Even if the executive or legislative approves of a law, we have the courts to review them.
This is utter nonsense. When was the last time the President vetoed anything that he KNEW was unconstitutional? When was the last time the Supreme Court actually performed a Constitutional act? When was the last time Congress upturned a law and what is the ratio of dead laws versus new ones?
We have so many laws at the federal level that are unconstitutional, and it continues every day. I read the Congressional records daily (not in their entirety) and I can not believe what Congress does every day. Democracy is a failure, it is socialism masked by the belief that you are free because you can vote against your neighbor.
We had free market banking until Lincoln came along (previous central banks failed due to inflation). A free market bank takes deposits in gold and issues bank notes for the depositor. The depositor can use these notes to make purchases. Every bank has their own currency. If a bank decides to print fake notes, runs on the banks causes the bank to go bankrupt. Read Murray Rothbard's "What has government done to our money?" for a great run down on how money was once wealth and is now worthless.
How could you do all the wonderfully unprofitable things that governments do, like funding education?
Education is extremely profitable for those that want it. Today, education is more free daycare than actual learning. The teachers' unions have destroyed what was once our country's greatest resource -- the future. Children today are taught how to be civil, not how to be smart. The school has replaced the parents. Laziness abounds.
And how would you regulate trade?
Why would you need to? Trade is regulated by every level of trade partners. Manufacturers trade product with distributors (who know what their retailers want in price and quality). Distributors negotiate with retailers (who know what their customer consumers want in price and quality). Consumers use products based on price and quality. Where is trade regulated? Governments DESTROY trade by creating protectionist tariffs (hurting the consumers by reducing choice and increasing price), taxing production and setting standards that don't change as consumer need changes.
Free market capitalism is what we need so we don't need a big political base. I'll accept city government, but I'd rather have home owner communities over government. My old subdivision (gated) was one of the safest and nicest places to live, ever. The local city destroyed my ability to live there by raising property taxes so much for resources none of us needed.
Really? When a freedom lover is asked about out-of-control government, they'll usually ask for the ability to take back the rights given to government over the past 100 years or so. That is what I am doing, picking the best person to make decisions for me. When I vote for myself, I'm voting for the right person for the job of controlling my money, my home, my expressions and my ability to live the way I want to live, without hurting another person.
Wow, either you're sitting there typing through an earthquake, or you're hitting the bottle a little early in the morning. Either way, you should preview before you post;)
I know, I type on a PDA phone (320x240 resolution) and I use autocomplete text. I had a great big thumbnail for typing but it broke in Vegas when I was rolling craps. Now I'm waiting for it to grow back!
Write-in only ballots would be a pain in the ass to deal with. What would happen if two people with the same last name ran? You'd have to have everyone be able to spell their candidate's full name, and disenfranchise people who can't remember Dubya's middle initial;)
That seems like a straw man argument. Very rarely do we see same-last-name candidates. In the situation that we do, it is MORE important that the voter know who they want, rather than just going to the ballot and picking.
I should see if LP is running anyone in or around my district in '06, with the Republicans proving that the only values they stand by are the ones pressed in the Mint, leading to the disillusionment of quite a few people, and the Democrats being themselves, Libertarians could pick up some real representation next year, and I think that's the best we can hope for, for now at least.
I dropped the Libertarian Party years ago when I discovered that they are colluding, lying and stealing bastards, too. The Harry Browne campaign was so fraudulent, I realized that NO politician is the only politician I'd vote for. This is why I vote for myself across the ballot, and have been starting to get others to do it as well.
The great thing about voting for A.B. Dada is that is shows that I'm voting for the only person worthy of speaking for me -- me.
If the ballots forced you to write in the name of the candidate you were voting for, the two main parties would get even more of the vote than the currently do, because of their enormous advantage in advertising. Candidates from the two main parties have a huge advantage in name recognition compared to candidates from lesser parties.
I disagree. Right now, we have people going to the voting booth picking names because of the group next to it, with no knowledge of who the candidate really is. I'd rather see money spent on wasted voting recommendations than on commercials on stations that seem to only want the top two parties (these are the same station that are fine with airing debates allowing only two parties).
And how does not voting reduce the power of the government? You won't remove the two "authoritarian" parties from power by not going to the polling place.
Which is why I recommend voting for yourself across the entire ballot. That's 1 more vote that skews the percentages. If the 65% that don't vote would vote for themselves, we'd see Bush 17%, Gore 16%, Other 67%. I like that. It gets rid of the mandate that every politician believes that they have.
think democracy, in this case, is open about to whom the favors are being given. The problem with vote rigging, especially electronic, is that it hides that favoritism.
