Very few people argue for more taxes than necessary, or more government restrictions than necessary. In that sense, we're all libertarians. We differ widely on what's "necessary".
I am perfectly content to define everyone who would prefer less taxation and fewer government restrictions as libertarian. I think in a broader and practical sense that is an accurate description. But the fundamental underpinning of libertarianism is the ideal of a society that only uses government force and coercion in order to counter force and coercion.
And although therefore libertarians traditionally view just defense, police and the courts to be absolutely necessary to the function of government most libertarian leaning leaders are usually just seeking modest reductions in taxation and spending as a gradual approach to reverse long term trends.
Since the libertarian viewpoint is based on freedom, prosperity and reducing the use of force and violence in society then it isn't good to go cold turkey on government programs which could result in violence in society as people's lives and livelihood's are disrupted. Merely shifting the use of coercive force from government to individuals isn't a net gain. When it regards dismantling social programs I think it is up to libertarians to demonstrate that non-governmental charities and individuals are up to the task of that transition before we phase any of these programs out completely unless we are talking about merely shifting resources to demonstrably more effective programs.
What I do disagree with those that are critical of libertarianism is on the ideal of a libertarian society. Whether practically achievable or not to its fullest extent, to me the ideal of libertarianism is an inherently good value to strive for. And it is a given that this assumes a healthy society where charity and free will have picked up the slack in areas of social good. To me the libertarian ideal is simply like saying better parents don't beat their children, or we should treat others as we wish to be treated. The point is that you have some ideal to strive for and a system of government to perfect.
And conversely that having a society which is based on the growing use of coercive force against its own people to achieve very narrow partisan political gains is a very unhealthy path to be on.
If you read the rest of the summary, they do make the note that while they can't say that that growth is the result of increasing the minimum wage, it doesn't negatively affect it either.
Correlation is not causation. There are real numbers to look at here, but just saying that the minimum wage was increased and the economy is still growing in these states is a very coarse and misleading way of looking at it. The minimum wage hike affected very few people in most states, so I wouldn't expect it to impact the overall numbers... Raise it to $15 or $20 and then I think it would have more noticeable effects. Or find a number that 20% of the workforce is under and raise it to that wage then it would be a real experiment. Giving a few thousand people $20 or $40 or even $80 more per week might allow those people to afford more things, but it probably won't show up as even a blip in the aggregate economic numbers. I support a higher minimum wage, not because I think it will help very many people or address issues of inequity in society, but because it will help some people.
I heard it argued recently that capitalists aren't interested in increased economic activity, only in increasing their share of economic activity. Suppressing labor markets and high unemployment helps.
Capitalism is most efficient when capital is not concentrated into a just a few hands. The principle at the heart of the idea of capitalism being more efficient than other economic systems is the same as the principle of democracy, that decisions made by many people are usually better than decisions made by few people.
Both self described capitalists and those who oppose the concentration of wealth and ascribe the term capitalist to those who concentrate wealth often seem to lose sight of the fact that capitalism is and was supposed to be a form of economic liberalization which was about the equitable distribution of capital. The over concentration of wealth is a failure to maintain a capitalist system rather than the natural result of one. In its original form capitalism and the free market simply mean that people themselves instead of governments get to decide what is of value in the economy.
So for example, while kings and tyrants might not bother themselves with the adequacy of the toilet paper supply when they can employ any number of butt wipers, people willing to spend money on toilet paper and people willing to make toilet paper will usually figure out a way to make it happen. This is a real example from the days of the Soviet Union... ample trees to make paper products, just not enough toilet paper and it just was never a priority high enough for the limited attention of central planners.
And intelligent and rationality requires education on mass, which libertarians also don't want to pay for, making libertarianism a self-defeating system.
And Democracy will always fail when people vote themselves largess from the Treasury. And Monarchies will always fail when the king inevitably decides to have sex with whomever he chooses or gets drunk and decides to invade France... blah blah blah. You can attack any ideals with extreme examples.
