The real problem is that the government has managed to convince everyone that "obscenity" isn't speech. Since they control the definition of obscenity, they control the definition of speech.
Don't forget their little legal litmus tests and stuff. It's like a religion, it's like shamanism, the average person can get nailed on something because we have so many obscure laws.
Daniel Dennett, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, has already essentially fleshed out the idea that Hawkings is getting at. Influenced, of course, by Dawkins.
No, she shouldn't be charged with anything. Charging her with one of the above is far beyond the intent or probably the letter of the law, or are so vague that anyone could be potentially charged with those crimes. We have enough crazy catch-all laws as it is, don't validate their existence just because hang a woman that did something you don't like.
The girl had emotional problems beyond just someone messing with her on the internet, and to be quite honest if your skin is so thin that you can't take being insulted online then you're going to have major problems somewhere down the road. I've been insulted in school far worse than what Lori Drew said, and I'd been physically assaulted in front of teachers and other authority (which I'd consider even far worse than what Lori Drew did) at around the same age that girl was. Retribution isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead, and you can't base "justice" around how someone reacts to what you do (particularly when the outcome is extreme and unforeseeable), only what you actually DO do, because we have no way of peering into a crystal ball to determine the future and that road could take us down a pretty scary place anyway.
She should have been charged with cyberstalking, stalking, harassment, something.
The fact that you had to end this with "something" shows that your mindset here is trying to pin something down on this woman, because you're not sure what crime she actually committed. This is a common method of how the police work, especially since we have enough laws that you can find and stretch any law to stick any American in jail, but I am personally disgusted with it. If you're not sure what crime she actually committed then it's probably safe to say that whatever she did, even if it was horrible, probably shouldn't be "a crime" and that any thing you charge her with will be stretching the law past its original intent to satiate some bloodthirsty mob or your own anger. In my opinion, if the action is not obviously a crime (murder, stealing, etc) and you're not sure what crime they may have committed (especially if you're grabbing at straws like "cyberstalking!) then one should be pretty suspicious of bringing in the entire "justice" system from the get-go.
This is yet another manifestation of the "FOR THE CHILDREN!" mindset, except it's more subtle. Fascinating how even many slashdotters fall for it, too... The proper recourse here is socially ostracizing her.
And violence on the playground? I draw the line at cops and robbers, man. Murder simulation right there. I couldn't stomach one kid lying down pretending to be dead. Hell, I threw up when my friend made an over-the-top death gargling noise. Shit's unreal, man, surely our Congressional Overlords must step in with sweet blessings from Barack Obama.
Basically, it's a pretty cheap argument to compare a western country that has infrastructure to a place that never really did. Nobody is saying that governments make growth impossible, just that they impede it, and Somalia's growth is actually some evidence for that.
Actually, Somalia has one of the best economies in Africa, if not the best. Somalia is a shit place to live, but so is Ethiopia. Your point?
According to wikipedia:
In the absence of a Somali state and its institutions, the private sector grew "impressively" according to the World Bank in 2003, particularly in the areas of trade, commerce, transport, remittance and infrastructure services and in the primary sectors, notably in livestock, agriculture and fisheries.[15] In 2007, the United Nations reported that the country's service industry is also thriving.[5] Economist Peter T. Leeson, in an event study of "the impact of anarchy on Somali development", found that "[t]he data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under (a central) government." Powell et al. concur that in absolute terms, Somaliaâ(TM)s living standards have improved and compare favorably with many existing African states, but also report that living standards have often improved "relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government."[13]
In any case, I'm not convinced Somalia is an example of true anarchy. But you are just going to claim that the problems can just be fixed with the *right kind* of government, which is exactly like saying that I can get a pet unicorn if I just wish hard enough. You can continue to assert it but it isn't so. It's very convenient for people to try to ignore the culture and the people within a government. It's exactly the reason why Democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan is going to fail--government isn't a magical entity outside the system. It's part of it, and will always suffer the flaws of the people within it.