Democracy is basically 51% of the citizens deciding together to give up certain personal rights and powers to an elected official. 49% of the people may decide they don't want to give up those rights and powers, but they're considered "wrong." The elected official in a democracy holds office for a certain period of time and has no reason to follow through with what the voters initially wanted, and the voters can not remember what they wanted so many years ago.
This is the flaw with voting and the power of the free market. In a free market you can change your mind constantly, and the market will provide for what you want. Democracy only lets you change your mind once every 4 years or so, and you can never fix past errors in judgement, as they are now law.
The EFF is worried about e-voting based on the likely possibility of vote manipulations. Those in power of the election boards have an incredible amount of power in abusing the democratic process.
I'm no fan of democracy as all I see in democracy is the ability to manipulate the vote to further the interests of the elite. Democracy is merely a shroud fooling the voting citizens into thinking they don't live in an authoritarian and favoritist regime.
Votes are manipulated in more ways than just electronically:
1. The FEC sets federal campaign finance guidelines. Any restriction in how you spend your money is unconstitutionally limiting your freedom of expression. The primary goal of campaign finance reform is to give the authoritarian political parties great power over non-authoritarian parties. What democracy needs is Real Campaign Finance Reform (group is gone) that gives everyone back their ability to express their beliefs politically. Even if you want to give money to a third party, they can't do much with it and you can't give as much as you want.
2. The FEC gives voters the idea that money corrupts government. Government corrupts due to unlimited power to control, not because of voter donations. If our federal government ran beneath their constitutional boundaries, no amount of bribery or donations would make one difference. Russian could give every Congressman a billion dollars a piece, but the Constitutional would not allow any Congressman to give Russia (or any group or individual) preferential treatment.
3. The school system is unbalanced in teach the Constitution, leaving the majority of the population unsure of the real power of the Constitution -- leaving people free to use the rights they are born with, and preventing any government from walking over those rights.
4. Voters are given completely biased ballots. Proper ballots should force the voter to know who they are voting for and write in the candidate. Offering ballots showing the current office holder or party affiliation provides more power to the two authoritarian parties.
5. Voters are only allowed to see commercials from major parties as they are offered (illegal) campaign matching funds in addition to virtually unlimited campaign budgets. Third parties can not raise the necessary funds as they are limited by finance reform guidelnies.
6. Voters never get to see every candidate in the debates as the debate committees are run by authoritarian parties unwilling to give up their powers.
7. Voters are confused by the colluding media that wants them to vote in order to give the authoritarian candidates the mandates needed to expand the power of government. Voters rarely hear that voting is wrong and that the process setting up the vote is a collusion between the authoritarian parties.
I hope that the EFF can see how short they come when they prosecute only the voting machines, rather than the voting system.
Do what I do. Don't vote for any candidate -- write yourself in for every position.
Greed is inherent in people. We take preference to making our own lives better.
This is the nail in the coffin for any large, central government. Markets don't allow greedy people to us force against another, except through government allowance.
I'm not a libertarian. I believe if UL let Vioxx pass and it was found fatal, they'd lose their business. UL is near my house and I've seen their facility, it is a serious place. I've performed government contracts until I learned about freedom, and most are full of nepotism, cronyism or just plain indifference.
1. They are a bureacratic department that only has one power: coercion through force 2. They delay, for years, drugs that are saving lives in other countries 3. They keep drugs prescribed that are OTC in other countries, raising our prices 4. They are more interested in CYA than efficiency and lives saved 5. They are bribable as is any government official 6. They are useless
There are many here who think we need the FDA. I believe that they are useless. We use items every day far more dangerous than pills - hair drivers, lamps and microwave ovens. They're only sold by stores if they are UL listed. Underwriters Laboratory is a private company that has to do their job properly, competitively and at the right price. If not, competition will replace them.
The Merck problem is the FDA's fault -- it happened on their watch. Now the free market will save their asses, again, by reducing faith in Merck's honesty and hitting them where it counts -- the bank.
Warning to old media
on
Gmail Gets RSS
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
My various daily updated websites that use metafile data to pass a hyperlink (blog with RSS feed for you non-jerk-new-wordphobes) has been getting referrers from gmail since yesterday. I've been getting AOL webmail referrers for a week or so, now it makes sense why this is.
