I use e-gold. The problem is (as told by the greatest Congressman in U.S. history) that the U.S. Government messes with fiat money as well as buys and sells gold in order to hide the terrible inflation (20%+) we're experiencing right now.
We're in a terrible recession but because of the government's holdings in gold, you can't tell because they prevent the price of gold from skyrocketing as it does in an inflation. This is the government you want regulating the banking industry?
I don't use an FDIC-insured bank. I use a credit union. They pay me better interest, I am insured up to $325,000 (by 3 seperate insurance companies internationally), and they loan money to the kind of people I want to see that money going to.
Banking regulations hurt consumers, not help. The red tape costs are VERY high, the government passes more and more laws requiring disclosure of deposits and transactions (snooping), and our wonderful federal reserve buys and sells gold and messes with interest rates making it more and more difficult to get value out of the fiat dollar.
I say give us more non-bank banks. If I could find an unregulated money-holder for me, I'd use it immediately IF they had good third party insurers, better interest, and less government big brother intrusion into my transactions.
DO NOT call your congressman.
on
More on MPEG4
·
· Score: 2
Every time something "bad" happens, people want more laws and more regulation. If you haven't seen by now, laws and regulations hurt guys like us, not the big guys.
If a company wants to charge for every minute you watch TV, or go to the supermarket, or sleep in a bed, and you don't like it, STOP SUPPORTING THAT COMPANY.
In the end, the free market works very well here. You will end up finding other forms of entertainment (probably by ignoring the mass-market crap, and finding better independently produced features). Those who like paying for the product will do so if they feel it isn't more expensive than they are willing to pay.
I can't believe people holler about calling their representatives. The 9th and 10th amendment prohibit federal government from getting involved in these situations anyway.
The only thing I call my Congressional reps and Senators for is to REPEAL laws that "help the consumer" like a law this guy wants made.
The majority of libertarians I know believe that we need to reduce the size of FEDERAL GOVERNMENT a ton, reduce the size of STATE GOVERNMENT a lot, and do whatever we want to do with the size of local government - INCREASE it greatly, decrease, whatever.
If you want safe cars, you'll go live with other people who want safe cars. If you want social security, you'll go live with people who also agree that government controlled welfare and retirement plans are the status quo.
Our Constitution was set up this way -- whatever wasn't allotted to Federal government was left for either the people or the states to decide. Instead, our Congress and Executive branch take more and more and more powers in the name of "The children" or "the elderly" or "working class citizens."
None of it is Constitutional. The end of our fine country is probably closer than you think.:(
Funny you should mention those. None of them are truly deregulated, especially not California's electricity. In many of these situations, they were deregulated JUST ENOUGH to be considered partial deregulation, but what was still regulated let the government either cap prices (California's case), or impose a monopoly (the local telephone service case).
Canana got rid of their FAA -- one of the worst in the industry. They privatized it a few years ago, and now their flight safety and on-time arrivals are up 60% -- one of the best in the industry.
Don't say deregulation has failed -- you can't pick one case of total deregulation where it hasn't improved the situation significantly.
Decades ago, F.A. Hayek and Mises founded a new economic theory that seems to hold true better than the ones of old. Smaller government = less government intervention in our lives. End the drug war, and drug dealers won't be able to pay off the government. End government subsidies of the farm industry, and you'll see the huge farm conglomerates won't bribe Congress for more subsidies. End our foreign policy involvement in policing the world, and you'll see the "defense" contractors won't bribe Congress in order to go to war (illegally) against other countries.
As for open competition: we have NEVER had a monopoly that wasn't government created through subsidies and tariffs. Truly open competition allows the consumers to decide if they want a company to prosper. There are SO MANY examples of consumers destroying big business solely through their purchasing power.
Guys like Nader and the rest attempted to hurt Big Business, but if you look at every fight Nader has claimed to have won, you really see that it wasn't government that ended a "monopoly," but consumers who were educated stopped buying that product. It takes government too long to get anything done, but businesses can change and adapt in the blink of an eye.
As government works harder to "protect" the consumer, all you see are big businesses bribing government to get more subsidies and financial help.
If you want, drop me an e-mail and I'll give you some good books to review with better proofs and details on why the free market can and will work.
The free market has never been given a chance at all. In every situation where America has allowed the free market to operate un-regulated, it HAS worked. In every situation where government has attempted to regulate, you only see big business running amuck.
How about we try and see where it will work? Some countries in South American have deregulated their social security system, only to watch retiree benefits sky rocket when they invest in the free market. In the U.S., our system is in virtual collapse. Step by step, our country is only becoming socialist: redistributing wealth, while government takes a cut to distribute to their cronies and peers. Things will never get worse that way.
