Germany initiated WWII because The Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI was a failure. Violence breeds violence. Wars lead to more wars. Every war leads eventually to another war, only peaceful change puts an end to conflict.
The trail is obvious, he's working for the government and governments have always wanted to exercise even more and more power. It doesn't matter that the legislation is stupid, those in charge want more and more power. Just look at the lives of those who ruled Rome with absolute power. Most of the things they did served no practical purpose other than to please themselves by exercising power over the common man. 2000 or so years later, we essentially have the same structure and the same behavior.
The problem isn't necessarily with the state governments, in most cases its easy enough to move out of their jurisdiction. The problem is with the federal government which is now crafting insane laws to make it nearly impossible to leave (through passport restrictions and now a proposal that would bar individuals who the government believes to have expatriated for "tax purposes" from returning to the US, force them to pay even more taxes despite the fact they are no longer US citizens AND is retroactive!).
And sadly, unless New Hampshire leaves the US government, they are still under those same oppressive laws.
There should be no anti-bullying laws, anti-bullying programs should be something schools should independently come up with. Anytime something is codified into policy or law it ends up being broken by default in 99%+ of the cases.
Ah yes, Paul is such a "dangerous" radical! After all he believes that the constitution says that we shouldn't imprison people without a fair trial! And believes that there are things that the Federal government shouldn't control and rightfully is up to the states or the people. Heaven forbid we have a president that believes that! Of course Paul isn't perfect, but he's a heck of a lot better than Romney or Obama.
It means he's no longer pumping money into ads for states that haven't voted yet and focusing on recruiting delegates (the only thing that matters for the nomination) and influencing the platform of the Republican party towards liberty.
The delegate process is absurdly retarded. And honestly, the electoral college doesn't make any sense today either, back when we had a small federal government and each state had certain things that for sure would be favorable and unfavorable for it, it made sense. Today? Not so much.
But, when it comes down to it, the problem is with the Republican convention, not with the Paul supporters.
Yep, there used to be Republicans that wanted it and Democrats that wanted it, but within the last couple decades neither of the parties has been anti-war or small government. There are millions who would want such a president, but the only candidate with any chance is "unelectable"
Exactly. Most supporters of Ron Paul are not "loyal republicans" and will vote for a third party before they will vote for Romney. On the other hand, how many Romney supporters would vote for a third party if Romney somehow doesn't win the nomination? Very few. The GOP has a chance to gain huge momentum by supporting Paul's ideas, gaining votes from youth who have found that Obama's hope was a lie and from peace-loving democrats who are disgusted about Obama's track record on foreign policy and torture. However, Romney will not attract any of them. Romney will attract a few former Obama supporters who will decide to switch sides and will attract the "hardcore" Republicans who will never vote for anyone else, but no one else. Can Romney win? It just depends on how badly Obama screws up the next few months.
We have "serious people" Bernake is the most serious of academic economists, of course he is running the country into the ground. The educated economists that caused the hyperinflation in Germany, Zimbabwe, Hungary, etc. were "serious people" often the best in their fields. What then do you propose? Keynesian economics have failed. The collapse of the European economy and the ongoing collapse of the American economy is proof of that.
Um... How would there be oppression and misery? Somehow having a coherent foreign policy of free trade and not ZOMG BOMB EVERYTHING!!!1!11!1!1 is oppressive? Somehow opposing the unconstitutional detaining of American citizens is oppressive?
Very little that he wants to do is beyond the power of the president. If you want to talk about going beyond the power of the president how about you talk to Obama (and Bush) for starting wars without congress's approval and in the case of Obama ordering the execution of an American citizen without trial or due process via a drone strike.
The chances are slim that someone's vote for Romney/Obama will really even matter either. The only time your vote really matters is if there is 1 vote separating the candidates. As a Libertarian, Romney is not my cause. Frankly, I see little difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to the major issues. Perhaps Romney will be slightly better than Obama or slightly worse but not much will change. Very little changed from Bush to Obama, both moderates in their party, I can see less change from the super-moderate Romney to the moderate democrat Obama. So I will be voting with my conscience this November and will either be writing in Paul or voting for Gary Johnson for president. It doesn't mean that I'm supporting Obama because I wouldn't ever vote for Romney (or Obama for that matter).
...Except for the fact you don't have a right to move to another location. If you look at the legislation governing passports in the US, you aren't entitled to receive one, in fact, there are various bills being debated restricting passports even further. Even the basic right to renounce citizenship is questionable! There have been reports where people have gone to renounce US citizenship and their application to renounce citizenship has been denied!
