Probably one of the FEW novels that really NEED CGI in order to get it done (try finding a few hundred kids, who can act, and stay young enough for the sequels).
That is an excellent point. I am a Libertarian, but I am primarily a libertarian. There is a difference. Big "L" means affiliated with the LP. Since I feel the are the most pronounced libertarian political party in the states, I joined them. Its very easy to see that most libertarians agree with one another on the general points of everything political. The minute points though are always a cause to work through.
I am a pretty hardcore libertarian: the less government the better. I believe that the founding fathers were right, and they debated very heavily. I've read those debates. I saw our country grow faster than any other during a period of least government intervention. As the government proceeded to intervene, we would see slow downs 5, 10, 20 years later, that could be correlated to those interventions.
I believe that copyright is protected for 7 years. I also believe that fair use is still protected as well. The additional 7 years is there if you want to extend it. It sickens me that I can not make a better Star Wars story. It sickens me that I can not play old records in public without still paying a license fee.
As for the same flaws as socialism, I believe you are wrong there. Socialism has proven itself wrong, time and again. The only time we had a pseudo-libertarian country was in the first 90 years or so of our country. Slavery was a problem, but all the research I've done shows that slavery was dying even before the Civil War. That's a whole other topic. I believe that we have proven that the socialism we use in the States has failed us. It doesn't work. So what can we do? Make everyone responsible for their actions. Make every child realize that grandma doesn't live an easy life because she didn't save her money. Make every child realize that aunt Helen lives in a smelly apartment because she was too lazy to work. Make every child realize that once you have helped yourself, only then are you able to help others. We have so many problems that I believe are directly linked to people believing the government can save them, protect them, support them, when in fact the government has never proven it can do even one of those things for its citizens.
Private charities and organizations are the only ones getting anything done in this country it seems. Governemnt charities and organizations fail every step of the way.
What can we lose if we try one libertarian idea. Let's start by ending the drug war. Or how about ending all corporate welfare entirely. Or how about getting the government out of health care entirely. Or on and on. Try one thing. Immediately. Repeal repeal repeal. And see if it works. I think it will. I don't have faith in YOU or anyone else, but I have faith that MY life will be better.
And that is what life is about -- ME taking responsibility for MY actions, and when I do well, I can say _I_ did it. And when I fail, I can look back, figure out what I did wrong, and try again, until I succeed.
Tiamamen was a wonderful revolt, that made changes, but in the scheme of things, it was inconsequential because it was so limited. They should have had 50 such revolts at the same time, and get more people involved. NO government is big enough to prevent their people from overthrowing. Even in this country. Tyranny is tyranny, and if you live in tyranny and accept the system, bad you.
2. Totally untrue. How many chinese works work even 12 hours a month? Have you ever been there? It's terribly aweful. I've never seen such sheer laziness. A few capitalist citizens were visible, and there are factory towns, but overall, all I ever saw were towns of people who just assumed the government will provide. When you rely on others, you're going to get hurt.
5. I believe if you are making a minimum wage, you should have a minimum family. This is the absolute path to salvation. No one has a right to bring children into this world if they have no idea how they are going to provide. It sickens me that they do, and then they hold their hand out. Instead of sticking your dick in someone, how about slave laboring for af ew years, buy a gun, gather a group of friends, and overthrow?
I was an Amiga user. Video toaster as well. Great resources, TERRIBLE marketing, and aweful third party support.
I was also a huge OS/2 user. IBM had a decent product, decent support, but it had nowhere NEAR the third party support that Windows did. I had friends who worked at IBM. They told me it was bad product management, not Microsoft's monopolistic intent.
DR-DOS? I ran it. Ran Desqview on top of DOS to avoid Windows. Ran a ton of other lesser known varities. They mostly sucked.
Microsoft's OEM agreements make sense to me. I don't see how that is bad business practice. It's a license. I don't necessarily agree that software should be licensed that way, but if I didn't want to pay for DOS, I knew a dozen resellers in the Chicago area who weren't under MS's license. Some of them are still in business. They ignored MS and still made a profit. If MS was a true monopoly, how would they have stayed in business and not used their product 100%? Monopoly means no competition. Microsoft has competition, it just either sucks in performance, sucks in support, sucks in user interface, or sucks in cost. I'm not pro-Microsoft here though, I am just anti-"Microsoft is a monopoly":)
Monopoly means EXCLUSIVE CONTROL. MS has never had exclusive control.
Guaranteed loans are similiar to what the IMF and International Bank does: Guarantee loans to bad risks. Our own agribusiness government organizations do the same: guarantee loans to bad risks.
Not to change subjects, but look at it this way: you have a farmer. He runs a farm. He does ok. If the government didn't screw him by setting the maximum price he could sell his goods, he'd do better. His farm makes a small profit. He wants to buy some more land, so he gets a loan. A bank says yes, because he's solvent. Now to buy land.
When he goes to look at land prices, he sees they are higher than what they should be. Why? Because the government guaranteed a whole bunch of loans to farmers who were BAD credit risks to banks because they failed. These farmers get the loans primarily to buy land and more hardware. So the land prices go up (supply and demand). When this idiot farmer defaults on the loan, the government says "Well look! He really needed the money!" and gives him more, much to the chagrin of the profitable farmer.
Thesame is true in the airline industry. If the banks wouldn't loan them money, why should the taxpayers be forced to finance these loans? They are BAD CREDIT RISKS.
Imagine if United and American did go bankrupt. Maybe 2 or 3 smart individuals could buy up portions and form their own airlines. The best of the employees would find jobs at the new airlines or at other ones. The bad employees who were protected by union rules would be out of work, as it should be. 2 or 3 newer airlines can compete much better because they don't have the loss and government-like attitude of the huge corporation.
We all know that guaranteed loans are always used. In many cases (IMF, agribusiness, etc), many of them also end up in default, and we foot the bill. UNACCEPTABLE.
#1 - Bill Maher is NO libertarian. Good article about his anti-libertarian ideas here.