RSS connectivity in the e-mail client is very powerful, maybe the most powerful feature I've seen. I've had trouble getting my audience to download a good RSS reader, but I've seen traffic pick up. Is there a reasonable javascript for "Add this blog to your RSS feeds" that will work with the webmail feed readers?
I'm hiring a 74 year old expert to cowrite 2 blogs and his readers are generally older. Most have e-mail, and as more people flock to webmail for security and efficiency, adding these features is key to helping the new "media" grow. Even for the not retired, easy access to what you want is making generic news outdated.
This news probably pisses off the old media who continue to lose control. If the politicians see their monkeys are powerless, be sure to see regulations on blogs next, via the illegal and unconstitutional FEC and SEC.
We've hired 3 bloggers to start a podcast, and I've looked into the control mechanism to protect our feeds technically. I don't support copyright protection laws so I have to allow others redistribution capability. The author seems to have received many more users from the "hijack" I think I'd support others helping me.
Just protect your profits by reminding users to visit your website regularly, and take the technical precautions the author recommends. Copyright won't help you has "hijackers" will just move to 3rd world countries that don't support the laws.
According to a Slashdot user, the Music Listeners' Association is stepping up to launch the next phase in the consumer industry's battle against government-protected music. The MLA is demanding jail time for the maintainers of CDs offering undocumented rootkits and worms. The MLA President has stated that refusing CDs and imposing boycotts is not enough, stating that by 'throw [ing]in some jail time I think we'll be a little more effective' in its crusade."
These guys are really shiny and nice looking, electronically, but their tech support is terrible. they never add requested features, cannot acknowledge outages and their billing department is clueless.
I've gone back to running my own server just out of sheer frustration!
They own many of their value added companies, but act as if they don't so they can pass the buck/point fingers.
While this is a joke, it leads into my belief that no text-based media can succeed without being "throne-friendly."
Bathroom reading is a very attention capturing process. I've been thinking (for almosr a decade, back to my news-from-the-BBS days) about what I guess would Be called the PrintCast.
We have blogs. We have udio PodCasts that are downloaded to one's MP3 player automatically. For us text bloggers, I'd love to see software to pull blogs at say 6:30am, format them in a nice newsletter/newspaper format, print them out (with minor banner ads?) and have it waiting when you wake up. Imagine a FREE double-sided WiFi printer that automatically sets you up with YOUR daily news. Custom targeted ads could easily pay for it. Charge bloggers for better positioning and allow bloggers to cut articles short (maybe) to get you to their sites.
I'm going to look into pull-PDF versions of my articles, but how do I make it automated to print before you start your day?
Copyright is, at its most basic, the monopoly to use force to control a non-physical "thing." Before copyright racketeering, we had ten thousand years of art, music and creation. Today marketable art is more and more in the hands of those who can not produce. Where 7 years of legal force might be ok, no law offering power ever stays reasonable.
The web is ending our need to copyright, as enforcing it will soon be impossible. BitTorrent is getting replaced with third party proxies so information stores can;t be traced. Small bands that give away their music are seeing increased sales of show tickets and merchandise. Old Brick and mortar retailers can't compete with eBay and Amazon, and the used market always offers the same art for less.
Here's the basis for the end of copyright: the free market. The laws of supply and demand say anything for sale with an unlimited supply is worthless. Art is worthless -- the profit comes from how you package it (live versus CD) and what you offer as a value added incentive.
Austrian economists believe in a simple market based on supply, demand and a high quality non-inflating money (gold).
Neo-Keynesians change their theories to match past market eccentricities, believe in labor-side economics and love fiat currency that they can inflate all day long (and devalue).
Our M3 money supply went from US$1trillion to US$10trillion in 15 years. Wonder why prices went up 500-2000% as well?
I'm a businessman who is always on the run. I read and post here from my PDA phone in the moments I have nothing to do. I'm in Vegas right now, waiting for a future customer to arrive.
Freedom from tyranny means no party uses force to coerce another party to give up their property or person involuntarily. It also means that no force can be used to abridge any natural rights against a party's will on that party's property.
Force means making someone do something with no way out of the situation. Taxes are force. The draft is force. Government sponsored censorship is force.
What is not force? When two parties negotiate and one party will not accept part of the agreement, the parties may part ways. This is the free market. If you don't like my price, don't buy from me. If you don't like my skin color, don't sell to me. If you don't like the rules on my private property, leave. If my rules are excessive, competition will decide what the market will accept.
I believe a private school with NO direct government funding can set the rules for conduct and speech, even off their property. The student agrees to the rules to utilize the private property even if the student pays for it.