Typical socialist bah-ness to free markets. The Britain of the 18th century was anything BUT laissez-faire, if you properly review history. But that's another debate.
Big business only does what Congress allows it to do. Campaign finance reform will only hurt the 3rd parties, and it will only help the incumbents. The media corporations love Campaign finance reform, because it allows them to pick which representatives to cover. And guess who is buying out all the media corporations for this reason?
Limiting how Big Business pays of Congress will only cut off the medium and small sized businesses -- there will always be loopholes in how Congress can be bribed. Or, you can cut Congress' powers entirely to only what is in the Constitution.
Do not believe socialists. They condemn free markets, even though free markets have shown time and again that they work (long distance prices dropped during PROPER deregulation, the prices of computers falling as government never got involved, etc). When even a tiny bit of government remains, deregulation fails of course.
You think India and Japan grew because of regulation? Look at the facts of that. Their economies grew because of business output, not because government got involved or uninvolved. Business breeds profit and well being, government breeds corruption and distrust of your fellow man.
Here's yet another reason why increasing the size and power of Government will only deteriorate the rights of the common man. These anti-speech measures will only increase in number as long as the average person votes for the three parties above.
Advocating liberty means supporting the decrease of big government. Stop asking for handouts, no matter what type (corporate subsidies, welfare, social security, etc) because those handouts come with reductions in our rights, like the big corporations want. If you want to end these ludicrous and obviously unconstitutional laws, then vote for the only party that advocates disassembling any law that is unconstitutional: the Libertarian Party.
I hate being a broken record, but ALL these laws (SSSCA, DMCA, etc) are unconstitutional, but as long as Congress is more powerful than the Constitution allows, they will never be repealed.
My view on copy protection: let manufacturers make an unbreakable copy protection scheme if they want. Let hardware developers get in bed with software developers. But DO NOT LET THEM have laws that prevent reverse engineering. Do let the free market consumer power choose between an encrypted uncopyable format, and possibly an open format advocated by another group of software publishers.
As long as we allow the RIAA and MPAA and other large organizations lobby Congress to overextend Congressional power, we'll always be victims. The free market works, but only if you get government out of it.
We can not allow Congress to do this. The Constitution prohibits them from regulating this industry. If we don't want our information available on whois, we must find a private market solution. I just can't believe people would want MORE government in an area where the lack of government has propelled all of our lives to higher standards.
If you dislike the whois database containing your information, let's e-mail, call, and write letters to the organizations telling them we want more privacy. Eventually, we must find a way to find a provider who will offer us the privacy we want.
Or, use the free market solution -- create an e-mail address you don't use, and check it once in a while for important e-mails. Filter out anything but what comes from your ISP or registrar.
The replies to my post were very intriguing and possibly eye-opening. I definitely will do more research in this area. A lot of my views on the environment come from groups such as PERC.ORG, which are environmentalists who realize that private land trusts work better than public ones.
I have seen, read, and personally experienced at least 4 different government "preserves" of land, and if anyone really thinks that government land is the cleanest, then they haven't gone there themselves. Enough of our public lands have been polluted just by the visitors who have come to see the pristine nature...ugh.
My primary response to a lot of these responses in the one that gets me into hot water with pretty much everyone: a true libertarian does not see any constitutional legality in the definition of a corporation today. It is my firm belief that all corporations are consisted of men, and these men should be held liable for what the corporation have done or will do. This includes polluting other people's lands 100 years from now.
I know a lot of libertarians agree with me that the first step to save our nation is to end Congress' unconstitutional powers, and secondly to end or severely limit the limited liability that corporations have. If man does bad, then man should suffer for his sins against others. Corporations can go bankrupt, but its much harder for individuals to head down that path.
You're right in many ways, but you're wrong in a key way: you say, and I quote, "We should limit companies ability to influence any government."
This is where you're wrong. In a Constitutional republic scheme like the U.S.'s founding fathers created, it is not business that is limited, but Congress and government. Our Constitution specifically forbids Congress, the President, and any federal body from subsidizing or restricting any business.
This is a key feature of our Congress -- the right to free trade. Instead of "protecting" the U.S. business, what needs to be done is let U.S. businesses compete on a world-scale. Instead of extending copyright to 150 years, return it to 7+7 years maximum, and you'll see a great deal of growth in authorship.
Don't limit businesses, campaign finances, or anything like that. Return our federal government to their constitutional, basic authority, and you'll see a lot of these problems will disappear -- taking along with them the income tax, welfare, property taxes, etc.
My views on the environment are fairly anti-libertarian in many ways, but I believe 100% that the libertarian solution carries the only solution to it.