#2 - Microsoft is a tough situation. While they definitely can be called a monopoly, I truly believe that they have not shown the problems associated with many monopolies in the past. I am in the consulting business, I have tried _every_ replacement product (from OS X to Linux, from BeOS to more esoteric workstations OSes) and I have to say that the M$ product, while not the most stable, is still the most user friendly. M$ did not become a monopoly because they forced themselves on people. They spend a LOT of money making their product, employ a tremendous amount of people, keep a huge consulting industry at work, and sell their product at a VERY reasonable price. I don't believe that Microsoft is a monopoly.
Competition to topple Windows will take years to perfect. Windows has taken over 15 years or so I believe to get to this point, how can we expect Linux and other OSes to get there that fast without the financial backing and R&D of a large corporation as well as smaller corporations who support the OS?
The biggest problem with government IS regulation. Give any power to government over any business, and it will be corrupted against the people by that business. All the laws we have made in this country in the past 50 years, even the pro-consumer laws, were still written or amended to help business first. Government should only be here to protect our persons and our property from theft, injury, death, littering, etc. It should NOT protect us from "Big Business" that only got there because they bribed their way to the top.
If government wouldn't subsidize the big guys and sanction the small guys, the big guys generally wouldn't last that long. Look at the airline industry, the automotice industry, and many many others that failed because they became just big companies. Those companies got big because of government contracts or subsidies, not because they had the best product. And how many SMALL companies went bankrupt because they had a better product, with a better business plan, but the government bailed out their not-so-smart competitors who were "wiser" to bribe the government reps in charge of regulations?
Look at it this way: If you want to keep big business "small" the libertarian way is the only way: we want to cut copyright down to 7+7 years MAXIMUM. The majority of IP laws are totally unconstitutional and we would throw those laws out. We want to remove corporate limited liability -- something that helps corporations trample over anyone since they can't be help responsible. We want to stop subsidizing bad businesses, and take regulation out of the hands of those that can be bought -- put it into the hands of consumers and watchdog groups who can inform consumers.
No one put a gun to their heads. They have no energy, are too lazy to revolt and usurp their government. It took the USSR a long time to fall, China will also.
Everyone who works in a sweat shop (EVERYONE) thanks their maker every day that they have a job in a country where work is near impossible to find.
I've done the research. I've been to China, the Phillipines, Costa Rica, Mexico. I've seen the horrendous work environments. But I've also seen those same people feed their children and teach them to read and send them to school so THEY won't have to work as low paid overworked workers. They are not slaves, they are free to up and walk out if they want to. Then who would feed their family?
"What's the difference between a government and a very rich non-governmental entity?"
A _ton_ of difference. A corporation is easy to kill over a short period of time. Look at bridgestone. Ford is hurting. General Motors was targeted by Nader, but it fell apart of its own problems. What happened to Silo consumer electronics stores? There's a long list of where big corporations fall apart beause consumers were unhappy. Governments are near impossible to topple.
"It's often less costly to just dump your waste in the open for everyone to share than pay for it's processing."
Another reason government should never own "open land." When land is owned by private citizens or corporations, pollution is a non-problem. Why? If a corporation pollute on or into another person's property, that's a crime -- littering or destroying the value of another's property. That corporation would get screwed.
Where is almost all the big pollution in our country? On government land, rented to big corporations. Of course they pollute. You ever rent an apartment and keep it up like it was owned by you? Of course not. If government would sell the land to corporations and private individuals, those entities would have a stake in the future value of the land. Polluting their own land is stupid (throws the value of the land into the trash) and if they accidentally polluted onto someone else's property they'd be held liable for billions. Not good business practice. The Greens are so wrong on the environmental issues its not funny. Government pollutes or helps to pollute.
"Corporations often do stupid stuff, because they're after all just a bunch of people, some of them can be stupid or act stupid at times. "
You're right. And that's where personal responsibility and liability comes in. Many libertarians (small 'L') are anti-corporate protection laws. I don't believe in people being able to hide behind unconstitutional limited liability laws. If someone messes up, they will be held responsible. If government messes up, are they EVER? Waco? Ruby Ridge? Etc etc? No. Even when the government ADMITS doing wrong, it never has any reason (or legal ramification) to fix the problem. Private entities and individuals do!
"And "money" should not be allowed to buy anything. "
Then what should? If you want a nice piece of property, WORK FOR IT. You want the best food? WORK FOR IT. You want to get to work quicker in your own car? WORK FOR IT. What can you name that money SHOULDN'T buy? It's probably bought right now with money because the GOVERNMENT REGULATES IT. If the Government would stop regulating everything in site, money wouldn't be such a powerful ally to politicians and PACs/Big Business. Limit the power of government, and campaign contributions will hit $0 from corporations, within 1 day.
What really saddens me now is that with this terrible government bailout of the badly run airlines, we are setting two precedents:
1. That people have a right to fly airplanes cheaply (you don't).
2. That people have a right to keep their jobs even though its their fault that the companies are doing bad (overhired workforce, union regulations preventing company from reorganizing or lowering salaries, too many forced benefits, etc).
I can't believe we sat back and let this happen. This is the United States, not the U.S.S.R... The government should have paid the airlines for the days that they grounded them (understandable) but all airlines should have been prepared to cut their staff in the event of tragedy. It'll be shortterm anyway.
Good point about Jet Blue:) I'm a fan of theirs too, haven't flown it though:(
When you go to a country that you think has slave labor, do you realize that many of these so called sweat shops are really shops with people who are THANKFUL to have a job? They're making 5-10 times more than they would be making anywhere else, and the environment, while difficult, still allows them to make their families prosper so maybe their kids won't have to "struggle" and "work as hard."
It's terrible labor laws and government intervention that has made America impossible to produce in. Other countries with "slave labor sweatshops" are nothing of the sort when you really look into the realities of the worker-business contract.
If people don't want to work so hard, why do they do it? Because its an opportunity to pull their families and their communities out of the toilet.