Liberty is a good ideal to strive for and that just means seeking a system of government which supports as much freedom as possible. But all sorts of practical things get in the way like taxes and wars and natural disasters and things where it may be easier and more practical to pay for with common taxation. Libertarianism just means that people recognize that it would be better if we could just have a more free and prosperous society which paid for things based on individual free will instead of forced taxation and dictatorship. There is nothing impractical about an ideal... Like basing society on mutual respect and treating others like you would like to be treated... it is an ideal which we are bound to fall short, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good which is worth trying to perfect to the extent that it is practical.
Lincoln also pushed for passage of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery in 1864 and 1865. Yes, it may have taken the pressure of the 1864 presidential campaign to make it a top priority, but regardless of how he got there in the end he really did push to end slavery.
Usually companies that don't provide the expected value to customers will eventually fail or lose market share which is not in the interest of shareholders. I think many of the issues in customer value and satisfaction are actually not because executives are trying to provide value to their shareholders, but because executives are trying to provide short term value to themselves.
If executives were rewarded above a ample yet modest salary in restricted stock that they couldn't just turn around and sell and had to hold on to for something like 10, 15 or even 20 years, then I think you would see companies behaving with a much longer view towards sustainable customer satisfaction.
Right now, speaking as a Verizon customer I am eager for Google Fiber or any other alternative that isn't Comcast to come in and displace Verizon and Comcast in my community. Eventually, probably in the ten to twenty year time frame, Verizon and Comcast will begin to fail as companies because of the ill will they are generating unless they turn things around soon.
The idiocy we are seeing now is the result of poor regulation by the FCC, the states, and localities. We have been predicting fragmentation of the Internet because of the failures of our government to properly regulate and now we are seeing it. We are already seeing some Internet content available to customers of one company but not another.
If you are paying for 75/25 or 50/25 and they are throttling it at the borders of their network, then you aren't getting the bandwidth you are paying for... downgrade your service. That $10, $20 or more per month they aren't getting from you because of their throttling practices should get their attention.
I think you are underplaying the role that local governments play in restricting competition and the role of existing regulations as a barrier to entry. It isn't really all that expensive for a community or non-profit to hire a line crew and string some fiber optic cable and buy some equipment. Compared to something like running pipes underground for water and sewer and running a little wire on telephone poles is trivial. Perhaps the solution is to have more state wide regulation of telephone rights of way instead of leaving it up to municipalities or county governments. The patchwork of regulations and local agreements seems very prone to corrupt practices which is restraining competition.
Prove it. At this point with stagnation or even reduction of service from the Internet providers it isn't at all clear that private companies are doing anything other than gauging customers with the exclusive franchises or licenses they are getting from communities in order to be the only one running wires.
All evidence is pointing to it being better for communities to treat wired communications along public ways as a public utility.
Much is made about the private capital that is used to invest in installing all these wires, but it is the capital of customers which is paying back those original investments. I would say the customers who are actually paying for this should be the ones that decide how they want their communications network managed.
Nice sentiment, but, unfortunately, a public corporation's responsibility is to its shareholders and their interests - which is simply $$$. (and probably executives and cushy bonuses, etc...)
And a government's responsibility is to take action against a company which is committing wholesale fraud against its customers by selling them Internet Service which promises bandwidth speeds which they are then purposefully not providing in order to shake down their customers and companies trying to provide services to those customers more money.
A government's responsibility is to ensure that companies that are given government licenses and franchise agreements which restrict competition in certain geographic areas are providing the service that the people of that area want and need at a fair price.
A government's responsibility is to ensure that companies which get too big, hold too much market share and are too horizontally or vertically integrated are broken up so that there can be real competition and a real free market.
Maybe so. I am not a great fan of Lincoln. In many ways he acted like a tyrant and violated the constitution often times flagrantly during the war when dealing with individuals and dissent. And I believe a truly great person and president would have found a way to prevent civil war and bloodshed in the first place, or maybe it was an impossible task.
But the difference is and was that in the end that Lincoln decided to fight for Liberty instead of against it. He decided to make the civil war about freeing the slaves instead of just suppressing dissent in the South (and the North). Sure, maybe this was window dressing on what had been a rudderless and ruthless presidency and maybe he was late to the game, but perhaps the lesson is that while you are still president it is not too late.
Just like it is not too late for Obama to be the president to be remembered for sticking up for the constitution instead of defending those government violations of all our civil rights.