When land is owned publicly, it is treated badly. When you want to find the worst perpetrators of the environment, you'll find commercial businesses polluting on public land that they lease.
By taking the libertarian road, and privatizing all land, you're now give businesses and people a vested interest in keeping the value of the land high, not low. Just like a renter of an apartment takes generally worse care of the place than a condo owner, the same is true of a company or an individual who may one day want to sell the land for its value.
If everyone owns their land rather than leasing it from a public entity, you now have civil protection against someone polluting your land. Some big industry pumps poisons into their river that end up in your groundwater? Now you can sue. Currently, when a business pollutes on leased government land, who do you sue? The government? These are the same guys that leave loopholes in the law so that their buddies CAN pollute.
The people who think that there is no way that pro-environmental scientists aren't harboring a conspiracy are nuts. Every science I've had the ability to witness has some "global" conspiracies that are used in order to keep people "needed" that business. The environment is no different.
The worst polluters in the world are socialist governments. That's a fact. The most pristine forests in the world are on private land. That's a fact. Some of the forest preserves in Central American that are privately owned are so much cleaner than the public land residing next door to them that its scary that people really want our government running the forest preserve system.
If you want to protect or preserve some land, find others who agree with you, and set up a private land trust. Its happening more and more around the world, AND IT WORKS.
If you want the air cleaner, then get government out of the air regulation. End the EPA. If a business is pumping chemicals into the air, its up to the third party watchdog groups to monitor it, and let people know. When there is legal evidence that a company is harming land or individuals off of their property, then a civil lawsuit can entail. End of story.
Sure, there are flaws in my "world," but the flaws in today's world are obvious: environmental protection laws hurt small individual landowners, as the large business either lease their land from government, or get such amazing loopholes granting to them in the laws, that they actually can pollute more, not less.
If the cable provider stores every show, every movie, and all that on their end, and only streams into everyone's bandwidth whatever end users are requesting, you won't really need much at your end, not even a scheduled guide.
That's how VOD will end up working. Targeted ads, the ability to queue up a movie in 1/2 hour or less, and allow others to watch it... Even download entire movies to a Tivo like receiver at your end.
The upside of this is smaller shows that don't have a wide audience DO have the capacity to keep living if enough of an audience is willing to "pay-per-view" the show. I know a few shows I would love to have paid $5 or so a month for to keep alive, but because of bandwidth limitations, they would never have stayed on the air. Ideas like this will lead to a better programming structure I hope...
It's my fault.. I've had a Tivo since it was released, and plan on having another one or two once the inter-networking works well.
I never watched TV before. Ever. I'd try to catch a show on occasion, but my schedule as well as commercial overload prevented me. When I purchased a Tivo, I immediately found a few shows I actually found worth watching.
When friends and family come over, I tell them all the same thing: stay away. Don't get it. These are the same people who call me when they forget to hit the "Video Input" button to use their VCR, or call me when their CD player won't play the CD (its upside down).
I can not imagine any normal person truly using the Tivo until they make an incredibly simple "M$ Wizard"-like interface.
Something like "We noticed you watched friends twice this past month, would you like me to record it?" or "We noticed you're flip-flopping channels, would you like to watch one of the previously recorded shows?"
I hope both companies last, and I hope they come up with a high-def version sooner than later. An ethernet port should be standard. I don't mind paying $20 or $25 a month even because I really like watching TV an hour or two a week. It's nice to get away from the keyboard on occasion!
Number 1, when a product like Firestone kills people, they will be held civilly liable. If there is the possibility of criminal misconduct, then the police can go that route. How does regulating Firestone save lives?
Number 2, M$ is not a gifted child. They made a good product. They marketed well. They've had billions of dollars in mistakes (MS BOB, MS Network, etc, etc) and they've learned from those mistakes. People LIKE their products.
Number 3, how will private interests spiral out of control? GOVERNMENT has self-interested authority. Corporations are interested in making a buck, and the only way to make a buck is to make something people want. How is that self interest? You have a want, I fulfill that want. Isn't that both of us being selfish then?
Number 4, libertarians don't believe in utopia. There are ALWAYS going to be problems. There are ALWAYS going to be corporations who exceed their boundaries. Government doesn't protect us from that, in fact, Government has PROVABLY made it worse. What protects us from these bad corporations is the knowledge that if they charge too much or attempt to corner the market, someone else will be able to make that product for a lower price.
The fears that the anti-capitalists have are unfounded. If a corporation pollutes your property, in a libertarian society, they are guilty of damaging your property. If they pollute your air, the same is true. But GOVERNMENT allows big business to pollute! The biggest polluters did it on land government leased them. Polluters don't pollute their own land they own, because it may be worth it for them to sell it someday. Duh.