The way to not support sweat shops if you don't like them is to NOT buy their products. End it the capitalist consumer way, don't get government involved.
Globalism is never a problem for anyone -- it allows competition to level the paying field for even the poorest nations as long as they have the people who want to work for it.
Where globalism, capitalism, and "Big Business" get ugly is when the government (any government) intervenes in any way: whether its a subsidy, a tariff, an embargo, even a bailout (a la airlines). The minute a government steals from the citizens in order to help a business, the system falls apart. Those who worked hard to make their business profitable get hurt for their smarts (Look at the airline industry, there are numerous airlines HIRING right now, and some of which who are still profitable). Instead, our government takes the biggest ones, with the worst track record of profitability, and bail them out, hurting the little guy who was making it work.
Big Business will always fail with no government intervention, eventually. 10 smaller companies in a co-op situation will always do better in the long run if they have the competitive edge and no sanctions to hurt them or subsidies to help the Big Business competition.
It's evident that totally free trade can "save the world." It's more evident that our country will never allow it. Sanctions against Iraq destroyed that country (NOT Saddam Hussein as the media and government portrays as the culprit). Sanctions and subsidies destroyed the wheat crop in Columbia, then destroyed the coffee crop. What was left? Coca. Now our government intervenes to destroy that crop.
In order to have a peaceful society, we need to get government ENTIRELY out of free trade. Let businesses and people deal with whomever they want, bar none. I can understand if government may want to limit arms sales, but other than that, I can see no reason to ever limit or subsidies trade or business of any kind. In a totally free economy, there will always be winners and losers. Unfortunately, government intervention makes losers into smaller losers, and the winners into big losers. Tell them to stay out, and you'll see happy people all over the world, able to buy and sell their wares at prices that they deem proper.
We believe that without the government, prices would skyrocket (they wouldn't, supply and demand and competition prevent that), or we'd have shortages (again, suppy and demand and competition would help), or we'd see our economy fail because other countries do it cheaper (they do, and better, sometimes its even our unions that make our businesses unprofitable, not necessarily our business tactics).
Actually, Harry Browne and all the other reps I know from the last campaign were AGAINST federal matching funds.
As for being against EVERYTHING, the LP is against anything that is unconstitutional. What are they for? The Constitution. That's it.
The COnstitution Party scares me. If you read into their literature more, they're a bunch of fanatic wacko Christians who want the country based on morals of some sort. I consider myself a Christ-follower, but I'm not wacko:)
When you vote for a politician, you get anti-constitutional politics.
There is only one party that wants to get rid of all the unconstitutional anti-privacy anti-consumer anti-freedom laws, all of them: The Libertarian Party.
Why are we so surprised it passed? This post is NOT flamebait, its a wake-up call to those of you who think lobbying a democrat or republican is going to make a difference -- its not. The ONLY Libertarian in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul has an exemplery voting record. Looking up his campaign donations on OpenSecrets.org shows that big business doesn't bother lobbying him because he will not vote YES on any bill that is against the Constitution. They call him Dr. No in Congress.
We need more guys like him. Even if you think the LP goes too far in reducing Government, the only salvation to the 50%+ we all pay in taxes of all sorts, to the privacy we've lost, to the endless harassment of so-called "Big Business" is to vote libertarian, and only libertarian. Your vote is not wasted: our party received over 1.7 million congressional votes in 2000. No third party in history has ever received even 1 million (not even the Greens).
Don't point the finger at Congress -- you and all of your little friends have allowed these attrocities to continue. Whether you vote Democrat or Republican, you're not voting for the lesser of two evils, you're saying "YES" to each and every unconstitutional bill they turn into law.
Great post ChristTrekker, you want to post your party affiliation?
The problem with many third parties is that they still all continue to depend on the government to fix the problems (Greens, etc) even though many of those problems were only increased with government intervention.
When the government runs out of criminals to prosecute, they have always created new ones with bad laws. Read Unintended Consequences by John Ross for a great fictional (yet historically correct) portrayal of why government fails -- every time.
On the Libertarians want to rely on personal responsibility. Why does everyone think that each and every person has a right to education, or to drive on the roads, or be forced to not be able to self medicate or perform a job they want to perform?
I think the reason you don't see Libertarians is because you're not looking for them.
Until the last 2 or so years, it was near impossible to get a Libertarian on the ballot because of illegal ballot laws. The LP has been diligently getting these illegal laws over turned, state by state.
The outcome in the 2000 Election?
Well, first of all, we fielded candidates in 255 of the 435 seats in the house, the first time in 80 years that a third party has contested a majority of the Senate.
Our seats won over 1.7 million votes. That is the FIRST TIME in history that a third part has won over a MILLION votes. We almost doubled it.
The outcome?
Libertarians occupy over 200 elected office seats nation wide. That is over double of ALL the other third parties combined. Sure some of the seats are small positions, but that is how you build.
Most intelligent people are shocked when they find how clear the Libertarian position is on getting rid of all government corruption.
If you're interested in reading more about the party, drop me an email at dada@dnginc.com
And when has the FBI helped? When I have a problem, I contact my lawyer, who contacts the police.
Being policed by our government is probably the scariest idea that has ever passed through the Supreme Court's checks and balances. Its obvious that the Supreme Court doesn't do its job anymore.
What kind of crime (I'm asking a serious question here to form my own opinion) do you think the FBI currently truly helps in where the police can't?
Getting your voices heard isn't going to work as those voices don't hold up big money. Go donate some money to a POLITICAL party so they can advertise and get votes. Even $50 helps reach 2500 people.
Stop and look around at who is supporting the FBI: Democrats and Republicans.
An obviously unconstitutional government organization, one that spends so much of our tax dollars but has done relatively little to help us (if at all).
If this isn't a reason to vote Libertarian and only Libertarian, and shut this group down, I don't know what is.
There is no need for an FBI. If a crime extends past state lines, there is nothing preventing the two police agencies from working together to solve it.