Right now what will Obama be remembered for? Revelations of wholesale violations of civil rights that he defended instead of putting a stop to? It would be like Lincoln fighting the civil war with hundreds of thousands of dead and then appointing a commission to explore ending slavery instead of issuing the emancipation proclamation.
Obama has the power with one executive order to have the same lasting effect as Lincoln did with his emancipation proclamation or with his Gettysburg address. An America without Liberty is an America without purpose.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
- said by Abraham Lincoln on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
Except that the response you get from Americans is "well, fuck it, as long as it's someone else's rights, who cares?".
Actually, the NSA is actively violating the constitutional rights of every single American by ordering all the companies we do business with to hand over all their records on us. It matters because when the rule of law, especially our fundamental rights, are not respected by those with the highest responsibility to uphold them, then the rule of law breaks down and then we get the rule of the strongest factions and the elimination of freedom for all. We might already be there, but I hope it is not too late to restore the rule of law without a new civil war or a new revolution.
That type of interferometer would be for detecting low frequency gravity waves. I think you would need some high frequency oscillating or vibrating mass in close proximity to a smaller detector in order to look for a physical threshold for the propagation of high frequency gravity waves.
The Doctor: "Yeah, it's fine, we're just entering conceptual space. Imagine a banana, or anything curved; actually don't, because it's not curved or like a banana. Forget the banana!"
A company I worked at paid significantly less. Also, even if particular companies are paying the "exact same salary" as other employees in the same or similar positions then the mere fact of increasing the number of prospective job seekers is going to dilute the market and reduce salaries for everyone. That combined with the fact that some companies are actually abusing the h1b system and paying reduced salaries reduces what the "market" rate is for those types of jobs.
So to me when I hear "more regulation" or "less regulation", or "big government" versus "small government" I hear two sides missing the point.
I think what we need is better government, not necessarily more or less, not necessarily bigger or smaller not necessarily more regulations or less.
Sure, In many cases I think we probably do need fewer actual pages of regulations, but ones which are more effective at accomplishing the public purpose. Tax law is a good example of law that needs simplification if just for the sheer insanity of the tax code. But you could look at environmental laws the same way. And then there are the actual numbers of regulators going around and enforcing the law, which is all part of actual executive part of "regulation".
If I had to make a generalization, it would be that we need more regulators with fewer actual lines of regulations to enforce.
I am a libertarian and an environmentalist. Here in Massachusetts, one of the more liberal environmentalist states by reputation and I've found that many many of our laws and regulations regarding the environment and wetlands specifically, boil down to the discretion of various boards and bureaucrats and the many many lines of language regarding criteria and standards are just window dressing to be cast aside by the discretion of multiple layers of obscure public officials as long as you have the money and connections to jump through all the right hoops. This has the insidious effect of favoring larger and denser developments near wetlands which is the exact opposite effect that you would want in order to protect the quality of your water and wetland habitats. Or then maybe in your community you have different officials with different standards which are actually upheld.
So yes, I do think as both a libertarian and an environmentalist we would be better served by fewer environmental regulations, but with criteria and standards that are meaningful and actually enforced in a more uniform way rather than with regulations that seem there solely to give jobs to environmental engineers and are there to reward the developers with the most connections, the most money and those that propose the biggest most potentially disruptive projects and can afford all the lawyers and "donations" to get the job done.
Saying or implying that corporations want less regulations is an oversimplification which is often not the case. It is often the case that more regulations give more power to those that had a hand in crafting them or to those companies that can afford the lawyers to use and get around those regulations. Burdensome regulations can become just another tool in the corporate tool chest which can be used as a barrier to entry to competition without accomplishing any public purpose. But it is that public purpose that we must focus our laws and regulations on.
Once you have determined a worthy public purpose, then the size or magnitude of laws, regulation and government should be a practical consideration more so than an ideological one, except to say that big enough to do the job should be the goal and anything bigger is depriving people of their property, wealth and livelihoods unnecessarily.
In a "free market", people can still come and bulldoze your house. Who is going to stop them?
In a libertarian capitalist free market you would have a few options in order of preference
1) Ask them to stop which is your freedom of speech.