I've done a world of research, and the proof that government causes more harm than good when it regulates is obvious with just a LITTLE research, and a touch of common sense. Give me some examples in private e-mail of what corporations have harmed the people, and how government regulation would stop it, and I'll turn around and give you examples of how a free and unregulated society would do a much better job!
I didn't say it doesn't have sins -- I'm saying what sins it has can be worked out through competition.
I do believe in SOME regulations actually, I'm not fully anarchocapitalist as many libertarians are.
But I believe that the libertarian (or even the anarchocapitalist) system will give us all more money in our pockets, better software and hardware on our desktops, and hopefully, more choices for everyone...
Would that be true if the government regulated the computer industry in the 80s?
That's a tough one. A lot of libertarians love Thomas Jefferson, but he was totally anti-copyright. I think an inventor or author of a product SHOULD have sole right to sell the product for a certain length of time, and then its public domain... 7+7 years sounds good to me. It worked for 150 years, too. Then Walt Disney realized that Congress isn't Constitutional, and the Supreme Court ignored the documents, so why not bribe his way into living forever in the hearts of children everywhere.
And then the RIAA figured out the same. You guys would LOVE to see my views on copy-protection;)
The Supreme Court have been a bunch of "traitorous" slackers for the past 50 years. The Constitution is very clear on issues like copyright (7+7 years), Social Security (not a federal issue, to be left to the people), welfare (not a federal issue, to be left to the people), the drug war (same), foreign intervention (same), etc, etc. So yeah, I do think we should fire all those black-robed slackers...
The only way free markets will work is if the government is limited to what the constitution allows.
Our constitution makes it clear that the Congress subsidizing one business and penalizing another is illegal.
Limit Congress to their constitutional limits, and soft donations won't matter.
In fact, get rid of campaign finance reform. It only prevents third parties from getting in, it does nothing to prevent people from donating to the big 2. Limit the power of government, and donations won't get big business ANYTHING out of the government.
Open your eyes, guys and gals... The conspiracy is that both "big parties" want you to believe that big business is bad: its only big business that is subsidized by government that is bad...
Thanks for the post, but the anonymous part confuses me:)
Actually, I really don't think I'm flamebait. It bothers me that us computer geek-types (of which I am a bad one) are so liberal leaning. Our industry has gone relatively unregulated, and we can get by charging $150 a hour, sell computers for $500-$1000, and pick up a $10 network adapter that works fairly well for cheap installations.
I'd hate to see what would happen if the government regulated us like they have most other industries.
If the computer field was regulated like energy and telcom and health care, computers would be $10,000 today, not $500.
I can't name one area that government regulates, in any business, that a private watchdog group or three couldn't do a better job of. Why is the UL (Underwriter's Laboratories) so popular? It's not a government organization. And... IT WORKS! Whoa..
First of all, the ad hominem are part of my personal considerations -- this isn't a debate forum in my mind, its just a great way to get information out. Information wants to be free, remember? I'm speaking out of my heart, not my head here. I'm sorry if that undermines my credibility.
What cursory study are you talking about? Standard Oil had a monopoly, but most economic experts agree that if the government didn't split them up, within 5-10 years they would have fallen apart by themselves. In fact, the split up of Standard Oil was WORS for consumers because it changed the corporation from being anti-government to being in bed with the government. I have some texts I can offer you that shows this in pretty crisp detail. Standard Oil was on the path to destruction itself, because kerosene would be soon replaced with gasoline in the not-to-distant future, and Standard Oil was not heavily invested in gasoline.
GM/Ford/Chrysler fell apart on their own with competition from the foreign auto makers, and with BAD labor policy overpricing the cars out of the market. Nader and the government antitrust cronies had little (if anything) to do with it.
If you want to sell CP/M, and believe there is a market for it, then don't sell DOS at all. Its your choice. Microsoft isn't saying "don't sell CP/M" they are saying "in order to get you this reasonable price for DOS, we are going to sell it to you based on your output as a manufacturer, not based on the number of machines you sell." Imagine if M$ sold DOS based on how many licenses you bought. The huge computer resellers would have gotten a gigantic quantity discount, and the little guys would be stuck selling it for $300. M$ co-oped the price of DOS across the board based on how many PC's you sold, which ended up NOT hurting consumers OR small to medium businesses. I know, I was one of them.
Rather than government stepping in when a market becomes competitive, how about a government that stops subsidising their friends and campaign donators, and stops tariffing and embargoing the competitors of those donators? I think we'd see a much better economy, with consumers having more control of their buying dollar.
Slashdot Mirror
Great comment, mod this guy up.
