it does NOT take free market enterprise to do that, to provide these resources in a usable form to the market?
Also what you call 'anti-governmnet schtick' is not anti-all-government, it is anti-illegal-unconstitutional-boundless-unlimited-government-power.
The Constitutional Republic is just fine by me, because it exists within the limits of the law, it is not set up to steal individual freedoms, it is set up to protect individual freedoms.