2) Point a gun at them and ask them not to or shoot them if they don't stop. 2nd amendment
3) Call the police and have them sort it out if there is still time or arrest them after the fact if they did not have permission.
4) Go to court to seek damages and/or a restraining order which the police would be obligated to enforce.
Or were you thinking of something else?
Great, so if you have enough money to sue the other guy, you're fine.
You only need to hire lawyers because our laws have become so numerous, complicated, redundant, contradictory and cumbersome that if you don't hire a lawyer the guy that can afford to hire a lawyer will screw you on some technicality. Lawyers writing laws to further their own profession are partly or even mostly to blame for the current state of affairs, that and judges seem just as invested in protecting the legal profession over protecting the rule of law and maintaining an equitable system of laws. I think that one of the aims of libertarianism would be to make the courts more accessible to people in part by streamlining our laws, regulations and legal processes.
That said I don't see any reason why tort law would be the only recourse to someone harming you or depriving you of your property in some way. Libertarians don't believe in eliminating criminal law for things akin to murder, assault, theft and fraud... that is anarchy not liberty.
At its heart libertarianism is just about minimizing the threat and use of force by the government to just those things which are truly essential government functions. However, Laws which protect people from the use of force by others are one of those essential government functions.
Real libertarians don't believe you can pollute your neighbors land or your neighbors air without legal consequences. A person depriving another of the use of their property (such as by polluting it) or violating their rights would be at the heart of what types of things a libertarian would want laws prohibiting or punishing. As to whether the particular circumstances of one person depriving others of their rights are best regulated by laws, regulations, criminal law or civil tort those are practical matters not about the ideals of liberty.
As for the common good, libertarians just believe that charity is better than having the government put a gun to your head telling you what to give and who to give it to.
Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a society that just cold turkey dropped public welfare and benefits, but I think moving towards a system of voluntary charity and looking for ways to keep the government out of our homes and bedrooms is much much better than a system of forced taxation to deal with individual needs.
If the charities and social groups aren't up to the task, then as a practical matter I would rather see people taken care of then not, but I would also rather elect someone who sees that as a slippery slope of government coercion and dependency than someone who doesn't see the inherent (but sometimes necessary) evil in using force to take from one person to give to another.
In terms of practical policies, I think that libertarian values are simply put that government, taxation and the use of force by the government are sometimes necessary evils to be minimized as much as practical. Versus the alternative view that just sees government, taxation and the use of force by government as necessary without acknowledging the "sometimes" or evil parts of that statement.
There is nothing natural about a free market capitalist society allowing itself to be transformed from a society with more equitable distribution of capital into a society where very few people control most of the wealth and people are not really free to exchange goods, services and capital.
This is happening as the result of government regulations and because of public policies and not simply some sort of passive "deregulation" where the government steps back and does nothing. The government isn't deregulating. We have as much regulation as ever, it is just violently skewed towards protecting the vast and unbridled wealth of the rich while not diligently making sure that those without wealth have a level playing field in a free market.
If people continue to breed as they currently do, we're going to be just fine.
That would be true only if current population levels are actually sustainable over a longer term and depends on what your definition of "just fine" is. The evidence so far is mixed. Yes, we have apparently been able to feed almost everyone and there is some additional arable land that could be put into production, but not too much more land, especially given the pressures of development for housing, industry and transportation. And we have seen some pretty massive wars and genocides in the last hundred years which are at least partly the result of temporary or perceived resource scarcity. Japan wanted to control its oil supply in World War II and Germany wanted to directly control its oil, coal and food supplies. Other wars have been about oil. The Rwandan Genocide certainly had a component that was caused by resource scarcity.
So far with a human population in the billions "just fine" has meant periodic wars and genocides which kill millions and millions of people.
I don't think "just fine" means what you think it means and we would be really much better off if we had worldwide birthrates somewhat below replacement population. When it comes to population and natural resource utilization you never want to think about getting anywhere close to 100% capacity. You should always aim for excess production capacity to account for natural disasters and wars.
Slashdot Mirror
Very few people argue for more taxes than necessary, or more government restrictions than necessary. In that sense, we're all libertarians. We differ widely on what's "necessary".