I use e-gold. The problem is (as told by the greatest Congressman in U.S. history) that the U.S. Government messes with fiat money as well as buys and sells gold in order to hide the terrible inflation (20%+) we're experiencing right now.
We're in a terrible recession but because of the government's holdings in gold, you can't tell because they prevent the price of gold from skyrocketing as it does in an inflation. This is the government you want regulating the banking industry?
I don't use an FDIC-insured bank. I use a credit union. They pay me better interest, I am insured up to $325,000 (by 3 seperate insurance companies internationally), and they loan money to the kind of people I want to see that money going to.
Banking regulations hurt consumers, not help. The red tape costs are VERY high, the government passes more and more laws requiring disclosure of deposits and transactions (snooping), and our wonderful federal reserve buys and sells gold and messes with interest rates making it more and more difficult to get value out of the fiat dollar.
I say give us more non-bank banks. If I could find an unregulated money-holder for me, I'd use it immediately IF they had good third party insurers, better interest, and less government big brother intrusion into my transactions.
Every time something "bad" happens, people want more laws and more regulation. If you haven't seen by now, laws and regulations hurt guys like us, not the big guys.
If a company wants to charge for every minute you watch TV, or go to the supermarket, or sleep in a bed, and you don't like it, STOP SUPPORTING THAT COMPANY.
In the end, the free market works very well here. You will end up finding other forms of entertainment (probably by ignoring the mass-market crap, and finding better independently produced features). Those who like paying for the product will do so if they feel it isn't more expensive than they are willing to pay.
I can't believe people holler about calling their representatives. The 9th and 10th amendment prohibit federal government from getting involved in these situations anyway.
The only thing I call my Congressional reps and Senators for is to REPEAL laws that "help the consumer" like a law this guy wants made.
The majority of libertarians I know believe that we need to reduce the size of FEDERAL GOVERNMENT a ton, reduce the size of STATE GOVERNMENT a lot, and do whatever we want to do with the size of local government - INCREASE it greatly, decrease, whatever.
:(
If you want safe cars, you'll go live with other people who want safe cars. If you want social security, you'll go live with people who also agree that government controlled welfare and retirement plans are the status quo.
Our Constitution was set up this way -- whatever wasn't allotted to Federal government was left for either the people or the states to decide. Instead, our Congress and Executive branch take more and more and more powers in the name of "The children" or "the elderly" or "working class citizens."
None of it is Constitutional. The end of our fine country is probably closer than you think.
Funny you should mention those. None of them are truly deregulated, especially not California's electricity. In many of these situations, they were deregulated JUST ENOUGH to be considered partial deregulation, but what was still regulated let the government either cap prices (California's case), or impose a monopoly (the local telephone service case).
Canana got rid of their FAA -- one of the worst in the industry. They privatized it a few years ago, and now their flight safety and on-time arrivals are up 60% -- one of the best in the industry.
Don't say deregulation has failed -- you can't pick one case of total deregulation where it hasn't improved the situation significantly.
Decades ago, F.A. Hayek and Mises founded a new economic theory that seems to hold true better than the ones of old. Smaller government = less government intervention in our lives. End the drug war, and drug dealers won't be able to pay off the government. End government subsidies of the farm industry, and you'll see the huge farm conglomerates won't bribe Congress for more subsidies. End our foreign policy involvement in policing the world, and you'll see the "defense" contractors won't bribe Congress in order to go to war (illegally) against other countries.
As for open competition: we have NEVER had a monopoly that wasn't government created through subsidies and tariffs. Truly open competition allows the consumers to decide if they want a company to prosper. There are SO MANY examples of consumers destroying big business solely through their purchasing power.
Guys like Nader and the rest attempted to hurt Big Business, but if you look at every fight Nader has claimed to have won, you really see that it wasn't government that ended a "monopoly," but consumers who were educated stopped buying that product. It takes government too long to get anything done, but businesses can change and adapt in the blink of an eye.
As government works harder to "protect" the consumer, all you see are big businesses bribing government to get more subsidies and financial help.
If you want, drop me an e-mail and I'll give you some good books to review with better proofs and details on why the free market can and will work.
The free market has never been given a chance at all. In every situation where America has allowed the free market to operate un-regulated, it HAS worked. In every situation where government has attempted to regulate, you only see big business running amuck.
How about we try and see where it will work? Some countries in South American have deregulated their social security system, only to watch retiree benefits sky rocket when they invest in the free market. In the U.S., our system is in virtual collapse. Step by step, our country is only becoming socialist: redistributing wealth, while government takes a cut to distribute to their cronies and peers. Things will never get worse that way.
Typical socialist bah-ness to free markets. The Britain of the 18th century was anything BUT laissez-faire, if you properly review history. But that's another debate.