Well, to all who replied, I agree that the IWCT is a biased group, but nonetheless it is a group that did a lot of lobbying for both sides of the argument. Their "facts" within their document are very credible but I take them with a grain of salt, but I also agree with many of their points.
w9ofa:
The United States of America is by no means a democracy: a democracy is indeed a scary idea. The founding documents set forth the idea that the MINORITY has a right to live the way they want to live as long as they harm no one else or their property. A democracy is controlled by the majority, and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights directly affect making sure that the MINORITY can live the life the way they want to. In recent times, this has changed, and we have indeed become a democracy, meaning many people in the minority (not the racial minority necessarily) are secluded from being "normal" because of their opinions, or actions, or even religions. That's not what this country was founded on -- creating laws because they work for the majority??? Not a chance.
You, as most others on this site and others I post to, are confused by what I mean by non-intervention. I DO NOT MEAN ISOLATIONISM. Non-intervention by our Government includes TOTALLY free trade, no sanctions and no subsidies. Let U.S. people and corporations trade freely with others, even let citizens here invest in other countries if they want, freely. End embargoes and sanctions. THIS is foreign policy. Our CIA and other agencies uprooting other governments, screwing over their people repeatedly (too long to list), and helping virtually no one but OTHER countries' elites doesn't help.
Our government shall not interevene, period. It was made to principally make sure that every UNITED STATES citizen is protected from infringment of their GOD-GIVEN INALIENABLE rights. Now, its changed. It tried to "flatten" the curve, tries to gives people a better life. BUT THE ONLY WAY to a better life is to work hard for it. Even those kids who get multi-million dollar trust funds need to work hard to keep them, look how many end up in blue collars by the third generation!
Before one can uphold the Bill of Rights, one must understand them.
The Bill of Rights is a misnomer for the articles it contains: it is better called the "Bill of Prohibitions."
The Bill of Rights does not grant anyone any rights. The freedoms it is focused on are granted to all humans of all nations from birth, "God-given" rights if you will. The Bill of Rights was written to restrict government from infringing on these inherent rights.
Once you read it and see that the government is prohibited from infringing in any way these rights, you will understand how screwed we are as a country.
Voting doesn't work anymore because the process used to become a candidate has been destroyed.
Instead of openly allowing anyone to run, the Democrats and Republicans in many states have made it near impossible to get on a ballot if you're an independent. The Libertarians have been fighting this in each and every state, slowly winning the right to be called what they are on the ballot.
Secondly, the idiots in Congress has fooled almost every United Stater in believing that the problem with elections is that campaign donations are skewing the results. This is the farthest from the truth. I say let big business give as much as they want, hell, let the enemy countries give as much as they want. The problem is that we allow our Congress powers beyond what is allotted in the Constitution, and THAT is why people give them so much money.
Campaign finance reform has screwed the third party because most of the money a third party uses to promote itself comes from relatively few large donators rather than many small donators.
But how many of you think campaign finance reform will work to curb donations? It won't, because all campaign finance laws have loopholes that allow the incumbents or the two parties to raise money from PACs and big business in other ways.
THe only way to make voting work, and to reduce corruption and bribery, is to reduce the power of Congress to the itty-bitty strength allotted in the Constitution.
Why is the country so pro-government all of a sudden, when its so easy to prove that its exactly those in the elite that control its every move?
In the war against Iraq, many of those at the top of the pyramid (G.H. Bush, Cheney, Schwartzkopf, etc) were found GUILTY by the International War Crimes Tribunal. The war against Iraq was not about Saddam Hussein, but about oil interests. This was never covered in the media, and many United Staters today fully support the actions we used against the "enemy." Saddam is not crazy, not stupid, and was probably not wrong in his reacquisition of Kuwait. He even asked us if he could do it, and we didn't say no.
In Afghanistan, oil interests of our President and his cronies are the only thing at stake. The proof against bin Laden is thin at best, and the translations of bin Laden's video that everyone thinks he is accepting blame are off at best. But the 500 years of oil (at current consumption rates) that UNOCAL and the elite's friends want access to is currently controlled by the Taliban. Again, ignored by the government controlled media.
Freedom of Speech is gone when it is regulated. With the FCC punishing anti-government sentiment from its beginning, its obvious there is no freedom of speech in the TV and radio media. Since the newspapers are now controlled by those same media mavens, they too should be ignored.
The Libertarian philosophy of non-intervention and free trade is more important than ever to focus on. Even lifetime Libertarians though are towing the government line and wanting revenge, even though the proof against Afghanistan and bin Laden is shamefully non-existant.
And the biggest kick is that we are not even at war. We can't be. If we are, it is illegal, as the Constitution REQUIRES Congress to declare it.
Want to stop terrorist militant attacks on our nation? Limit the powers of Congress as set forth in the Constitution. Create a new foreign policy of non-intervention by our government, remove all sanctions and embargos, tariffs and subsidies. Let good people trade with whoever they want, and stop subsidizing big business in every way.
I think many slashdotters would understand that 99% of the problems we complain about here is not Big Business' fault at all, but governments and the people's. We LET Congress give Big Business subsidies, so why are you complaining that M$ has a monopoly? If Congress couldn't subsidize, M$ wouldn't donate to their campaigns, and we wouldn't have such a monopoly-like fiasco. On the same hand, when we give Congress the power to subsidize business, we give the U.S. "interests" in other countries. This is the cause of almost all our problems, including terrorism!
Limit big government, and you will limit so many problems that we face in the world and locally each and every day. Give the government more power, and you only make it worse.
If you don't believe me, why not drop me an e-mail and lets debate it one on one. I, too, was a non-believer, until I spent just a few months researching the realities of "Big Government."
Slashdot Mirror
Please make Ender.
Ender's game that is.
Probably one of the FEW novels that really NEED CGI in order to get it done (try finding a few hundred kids, who can act, and stay young enough for the sequels).
Too bad OSC allowed the screenplay to get ruined.