I am perfectly content to define everyone who would prefer less taxation and fewer government restrictions as libertarian. I think in a broader and practical sense that is an accurate description. But the fundamental underpinning of libertarianism is the ideal of a society that only uses government force and coercion in order to counter force and coercion.
And although therefore libertarians traditionally view just defense, police and the courts to be absolutely necessary to the function of government most libertarian leaning leaders are usually just seeking modest reductions in taxation and spending as a gradual approach to reverse long term trends.
Since the libertarian viewpoint is based on freedom, prosperity and reducing the use of force and violence in society then it isn't good to go cold turkey on government programs which could result in violence in society as people's lives and livelihood's are disrupted. Merely shifting the use of coercive force from government to individuals isn't a net gain. When it regards dismantling social programs I think it is up to libertarians to demonstrate that non-governmental charities and individuals are up to the task of that transition before we phase any of these programs out completely unless we are talking about merely shifting resources to demonstrably more effective programs.
What I do disagree with those that are critical of libertarianism is on the ideal of a libertarian society. Whether practically achievable or not to its fullest extent, to me the ideal of libertarianism is an inherently good value to strive for. And it is a given that this assumes a healthy society where charity and free will have picked up the slack in areas of social good. To me the libertarian ideal is simply like saying better parents don't beat their children, or we should treat others as we wish to be treated. The point is that you have some ideal to strive for and a system of government to perfect.
And conversely that having a society which is based on the growing use of coercive force against its own people to achieve very narrow partisan political gains is a very unhealthy path to be on.
If you read the rest of the summary, they do make the note that while they can't say that that growth is the result of increasing the minimum wage, it doesn't negatively affect it either.
Correlation is not causation. There are real numbers to look at here, but just saying that the minimum wage was increased and the economy is still growing in these states is a very coarse and misleading way of looking at it. The minimum wage hike affected very few people in most states, so I wouldn't expect it to impact the overall numbers... Raise it to $15 or $20 and then I think it would have more noticeable effects. Or find a number that 20% of the workforce is under and raise it to that wage then it would be a real experiment. Giving a few thousand people $20 or $40 or even $80 more per week might allow those people to afford more things, but it probably won't show up as even a blip in the aggregate economic numbers. I support a higher minimum wage, not because I think it will help very many people or address issues of inequity in society, but because it will help some people.
I heard it argued recently that capitalists aren't interested in increased economic activity, only in increasing their share of economic activity. Suppressing labor markets and high unemployment helps.
Capitalism is most efficient when capital is not concentrated into a just a few hands. The principle at the heart of the idea of capitalism being more efficient than other economic systems is the same as the principle of democracy, that decisions made by many people are usually better than decisions made by few people.
Both self described capitalists and those who oppose the concentration of wealth and ascribe the term capitalist to those who concentrate wealth often seem to lose sight of the fact that capitalism is and was supposed to be a form of economic liberalization which was about the equitable distribution of capital. The over concentration of wealth is a failure to maintain a capitalist system rather than the natural result of one. In its original form capitalism and the free market simply mean that people themselves instead of governments get to decide what is of value in the economy.
So for example, while kings and tyrants might not bother themselves with the adequacy of the toilet paper supply when they can employ any number of butt wipers, people willing to spend money on toilet paper and people willing to make toilet paper will usually figure out a way to make it happen. This is a real example from the days of the Soviet Union... ample trees to make paper products, just not enough toilet paper and it just was never a priority high enough for the limited attention of central planners.
And intelligent and rationality requires education on mass, which libertarians also don't want to pay for, making libertarianism a self-defeating system.
And Democracy will always fail when people vote themselves largess from the Treasury. And Monarchies will always fail when the king inevitably decides to have sex with whomever he chooses or gets drunk and decides to invade France... blah blah blah. You can attack any ideals with extreme examples.
Liberty is a good ideal to strive for and that just means seeking a system of government which supports as much freedom as possible. But all sorts of practical things get in the way like taxes and wars and natural disasters and things where it may be easier and more practical to pay for with common taxation. Libertarianism just means that people recognize that it would be better if we could just have a more free and prosperous society which paid for things based on individual free will instead of forced taxation and dictatorship. There is nothing impractical about an ideal... Like basing society on mutual respect and treating others like you would like to be treated... it is an ideal which we are bound to fall short, but that doesn't mean it isn't a good which is worth trying to perfect to the extent that it is practical.