Voting still fails to nullify the theft issue. After all, if a gang comes up to you in a dark alley wielding guns, bats and knives and gives you a vote when they decide to take your money it is still theft. If the same gang does the same thing and promises to use your stolen money to donate to charity, buy books for a local library, etc. it is still theft. The situation doesn't change just because gang is wearing a police uniform.
What is evil for one person to do, it is evil for many to do. What is acceptable for many to do, it is acceptable for the one to do.
For example, if it is acceptable for your neighbor to look at unencrypted web traffic for research purposes (as in, not reading the contents of e-mails to gain something such as blackmail, financial gain, etc.) it should be acceptable for a corporation such as Google to do it so long as same procedures are applied (don't look through e-mails, don't degrade the network's performance).
Similarly, if something is unacceptable for an individual to do (murder, steal, etc.) is unacceptable for groups to do.
Monaco would be close to ideal politically but the cost of living is a bit higher than I would like.
And sure, ideally they would be based on the consent of the governed and people could choose to obtain or renounce the citizenship of their choosing, but that doesn't happen. Immigration is a mess, citizenships either involve massive sums of money (several hundred thousand dollars) or many years of residence and I've even heard reports that people have been denied the ability to renounce their citizenship! How many people have really made an informed decision to continue living in the country they are currently residing in? Very few. How many people have really even been outside of the US, Canada and the resort towns of Mexico/the Caribbean isles? Most are residing in the country they have been due to pure accident of birth, not because of any deep philosophical convictions or any consent.
Show me a single country which does not steal the wealth of their citizens via taxation, steal the lives of young men and women via military service, and steal the liberties of their citizens through pointless regulations and laws that do nothing to further safety. There are a few countries which accomplish one or even two of these things, but to my knowledge there are none that accomplish all 3 and have a state based on voluntary consent and if you manage to find one, please tell me because I will move there ASAP.
I'm not really sure whats so "evil" about this. Google was simply doing what anyone else could with a computer running Wireshark could do. This would be evil if Google:
1) Collaborated with the government to alert the government about potential "illegal" activities being conducted
That is not capitalism. Stealing money from one person (the taxpayers) to pay someone else (in this case GM) is theft. It doesn't matter if GM paid it back, it was still an act of theft.
What is fair is to get rid of the theft and have people pay simply for what they use. Have kids in public school? Pay a higher tax rate until you've offset the amount you've cost the school system. Drive a car on public roads? Pay for the amount of wear and tear you've done on the roads. Go to a public college? Pay your full tuition in the form of higher taxes until you've paid it off.
Don't drive on public roads? Don't pay for them directly (of course businesses would be required to do the same meaning they would indirectly pay for it in shipping/handling charges, bus fares, etc.). Didn't attend a public university? Don't pay for them. Etc.
That is the only fair way of having taxation, by imitating the only moral system, a free market.
The idea of paying taxes solely because you've made money is silly. The person who makes minimum wage flipping burgers, went to a public high school, drives extensively on public roads, and is attending a public college should pay much higher taxes than someone who might be a multi-millionaire, attended a private school, went to a private university and rarely uses public roads.
Because nation-states by definition are built on theft and because they are built on theft, they, like any other thief, has the goal of getting the most money possible. Since most Americans have a delusion that the USA is the "freest country in the world" very few people seriously consider expatriation.
Because with a CEO you aren't paying with stolen money, with state-sponsored teachers you are. No one is forcing me at gunpoint to pay the salaries of the CEOs of Wal-Mart, Microsoft, HP, Apple or whatever. Heck, I don't have to give one dime to any corporation if I don't want to. It doesn't matter to me if Apple spends $5.8 billion dollars to bring Steve Jobs back from the grave, its Apple's money to do with what they choose. On the other hand, the money used to pay for state-sponsored teachers is taken from me by force and as such they have the moral obligation to at the very least reduce the amount they have to steal from me.
Capital punishment as it is currently practiced is barbaric. It is even more barbaric in countries such as China which have non-violent "crimes" as capital offenses. Such as drug smuggling. While I agree with the death penalty in theory for murder (and only for intentional murder) in practice it does nothing but create two murder victims.
Mandatory organ donations is also barbaric because we stop seeing people as people and instead see them as sacks of meat and valuable organs. Rather than a doctor doing all they can to save your life, what if they know that if they let you die they could save someone "more important" than you? While it makes sense to donate organs, doctors should not know if someone is an organ donor or not until they have already done all they can do to save the person. Only then after every possible means of saving them has been exhausted and they know that for certain they are dead (knowing when death occurs is scarily vague) only then should they try to harvest the organs.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, if you read the rhetoric of the far-left environmentalists, its not ironic at all.