"Getting gay with kids is not dumb, mmmkay?. It just so happens I'm on the board of directors."
Or listen to it
That is an excellent point. I am a Libertarian, but I am primarily a libertarian. There is a difference. Big "L" means affiliated with the LP. Since I feel the are the most pronounced libertarian political party in the states, I joined them. Its very easy to see that most libertarians agree with one another on the general points of everything political. The minute points though are always a cause to work through.
I am a pretty hardcore libertarian: the less government the better. I believe that the founding fathers were right, and they debated very heavily. I've read those debates. I saw our country grow faster than any other during a period of least government intervention. As the government proceeded to intervene, we would see slow downs 5, 10, 20 years later, that could be correlated to those interventions.
I believe that copyright is protected for 7 years. I also believe that fair use is still protected as well. The additional 7 years is there if you want to extend it. It sickens me that I can not make a better Star Wars story. It sickens me that I can not play old records in public without still paying a license fee.
As for the same flaws as socialism, I believe you are wrong there. Socialism has proven itself wrong, time and again. The only time we had a pseudo-libertarian country was in the first 90 years or so of our country. Slavery was a problem, but all the research I've done shows that slavery was dying even before the Civil War. That's a whole other topic. I believe that we have proven that the socialism we use in the States has failed us. It doesn't work. So what can we do? Make everyone responsible for their actions. Make every child realize that grandma doesn't live an easy life because she didn't save her money. Make every child realize that aunt Helen lives in a smelly apartment because she was too lazy to work. Make every child realize that once you have helped yourself, only then are you able to help others. We have so many problems that I believe are directly linked to people believing the government can save them, protect them, support them, when in fact the government has never proven it can do even one of those things for its citizens.
Private charities and organizations are the only ones getting anything done in this country it seems. Governemnt charities and organizations fail every step of the way.
What can we lose if we try one libertarian idea. Let's start by ending the drug war. Or how about ending all corporate welfare entirely. Or how about getting the government out of health care entirely. Or on and on. Try one thing. Immediately. Repeal repeal repeal. And see if it works. I think it will. I don't have faith in YOU or anyone else, but I have faith that MY life will be better.
And that is what life is about -- ME taking responsibility for MY actions, and when I do well, I can say _I_ did it. And when I fail, I can look back, figure out what I did wrong, and try again, until I succeed.
Tiamamen was a wonderful revolt, that made changes, but in the scheme of things, it was inconsequential because it was so limited. They should have had 50 such revolts at the same time, and get more people involved. NO government is big enough to prevent their people from overthrowing. Even in this country. Tyranny is tyranny, and if you live in tyranny and accept the system, bad you.
2. Totally untrue. How many chinese works work even 12 hours a month? Have you ever been there? It's terribly aweful. I've never seen such sheer laziness. A few capitalist citizens were visible, and there are factory towns, but overall, all I ever saw were towns of people who just assumed the government will provide. When you rely on others, you're going to get hurt.
5. I believe if you are making a minimum wage, you should have a minimum family. This is the absolute path to salvation. No one has a right to bring children into this world if they have no idea how they are going to provide. It sickens me that they do, and then they hold their hand out. Instead of sticking your dick in someone, how about slave laboring for af ew years, buy a gun, gather a group of friends, and overthrow?
I was an Amiga user. Video toaster as well. Great resources, TERRIBLE marketing, and aweful third party support.
:)
I was also a huge OS/2 user. IBM had a decent product, decent support, but it had nowhere NEAR the third party support that Windows did. I had friends who worked at IBM. They told me it was bad product management, not Microsoft's monopolistic intent.
DR-DOS? I ran it. Ran Desqview on top of DOS to avoid Windows. Ran a ton of other lesser known varities. They mostly sucked.
Microsoft's OEM agreements make sense to me. I don't see how that is bad business practice. It's a license. I don't necessarily agree that software should be licensed that way, but if I didn't want to pay for DOS, I knew a dozen resellers in the Chicago area who weren't under MS's license. Some of them are still in business. They ignored MS and still made a profit. If MS was a true monopoly, how would they have stayed in business and not used their product 100%? Monopoly means no competition. Microsoft has competition, it just either sucks in performance, sucks in support, sucks in user interface, or sucks in cost. I'm not pro-Microsoft here though, I am just anti-"Microsoft is a monopoly"
Monopoly means EXCLUSIVE CONTROL. MS has never had exclusive control.
Guaranteed loans are similiar to what the IMF and International Bank does: Guarantee loans to bad risks. Our own agribusiness government organizations do the same: guarantee loans to bad risks.
Not to change subjects, but look at it this way: you have a farmer. He runs a farm. He does ok. If the government didn't screw him by setting the maximum price he could sell his goods, he'd do better. His farm makes a small profit. He wants to buy some more land, so he gets a loan. A bank says yes, because he's solvent. Now to buy land.
When he goes to look at land prices, he sees they are higher than what they should be. Why? Because the government guaranteed a whole bunch of loans to farmers who were BAD credit risks to banks because they failed. These farmers get the loans primarily to buy land and more hardware. So the land prices go up (supply and demand). When this idiot farmer defaults on the loan, the government says "Well look! He really needed the money!" and gives him more, much to the chagrin of the profitable farmer.
Thesame is true in the airline industry. If the banks wouldn't loan them money, why should the taxpayers be forced to finance these loans? They are BAD CREDIT RISKS.
Imagine if United and American did go bankrupt. Maybe 2 or 3 smart individuals could buy up portions and form their own airlines. The best of the employees would find jobs at the new airlines or at other ones. The bad employees who were protected by union rules would be out of work, as it should be. 2 or 3 newer airlines can compete much better because they don't have the loss and government-like attitude of the huge corporation.
We all know that guaranteed loans are always used. In many cases (IMF, agribusiness, etc), many of them also end up in default, and we foot the bill. UNACCEPTABLE.
#1 - Bill Maher is NO libertarian. Good article about his anti-libertarian ideas here.
