By your logic, anything the government published at one time but no longer publishes has been 'censored.' Do you really not understand how that dilutes the real meaning of the word 'censorship?'
FEMA was not 'forced' to remove anything. FEMA is a government agency, with limited funds. They put up something they thought would be useful. People did not find it useful, and they asked FEMA not to waste any resources on it. FEMA took it down. The work is still available, if anyone wants it. The government has not banned the coloring book. The government is just not wasting our tax dollars hosting that worthless content anymore.
Calling this censorship is simply hyperbole, and a knee-jerk attempt at whipping up some anti-government, anti-PC hysteria.
Libertarians suck! Wait, what did you say? Sorry, that's just kind of an automatic response from me. Property is theft! It's like Tourette Syndrome. The free market is broken! I call it 'Libertariette Syndrome.'
See, now this is how we calmly and rationally discuss an issue without resorting to hyperbole. I happen to disagree that this is unfortunate. Not that I think it is fortunate either, I think it is utterly unimportant.
Seriously, if you are going to the FEMA site for tips on how to talk to your kids about terrorism, you have bigger problems than the disappearance of a coloring book.
What prejudices and biases are you talking about? What does a Penny Arcade comic about punctuation and flaming fan-boys have to do with the summary? I just don't understand what you are referring to at all.
I notice YOU haven't published the coloring book on YOUR site either, Mr. Perens. Therefore, by your own logic, you are a censor.
Except that is not censorship. Nobody is banning anything. FEMA is choosing not to use our tax dollars to publish a coloring book on their own web site. Calling that censorship dilutes the meaning of the word, and it demeans the struggle against real censorship.
There is no right to exclude others from using a natural resource. You may have a contract with someone saying you and only you can use that resource, but I am not a party to that contract. If you attempt to force me to honor a contract I am not a party to, YOU are using coercion on me. I am NOT using coercion by failing to honor a contract I never made.
That is the basic reason I am an anarchist and not a libertarian. Libertarians believe in strong individual rights to real property and other natural resources. This amounts to a defense of the haves from the have-nots, without the consent of the have-nots. It is coercive.
You may not be jcr, but your posts are similarly content-free. Give me something to debunk, I've provided documented facts, so the ball is in your court.
Great historian and economist? He's a nutcase who starts from the conclusion he wants to reach and reasons backwards until he finds evidence to support them. Nobody is buying what you're peddling, try selling it somewhere with a stupider population than Slashdot. Rothbard's work has been debunked over and over again, I'm not wasting my time with busy-work that has already been done, just for your amusement. It's like debunking flat-earthers or young earth creationists. It's too damn easy, but they never listen anyhow.
You'll notice that Nutbard doeasn't even talk about FDR. Why is that? Because FDR's policies worked, unlike Hoover's, and that would disprove Nutbard's whole hypothesis. Just look at the graphs, you see this downward spiral, right until FDR takes office, then Wham! the economy takes off like a rocket until idiot Republicans convince FDR to back off from his plans, then we get a tiny slump, then FDR goes back to his way of doing things, and whooosh! the economy takes off again.
Wrong again. Look at the graphs for other, less serious recessions. During the great depression, the economy recovered to the same level it was at, pre-recession, in less than three years. Look at how steep the slope is as we climbed out of the hole that capitalism dug for us. Look at 1937, when Republicans got FDR to renege on New Deal promises. The facts are plain as day, and only fanatical ideologues such as yourself would deny them.
Keep up the transparent lies. Rothbard is a whackaloon, and everyone knows it. Might as well quote a study by Santa Claus, it would be just as credible. I gave you cold, hard numbers, you give me a book by a noted nutcase. The New Deal worked, and every sane American citizen knows that, despite all the right's attempts to silence the truth.
You can't win here because the facts are just not on your side. So sorry.
You really can't read graphs, can you? How sad. You are a deluded human being, who's world view obviously trumps reality. Doesn't fit the world view? Can't be true!
Morgenthau was an orthodox economist who opposed Keynesian economics and disapproved of some elements of Roosevelt's New Deal. 1939 was right after the little dip caused by cutting back on the New Deal. Morgenthau was just defending his own lack of faith in it.
Please try to make your arguments harder to debunk, you are boring me to tears.
I wish there were a page somewhere on 'how to read a graph' I could point you at, because you will no doubt misread these as well, but at least saner minds will realize I am right.
I do have a problem with you owning apples and keeping them from a hungry person when you are not. Look, if possessing something because of your actions entitles you to that thing, then taking something from you is an action, and I'm entitled to what I take.
Unlike personal property, real property takes a State to defend. As Adam Smith said, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. "
And that explains the problems I have with libertarians.