Lincoln also pushed for passage of the 13th amendment abolishing slavery in 1864 and 1865. Yes, it may have taken the pressure of the 1864 presidential campaign to make it a top priority, but regardless of how he got there in the end he really did push to end slavery.
They can apparently selectively throttle connections regardless of what you are paying for so why pay more for unreliable service?
Yes, damn Slashdot and no editing after posting.
Usually companies that don't provide the expected value to customers will eventually fail or lose market share which is not in the interest of shareholders. I think many of the issues in customer value and satisfaction are actually not because executives are trying to provide value to their shareholders, but because executives are trying to provide short term value to themselves.
If executives were rewarded above a ample yet modest salary in restricted stock that they couldn't just turn around and sell and had to hold on to for something like 10, 15 or even 20 years, then I think you would see companies behaving with a much longer view towards sustainable customer satisfaction.
Right now, speaking as a Verizon customer I am eager for Google Fiber or any other alternative that isn't Comcast to come in and displace Verizon and Comcast in my community. Eventually, probably in the ten to twenty year time frame, Verizon and Comcast will begin to fail as companies because of the ill will they are generating unless they turn things around soon.
The idiocy we are seeing now is the result of poor regulation by the FCC, the states, and localities. We have been predicting fragmentation of the Internet because of the failures of our government to properly regulate and now we are seeing it. We are already seeing some Internet content available to customers of one company but not another.
If you are paying for 75/25 or 50/25 and they are throttling it at the borders of their network, then you aren't getting the bandwidth you are paying for... downgrade your service. That $10, $20 or more per month they aren't getting from you because of their throttling practices should get their attention.
I think you are underplaying the role that local governments play in restricting competition and the role of existing regulations as a barrier to entry. It isn't really all that expensive for a community or non-profit to hire a line crew and string some fiber optic cable and buy some equipment. Compared to something like running pipes underground for water and sewer and running a little wire on telephone poles is trivial. Perhaps the solution is to have more state wide regulation of telephone rights of way instead of leaving it up to municipalities or county governments. The patchwork of regulations and local agreements seems very prone to corrupt practices which is restraining competition.
Prove it. At this point with stagnation or even reduction of service from the Internet providers it isn't at all clear that private companies are doing anything other than gauging customers with the exclusive franchises or licenses they are getting from communities in order to be the only one running wires.
All evidence is pointing to it being better for communities to treat wired communications along public ways as a public utility.
Much is made about the private capital that is used to invest in installing all these wires, but it is the capital of customers which is paying back those original investments. I would say the customers who are actually paying for this should be the ones that decide how they want their communications network managed.
Nice sentiment, but, unfortunately, a public corporation's responsibility is to its shareholders and their interests - which is simply $$$. (and probably executives and cushy bonuses, etc...)
And a government's responsibility is to take action against a company which is committing wholesale fraud against its customers by selling them Internet Service which promises bandwidth speeds which they are then purposefully not providing in order to shake down their customers and companies trying to provide services to those customers more money.
A government's responsibility is to ensure that companies that are given government licenses and franchise agreements which restrict competition in certain geographic areas are providing the service that the people of that area want and need at a fair price.
A government's responsibility is to ensure that companies which get too big, hold too much market share and are too horizontally or vertically integrated are broken up so that there can be real competition and a real free market.
Maybe so. I am not a great fan of Lincoln. In many ways he acted like a tyrant and violated the constitution often times flagrantly during the war when dealing with individuals and dissent. And I believe a truly great person and president would have found a way to prevent civil war and bloodshed in the first place, or maybe it was an impossible task.
But the difference is and was that in the end that Lincoln decided to fight for Liberty instead of against it. He decided to make the civil war about freeing the slaves instead of just suppressing dissent in the South (and the North). Sure, maybe this was window dressing on what had been a rudderless and ruthless presidency and maybe he was late to the game, but perhaps the lesson is that while you are still president it is not too late.