Germany initiated WWII because The Treaty of Versailles that ended WWI was a failure. Violence breeds violence. Wars lead to more wars. Every war leads eventually to another war, only peaceful change puts an end to conflict.
The trail is obvious, he's working for the government and governments have always wanted to exercise even more and more power. It doesn't matter that the legislation is stupid, those in charge want more and more power. Just look at the lives of those who ruled Rome with absolute power. Most of the things they did served no practical purpose other than to please themselves by exercising power over the common man. 2000 or so years later, we essentially have the same structure and the same behavior.
The problem isn't necessarily with the state governments, in most cases its easy enough to move out of their jurisdiction. The problem is with the federal government which is now crafting insane laws to make it nearly impossible to leave (through passport restrictions and now a proposal that would bar individuals who the government believes to have expatriated for "tax purposes" from returning to the US, force them to pay even more taxes despite the fact they are no longer US citizens AND is retroactive!).
And sadly, unless New Hampshire leaves the US government, they are still under those same oppressive laws.
There should be no anti-bullying laws, anti-bullying programs should be something schools should independently come up with. Anytime something is codified into policy or law it ends up being broken by default in 99%+ of the cases.
Ah yes, Paul is such a "dangerous" radical! After all he believes that the constitution says that we shouldn't imprison people without a fair trial! And believes that there are things that the Federal government shouldn't control and rightfully is up to the states or the people. Heaven forbid we have a president that believes that! Of course Paul isn't perfect, but he's a heck of a lot better than Romney or Obama.
It means he's no longer pumping money into ads for states that haven't voted yet and focusing on recruiting delegates (the only thing that matters for the nomination) and influencing the platform of the Republican party towards liberty.
The delegate process is absurdly retarded. And honestly, the electoral college doesn't make any sense today either, back when we had a small federal government and each state had certain things that for sure would be favorable and unfavorable for it, it made sense. Today? Not so much.
But, when it comes down to it, the problem is with the Republican convention, not with the Paul supporters.
Yep, there used to be Republicans that wanted it and Democrats that wanted it, but within the last couple decades neither of the parties has been anti-war or small government. There are millions who would want such a president, but the only candidate with any chance is "unelectable"
Exactly. Most supporters of Ron Paul are not "loyal republicans" and will vote for a third party before they will vote for Romney. On the other hand, how many Romney supporters would vote for a third party if Romney somehow doesn't win the nomination? Very few. The GOP has a chance to gain huge momentum by supporting Paul's ideas, gaining votes from youth who have found that Obama's hope was a lie and from peace-loving democrats who are disgusted about Obama's track record on foreign policy and torture. However, Romney will not attract any of them. Romney will attract a few former Obama supporters who will decide to switch sides and will attract the "hardcore" Republicans who will never vote for anyone else, but no one else. Can Romney win? It just depends on how badly Obama screws up the next few months.
We have "serious people" Bernake is the most serious of academic economists, of course he is running the country into the ground. The educated economists that caused the hyperinflation in Germany, Zimbabwe, Hungary, etc. were "serious people" often the best in their fields. What then do you propose? Keynesian economics have failed. The collapse of the European economy and the ongoing collapse of the American economy is proof of that.
Um... How would there be oppression and misery? Somehow having a coherent foreign policy of free trade and not ZOMG BOMB EVERYTHING!!!1!11!1!1 is oppressive? Somehow opposing the unconstitutional detaining of American citizens is oppressive?
Very little that he wants to do is beyond the power of the president. If you want to talk about going beyond the power of the president how about you talk to Obama (and Bush) for starting wars without congress's approval and in the case of Obama ordering the execution of an American citizen without trial or due process via a drone strike.
The chances are slim that someone's vote for Romney/Obama will really even matter either. The only time your vote really matters is if there is 1 vote separating the candidates. As a Libertarian, Romney is not my cause. Frankly, I see little difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to the major issues. Perhaps Romney will be slightly better than Obama or slightly worse but not much will change. Very little changed from Bush to Obama, both moderates in their party, I can see less change from the super-moderate Romney to the moderate democrat Obama. So I will be voting with my conscience this November and will either be writing in Paul or voting for Gary Johnson for president. It doesn't mean that I'm supporting Obama because I wouldn't ever vote for Romney (or Obama for that matter).
...Except for the fact you don't have a right to move to another location. If you look at the legislation governing passports in the US, you aren't entitled to receive one, in fact, there are various bills being debated restricting passports even further. Even the basic right to renounce citizenship is questionable! There have been reports where people have gone to renounce US citizenship and their application to renounce citizenship has been denied!