#2 - Microsoft is a tough situation. While they definitely can be called a monopoly, I truly believe that they have not shown the problems associated with many monopolies in the past. I am in the consulting business, I have tried _every_ replacement product (from OS X to Linux, from BeOS to more esoteric workstations OSes) and I have to say that the M$ product, while not the most stable, is still the most user friendly. M$ did not become a monopoly because they forced themselves on people. They spend a LOT of money making their product, employ a tremendous amount of people, keep a huge consulting industry at work, and sell their product at a VERY reasonable price. I don't believe that Microsoft is a monopoly.
Competition to topple Windows will take years to perfect. Windows has taken over 15 years or so I believe to get to this point, how can we expect Linux and other OSes to get there that fast without the financial backing and R&D of a large corporation as well as smaller corporations who support the OS?
The biggest problem with government IS regulation. Give any power to government over any business, and it will be corrupted against the people by that business. All the laws we have made in this country in the past 50 years, even the pro-consumer laws, were still written or amended to help business first. Government should only be here to protect our persons and our property from theft, injury, death, littering, etc. It should NOT protect us from "Big Business" that only got there because they bribed their way to the top.
If government wouldn't subsidize the big guys and sanction the small guys, the big guys generally wouldn't last that long. Look at the airline industry, the automotice industry, and many many others that failed because they became just big companies. Those companies got big because of government contracts or subsidies, not because they had the best product. And how many SMALL companies went bankrupt because they had a better product, with a better business plan, but the government bailed out their not-so-smart competitors who were "wiser" to bribe the government reps in charge of regulations?
Look at it this way: If you want to keep big business "small" the libertarian way is the only way: we want to cut copyright down to 7+7 years MAXIMUM. The majority of IP laws are totally unconstitutional and we would throw those laws out. We want to remove corporate limited liability -- something that helps corporations trample over anyone since they can't be help responsible. We want to stop subsidizing bad businesses, and take regulation out of the hands of those that can be bought -- put it into the hands of consumers and watchdog groups who can inform consumers.
No one put a gun to their heads. They have no energy, are too lazy to revolt and usurp their government. It took the USSR a long time to fall, China will also.
Everyone who works in a sweat shop (EVERYONE) thanks their maker every day that they have a job in a country where work is near impossible to find.
I've done the research. I've been to China, the Phillipines, Costa Rica, Mexico. I've seen the horrendous work environments. But I've also seen those same people feed their children and teach them to read and send them to school so THEY won't have to work as low paid overworked workers. They are not slaves, they are free to up and walk out if they want to. Then who would feed their family?
"What's the difference between a government and a very rich non-governmental entity?"
A _ton_ of difference. A corporation is easy to kill over a short period of time. Look at bridgestone. Ford is hurting. General Motors was targeted by Nader, but it fell apart of its own problems. What happened to Silo consumer electronics stores? There's a long list of where big corporations fall apart beause consumers were unhappy. Governments are near impossible to topple.
"It's often less costly to just dump your waste in the open for everyone to share than pay for it's processing."
Another reason government should never own "open land." When land is owned by private citizens or corporations, pollution is a non-problem. Why? If a corporation pollute on or into another person's property, that's a crime -- littering or destroying the value of another's property. That corporation would get screwed.
Where is almost all the big pollution in our country? On government land, rented to big corporations. Of course they pollute. You ever rent an apartment and keep it up like it was owned by you? Of course not. If government would sell the land to corporations and private individuals, those entities would have a stake in the future value of the land. Polluting their own land is stupid (throws the value of the land into the trash) and if they accidentally polluted onto someone else's property they'd be held liable for billions. Not good business practice. The Greens are so wrong on the environmental issues its not funny. Government pollutes or helps to pollute.
"Corporations often do stupid stuff, because they're after all just a bunch of people, some of them can be stupid or act stupid at times. "
You're right. And that's where personal responsibility and liability comes in. Many libertarians (small 'L') are anti-corporate protection laws. I don't believe in people being able to hide behind unconstitutional limited liability laws. If someone messes up, they will be held responsible. If government messes up, are they EVER? Waco? Ruby Ridge? Etc etc? No. Even when the government ADMITS doing wrong, it never has any reason (or legal ramification) to fix the problem. Private entities and individuals do!
"And "money" should not be allowed to buy anything. "
Then what should? If you want a nice piece of property, WORK FOR IT. You want the best food? WORK FOR IT. You want to get to work quicker in your own car? WORK FOR IT. What can you name that money SHOULDN'T buy? It's probably bought right now with money because the GOVERNMENT REGULATES IT. If the Government would stop regulating everything in site, money wouldn't be such a powerful ally to politicians and PACs/Big Business. Limit the power of government, and campaign contributions will hit $0 from corporations, within 1 day.
What really saddens me now is that with this terrible government bailout of the badly run airlines, we are setting two precedents:
:) I'm a fan of theirs too, haven't flown it though :(
1. That people have a right to fly airplanes cheaply (you don't).
2. That people have a right to keep their jobs even though its their fault that the companies are doing bad (overhired workforce, union regulations preventing company from reorganizing or lowering salaries, too many forced benefits, etc).
I can't believe we sat back and let this happen. This is the United States, not the U.S.S.R... The government should have paid the airlines for the days that they grounded them (understandable) but all airlines should have been prepared to cut their staff in the event of tragedy. It'll be shortterm anyway.
Good point about Jet Blue
Labor protection laws are BUNK.
When you go to a country that you think has slave labor, do you realize that many of these so called sweat shops are really shops with people who are THANKFUL to have a job? They're making 5-10 times more than they would be making anywhere else, and the environment, while difficult, still allows them to make their families prosper so maybe their kids won't have to "struggle" and "work as hard."
It's terrible labor laws and government intervention that has made America impossible to produce in. Other countries with "slave labor sweatshops" are nothing of the sort when you really look into the realities of the worker-business contract.
If people don't want to work so hard, why do they do it? Because its an opportunity to pull their families and their communities out of the toilet.