I got no free ride at your expense, twit. I had fifteen thousand dollars in savings, from freelance computer work, and it lasted me two years. That was nearly two decades ago. Now I'm a senior level network administrator.
Pay your taxes and whine some more on your blog, righty.
Liar. Anyone who can read a graph knows that the New Deal worked perfectly. The only hiccups in the graphs coincide with the Republicans pitching a fit and getting him to back off from his plans.
I'm asking an honest philosophical question. I am not a socialist, I'm an anarchist. Well, more of a anarcho-syndicalist.
The right I have is that you and I don't have a personal agreement not to touch each other's stuff, and I don't know what you are claiming is yours. I mean, realistically, you and I do live in civilization, and so we have an unspoken agreement.
We also need to categorize 'stuff' a little more carefully. Your personal possessions, I would never touch and in fact, I would help you defend them from someone who tried to take them. Your house, same way.
Your lands, well, there's where it starts to get fuzzy. A factory? Mineral rights? Intellectual 'property?' Now that's getting pretty abstract. And harder to defend, requiring more of my time and effort? What do I get out of you having the right to own a factory and the output of it's workers?
Where do these rights derive from? I'm honestly curious what your answer will be.
I don't see it as a 'job,' per se. I certainly didn't see it as that then. I chose to live on very little means, couch surfing, sleeping at my union office, in my van, wherever I could. I did it for selfish reasons, because helping others and working in a community of like minded individuals made me feel good. Which is my point. Most people are like me, they are just afraid of being taken advantage of.
No, I'm calling him a liar, do I really need to spell it out? It's too convenient, and it doesn't fit with my own experiences in Europe. That type of story is the health care equivalent of the 'girlfriend in Canada' all us nerds had at one point or another.
I have health care coverage meaning I shopped around for the best deal I could find, and saved pre-tax into a medical expenses account. Maybe you've heard of such a thing?
You can cry 'no true scotsman!' all you like, this is the free market. This is deregulation. Saying, 'Well, we just didn't do it ENOUGH' is lunatic fringe talk, and you know it. Nobody is buying your snake oil anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
By your logic, anything the government published at one time but no longer publishes has been 'censored.' Do you really not understand how that dilutes the real meaning of the word 'censorship?'
FEMA was not 'forced' to remove anything. FEMA is a government agency, with limited funds. They put up something they thought would be useful. People did not find it useful, and they asked FEMA not to waste any resources on it. FEMA took it down. The work is still available, if anyone wants it. The government has not banned the coloring book. The government is just not wasting our tax dollars hosting that worthless content anymore.
Calling this censorship is simply hyperbole, and a knee-jerk attempt at whipping up some anti-government, anti-PC hysteria.
Libertarians suck! Wait, what did you say? Sorry, that's just kind of an automatic response from me. Property is theft! It's like Tourette Syndrome. The free market is broken! I call it 'Libertariette Syndrome.'
See, now this is how we calmly and rationally discuss an issue without resorting to hyperbole. I happen to disagree that this is unfortunate. Not that I think it is fortunate either, I think it is utterly unimportant.
Seriously, if you are going to the FEMA site for tips on how to talk to your kids about terrorism, you have bigger problems than the disappearance of a coloring book.
What prejudices and biases are you talking about? What does a Penny Arcade comic about punctuation and flaming fan-boys have to do with the summary? I just don't understand what you are referring to at all.
I notice YOU haven't published the coloring book on YOUR site either, Mr. Perens. Therefore, by your own logic, you are a censor.
Except that is not censorship. Nobody is banning anything. FEMA is choosing not to use our tax dollars to publish a coloring book on their own web site. Calling that censorship dilutes the meaning of the word, and it demeans the struggle against real censorship.
I would call it "Not choosing to put the book on the FEMA site." Guess what, I chose not to put it on my website either. Am I a censor?
There is a HUGE difference between 'government not using its resources to publish your creation' and 'government banning your creation.'
There is no right to exclude others from using a natural resource. You may have a contract with someone saying you and only you can use that resource, but I am not a party to that contract. If you attempt to force me to honor a contract I am not a party to, YOU are using coercion on me. I am NOT using coercion by failing to honor a contract I never made.
That is the basic reason I am an anarchist and not a libertarian. Libertarians believe in strong individual rights to real property and other natural resources. This amounts to a defense of the haves from the have-nots, without the consent of the have-nots. It is coercive.
You may not be jcr, but your posts are similarly content-free. Give me something to debunk, I've provided documented facts, so the ball is in your court.
You haven't given me anything to debunk. "Here, read this book and debunk it" only indicates that YOU can not represent Nutbard's arguments correctly.