When my store sells a paintball marker ("gun") or a skateboard, I tell my customers I will refuse them future service if they don't use the items safely. I am allowed to pick who I voluntarily trade with and how. The student can negotiate or not agree to a rule, the school can refuse.
Only government has a monopoly on force. They can not, in a free market, truly own or control property -- they only use what all the people loan then. As such, they'd be abusing their monopoly on force by setting rules for speech or expression, as they control no property. The government borrowed property is not theirs to rule, it is the people's and all people are free to speak or express themselves (or bear arms on their property which includes publicly managed properties).
If the school accepts government funding directly, they can not regulate expression. If they are truly privately funded, they can (in a free market) say what conduct they expect in a person's life. There are other competitive schools that may not have such restrictive policies that the student can attend.
Lately I've commented myself about the EFF's failures in the recent past. I usually get flamed for it.
I think the article is way too harsh but more on the money than most believe. I've always felt they were a shill for mercantilist businesses.
I support the Institute for Justice. These guys are about freedom and focus on winning. I will never support the EFF who only want some freedom at the expense of supporting the political growth of power.
Also, devaluation of currency actually helps the solvency of a pension system.
I disagree in the long term intent of devaluation. Look at it this way, if you're expecting to earn 60% of your income upon retirement 30 years from today, and the government devalues currency 100% in that time (the U.S. is devaluing almost 10% a year!), then prices will be double, so you're really earning is actually 30% of your current income.
Increased payout times (longer life expectancy) Fluctuations in the size of the working population (like the upcoming baby-boomer retirement in the US) Fluctuations in the markets where pensions are invested, and poor decisions by fund management. Companies not meeting growth targets.
You're right. And this is where the individual has way more ability to compensate for these things than the government planners can! If you live longer, you have to understand that the retirement age that government sets is unreasonable and you have to play for doing some work for the latter years after forced retirement. My father is retired but he is finding options to continue earning. All decisions by fund managers seem to be poor as they ignore the realities of the economy. I believe a fund manager who follows the Austrian School of thought would be the best to make investment decisions -- understanding that the stock market is manipulated directly by the central bank's printing of money and lowering/rising of interest rates counter to what the market can bear.
Pensions are just accrued expenses, whether there are tax incentives or not. Private pension failures happen, basically, for the same reasons that public pensions fail -- income being less than (current expenses + accrued expenses).
This is completely true, and why I don't have a pension, a 401K or any investment that is completely in the hands of other people. I put my money into cash-purchased property, gold and my own businesses or the businesses of others close to me. If you look at the wealthiest people based on net assets, you'll see that they are debt free and self-invested even if they aren't rich. I'm not rich by any means but I have wealth compared to my friends who live in US$500,000 houses 80% mortgaged and have hundreds of thousands of dollars in 401Ks. Plus my wealth is not time-related: I travel more, take more time off and work less than any other person I know, even though I earn significantly less.
Without regular periods of inflation, you get a stagnant economy in which everyone loses -- even those who keep their cash in a mattress, since there will be less to spend their cash on when they choose to do so.
That is a myth created by the Keynesians. In an economy with a fixed currency base (say gold) that fluctuates little in supply, inflation and deflation are not based on currency as the world economies currently are. If you have 100 units of currency in existance, the prices of goods fluctuates directly on supply and demand and disregard the currency base. Today, as central banks print more money, those in control of the newly printed currency have way more power than those of us that end up with the new bills. When there are 100 units of dollars in existance and the central bank prints 10 more, the people who can spend those 10 more first won't see a 10% inflationary change based on the new currency.
If you're not familiar with the Austrian Economic theory, check mises.org or read Murray Rothbard's "What Has Government Done To Our Money?" Both have decent, easy-to-understand articles on why government and private pensions fail and why anything tied to a fiat currency base can't last forever. Also Gene Callahan's "Economics for Real People" is a GREAT remake of Rothbard's classic.
For your information, the pensions crisis in Britain is by far and away going to be caused (for it hasn't happened yet) by all the Baby Boomers retiring at once, and every single one of them living an average of 8-10 years longer than their parents.
Which to me is BS because your birth rate is over 1.0 and has been from before the births of the so called Baby Boomers. This means that MORE people are paying into the fund. The U.K. continues to inflate the British Pound, causing non-stop devaluing of the currency. The U.K. also continues to devalue savings by reducing the return on savings accounts.
And as Lord Turner so aptly pointed out, if you left it up to your average 26 year old, they wouldn't put any money away for the future. It is the government's responsibility to put away 4% more of our GDP into the pensions fund, and to raise the retirement age at that.
