The only so-called Anarchists that want "no government" are the crusty punk circle-A street kids, who aren't real anarchists.
The rest of us know what anarchism really means. You are falling for statist propaganda. Try reading any modern anarchist author before telling anarchists what they are or are not.
I bought a laptop for my wife from Best Buy less than a year ago. Normally, I would never buy from them, but this laptop was on sale, and the best bargain we found. It came with a year long subscription to the horrible, horrible Webroot anti-virus program. Less than a year later, we saw a mysterious charge for $49.95 on the credit card we had used to purchase the laptop. Turns out Best Buy had thoughtfully resubscribed us, and only charged us a small fee for the service. Of course, I had uninstalled Webroot the moment we got the laptop home.
We called the credit card company, and as soon as we said the words "best buy" they said "we'll reverse the charges, this happens ALL THE TIME." How is this not criminal fraud on Best Buy's part?
Here is a simple analogy. We are "derived from" apes. Apes are mammals. We are also mammals. Libertarianism is derived from the Boston School of anarchism. The Boston school were anarchists. Libertarians are anarchists. Hope that helps clear up any misunderstanding you may have.
Oh boy. I always have to do this when conversing with libertarians, as they seem to have no sense of their own history.
Libertarians ARE anarchists. Modern day American Libertarianism derives from the Boston school of anarchism.
Anarchism means "no RULERS." Archon meant ruler or dictator in ancient Greek. We all know the root word for government in ancient Greek: -ocracy. "No government" would be written Anocracy. Anarchism means no hierarchy. There's that "archy" root again.
Please, I can't stress this enough, people, if you have any desire to call yourself a libertarian, BROADEN YOUR HORIZONS! Read about the history and philosophy of anarchism. You may find some branch of anarchism that fits your personal philosophy better than libertarianism does.
Congress has the right to regulate the airwaves, and signals in wires passing over state lines, because congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. BOOYA! Commerce clause FTW!
Interesting. I thought Adam Smith specifically supported patents and copyrights. Could you show me where in his works he said he doesn't? Please, go look it up. See what he actually believed, read Wealth of Nations yourself. Despite the libertarian caricature of him, Adam Smith believed that government regulations were absolutely vital to the functioning of a free market, that government should grant copyrights and patents, enforce contract law, build roads and infrastructure, and basically do everything it is now doing in the economic sphere.
Adam Smith WAS NOT a libertarian. Do not try to rewrite history to make him one.
I've got a remote control that works on every single TV out there. It's called congress. You know, if media companies didn't want to get themselves regulated, they could stop using our public airwaves and cable right-of-ways. Seeing as how they DO use these things, we have the moral and legal right to tell them to turn down the volume. Isn't it nice how contracts and negotiation work?
People here think they are smart. Some of them are. Some are not. Some that think they are smart, but are not, like to try to prove their intelligence by being contrary. Basically, they take any scientific story, think about it for thirty seconds, come up with one objection based on their misunderstandings, and run that objection into the ground.
They believe this demonstrates their intelligence.
Pressure AND gravity slow matter like interstellar gas clouds down. Only gravity slows down dark matter. We have observed gravity slowing it down. Just not as much as the gas clouds that get slowed down by pressure.
Really dim baryonic matter would only explain some of the many different lines of evidence.
I don't really have a horse in this race, I mean, I could care less which theory turns out to be correct. It just seems like the preponderance of evidence points to a non-baryonic source of mass at this point.
Sorry, got the bit wrong about the stars. But how could cold gas clouds not smash into each other? And why does this observation match up with so many others that also show the existence of dark matter? Critics like to take each piece of evidence separately, and cast doubt on each one, but they rarely seem to want to take on the whole package of evidence at once.
No, it's out there. Things like the bullet cluster pretty much prove that there must be large amounts of some sort of weakly interacting matter. Basically, two galaxies collide. Normal matter in one galaxy interacts with normal mater in the other, slowing it down. But something massive wasn't slowed down and kept right on trucking along the same path at the same speed as before. We only know it is there because of the gravitational lensing it produces. So, we have direct evidence of matter that we can not see, and that does not interact with other stuff except through gravity. Call it whatever you like, it's out there. And that is just one piece of evidence. Galaxy rotation and the CMB are others.
I believe this is one piece of very strong evidence for some sort of pervasive weakly interacting massive stuff. Two galaxies collide. The normal matter interacts with other normal matter and slows down, The "other stuff" does not interact, and keeps moving. We know it is there because it creates a gravitational lens. If the lensing were caused by any sort of matter that interacted with other matter, these lenses would not be located where they are.