I'm sorry, this topic is about emigrating to a "freer" country, not living comfortably watching American Idol and having a big meal every night so long as you don't get caught smoking the wrong plant or something. Many people just aren't concerned about civil liberties and are content so long as they have bread and circuses, that's fine, I didn't say freedom was for everyone, did I?
If all you're interested in is relative freedom compared to other countries then, sure, whatever--some people have higher standards, I guess.
No, your example is not apt, because the problems in Somalia are not necessarily due to a lack of "government," and I don't necessarily oppose "rules" or "laws" so much as they are not agreed to by voluntary consent and no nation lets people gather and live peacefully, instead subjecting peoples to its rule whether or not they want to be ruled by that body.
You have a very naive few of Africa. Somalia is actually doing better than it did before, and isn't that much worse than some other African countries. Africa's main problem--including Somalia's--is not having much of an economy. A lack of an economy, poor food production, and cultural violence isn't going to magically be fixed by just putting the right system in place when it's composed of the same people within the system. Unless you're saying that some Western nation should come in and rule Somalia an African regime isn't likely to make things better.
So tell me, where would you rather live--Somalia, or North Korea? Since North Korea is a government, I guess I can use that as an example of what all government necessarily is, since you think you get to use Somalia as an example of what all "anarchy" is.
"Tolerable levels" of "decent government." Meaningless. That doesn't say anything at all, and "decent government," if you look around the world, doesn't exist.
Malaria exists in Africa still because the country has no economy to speak of to get or produce medicine. Inter-tribal warfare exists because they have no economy and are superstitious and have a culture conducive to that. These problems all exist in countries in Africa that AREN'T Somalia. Your idea of a "decent government" there is a manifestation of the fallacy that it's not the culture or environment there but only if the right power structure magically came into place everything would just be fantastic. It is a Deus ex Machina answer, that if only the right government would be put into place, everything would all be fixed up. Hell, you could have the African countries hand out condoms like candy and AIDs would still be a problem there because of the culture and prevalent beliefs.
With all the corruption and inefficiencies government provide... well, there's gotta be a pony somewhere in that shit, right?
To summarize: because I think that any country without a government will turn into Somalia- You've not supported this argument at all, you've just asserted it. This is simply a belief you have, nothing more, nothing less, with little to no evidence for it. And, strangely, since Somalia is better off than it was before, it's hard to suggest that a country will "devolve" into Somalia when Somalia is better after its government fracturing! Somalia wasn't some Western nation with technology that suddenly crashed and turned into the African wild west!
I didn't say there wasn't a practical difference, quite the opposite in my other post elsewhere on this topic, but an actual "free" country doesn't exist. The west is far better than the east but that's no more to the point that some shit stinks worse than others.
Somalia? The entire continent of Africa has problems stemming far beyond government. I didn't say having no formal government (because the entire area is fractured culturally and such) means that it doesn't have problems.
Cultural clashes and violence exist with or without government. Anyway, Somalia isn't the worst place in Africa. Since you're attacking "no-government" based on one single poor example on a generally impoverished continent I guess I can point to North Korea and say that's what government is all about. Funny how your first argument betrays your second.
If you even knew why the Bill of Rights were ratified in the first place, you'd know how false that was.
The militia part is what I'm imagining you're referring to, and a historical analysis will make it pretty clear what context this is in and what the intent was. Here's a hint: the militia was composed of "the people," the same "the people" the government is supposedly serving.
Not that I particularly care, the 2nd amendment could spell out "NO-GUNS" and I'd oppose it because the constitution is just as illegitimate as the government itself. Like all governments.
We've got the technology. It's time we start banding together and holding businesses accountable together, instead of hoping that some magical government does it for us. Businesses get their money from the people (ideally), we're the ones that feed them. We can all have control as long as we pay attention. Businesses exist to convince us to give them money for what they do, we need only to work together with boycotts and calling frenzies to get what we want.