Big business only does what Congress allows it to do. Campaign finance reform will only hurt the 3rd parties, and it will only help the incumbents. The media corporations love Campaign finance reform, because it allows them to pick which representatives to cover. And guess who is buying out all the media corporations for this reason?
Limiting how Big Business pays of Congress will only cut off the medium and small sized businesses -- there will always be loopholes in how Congress can be bribed. Or, you can cut Congress' powers entirely to only what is in the Constitution.
Do not believe socialists. They condemn free markets, even though free markets have shown time and again that they work (long distance prices dropped during PROPER deregulation, the prices of computers falling as government never got involved, etc). When even a tiny bit of government remains, deregulation fails of course.
You think India and Japan grew because of regulation? Look at the facts of that. Their economies grew because of business output, not because government got involved or uninvolved. Business breeds profit and well being, government breeds corruption and distrust of your fellow man.
Here's yet another reason why increasing the size and power of Government will only deteriorate the rights of the common man. These anti-speech measures will only increase in number as long as the average person votes for the three parties above.
Advocating liberty means supporting the decrease of big government. Stop asking for handouts, no matter what type (corporate subsidies, welfare, social security, etc) because those handouts come with reductions in our rights, like the big corporations want. If you want to end these ludicrous and obviously unconstitutional laws, then vote for the only party that advocates disassembling any law that is unconstitutional: the Libertarian Party.
I hate being a broken record, but ALL these laws (SSSCA, DMCA, etc) are unconstitutional, but as long as Congress is more powerful than the Constitution allows, they will never be repealed.
My view on copy protection: let manufacturers make an unbreakable copy protection scheme if they want. Let hardware developers get in bed with software developers. But DO NOT LET THEM have laws that prevent reverse engineering. Do let the free market consumer power choose between an encrypted uncopyable format, and possibly an open format advocated by another group of software publishers.
As long as we allow the RIAA and MPAA and other large organizations lobby Congress to overextend Congressional power, we'll always be victims. The free market works, but only if you get government out of it.
We can not allow Congress to do this. The Constitution prohibits them from regulating this industry. If we don't want our information available on whois, we must find a private market solution. I just can't believe people would want MORE government in an area where the lack of government has propelled all of our lives to higher standards.
If you dislike the whois database containing your information, let's e-mail, call, and write letters to the organizations telling them we want more privacy. Eventually, we must find a way to find a provider who will offer us the privacy we want.
Or, use the free market solution -- create an e-mail address you don't use, and check it once in a while for important e-mails. Filter out anything but what comes from your ISP or registrar.
A reply to my own post, for history's sake :)
The replies to my post were very intriguing and possibly eye-opening. I definitely will do more research in this area. A lot of my views on the environment come from groups such as PERC.ORG, which are environmentalists who realize that private land trusts work better than public ones.
I have seen, read, and personally experienced at least 4 different government "preserves" of land, and if anyone really thinks that government land is the cleanest, then they haven't gone there themselves. Enough of our public lands have been polluted just by the visitors who have come to see the pristine nature...ugh.
My primary response to a lot of these responses in the one that gets me into hot water with pretty much everyone: a true libertarian does not see any constitutional legality in the definition of a corporation today. It is my firm belief that all corporations are consisted of men, and these men should be held liable for what the corporation have done or will do. This includes polluting other people's lands 100 years from now.
I know a lot of libertarians agree with me that the first step to save our nation is to end Congress' unconstitutional powers, and secondly to end or severely limit the limited liability that corporations have. If man does bad, then man should suffer for his sins against others. Corporations can go bankrupt, but its much harder for individuals to head down that path.
You're right in many ways, but you're wrong in a key way: you say, and I quote, "We should limit companies ability to influence any government."
This is where you're wrong. In a Constitutional republic scheme like the U.S.'s founding fathers created, it is not business that is limited, but Congress and government. Our Constitution specifically forbids Congress, the President, and any federal body from subsidizing or restricting any business.
This is a key feature of our Congress -- the right to free trade. Instead of "protecting" the U.S. business, what needs to be done is let U.S. businesses compete on a world-scale. Instead of extending copyright to 150 years, return it to 7+7 years maximum, and you'll see a great deal of growth in authorship.
Don't limit businesses, campaign finances, or anything like that. Return our federal government to their constitutional, basic authority, and you'll see a lot of these problems will disappear -- taking along with them the income tax, welfare, property taxes, etc.
My views on the environment are fairly anti-libertarian in many ways, but I believe 100% that the libertarian solution carries the only solution to it.
When land is owned publicly, it is treated badly. When you want to find the worst perpetrators of the environment, you'll find commercial businesses polluting on public land that they lease.