The way to not support sweat shops if you don't like them is to NOT buy their products. End it the capitalist consumer way, don't get government involved.
Globalism is never a problem for anyone -- it allows competition to level the paying field for even the poorest nations as long as they have the people who want to work for it.
Where globalism, capitalism, and "Big Business" get ugly is when the government (any government) intervenes in any way: whether its a subsidy, a tariff, an embargo, even a bailout (a la airlines). The minute a government steals from the citizens in order to help a business, the system falls apart. Those who worked hard to make their business profitable get hurt for their smarts (Look at the airline industry, there are numerous airlines HIRING right now, and some of which who are still profitable). Instead, our government takes the biggest ones, with the worst track record of profitability, and bail them out, hurting the little guy who was making it work.
Big Business will always fail with no government intervention, eventually. 10 smaller companies in a co-op situation will always do better in the long run if they have the competitive edge and no sanctions to hurt them or subsidies to help the Big Business competition.
It's evident that totally free trade can "save the world." It's more evident that our country will never allow it. Sanctions against Iraq destroyed that country (NOT Saddam Hussein as the media and government portrays as the culprit). Sanctions and subsidies destroyed the wheat crop in Columbia, then destroyed the coffee crop. What was left? Coca. Now our government intervenes to destroy that crop.
In order to have a peaceful society, we need to get government ENTIRELY out of free trade. Let businesses and people deal with whomever they want, bar none. I can understand if government may want to limit arms sales, but other than that, I can see no reason to ever limit or subsidies trade or business of any kind. In a totally free economy, there will always be winners and losers. Unfortunately, government intervention makes losers into smaller losers, and the winners into big losers. Tell them to stay out, and you'll see happy people all over the world, able to buy and sell their wares at prices that they deem proper.
We believe that without the government, prices would skyrocket (they wouldn't, supply and demand and competition prevent that), or we'd have shortages (again, suppy and demand and competition would help), or we'd see our economy fail because other countries do it cheaper (they do, and better, sometimes its even our unions that make our businesses unprofitable, not necessarily our business tactics).
As Congress Ron Paul said today on antiwar.com, we are for protecting our borders with a good defensive army and coast guard.
Great article by him, btw, link here.
Umm... Check your facts. Congress Ron Paul voted >NO
Link here.
DOH!
Actually, Harry Browne and all the other reps I know from the last campaign were AGAINST federal matching funds.
:)
As for being against EVERYTHING, the LP is against anything that is unconstitutional. What are they for? The Constitution. That's it.
The COnstitution Party scares me. If you read into their literature more, they're a bunch of fanatic wacko Christians who want the country based on morals of some sort. I consider myself a Christ-follower, but I'm not wacko
When you vote for a politician, you get anti-constitutional politics.
There is only one party that wants to get rid of all the unconstitutional anti-privacy anti-consumer anti-freedom laws, all of them: The Libertarian Party.
Why are we so surprised it passed? This post is NOT flamebait, its a wake-up call to those of you who think lobbying a democrat or republican is going to make a difference -- its not. The ONLY Libertarian in Congress, Rep. Ron Paul has an exemplery voting record. Looking up his campaign donations on OpenSecrets.org shows that big business doesn't bother lobbying him because he will not vote YES on any bill that is against the Constitution. They call him Dr. No in Congress.
We need more guys like him. Even if you think the LP goes too far in reducing Government, the only salvation to the 50%+ we all pay in taxes of all sorts, to the privacy we've lost, to the endless harassment of so-called "Big Business" is to vote libertarian, and only libertarian. Your vote is not wasted: our party received over 1.7 million congressional votes in 2000. No third party in history has ever received even 1 million (not even the Greens).
Don't point the finger at Congress -- you and all of your little friends have allowed these attrocities to continue. Whether you vote Democrat or Republican, you're not voting for the lesser of two evils, you're saying "YES" to each and every unconstitutional bill they turn into law.
Great post ChristTrekker, you want to post your party affiliation?
The problem with many third parties is that they still all continue to depend on the government to fix the problems (Greens, etc) even though many of those problems were only increased with government intervention.
When the government runs out of criminals to prosecute, they have always created new ones with bad laws. Read Unintended Consequences by John Ross for a great fictional (yet historically correct) portrayal of why government fails -- every time.
On the Libertarians want to rely on personal responsibility. Why does everyone think that each and every person has a right to education, or to drive on the roads, or be forced to not be able to self medicate or perform a job they want to perform?
I think the reason you don't see Libertarians is because you're not looking for them.
Until the last 2 or so years, it was near impossible to get a Libertarian on the ballot because of illegal ballot laws. The LP has been diligently getting these illegal laws over turned, state by state.
The outcome in the 2000 Election?
Well, first of all, we fielded candidates in 255 of the 435 seats in the house, the first time in 80 years that a third party has contested a majority of the Senate.
Our seats won over 1.7 million votes. That is the FIRST TIME in history that a third part has won over a MILLION votes. We almost doubled it.
The outcome?
Libertarians occupy over 200 elected office seats nation wide. That is over double of ALL the other third parties combined. Sure some of the seats are small positions, but that is how you build.
Most intelligent people are shocked when they find how clear the Libertarian position is on getting rid of all government corruption.
If you're interested in reading more about the party, drop me an email at dada@dnginc.com
And when has the FBI helped? When I have a problem, I contact my lawyer, who contacts the police.
Being policed by our government is probably the scariest idea that has ever passed through the Supreme Court's checks and balances. Its obvious that the Supreme Court doesn't do its job anymore.
What kind of crime (I'm asking a serious question here to form my own opinion) do you think the FBI currently truly helps in where the police can't?
Getting your voices heard isn't going to work as those voices don't hold up big money. Go donate some money to a POLITICAL party so they can advertise and get votes. Even $50 helps reach 2500 people.
Stop and look around at who is supporting the FBI: Democrats and Republicans.
An obviously unconstitutional government organization, one that spends so much of our tax dollars but has done relatively little to help us (if at all).