So the theory of Dark Matter is more than just "there is more stuff than we can see." We can see specific phenomenon that normal matter just can not produce.
Good question. Assuming you are asking something along the lines of "How does this finding effect the ratio of dark to regular matter?" My guess is, not much, because I don't think the ratio ever really depended on observations of stars, per se.
I don't think that corporations have motivations beyond their component parts, but I think the structure of corporations in general creates the specific moral hazard known as diffusion of responsibility.
Baseless lawsuits? Clinton faced baseless lawsuits. Hers were based on her actual abuse of power, rather than lying about a blowjob. In any case, she quit in a situation where nearly every other politician in history has soldiered on.
Whoops indeed. Not that it matters, the latimes is obviously part of the librul controlled lame-stream media, or something. They must be lying, or misquoting him, or something. Actually, the reason doesn't matter, neither do the facts. Believers are going to believe what they want to, and ignore anything that contradicts those beliefs.
I don't want it to keep going in its present state, but "government" is just a group of people banding together to protect their interests. I hope that doesn't go away.
She stepped down not to campaign, but to duck legal troubles. She was in some serious hot water for abusing her powers as governor. She is a coward and a quitter, and sadly for you and her chances in politics, I'm solidly in the majority in that belief. She will continue to have a nice career as a pundit and media celebrity on Fox News, though, and like all spoiled princesses, fame is all she ever really wanted.
(Sorry, I just have to) Your mom's face is almost as much fun as MichaelKristopeit.
Be that as it may, every other politician in the history of politics has managed to campaign while they worked. Sarah Palin didn't.
By your logic, she should never have been running for another office, she should have been "buckling down" and doing the duty that the citizens of Alaska elected her to do. You did say "one term" not "Half a term," right? I mean, the idea that a politician would serve half a term, then quit to run for another office, that is pretty much the exact opposite of buckling down.
But please, do go on defending her. It's quite amusing to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel of illogical cognitive dissonance while doing so.
Slashdot Mirror
The only so-called Anarchists that want "no government" are the crusty punk circle-A street kids, who aren't real anarchists.
The rest of us know what anarchism really means. You are falling for statist propaganda. Try reading any modern anarchist author before telling anarchists what they are or are not.
Who would you recommend filing a complaint with? The BBB? State AG? I don't really know where to go here...
I bought a laptop for my wife from Best Buy less than a year ago. Normally, I would never buy from them, but this laptop was on sale, and the best bargain we found. It came with a year long subscription to the horrible, horrible Webroot anti-virus program. Less than a year later, we saw a mysterious charge for $49.95 on the credit card we had used to purchase the laptop. Turns out Best Buy had thoughtfully resubscribed us, and only charged us a small fee for the service. Of course, I had uninstalled Webroot the moment we got the laptop home.
We called the credit card company, and as soon as we said the words "best buy" they said "we'll reverse the charges, this happens ALL THE TIME." How is this not criminal fraud on Best Buy's part?
Here is a simple analogy. We are "derived from" apes. Apes are mammals. We are also mammals. Libertarianism is derived from the Boston School of anarchism. The Boston school were anarchists. Libertarians are anarchists. Hope that helps clear up any misunderstanding you may have.
Now I'm off to read "Wealth of Nations" while pretending to work...
Good. Most people that "quote" it have never read it and have no idea what it says.
Oh boy. I always have to do this when conversing with libertarians, as they seem to have no sense of their own history.
Libertarians ARE anarchists. Modern day American Libertarianism derives from the Boston school of anarchism.
Anarchism means "no RULERS." Archon meant ruler or dictator in ancient Greek. We all know the root word for government in ancient Greek: -ocracy. "No government" would be written Anocracy. Anarchism means no hierarchy. There's that "archy" root again.
Please, I can't stress this enough, people, if you have any desire to call yourself a libertarian, BROADEN YOUR HORIZONS! Read about the history and philosophy of anarchism. You may find some branch of anarchism that fits your personal philosophy better than libertarianism does.
Congress has the right to regulate the airwaves, and signals in wires passing over state lines, because congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. BOOYA! Commerce clause FTW!
Interesting. I thought Adam Smith specifically supported patents and copyrights. Could you show me where in his works he said he doesn't? Please, go look it up. See what he actually believed, read Wealth of Nations yourself. Despite the libertarian caricature of him, Adam Smith believed that government regulations were absolutely vital to the functioning of a free market, that government should grant copyrights and patents, enforce contract law, build roads and infrastructure, and basically do everything it is now doing in the economic sphere.