We libertarians tend to think we are the freest country on Earth. We just don't have any illusions about it being 'free enough'.
You however seem to have bought into our great myths. I'll break it down:
#1: Our rights to freedom of expression are often curtailed, sometimes with the blessing of the Supreme Court, depending on what mood it's in. Obscenity is still regularly prosecuted. Girls "sexting" (what a dumb term!) are charged with producing CHILD PORNOGRAPHY by taking nude pictures of themselves on cell phones! Make no mistake, we are better than many European countries because we won't necessarily slam you in jail for expressing the wrong political opinion (though it can happen) like with holocaust deniers or such, but don't pretend that theory is practice here. Also, the second amendment is constantly being reinterpreted by those that dislike it, and heavier and heavier controls are continually being placed on it. I expect to see the 2nd amendment repealed in my lifetime, athough not without some redneck-caused violence (and "bless" some of those rednecks!).
#2: We say we do, anyways. Well, we do moreso than many countries, there's a reason why those libertarians (whom you show contempt for, it seems) are far more numerous in the USA than anywhere else in the world. But you have a very rose-colored view of our two political parties. They are like two cartels guarding the political gates and frequently compromising and collaborating with how to leech more money off of American workers and have no problem with taking away rights when it suits political ideology or is expedient for the government to do so. Hell, I think the only serious politicians DO talk about how free we should be, and they are saying FREER. It seems you're content with compromise after compromise in our political proceses, compromising our rights...!
#3: The corollary is, however, that we are in the Obama era now, and that's not much better. Take off those rose-colored Democrat glasses again. You're boss is not much better than old boss. "Sacrificing liberty for security?" Hello? FISA? Obama's great flip flop? That's not the only one.
#4: Are you trying to encourage him...? In any case, you couldn't think of any more than 4 reasons so you threw one in the middle to make it seem like you had the nice round number of 5...
#5: That's all symbolic nowadays, not that I support the ridiculous monarchy in the first place but you need some perspective. As for king's slave to king's peer? Hah! Hahahahaha! I'd like to see what kind of weight YOU hold in regards to Congress? You're nothing at all! The "king" today is Obama, and it's his signature on bills that matter, NOT YOURS. You have actually very little say at all. King's peer... that's a good one. I'd like to see me get the same type of say and treatment as even a Congressman...!
You've totally bought into the American nationalist pride--the left's version. Obama is president! Joy! Joy! Change! Hope! Sorry, Charlie, but Obama is just another politician. Everyone wants, needs, a hero, but politicians--people that use your rights as bargaining chips for their own self-interest or ideologies--should never be the object of one's admiration, at least not one that isn't dismantling the whole evil machine.
You want an honest answer? The brutal, uncomfortable truth?
There isn't a free country. Anywhere. At all.
All people are the servants of their governments from birth until death. Whether it's a government of some tyrant or "the people," no individual is free (yes, in many places, particularly among certain intelligentsia, "individual" is a dirty word. I still honor that word and the individual man and woman. Maybe I am old fashioned...) from the government. I'm not going to BS you with fairy tales about how democracy is free because you get one piss-in-the-ocean called a "vote." None of us are free, I'm not free, you're not free. Nowhere is free. And where there's no government, there's (non-political) thugs and warlords, whom if anything may be considered mini-governments.
Many people have swallowed the snake-oil and claim that a "responsible democracy" is justice, freedom, or, laughably, exists. There's no such thing. Those that claim that we need government oversight over business forget that the people have already failed giving business oversight by continuing, irresponsibly, to do business with them. Claiming that you can fix the "wrongs" of business (businesses that they continue to patronize!) by electing people that you cannot simply ignore (unlike business) is even worse than corrupt business, because then you put the corrupt people in REAL power. If the people fail in making responsible purchasing decisions then how can you ensure they are responsible when they vote? You cannot. Government, it is simply a secular God that is supposed to magically be good and just and fix all the problems.