By taking the libertarian road, and privatizing all land, you're now give businesses and people a vested interest in keeping the value of the land high, not low. Just like a renter of an apartment takes generally worse care of the place than a condo owner, the same is true of a company or an individual who may one day want to sell the land for its value.
If everyone owns their land rather than leasing it from a public entity, you now have civil protection against someone polluting your land. Some big industry pumps poisons into their river that end up in your groundwater? Now you can sue. Currently, when a business pollutes on leased government land, who do you sue? The government? These are the same guys that leave loopholes in the law so that their buddies CAN pollute.
The people who think that there is no way that pro-environmental scientists aren't harboring a conspiracy are nuts. Every science I've had the ability to witness has some "global" conspiracies that are used in order to keep people "needed" that business. The environment is no different.
The worst polluters in the world are socialist governments. That's a fact. The most pristine forests in the world are on private land. That's a fact. Some of the forest preserves in Central American that are privately owned are so much cleaner than the public land residing next door to them that its scary that people really want our government running the forest preserve system.
If you want to protect or preserve some land, find others who agree with you, and set up a private land trust. Its happening more and more around the world, AND IT WORKS.
If you want the air cleaner, then get government out of the air regulation. End the EPA. If a business is pumping chemicals into the air, its up to the third party watchdog groups to monitor it, and let people know. When there is legal evidence that a company is harming land or individuals off of their property, then a civil lawsuit can entail. End of story.
Sure, there are flaws in my "world," but the flaws in today's world are obvious: environmental protection laws hurt small individual landowners, as the large business either lease their land from government, or get such amazing loopholes granting to them in the laws, that they actually can pollute more, not less.
Bye bye Tivo...
If the cable provider stores every show, every movie, and all that on their end, and only streams into everyone's bandwidth whatever end users are requesting, you won't really need much at your end, not even a scheduled guide.
That's how VOD will end up working. Targeted ads, the ability to queue up a movie in 1/2 hour or less, and allow others to watch it... Even download entire movies to a Tivo like receiver at your end.
The upside of this is smaller shows that don't have a wide audience DO have the capacity to keep living if enough of an audience is willing to "pay-per-view" the show. I know a few shows I would love to have paid $5 or so a month for to keep alive, but because of bandwidth limitations, they would never have stayed on the air. Ideas like this will lead to a better programming structure I hope...
It's my fault.. I've had a Tivo since it was released, and plan on having another one or two once the inter-networking works well.
I never watched TV before. Ever. I'd try to catch a show on occasion, but my schedule as well as commercial overload prevented me. When I purchased a Tivo, I immediately found a few shows I actually found worth watching.
When friends and family come over, I tell them all the same thing: stay away. Don't get it. These are the same people who call me when they forget to hit the "Video Input" button to use their VCR, or call me when their CD player won't play the CD (its upside down).
I can not imagine any normal person truly using the Tivo until they make an incredibly simple "M$ Wizard"-like interface.
Something like "We noticed you watched friends twice this past month, would you like me to record it?" or "We noticed you're flip-flopping channels, would you like to watch one of the previously recorded shows?"
I hope both companies last, and I hope they come up with a high-def version sooner than later. An ethernet port should be standard. I don't mind paying $20 or $25 a month even because I really like watching TV an hour or two a week. It's nice to get away from the keyboard on occasion!
Number 1, when a product like Firestone kills people, they will be held civilly liable. If there is the possibility of criminal misconduct, then the police can go that route. How does regulating Firestone save lives?
Number 2, M$ is not a gifted child. They made a good product. They marketed well. They've had billions of dollars in mistakes (MS BOB, MS Network, etc, etc) and they've learned from those mistakes. People LIKE their products.
Number 3, how will private interests spiral out of control? GOVERNMENT has self-interested authority. Corporations are interested in making a buck, and the only way to make a buck is to make something people want. How is that self interest? You have a want, I fulfill that want. Isn't that both of us being selfish then?
Number 4, libertarians don't believe in utopia. There are ALWAYS going to be problems. There are ALWAYS going to be corporations who exceed their boundaries. Government doesn't protect us from that, in fact, Government has PROVABLY made it worse. What protects us from these bad corporations is the knowledge that if they charge too much or attempt to corner the market, someone else will be able to make that product for a lower price.
The fears that the anti-capitalists have are unfounded. If a corporation pollutes your property, in a libertarian society, they are guilty of damaging your property. If they pollute your air, the same is true. But GOVERNMENT allows big business to pollute! The biggest polluters did it on land government leased them. Polluters don't pollute their own land they own, because it may be worth it for them to sell it someday. Duh.