Why? People don't save because your government manipulates savings returns AND offers the cushion of a social security program. China has one of the highest savings rates in the world. You (and I, in the U.S.) live with people who feel that government should take care of their retirements. I don't want any social security -- and I find ways to pay as little into the program as possible. I don't want a mortgage because I know that life can change at an instant, so I live in the best house I can afford without a mortgage or rent. Don't lay your future concerns on me, I'm not going to support you. To force others to pay for your lack of concern is ridiculous, and immoral.
I want to know that something is being done, by someone with the right sort of power and responsibility, to ensure the financial security of myself and my children in old age.
The government taxes you to save for your future? No. The government taxes you so that they can invest those dollars into the businesses of their cronies. Look at where your tax dollars REALLY go. They don't go into a fund to be protected for a rainy day. They go into loaning money at low interest rates to cronies. They go into fighting wars that are run by their cronies. They go into education systems that are managed by their cronies. Don't believe that government cares about you or any citizen -- they don't.
Even worse, they're inflating your currency every day, making your money worthless over time but giving them extra money to spend now before it is worthless. This is your government, and you want more?
If you are quite happy to have just anyone creating domains, that's great. But i think that most people would appreciate a responsible body of people in the know considering the propriety of creating and redefining domain names. In my opinion, it is far better to have some rules, than open the field up to just anybody, because that can only result in chaos.
We already have billions of domain names in existence and it isn't chaos because the market provides for companies to sort those domain names -- search engines, link managers, bookmarks and the like. Nothing would change in a free market. You'd just have lower prices and better competition. I'm glad we can agree to disagree, though!
First off, in many companies, it's just too hard to get that educational word out. I mean, I personally work for a compnay with 250K employees.
Educating on an issue doesn't happen overnight and doesn't have to happen from your employer. If you tell family and friends about the problems out there, the word will get out. The spammers and spywarers will be ahead of the game in the beginning, but Bad Things eventually lose out as more and more people become educated about those Bad Things. Maybe we can perfect operating systems enough so that spyware/adware won't have backdoors, but I still think we, as geeks, can do our job by educating those around us.
Half the time, users can't even follow simple directions because they just don't like using computers!
You're right, and the answer isn't "people are becoming more tech savvy" as the worst spyware-installation violators are the teens, it seems. Spyware also seems to be one of those things that IT consultants LIKE because it increases their income base/job security. I'm not saying education is the end-all be-all solution, but I don't see how patching and defending will ever be the answer. As OSes progress and as spyware infections disable more systems, the market of consumers has to get smart.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the executive or legislative approves of a law, we have the courts to review them.
This is utter nonsense. When was the last time the President vetoed anything that he KNEW was unconstitutional? When was the last time the Supreme Court actually performed a Constitutional act? When was the last time Congress upturned a law and what is the ratio of dead laws versus new ones?
We have so many laws at the federal level that are unconstitutional, and it continues every day. I read the Congressional records daily (not in their entirety) and I can not believe what Congress does every day. Democracy is a failure, it is socialism masked by the belief that you are free because you can vote against your neighbor.
Who would issue currency?
We had free market banking until Lincoln came along (previous central banks failed due to inflation). A free market bank takes deposits in gold and issues bank notes for the depositor. The depositor can use these notes to make purchases. Every bank has their own currency. If a bank decides to print fake notes, runs on the banks causes the bank to go bankrupt. Read Murray Rothbard's "What has government done to our money?" for a great run down on how money was once wealth and is now worthless.
How could you do all the wonderfully unprofitable things that governments do, like funding education?
Education is extremely profitable for those that want it. Today, education is more free daycare than actual learning. The teachers' unions have destroyed what was once our country's greatest resource -- the future. Children today are taught how to be civil, not how to be smart. The school has replaced the parents. Laziness abounds.
And how would you regulate trade?
Why would you need to? Trade is regulated by every level of trade partners. Manufacturers trade product with distributors (who know what their retailers want in price and quality). Distributors negotiate with retailers (who know what their customer consumers want in price and quality). Consumers use products based on price and quality. Where is trade regulated? Governments DESTROY trade by creating protectionist tariffs (hurting the consumers by reducing choice and increasing price), taxing production and setting standards that don't change as consumer need changes.
Free market capitalism is what we need so we don't need a big political base. I'll accept city government, but I'd rather have home owner communities over government. My old subdivision (gated) was one of the safest and nicest places to live, ever. The local city destroyed my ability to live there by raising property taxes so much for resources none of us needed.