Here on slashdot and elsewhere we keep on seeing all sorts of bullshit governments on hoisting on people. From Germany's draconian video game laws, to censorship under the guise of child porn (both apply to Australia as well), to the UK's ridiculous privacy violations, to just about everything the US government does, it's a neverending torrent of bullshit that people just. keep. taking. All this talk of good, responsible government, it is just that, talk, and those that claim that there government is good either have governments cleverer than they are more able to hide the bullshit or are blinded by some sort of superiority complex or national pride.
So, freedom...? Good luck, buddy, because there's a lot of us out there searching with you. We haven't found it, and since every country on Earth has the gall to claim that it owns the land on its borders and won't like like-minded people actually own their own land and establish their own countries where they can be free--making us little more than just tenants serving our government--there's likely never to be a free place on Earth.
Obama is far from being anything resembling a nerd. Positions of power, particularly the presidencies, have been filled by people about as non-nerd as you get. The people here saying Obama is a nerd are like most of Obama supporters--projecting their own identity or hopes and dreams into them because they like the man and want him to be like them. If you've seen some of the almost spooky Obama worship going on, this will not at all surprise you.
I'm a staunch libertarian anarchist and the parent here is correct. Austrian economics is bogus, it is fetishism within the libertarian movement that needs to die. Most so-called "Austrian" libertarians don't know the first thing about its methodology or scientific methodology in general.
I do think that everyone having healthcare is desirable, however, I do not think a moral case can be made that you can force other people to pay for it--much the same way I feel everyone should be able to eat, but no one should be forced to cook for other people.
The current plan is appears to be much more moderate than universal health care, which means that we will be free to continue letting children die at birth while giving old irresponsible people 3 and 4 bypasses.
As someone who is FOR abortion, I don't see the problem here. It's not that different...
Slashdot Mirror
Yup.
Just like police testimony in general!
Beautifully put.
Don't forget their little legal litmus tests and stuff. It's like a religion, it's like shamanism, the average person can get nailed on something because we have so many obscure laws.
Daniel Dennett, in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, has already essentially fleshed out the idea that Hawkings is getting at. Influenced, of course, by Dawkins.
Thanks for speaking up. I appreciate it...
Double jeopardy doesn't apply only to civil rights. Where did you get that?
No, she shouldn't be charged with anything. Charging her with one of the above is far beyond the intent or probably the letter of the law, or are so vague that anyone could be potentially charged with those crimes. We have enough crazy catch-all laws as it is, don't validate their existence just because hang a woman that did something you don't like.
The girl had emotional problems beyond just someone messing with her on the internet, and to be quite honest if your skin is so thin that you can't take being insulted online then you're going to have major problems somewhere down the road. I've been insulted in school far worse than what Lori Drew said, and I'd been physically assaulted in front of teachers and other authority (which I'd consider even far worse than what Lori Drew did) at around the same age that girl was. Retribution isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead, and you can't base "justice" around how someone reacts to what you do (particularly when the outcome is extreme and unforeseeable), only what you actually DO do, because we have no way of peering into a crystal ball to determine the future and that road could take us down a pretty scary place anyway.
The fact that you had to end this with "something" shows that your mindset here is trying to pin something down on this woman, because you're not sure what crime she actually committed. This is a common method of how the police work, especially since we have enough laws that you can find and stretch any law to stick any American in jail, but I am personally disgusted with it. If you're not sure what crime she actually committed then it's probably safe to say that whatever she did, even if it was horrible, probably shouldn't be "a crime" and that any thing you charge her with will be stretching the law past its original intent to satiate some bloodthirsty mob or your own anger. In my opinion, if the action is not obviously a crime (murder, stealing, etc) and you're not sure what crime they may have committed (especially if you're grabbing at straws like "cyberstalking!) then one should be pretty suspicious of bringing in the entire "justice" system from the get-go.
This is yet another manifestation of the "FOR THE CHILDREN!" mindset, except it's more subtle. Fascinating how even many slashdotters fall for it, too... The proper recourse here is socially ostracizing her.