Voting still fails to nullify the theft issue. After all, if a gang comes up to you in a dark alley wielding guns, bats and knives and gives you a vote when they decide to take your money it is still theft. If the same gang does the same thing and promises to use your stolen money to donate to charity, buy books for a local library, etc. it is still theft. The situation doesn't change just because gang is wearing a police uniform.
What is evil for one person to do, it is evil for many to do. What is acceptable for many to do, it is acceptable for the one to do.
For example, if it is acceptable for your neighbor to look at unencrypted web traffic for research purposes (as in, not reading the contents of e-mails to gain something such as blackmail, financial gain, etc.) it should be acceptable for a corporation such as Google to do it so long as same procedures are applied (don't look through e-mails, don't degrade the network's performance).
Similarly, if something is unacceptable for an individual to do (murder, steal, etc.) is unacceptable for groups to do.
Monaco would be close to ideal politically but the cost of living is a bit higher than I would like.
And sure, ideally they would be based on the consent of the governed and people could choose to obtain or renounce the citizenship of their choosing, but that doesn't happen. Immigration is a mess, citizenships either involve massive sums of money (several hundred thousand dollars) or many years of residence and I've even heard reports that people have been denied the ability to renounce their citizenship! How many people have really made an informed decision to continue living in the country they are currently residing in? Very few. How many people have really even been outside of the US, Canada and the resort towns of Mexico/the Caribbean isles? Most are residing in the country they have been due to pure accident of birth, not because of any deep philosophical convictions or any consent.
Show me a single country which does not steal the wealth of their citizens via taxation, steal the lives of young men and women via military service, and steal the liberties of their citizens through pointless regulations and laws that do nothing to further safety. There are a few countries which accomplish one or even two of these things, but to my knowledge there are none that accomplish all 3 and have a state based on voluntary consent and if you manage to find one, please tell me because I will move there ASAP.
I'm not really sure whats so "evil" about this. Google was simply doing what anyone else could with a computer running Wireshark could do. This would be evil if Google:
1) Collaborated with the government to alert the government about potential "illegal" activities being conducted
Or
2) Made attempts to crack wi-fi encryption
That is not capitalism. Stealing money from one person (the taxpayers) to pay someone else (in this case GM) is theft. It doesn't matter if GM paid it back, it was still an act of theft.
What is fair is to get rid of the theft and have people pay simply for what they use. Have kids in public school? Pay a higher tax rate until you've offset the amount you've cost the school system. Drive a car on public roads? Pay for the amount of wear and tear you've done on the roads. Go to a public college? Pay your full tuition in the form of higher taxes until you've paid it off.
Don't drive on public roads? Don't pay for them directly (of course businesses would be required to do the same meaning they would indirectly pay for it in shipping/handling charges, bus fares, etc.). Didn't attend a public university? Don't pay for them. Etc.
That is the only fair way of having taxation, by imitating the only moral system, a free market.
The idea of paying taxes solely because you've made money is silly. The person who makes minimum wage flipping burgers, went to a public high school, drives extensively on public roads, and is attending a public college should pay much higher taxes than someone who might be a multi-millionaire, attended a private school, went to a private university and rarely uses public roads.
Because nation-states by definition are built on theft and because they are built on theft, they, like any other thief, has the goal of getting the most money possible. Since most Americans have a delusion that the USA is the "freest country in the world" very few people seriously consider expatriation.
Because with a CEO you aren't paying with stolen money, with state-sponsored teachers you are. No one is forcing me at gunpoint to pay the salaries of the CEOs of Wal-Mart, Microsoft, HP, Apple or whatever. Heck, I don't have to give one dime to any corporation if I don't want to. It doesn't matter to me if Apple spends $5.8 billion dollars to bring Steve Jobs back from the grave, its Apple's money to do with what they choose. On the other hand, the money used to pay for state-sponsored teachers is taken from me by force and as such they have the moral obligation to at the very least reduce the amount they have to steal from me.
Yes, and most of them are designed for the privacy conscious person such as Swiss Mail.
It is quite possible to eliminate autism (if in fact it really does exist) via genetic screening.
Capital punishment as it is currently practiced is barbaric. It is even more barbaric in countries such as China which have non-violent "crimes" as capital offenses. Such as drug smuggling. While I agree with the death penalty in theory for murder (and only for intentional murder) in practice it does nothing but create two murder victims.
Mandatory organ donations is also barbaric because we stop seeing people as people and instead see them as sacks of meat and valuable organs. Rather than a doctor doing all they can to save your life, what if they know that if they let you die they could save someone "more important" than you? While it makes sense to donate organs, doctors should not know if someone is an organ donor or not until they have already done all they can do to save the person. Only then after every possible means of saving them has been exhausted and they know that for certain they are dead (knowing when death occurs is scarily vague) only then should they try to harvest the organs.