Now I just believe you are stupid.
Really? When a freedom lover is asked about out-of-control government, they'll usually ask for the ability to take back the rights given to government over the past 100 years or so. That is what I am doing, picking the best person to make decisions for me. When I vote for myself, I'm voting for the right person for the job of controlling my money, my home, my expressions and my ability to live the way I want to live, without hurting another person.
Wow, either you're sitting there typing through an earthquake, or you're hitting the bottle a little early in the morning. Either way, you should preview before you post ;)
;)
I know, I type on a PDA phone (320x240 resolution) and I use autocomplete text. I had a great big thumbnail for typing but it broke in Vegas when I was rolling craps. Now I'm waiting for it to grow back!
Write-in only ballots would be a pain in the ass to deal with. What would happen if two people with the same last name ran? You'd have to have everyone be able to spell their candidate's full name, and disenfranchise people who can't remember Dubya's middle initial
That seems like a straw man argument. Very rarely do we see same-last-name candidates. In the situation that we do, it is MORE important that the voter know who they want, rather than just going to the ballot and picking.
I should see if LP is running anyone in or around my district in '06, with the Republicans proving that the only values they stand by are the ones pressed in the Mint, leading to the disillusionment of quite a few people, and the Democrats being themselves, Libertarians could pick up some real representation next year, and I think that's the best we can hope for, for now at least.
I dropped the Libertarian Party years ago when I discovered that they are colluding, lying and stealing bastards, too. The Harry Browne campaign was so fraudulent, I realized that NO politician is the only politician I'd vote for. This is why I vote for myself across the ballot, and have been starting to get others to do it as well.
The great thing about voting for A.B. Dada is that is shows that I'm voting for the only person worthy of speaking for me -- me.
If the ballots forced you to write in the name of the candidate you were voting for, the two main parties would get even more of the vote than the currently do, because of their enormous advantage in advertising. Candidates from the two main parties have a huge advantage in name recognition compared to candidates from lesser parties.
I disagree. Right now, we have people going to the voting booth picking names because of the group next to it, with no knowledge of who the candidate really is. I'd rather see money spent on wasted voting recommendations than on commercials on stations that seem to only want the top two parties (these are the same station that are fine with airing debates allowing only two parties).
And how does not voting reduce the power of the government? You won't remove the two "authoritarian" parties from power by not going to the polling place.
Which is why I recommend voting for yourself across the entire ballot. That's 1 more vote that skews the percentages. If the 65% that don't vote would vote for themselves, we'd see Bush 17%, Gore 16%, Other 67%. I like that. It gets rid of the mandate that every politician believes that they have.
think democracy, in this case, is open about to whom the favors are being given. The problem with vote rigging, especially electronic, is that it hides that favoritism.
Democracy is basically 51% of the citizens deciding together to give up certain personal rights and powers to an elected official. 49% of the people may decide they don't want to give up those rights and powers, but they're considered "wrong." The elected official in a democracy holds office for a certain period of time and has no reason to follow through with what the voters initially wanted, and the voters can not remember what they wanted so many years ago.
This is the flaw with voting and the power of the free market. In a free market you can change your mind constantly, and the market will provide for what you want. Democracy only lets you change your mind once every 4 years or so, and you can never fix past errors in judgement, as they are now law.
The EFF is worried about e-voting based on the likely possibility of vote manipulations. Those in power of the election boards have an incredible amount of power in abusing the democratic process.
I'm no fan of democracy as all I see in democracy is the ability to manipulate the vote to further the interests of the elite. Democracy is merely a shroud fooling the voting citizens into thinking they don't live in an authoritarian and favoritist regime.
Votes are manipulated in more ways than just electronically:
1. The FEC sets federal campaign finance guidelines. Any restriction in how you spend your money is unconstitutionally limiting your freedom of expression. The primary goal of campaign finance reform is to give the authoritarian political parties great power over non-authoritarian parties. What democracy needs is Real Campaign Finance Reform (group is gone) that gives everyone back their ability to express their beliefs politically. Even if you want to give money to a third party, they can't do much with it and you can't give as much as you want.
2. The FEC gives voters the idea that money corrupts government. Government corrupts due to unlimited power to control, not because of voter donations. If our federal government ran beneath their constitutional boundaries, no amount of bribery or donations would make one difference. Russian could give every Congressman a billion dollars a piece, but the Constitutional would not allow any Congressman to give Russia (or any group or individual) preferential treatment.