And violence on the playground? I draw the line at cops and robbers, man. Murder simulation right there. I couldn't stomach one kid lying down pretending to be dead. Hell, I threw up when my friend made an over-the-top death gargling noise. Shit's unreal, man, surely our Congressional Overlords must step in with sweet blessings from Barack Obama.
There is no such thing as a non-oppressive regime. All political regimes are inherently oppressive by their very nature.
Basically, it's a pretty cheap argument to compare a western country that has infrastructure to a place that never really did. Nobody is saying that governments make growth impossible, just that they impede it, and Somalia's growth is actually some evidence for that.
Actually, Somalia has one of the best economies in Africa, if not the best. Somalia is a shit place to live, but so is Ethiopia. Your point?
According to wikipedia:
In the absence of a Somali state and its institutions, the private sector grew "impressively" according to the World Bank in 2003, particularly in the areas of trade, commerce, transport, remittance and infrastructure services and in the primary sectors, notably in livestock, agriculture and fisheries.[15] In 2007, the United Nations reported that the country's service industry is also thriving.[5] Economist Peter T. Leeson, in an event study of "the impact of anarchy on Somali development", found that "[t]he data suggest that while the state of this development remains low, on nearly all of 18 key indicators that allow pre- and post-stateless welfare comparisons, Somalis are better off under anarchy than they were under (a central) government." Powell et al. concur that in absolute terms, Somaliaâ(TM)s living standards have improved and compare favorably with many existing African states, but also report that living standards have often improved "relative to other African countries since the collapse of the Somali central government."[13]
In any case, I'm not convinced Somalia is an example of true anarchy. But you are just going to claim that the problems can just be fixed with the *right kind* of government, which is exactly like saying that I can get a pet unicorn if I just wish hard enough. You can continue to assert it but it isn't so. It's very convenient for people to try to ignore the culture and the people within a government. It's exactly the reason why Democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan is going to fail--government isn't a magical entity outside the system. It's part of it, and will always suffer the flaws of the people within it.
And who purchases from corporations? Either regular people, or governments. Think about that a little bit.
I'm sorry, this topic is about emigrating to a "freer" country, not living comfortably watching American Idol and having a big meal every night so long as you don't get caught smoking the wrong plant or something. Many people just aren't concerned about civil liberties and are content so long as they have bread and circuses, that's fine, I didn't say freedom was for everyone, did I?
If all you're interested in is relative freedom compared to other countries then, sure, whatever--some people have higher standards, I guess.
No, your example is not apt, because the problems in Somalia are not necessarily due to a lack of "government," and I don't necessarily oppose "rules" or "laws" so much as they are not agreed to by voluntary consent and no nation lets people gather and live peacefully, instead subjecting peoples to its rule whether or not they want to be ruled by that body.
You have a very naive few of Africa. Somalia is actually doing better than it did before, and isn't that much worse than some other African countries. Africa's main problem--including Somalia's--is not having much of an economy. A lack of an economy, poor food production, and cultural violence isn't going to magically be fixed by just putting the right system in place when it's composed of the same people within the system. Unless you're saying that some Western nation should come in and rule Somalia an African regime isn't likely to make things better.
So tell me, where would you rather live--Somalia, or North Korea? Since North Korea is a government, I guess I can use that as an example of what all government necessarily is, since you think you get to use Somalia as an example of what all "anarchy" is.
"Tolerable levels" of "decent government." Meaningless. That doesn't say anything at all, and "decent government," if you look around the world, doesn't exist.
Malaria exists in Africa still because the country has no economy to speak of to get or produce medicine. Inter-tribal warfare exists because they have no economy and are superstitious and have a culture conducive to that. These problems all exist in countries in Africa that AREN'T Somalia. Your idea of a "decent government" there is a manifestation of the fallacy that it's not the culture or environment there but only if the right power structure magically came into place everything would just be fantastic. It is a Deus ex Machina answer, that if only the right government would be put into place, everything would all be fixed up. Hell, you could have the African countries hand out condoms like candy and AIDs would still be a problem there because of the culture and prevalent beliefs.