Just like it is not too late for Obama to be the president to be remembered for sticking up for the constitution instead of defending those government violations of all our civil rights.
Right now what will Obama be remembered for? Revelations of wholesale violations of civil rights that he defended instead of putting a stop to? It would be like Lincoln fighting the civil war with hundreds of thousands of dead and then appointing a commission to explore ending slavery instead of issuing the emancipation proclamation.
Obama has the power with one executive order to have the same lasting effect as Lincoln did with his emancipation proclamation or with his Gettysburg address. An America without Liberty is an America without purpose.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
- said by Abraham Lincoln on the afternoon of Thursday, November 19, 1863, at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
Except that the response you get from Americans is "well, fuck it, as long as it's someone else's rights, who cares?".
Actually, the NSA is actively violating the constitutional rights of every single American by ordering all the companies we do business with to hand over all their records on us. It matters because when the rule of law, especially our fundamental rights, are not respected by those with the highest responsibility to uphold them, then the rule of law breaks down and then we get the rule of the strongest factions and the elimination of freedom for all. We might already be there, but I hope it is not too late to restore the rule of law without a new civil war or a new revolution.
That type of interferometer would be for detecting low frequency gravity waves. I think you would need some high frequency oscillating or vibrating mass in close proximity to a smaller detector in order to look for a physical threshold for the propagation of high frequency gravity waves.
The Doctor: "Yeah, it's fine, we're just entering conceptual space. Imagine a banana, or anything curved; actually don't, because it's not curved or like a banana. Forget the banana!"
A company I worked at paid significantly less. Also, even if particular companies are paying the "exact same salary" as other employees in the same or similar positions then the mere fact of increasing the number of prospective job seekers is going to dilute the market and reduce salaries for everyone. That combined with the fact that some companies are actually abusing the h1b system and paying reduced salaries reduces what the "market" rate is for those types of jobs.
So to me when I hear "more regulation" or "less regulation", or "big government" versus "small government" I hear two sides missing the point.
I think what we need is better government, not necessarily more or less, not necessarily bigger or smaller not necessarily more regulations or less.
Sure, In many cases I think we probably do need fewer actual pages of regulations, but ones which are more effective at accomplishing the public purpose. Tax law is a good example of law that needs simplification if just for the sheer insanity of the tax code. But you could look at environmental laws the same way. And then there are the actual numbers of regulators going around and enforcing the law, which is all part of actual executive part of "regulation".
If I had to make a generalization, it would be that we need more regulators with fewer actual lines of regulations to enforce.
I am a libertarian and an environmentalist. Here in Massachusetts, one of the more liberal environmentalist states by reputation and I've found that many many of our laws and regulations regarding the environment and wetlands specifically, boil down to the discretion of various boards and bureaucrats and the many many lines of language regarding criteria and standards are just window dressing to be cast aside by the discretion of multiple layers of obscure public officials as long as you have the money and connections to jump through all the right hoops. This has the insidious effect of favoring larger and denser developments near wetlands which is the exact opposite effect that you would want in order to protect the quality of your water and wetland habitats. Or then maybe in your community you have different officials with different standards which are actually upheld.
So yes, I do think as both a libertarian and an environmentalist we would be better served by fewer environmental regulations, but with criteria and standards that are meaningful and actually enforced in a more uniform way rather than with regulations that seem there solely to give jobs to environmental engineers and are there to reward the developers with the most connections, the most money and those that propose the biggest most potentially disruptive projects and can afford all the lawyers and "donations" to get the job done.
Saying or implying that corporations want less regulations is an oversimplification which is often not the case. It is often the case that more regulations give more power to those that had a hand in crafting them or to those companies that can afford the lawyers to use and get around those regulations. Burdensome regulations can become just another tool in the corporate tool chest which can be used as a barrier to entry to competition without accomplishing any public purpose. But it is that public purpose that we must focus our laws and regulations on.
Once you have determined a worthy public purpose, then the size or magnitude of laws, regulation and government should be a practical consideration more so than an ideological one, except to say that big enough to do the job should be the goal and anything bigger is depriving people of their property, wealth and livelihoods unnecessarily.