3. The school system is unbalanced in teach the Constitution, leaving the majority of the population unsure of the real power of the Constitution -- leaving people free to use the rights they are born with, and preventing any government from walking over those rights.
4. Voters are given completely biased ballots. Proper ballots should force the voter to know who they are voting for and write in the candidate. Offering ballots showing the current office holder or party affiliation provides more power to the two authoritarian parties.
5. Voters are only allowed to see commercials from major parties as they are offered (illegal) campaign matching funds in addition to virtually unlimited campaign budgets. Third parties can not raise the necessary funds as they are limited by finance reform guidelnies.
6. Voters never get to see every candidate in the debates as the debate committees are run by authoritarian parties unwilling to give up their powers.
7. Voters are confused by the colluding media that wants them to vote in order to give the authoritarian candidates the mandates needed to expand the power of government. Voters rarely hear that voting is wrong and that the process setting up the vote is a collusion between the authoritarian parties.
I hope that the EFF can see how short they come when they prosecute only the voting machines, rather than the voting system.
Do what I do. Don't vote for any candidate -- write yourself in for every position.
NEWSFLASH: people are greedy.
You nailed it.
Greed is inherent in people. We take preference to making our own lives better.
This is the nail in the coffin for any large, central government. Markets don't allow greedy people to us force against another, except through government allowance.
I'm not a libertarian. I believe if UL let Vioxx pass and it was found fatal, they'd lose their business. UL is near my house and I've seen their facility, it is a serious place. I've performed government contracts until I learned about freedom, and most are full of nepotism, cronyism or just plain indifference.
Here's a rundown of the FDA:
1. They are a bureacratic department that only has one power: coercion through force
2. They delay, for years, drugs that are saving lives in other countries
3. They keep drugs prescribed that are OTC in other countries, raising our prices
4. They are more interested in CYA than efficiency and lives saved
5. They are bribable as is any government official
6. They are useless
There are many here who think we need the FDA. I believe that they are useless. We use items every day far more dangerous than pills - hair drivers, lamps and microwave ovens. They're only sold by stores if they are UL listed. Underwriters Laboratory is a private company that has to do their job properly, competitively and at the right price. If not, competition will replace them.
The Merck problem is the FDA's fault -- it happened on their watch. Now the free market will save their asses, again, by reducing faith in Merck's honesty and hitting them where it counts -- the bank.
My various daily updated websites that use metafile data to pass a hyperlink (blog with RSS feed for you non-jerk-new-wordphobes) has been getting referrers from gmail since yesterday. I've been getting AOL webmail referrers for a week or so, now it makes sense why this is.
RSS connectivity in the e-mail client is very powerful, maybe the most powerful feature I've seen. I've had trouble getting my audience to download a good RSS reader, but I've seen traffic pick up. Is there a reasonable javascript for "Add this blog to your RSS feeds" that will work with the webmail feed readers?
I'm hiring a 74 year old expert to cowrite 2 blogs and his readers are generally older. Most have e-mail, and as more people flock to webmail for security and efficiency, adding these features is key to helping the new "media" grow. Even for the not retired, easy access to what you want is making generic news outdated.
This news probably pisses off the old media who continue to lose control. If the politicians see their monkeys are powerless, be sure to see regulations on blogs next, via the illegal and unconstitutional FEC and SEC.
http://vegan.com.nyud.net:8090/issues/2005/podjac
Great article, without it I'd never know about the Kobe Beef Show
We've hired 3 bloggers to start a podcast, and I've looked into the control mechanism to protect our feeds technically. I don't support copyright protection laws so I have to allow others redistribution capability. The author seems to have received many more users from the "hijack" I think I'd support others helping me.
Just protect your profits by reminding users to visit your website regularly, and take the technical precautions the author recommends. Copyright won't help you has "hijackers" will just move to 3rd world countries that don't support the laws.
Paraphrasing and modifying the previous article:
According to a Slashdot user, the Music Listeners' Association is stepping up to launch the next phase in the consumer industry's battle against government-protected music. The MLA is demanding jail time for the maintainers of CDs offering undocumented rootkits and worms. The MLA President has stated that refusing CDs and imposing boycotts is not enough, stating that by 'throw [ing]in some jail time I think we'll be a little more effective' in its crusade."
These guys are really shiny and nice looking, electronically, but their tech support is terrible. they never add requested features, cannot acknowledge outages and their billing department is clueless.
I've gone back to running my own server just out of sheer frustration!
They own many of their value added companies, but act as if they don't so they can pass the buck/point fingers.