I've done a world of research, and the proof that government causes more harm than good when it regulates is obvious with just a LITTLE research, and a touch of common sense. Give me some examples in private e-mail of what corporations have harmed the people, and how government regulation would stop it, and I'll turn around and give you examples of how a free and unregulated society would do a much better job!
Different topic, different time...
I didn't say it doesn't have sins -- I'm saying what sins it has can be worked out through competition.
I do believe in SOME regulations actually, I'm not fully anarchocapitalist as many libertarians are.
But I believe that the libertarian (or even the anarchocapitalist) system will give us all more money in our pockets, better software and hardware on our desktops, and hopefully, more choices for everyone...
Would that be true if the government regulated the computer industry in the 80s?
That's a tough one. A lot of libertarians love Thomas Jefferson, but he was totally anti-copyright. I think an inventor or author of a product SHOULD have sole right to sell the product for a certain length of time, and then its public domain... 7+7 years sounds good to me. It worked for 150 years, too. Then Walt Disney realized that Congress isn't Constitutional, and the Supreme Court ignored the documents, so why not bribe his way into living forever in the hearts of children everywhere.
;)
And then the RIAA figured out the same. You guys would LOVE to see my views on copy-protection
The Supreme Court have been a bunch of "traitorous" slackers for the past 50 years. The Constitution is very clear on issues like copyright (7+7 years), Social Security (not a federal issue, to be left to the people), welfare (not a federal issue, to be left to the people), the drug war (same), foreign intervention (same), etc, etc. So yeah, I do think we should fire all those black-robed slackers...
Good info to know, thx :) Now I have to research this industry, haha.
The only way free markets will work is if the government is limited to what the constitution allows.
Our constitution makes it clear that the Congress subsidizing one business and penalizing another is illegal.
Limit Congress to their constitutional limits, and soft donations won't matter.
In fact, get rid of campaign finance reform. It only prevents third parties from getting in, it does nothing to prevent people from donating to the big 2. Limit the power of government, and donations won't get big business ANYTHING out of the government.
Open your eyes, guys and gals... The conspiracy is that both "big parties" want you to believe that big business is bad: its only big business that is subsidized by government that is bad...
Thanks for the post, but the anonymous part confuses me :)
Actually, I really don't think I'm flamebait. It bothers me that us computer geek-types (of which I am a bad one) are so liberal leaning. Our industry has gone relatively unregulated, and we can get by charging $150 a hour, sell computers for $500-$1000, and pick up a $10 network adapter that works fairly well for cheap installations.
I'd hate to see what would happen if the government regulated us like they have most other industries.
If the computer field was regulated like energy and telcom and health care, computers would be $10,000 today, not $500.
I can't name one area that government regulates, in any business, that a private watchdog group or three couldn't do a better job of. Why is the UL (Underwriter's Laboratories) so popular? It's not a government organization. And... IT WORKS! Whoa..
First of all, the ad hominem are part of my personal considerations -- this isn't a debate forum in my mind, its just a great way to get information out. Information wants to be free, remember? I'm speaking out of my heart, not my head here. I'm sorry if that undermines my credibility.
:)
What cursory study are you talking about? Standard Oil had a monopoly, but most economic experts agree that if the government didn't split them up, within 5-10 years they would have fallen apart by themselves. In fact, the split up of Standard Oil was WORS for consumers because it changed the corporation from being anti-government to being in bed with the government. I have some texts I can offer you that shows this in pretty crisp detail. Standard Oil was on the path to destruction itself, because kerosene would be soon replaced with gasoline in the not-to-distant future, and Standard Oil was not heavily invested in gasoline.
GM/Ford/Chrysler fell apart on their own with competition from the foreign auto makers, and with BAD labor policy overpricing the cars out of the market. Nader and the government antitrust cronies had little (if anything) to do with it.
If you want to sell CP/M, and believe there is a market for it, then don't sell DOS at all. Its your choice. Microsoft isn't saying "don't sell CP/M" they are saying "in order to get you this reasonable price for DOS, we are going to sell it to you based on your output as a manufacturer, not based on the number of machines you sell." Imagine if M$ sold DOS based on how many licenses you bought. The huge computer resellers would have gotten a gigantic quantity discount, and the little guys would be stuck selling it for $300. M$ co-oped the price of DOS across the board based on how many PC's you sold, which ended up NOT hurting consumers OR small to medium businesses. I know, I was one of them.
Rather than government stepping in when a market becomes competitive, how about a government that stops subsidising their friends and campaign donators, and stops tariffing and embargoing the competitors of those donators? I think we'd see a much better economy, with consumers having more control of their buying dollar.
I'm done. My fingers hurt.