If this isn't a reason to vote Libertarian and only Libertarian, and shut this group down, I don't know what is.
There is no need for an FBI. If a crime extends past state lines, there is nothing preventing the two police agencies from working together to solve it.
Well, to all who replied, I agree that the IWCT is a biased group, but nonetheless it is a group that did a lot of lobbying for both sides of the argument. Their "facts" within their document are very credible but I take them with a grain of salt, but I also agree with many of their points.
w9ofa:
The United States of America is by no means a democracy: a democracy is indeed a scary idea. The founding documents set forth the idea that the MINORITY has a right to live the way they want to live as long as they harm no one else or their property. A democracy is controlled by the majority, and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights directly affect making sure that the MINORITY can live the life the way they want to. In recent times, this has changed, and we have indeed become a democracy, meaning many people in the minority (not the racial minority necessarily) are secluded from being "normal" because of their opinions, or actions, or even religions. That's not what this country was founded on -- creating laws because they work for the majority??? Not a chance.
You, as most others on this site and others I post to, are confused by what I mean by non-intervention. I DO NOT MEAN ISOLATIONISM. Non-intervention by our Government includes TOTALLY free trade, no sanctions and no subsidies. Let U.S. people and corporations trade freely with others, even let citizens here invest in other countries if they want, freely. End embargoes and sanctions. THIS is foreign policy. Our CIA and other agencies uprooting other governments, screwing over their people repeatedly (too long to list), and helping virtually no one but OTHER countries' elites doesn't help.
Our government shall not interevene, period. It was made to principally make sure that every UNITED STATES citizen is protected from infringment of their GOD-GIVEN INALIENABLE rights. Now, its changed. It tried to "flatten" the curve, tries to gives people a better life. BUT THE ONLY WAY to a better life is to work hard for it. Even those kids who get multi-million dollar trust funds need to work hard to keep them, look how many end up in blue collars by the third generation!
Good article, are you a libertarian?
Before one can uphold the Bill of Rights, one must understand them.
The Bill of Rights is a misnomer for the articles it contains: it is better called the "Bill of Prohibitions."
The Bill of Rights does not grant anyone any rights. The freedoms it is focused on are granted to all humans of all nations from birth, "God-given" rights if you will. The Bill of Rights was written to restrict government from infringing on these inherent rights.
Once you read it and see that the government is prohibited from infringing in any way these rights, you will understand how screwed we are as a country.
Voting doesn't work anymore because the process used to become a candidate has been destroyed.
Instead of openly allowing anyone to run, the Democrats and Republicans in many states have made it near impossible to get on a ballot if you're an independent. The Libertarians have been fighting this in each and every state, slowly winning the right to be called what they are on the ballot.
Secondly, the idiots in Congress has fooled almost every United Stater in believing that the problem with elections is that campaign donations are skewing the results. This is the farthest from the truth. I say let big business give as much as they want, hell, let the enemy countries give as much as they want. The problem is that we allow our Congress powers beyond what is allotted in the Constitution, and THAT is why people give them so much money.
Campaign finance reform has screwed the third party because most of the money a third party uses to promote itself comes from relatively few large donators rather than many small donators.
But how many of you think campaign finance reform will work to curb donations? It won't, because all campaign finance laws have loopholes that allow the incumbents or the two parties to raise money from PACs and big business in other ways.
THe only way to make voting work, and to reduce corruption and bribery, is to reduce the power of Congress to the itty-bitty strength allotted in the Constitution.
MBR
Why is the country so pro-government all of a sudden, when its so easy to prove that its exactly those in the elite that control its every move?
In the war against Iraq, many of those at the top of the pyramid (G.H. Bush, Cheney, Schwartzkopf, etc) were found GUILTY by the International War Crimes Tribunal. The war against Iraq was not about Saddam Hussein, but about oil interests. This was never covered in the media, and many United Staters today fully support the actions we used against the "enemy." Saddam is not crazy, not stupid, and was probably not wrong in his reacquisition of Kuwait. He even asked us if he could do it, and we didn't say no.
In Afghanistan, oil interests of our President and his cronies are the only thing at stake. The proof against bin Laden is thin at best, and the translations of bin Laden's video that everyone thinks he is accepting blame are off at best. But the 500 years of oil (at current consumption rates) that UNOCAL and the elite's friends want access to is currently controlled by the Taliban. Again, ignored by the government controlled media.
Freedom of Speech is gone when it is regulated. With the FCC punishing anti-government sentiment from its beginning, its obvious there is no freedom of speech in the TV and radio media. Since the newspapers are now controlled by those same media mavens, they too should be ignored.
The Libertarian philosophy of non-intervention and free trade is more important than ever to focus on. Even lifetime Libertarians though are towing the government line and wanting revenge, even though the proof against Afghanistan and bin Laden is shamefully non-existant.
And the biggest kick is that we are not even at war. We can't be. If we are, it is illegal, as the Constitution REQUIRES Congress to declare it.
Want to stop terrorist militant attacks on our nation? Limit the powers of Congress as set forth in the Constitution. Create a new foreign policy of non-intervention by our government, remove all sanctions and embargos, tariffs and subsidies. Let good people trade with whoever they want, and stop subsidizing big business in every way.
I think many slashdotters would understand that 99% of the problems we complain about here is not Big Business' fault at all, but governments and the people's. We LET Congress give Big Business subsidies, so why are you complaining that M$ has a monopoly? If Congress couldn't subsidize, M$ wouldn't donate to their campaigns, and we wouldn't have such a monopoly-like fiasco. On the same hand, when we give Congress the power to subsidize business, we give the U.S. "interests" in other countries. This is the cause of almost all our problems, including terrorism!
Limit big government, and you will limit so many problems that we face in the world and locally each and every day. Give the government more power, and you only make it worse.
If you don't believe me, why not drop me an e-mail and lets debate it one on one. I, too, was a non-believer, until I spent just a few months researching the realities of "Big Government."