Adam Smith WAS NOT a libertarian. Do not try to rewrite history to make him one.
I've got a remote control that works on every single TV out there. It's called congress. You know, if media companies didn't want to get themselves regulated, they could stop using our public airwaves and cable right-of-ways. Seeing as how they DO use these things, we have the moral and legal right to tell them to turn down the volume. Isn't it nice how contracts and negotiation work?
Your point one and two are functionally equivalent, rendering your whole point rather moot.
People here think they are smart. Some of them are. Some are not. Some that think they are smart, but are not, like to try to prove their intelligence by being contrary. Basically, they take any scientific story, think about it for thirty seconds, come up with one objection based on their misunderstandings, and run that objection into the ground.
They believe this demonstrates their intelligence.
Pressure AND gravity slow matter like interstellar gas clouds down. Only gravity slows down dark matter. We have observed gravity slowing it down. Just not as much as the gas clouds that get slowed down by pressure.
Really dim baryonic matter would only explain some of the many different lines of evidence.
I don't really have a horse in this race, I mean, I could care less which theory turns out to be correct. It just seems like the preponderance of evidence points to a non-baryonic source of mass at this point.
Sorry, got the bit wrong about the stars. But how could cold gas clouds not smash into each other? And why does this observation match up with so many others that also show the existence of dark matter? Critics like to take each piece of evidence separately, and cast doubt on each one, but they rarely seem to want to take on the whole package of evidence at once.
No, it's out there. Things like the bullet cluster pretty much prove that there must be large amounts of some sort of weakly interacting matter. Basically, two galaxies collide. Normal matter in one galaxy interacts with normal mater in the other, slowing it down. But something massive wasn't slowed down and kept right on trucking along the same path at the same speed as before. We only know it is there because of the gravitational lensing it produces. So, we have direct evidence of matter that we can not see, and that does not interact with other stuff except through gravity. Call it whatever you like, it's out there. And that is just one piece of evidence. Galaxy rotation and the CMB are others.
I believe this is one piece of very strong evidence for some sort of pervasive weakly interacting massive stuff. Two galaxies collide. The normal matter interacts with other normal matter and slows down, The "other stuff" does not interact, and keeps moving. We know it is there because it creates a gravitational lens. If the lensing were caused by any sort of matter that interacted with other matter, these lenses would not be located where they are.
So the theory of Dark Matter is more than just "there is more stuff than we can see." We can see specific phenomenon that normal matter just can not produce.
Good question. Assuming you are asking something along the lines of "How does this finding effect the ratio of dark to regular matter?" My guess is, not much, because I don't think the ratio ever really depended on observations of stars, per se.
I don't think that corporations have motivations beyond their component parts, but I think the structure of corporations in general creates the specific moral hazard known as diffusion of responsibility.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal
Baseless lawsuits? Clinton faced baseless lawsuits. Hers were based on her actual abuse of power, rather than lying about a blowjob. In any case, she quit in a situation where nearly every other politician in history has soldiered on.
Then there is this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/03/ron-paul-defend.html
Whoops indeed. Not that it matters, the latimes is obviously part of the librul controlled lame-stream media, or something. They must be lying, or misquoting him, or something. Actually, the reason doesn't matter, neither do the facts. Believers are going to believe what they want to, and ignore anything that contradicts those beliefs.
I don't want it to keep going in its present state, but "government" is just a group of people banding together to protect their interests. I hope that doesn't go away.
It gives me another chance to publicize what those 'baseless' lawsuits were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal
Read about the lawsuit and make up your own mind how 'baseless' they were.
Now thynk, aren't you glad you mentioned those 'baseless' lawsuits? Getting the truth out there feels pretty good, doesn't it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal
She stepped down not to campaign, but to duck legal troubles. She was in some serious hot water for abusing her powers as governor. She is a coward and a quitter, and sadly for you and her chances in politics, I'm solidly in the majority in that belief. She will continue to have a nice career as a pundit and media celebrity on Fox News, though, and like all spoiled princesses, fame is all she ever really wanted.
(Sorry, I just have to) Your mom's face is almost as much fun as MichaelKristopeit.
Be that as it may, every other politician in the history of politics has managed to campaign while they worked. Sarah Palin didn't.
By your logic, she should never have been running for another office, she should have been "buckling down" and doing the duty that the citizens of Alaska elected her to do. You did say "one term" not "Half a term," right? I mean, the idea that a politician would serve half a term, then quit to run for another office, that is pretty much the exact opposite of buckling down.
But please, do go on defending her. It's quite amusing to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel of illogical cognitive dissonance while doing so.