With all the corruption and inefficiencies government provide... well, there's gotta be a pony somewhere in that shit, right?
To summarize:
because I think that any country without a government will turn into Somalia-
You've not supported this argument at all, you've just asserted it. This is simply a belief you have, nothing more, nothing less, with little to no evidence for it. And, strangely, since Somalia is better off than it was before, it's hard to suggest that a country will "devolve" into Somalia when Somalia is better after its government fracturing! Somalia wasn't some Western nation with technology that suddenly crashed and turned into the African wild west!
I didn't say there wasn't a practical difference, quite the opposite in my other post elsewhere on this topic, but an actual "free" country doesn't exist. The west is far better than the east but that's no more to the point that some shit stinks worse than others.
Somalia? The entire continent of Africa has problems stemming far beyond government. I didn't say having no formal government (because the entire area is fractured culturally and such) means that it doesn't have problems.
Cultural clashes and violence exist with or without government. Anyway, Somalia isn't the worst place in Africa. Since you're attacking "no-government" based on one single poor example on a generally impoverished continent I guess I can point to North Korea and say that's what government is all about. Funny how your first argument betrays your second.
If you even knew why the Bill of Rights were ratified in the first place, you'd know how false that was.
The militia part is what I'm imagining you're referring to, and a historical analysis will make it pretty clear what context this is in and what the intent was. Here's a hint: the militia was composed of "the people," the same "the people" the government is supposedly serving.
Not that I particularly care, the 2nd amendment could spell out "NO-GUNS" and I'd oppose it because the constitution is just as illegitimate as the government itself. Like all governments.
We've got the technology. It's time we start banding together and holding businesses accountable together, instead of hoping that some magical government does it for us. Businesses get their money from the people (ideally), we're the ones that feed them. We can all have control as long as we pay attention. Businesses exist to convince us to give them money for what they do, we need only to work together with boycotts and calling frenzies to get what we want.
We libertarians tend to think we are the freest country on Earth. We just don't have any illusions about it being 'free enough'.
You however seem to have bought into our great myths. I'll break it down:
#1: Our rights to freedom of expression are often curtailed, sometimes with the blessing of the Supreme Court, depending on what mood it's in. Obscenity is still regularly prosecuted. Girls "sexting" (what a dumb term!) are charged with producing CHILD PORNOGRAPHY by taking nude pictures of themselves on cell phones! Make no mistake, we are better than many European countries because we won't necessarily slam you in jail for expressing the wrong political opinion (though it can happen) like with holocaust deniers or such, but don't pretend that theory is practice here. Also, the second amendment is constantly being reinterpreted by those that dislike it, and heavier and heavier controls are continually being placed on it. I expect to see the 2nd amendment repealed in my lifetime, athough not without some redneck-caused violence (and "bless" some of those rednecks!).
#2: We say we do, anyways. Well, we do moreso than many countries, there's a reason why those libertarians (whom you show contempt for, it seems) are far more numerous in the USA than anywhere else in the world. But you have a very rose-colored view of our two political parties. They are like two cartels guarding the political gates and frequently compromising and collaborating with how to leech more money off of American workers and have no problem with taking away rights when it suits political ideology or is expedient for the government to do so. Hell, I think the only serious politicians DO talk about how free we should be, and they are saying FREER. It seems you're content with compromise after compromise in our political proceses, compromising our rights...!
#3: The corollary is, however, that we are in the Obama era now, and that's not much better. Take off those rose-colored Democrat glasses again. You're boss is not much better than old boss. "Sacrificing liberty for security?" Hello? FISA? Obama's great flip flop? That's not the only one.
#4: Are you trying to encourage him...? In any case, you couldn't think of any more than 4 reasons so you threw one in the middle to make it seem like you had the nice round number of 5...