Great historian and economist? He's a nutcase who starts from the conclusion he wants to reach and reasons backwards until he finds evidence to support them. Nobody is buying what you're peddling, try selling it somewhere with a stupider population than Slashdot. Rothbard's work has been debunked over and over again, I'm not wasting my time with busy-work that has already been done, just for your amusement. It's like debunking flat-earthers or young earth creationists. It's too damn easy, but they never listen anyhow.
You'll notice that Nutbard doeasn't even talk about FDR. Why is that? Because FDR's policies worked, unlike Hoover's, and that would disprove Nutbard's whole hypothesis. Just look at the graphs, you see this downward spiral, right until FDR takes office, then Wham! the economy takes off like a rocket until idiot Republicans convince FDR to back off from his plans, then we get a tiny slump, then FDR goes back to his way of doing things, and whooosh! the economy takes off again.
Wrong again. Look at the graphs for other, less serious recessions. During the great depression, the economy recovered to the same level it was at, pre-recession, in less than three years. Look at how steep the slope is as we climbed out of the hole that capitalism dug for us. Look at 1937, when Republicans got FDR to renege on New Deal promises. The facts are plain as day, and only fanatical ideologues such as yourself would deny them.
Keep up the transparent lies. Rothbard is a whackaloon, and everyone knows it. Might as well quote a study by Santa Claus, it would be just as credible. I gave you cold, hard numbers, you give me a book by a noted nutcase. The New Deal worked, and every sane American citizen knows that, despite all the right's attempts to silence the truth.
You can't win here because the facts are just not on your side. So sorry.
You really can't read graphs, can you? How sad. You are a deluded human being, who's world view obviously trumps reality. Doesn't fit the world view? Can't be true!
I'll try again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp20-40.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Manufacturing_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
Please explain to me how we were in the depression until 1946, using actual numerical data.
Morgenthau was an orthodox economist who opposed Keynesian economics and disapproved of some elements of Roosevelt's New Deal. 1939 was right after the little dip caused by cutting back on the New Deal. Morgenthau was just defending his own lack of faith in it.
Please try to make your arguments harder to debunk, you are boring me to tears.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp20-40.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Manufacturing_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
I wish there were a page somewhere on 'how to read a graph' I could point you at, because you will no doubt misread these as well, but at least saner minds will realize I am right.
I do have a problem with you owning apples and keeping them from a hungry person when you are not. Look, if possessing something because of your actions entitles you to that thing, then taking something from you is an action, and I'm entitled to what I take.
Unlike personal property, real property takes a State to defend. As Adam Smith said, "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. "
And that explains the problems I have with libertarians.
I got no free ride at your expense, twit. I had fifteen thousand dollars in savings, from freelance computer work, and it lasted me two years. That was nearly two decades ago. Now I'm a senior level network administrator.
Pay your taxes and whine some more on your blog, righty.
Liar.
Liar. Anyone who can read a graph knows that the New Deal worked perfectly. The only hiccups in the graphs coincide with the Republicans pitching a fit and getting him to back off from his plans.
I'm asking an honest philosophical question. I am not a socialist, I'm an anarchist. Well, more of a anarcho-syndicalist.
The right I have is that you and I don't have a personal agreement not to touch each other's stuff, and I don't know what you are claiming is yours. I mean, realistically, you and I do live in civilization, and so we have an unspoken agreement.
We also need to categorize 'stuff' a little more carefully. Your personal possessions, I would never touch and in fact, I would help you defend them from someone who tried to take them. Your house, same way.
Your lands, well, there's where it starts to get fuzzy. A factory? Mineral rights? Intellectual 'property?' Now that's getting pretty abstract. And harder to defend, requiring more of my time and effort? What do I get out of you having the right to own a factory and the output of it's workers?
Where do these rights derive from? I'm honestly curious what your answer will be.
I don't see it as a 'job,' per se. I certainly didn't see it as that then. I chose to live on very little means, couch surfing, sleeping at my union office, in my van, wherever I could. I did it for selfish reasons, because helping others and working in a community of like minded individuals made me feel good. Which is my point. Most people are like me, they are just afraid of being taken advantage of.
No, I'm calling him a liar, do I really need to spell it out? It's too convenient, and it doesn't fit with my own experiences in Europe. That type of story is the health care equivalent of the 'girlfriend in Canada' all us nerds had at one point or another.
Ever play Paranoia?
Have you tried penis pumps? What about weights?
Right. Glad we agree.
I have health care coverage meaning I shopped around for the best deal I could find, and saved pre-tax into a medical expenses account. Maybe you've heard of such a thing?
Facts show that the health care system in this country is broken: http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S.%20HCweb.pdf
You can cry 'no true scotsman!' all you like, this is the free market. This is deregulation. Saying, 'Well, we just didn't do it ENOUGH' is lunatic fringe talk, and you know it. Nobody is buying your snake oil anymore.