In a "free market", people can still come and bulldoze your house. Who is going to stop them?
In a libertarian capitalist free market you would have a few options in order of preference 1) Ask them to stop which is your freedom of speech. 2) Point a gun at them and ask them not to or shoot them if they don't stop. 2nd amendment 3) Call the police and have them sort it out if there is still time or arrest them after the fact if they did not have permission. 4) Go to court to seek damages and/or a restraining order which the police would be obligated to enforce. Or were you thinking of something else?
Great, so if you have enough money to sue the other guy, you're fine.
You only need to hire lawyers because our laws have become so numerous, complicated, redundant, contradictory and cumbersome that if you don't hire a lawyer the guy that can afford to hire a lawyer will screw you on some technicality. Lawyers writing laws to further their own profession are partly or even mostly to blame for the current state of affairs, that and judges seem just as invested in protecting the legal profession over protecting the rule of law and maintaining an equitable system of laws. I think that one of the aims of libertarianism would be to make the courts more accessible to people in part by streamlining our laws, regulations and legal processes.
That said I don't see any reason why tort law would be the only recourse to someone harming you or depriving you of your property in some way. Libertarians don't believe in eliminating criminal law for things akin to murder, assault, theft and fraud... that is anarchy not liberty.
At its heart libertarianism is just about minimizing the threat and use of force by the government to just those things which are truly essential government functions. However, Laws which protect people from the use of force by others are one of those essential government functions.
Real libertarians don't believe you can pollute your neighbors land or your neighbors air without legal consequences. A person depriving another of the use of their property (such as by polluting it) or violating their rights would be at the heart of what types of things a libertarian would want laws prohibiting or punishing. As to whether the particular circumstances of one person depriving others of their rights are best regulated by laws, regulations, criminal law or civil tort those are practical matters not about the ideals of liberty.
As for the common good, libertarians just believe that charity is better than having the government put a gun to your head telling you what to give and who to give it to.
Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a society that just cold turkey dropped public welfare and benefits, but I think moving towards a system of voluntary charity and looking for ways to keep the government out of our homes and bedrooms is much much better than a system of forced taxation to deal with individual needs.
If the charities and social groups aren't up to the task, then as a practical matter I would rather see people taken care of then not, but I would also rather elect someone who sees that as a slippery slope of government coercion and dependency than someone who doesn't see the inherent (but sometimes necessary) evil in using force to take from one person to give to another.
In terms of practical policies, I think that libertarian values are simply put that government, taxation and the use of force by the government are sometimes necessary evils to be minimized as much as practical. Versus the alternative view that just sees government, taxation and the use of force by government as necessary without acknowledging the "sometimes" or evil parts of that statement.
There is nothing natural about a free market capitalist society allowing itself to be transformed from a society with more equitable distribution of capital into a society where very few people control most of the wealth and people are not really free to exchange goods, services and capital.
This is happening as the result of government regulations and because of public policies and not simply some sort of passive "deregulation" where the government steps back and does nothing. The government isn't deregulating. We have as much regulation as ever, it is just violently skewed towards protecting the vast and unbridled wealth of the rich while not diligently making sure that those without wealth have a level playing field in a free market.
If people continue to breed as they currently do, we're going to be just fine.
That would be true only if current population levels are actually sustainable over a longer term and depends on what your definition of "just fine" is. The evidence so far is mixed. Yes, we have apparently been able to feed almost everyone and there is some additional arable land that could be put into production, but not too much more land, especially given the pressures of development for housing, industry and transportation. And we have seen some pretty massive wars and genocides in the last hundred years which are at least partly the result of temporary or perceived resource scarcity. Japan wanted to control its oil supply in World War II and Germany wanted to directly control its oil, coal and food supplies. Other wars have been about oil. The Rwandan Genocide certainly had a component that was caused by resource scarcity.
So far with a human population in the billions "just fine" has meant periodic wars and genocides which kill millions and millions of people.
I don't think "just fine" means what you think it means and we would be really much better off if we had worldwide birthrates somewhat below replacement population. When it comes to population and natural resource utilization you never want to think about getting anywhere close to 100% capacity. You should always aim for excess production capacity to account for natural disasters and wars.