#5: That's all symbolic nowadays, not that I support the ridiculous monarchy in the first place but you need some perspective. As for king's slave to king's peer? Hah! Hahahahaha! I'd like to see what kind of weight YOU hold in regards to Congress? You're nothing at all! The "king" today is Obama, and it's his signature on bills that matter, NOT YOURS. You have actually very little say at all. King's peer... that's a good one. I'd like to see me get the same type of say and treatment as even a Congressman...!
You've totally bought into the American nationalist pride--the left's version. Obama is president! Joy! Joy! Change! Hope! Sorry, Charlie, but Obama is just another politician. Everyone wants, needs, a hero, but politicians--people that use your rights as bargaining chips for their own self-interest or ideologies--should never be the object of one's admiration, at least not one that isn't dismantling the whole evil machine.
You want an honest answer? The brutal, uncomfortable truth?
There isn't a free country. Anywhere. At all.
All people are the servants of their governments from birth until death. Whether it's a government of some tyrant or "the people," no individual is free (yes, in many places, particularly among certain intelligentsia, "individual" is a dirty word. I still honor that word and the individual man and woman. Maybe I am old fashioned...) from the government. I'm not going to BS you with fairy tales about how democracy is free because you get one piss-in-the-ocean called a "vote." None of us are free, I'm not free, you're not free. Nowhere is free. And where there's no government, there's (non-political) thugs and warlords, whom if anything may be considered mini-governments.
Many people have swallowed the snake-oil and claim that a "responsible democracy" is justice, freedom, or, laughably, exists. There's no such thing. Those that claim that we need government oversight over business forget that the people have already failed giving business oversight by continuing, irresponsibly, to do business with them. Claiming that you can fix the "wrongs" of business (businesses that they continue to patronize!) by electing people that you cannot simply ignore (unlike business) is even worse than corrupt business, because then you put the corrupt people in REAL power. If the people fail in making responsible purchasing decisions then how can you ensure they are responsible when they vote? You cannot. Government, it is simply a secular God that is supposed to magically be good and just and fix all the problems.
Here on slashdot and elsewhere we keep on seeing all sorts of bullshit governments on hoisting on people. From Germany's draconian video game laws, to censorship under the guise of child porn (both apply to Australia as well), to the UK's ridiculous privacy violations, to just about everything the US government does, it's a neverending torrent of bullshit that people just. keep. taking. All this talk of good, responsible government, it is just that, talk, and those that claim that there government is good either have governments cleverer than they are more able to hide the bullshit or are blinded by some sort of superiority complex or national pride.
So, freedom...? Good luck, buddy, because there's a lot of us out there searching with you. We haven't found it, and since every country on Earth has the gall to claim that it owns the land on its borders and won't like like-minded people actually own their own land and establish their own countries where they can be free--making us little more than just tenants serving our government--there's likely never to be a free place on Earth.
Welcome to Earth.
Yes, one step closer to living my fantasy life like in Firefly. They can cancel the show but they can't stop the Serenity
Correlation is not causation.
There, should start seeing my karma go up any second now.
Obama is far from being anything resembling a nerd. Positions of power, particularly the presidencies, have been filled by people about as non-nerd as you get. The people here saying Obama is a nerd are like most of Obama supporters--projecting their own identity or hopes and dreams into them because they like the man and want him to be like them. If you've seen some of the almost spooky Obama worship going on, this will not at all surprise you.
I'm a staunch libertarian anarchist and the parent here is correct. Austrian economics is bogus, it is fetishism within the libertarian movement that needs to die. Most so-called "Austrian" libertarians don't know the first thing about its methodology or scientific methodology in general.
I do think that everyone having healthcare is desirable, however, I do not think a moral case can be made that you can force other people to pay for it--much the same way I feel everyone should be able to eat, but no one should be forced to cook for other people.
As someone who is FOR abortion, I don't see the problem here. It's not that different...