They spend more on marketing than on servicing.
While this is a joke, it leads into my belief that no text-based media can succeed without being "throne-friendly."
Bathroom reading is a very attention capturing process. I've been thinking (for almosr a decade, back to my news-from-the-BBS days) about what I guess would Be called the PrintCast.
We have blogs. We have udio PodCasts that are downloaded to one's MP3 player automatically. For us text bloggers, I'd love to see software to pull blogs at say 6:30am, format them in a nice newsletter/newspaper format, print them out (with minor banner ads?) and have it waiting when you wake up. Imagine a FREE double-sided WiFi printer that automatically sets you up with YOUR daily news. Custom targeted ads could easily pay for it. Charge bloggers for better positioning and allow bloggers to cut articles short (maybe) to get you to their sites.
I'm going to look into pull-PDF versions of my articles, but how do I make it automated to print before you start your day?
Copyright is, at its most basic, the monopoly to use force to control a non-physical "thing." Before copyright racketeering, we had ten thousand years of art, music and creation. Today marketable art is more and more in the hands of those who can not produce. Where 7 years of legal force might be ok, no law offering power ever stays reasonable.
The web is ending our need to copyright, as enforcing it will soon be impossible. BitTorrent is getting replaced with third party proxies so information stores can;t be traced. Small bands that give away their music are seeing increased sales of show tickets and merchandise. Old Brick and mortar retailers can't compete with eBay and Amazon, and the used market always offers the same art for less.
Here's the basis for the end of copyright: the free market. The laws of supply and demand say anything for sale with an unlimited supply is worthless. Art is worthless -- the profit comes from how you package it (live versus CD) and what you offer as a value added incentive.
Austrian economists believe in a simple market based on supply, demand and a high quality non-inflating money (gold).
Neo-Keynesians change their theories to match past market eccentricities, believe in labor-side economics and love fiat currency that they can inflate all day long (and devalue).
Our M3 money supply went from US$1trillion to US$10trillion in 15 years. Wonder why prices went up 500-2000% as well?
AnCap = anarchocapitalist
We believe that voting with your purchases is better for everyone than government and the use of force.
Some say we're ultra-libertarians who are minarchocapitalists.
I'm a businessman who is always on the run. I read and post here from my PDA phone in the moments I have nothing to do. I'm in Vegas right now, waiting for a future customer to arrive.
:)
Fun with phones
I disagree completely.
Prices of any goods or service is directly affected by the supply of money for the goods versus the supply of goods.
Government "easy money" grants and loans increase the supply of money -- forcing prices way up. Easy loans/grants is to blame for high tuition costs.
As an AnCap, freedom of expression is more important than merely free speech.
Expression is:
- How I talk
- How I dress
- How I spend my money
- Who I voluntarily congregate with
This freedom can not be limited on my land or on public land. This freedom can be limited on the land of others.
Freedom from tyranny means no party uses force to coerce another party to give up their property or person involuntarily. It also means that no force can be used to abridge any natural rights against a party's will on that party's property.
Force means making someone do something with no way out of the situation. Taxes are force. The draft is force. Government sponsored censorship is force.
What is not force? When two parties negotiate and one party will not accept part of the agreement, the parties may part ways. This is the free market. If you don't like my price, don't buy from me. If you don't like my skin color, don't sell to me. If you don't like the rules on my private property, leave. If my rules are excessive, competition will decide what the market will accept.
I believe a private school with NO direct government funding can set the rules for conduct and speech, even off their property. The student agrees to the rules to utilize the private property even if the student pays for it.
When my store sells a paintball marker ("gun") or a skateboard, I tell my customers I will refuse them future service if they don't use the items safely. I am allowed to pick who I voluntarily trade with and how. The student can negotiate or not agree to a rule, the school can refuse.
Only government has a monopoly on force. They can not, in a free market, truly own or control property -- they only use what all the people loan then. As such, they'd be abusing their monopoly on force by setting rules for speech or expression, as they control no property. The government borrowed property is not theirs to rule, it is the people's and all people are free to speak or express themselves (or bear arms on their property which includes publicly managed properties).
If the school accepts government funding directly, they can not regulate expression. If they are truly privately funded, they can (in a free market) say what conduct they expect in a person's life. There are other competitive schools that may not have such restrictive policies that the student can attend.
Lately I've commented myself about the EFF's failures in the recent past. I usually get flamed for it.
I think the article is way too harsh but more on the money than most believe. I've always felt they were a shill for mercantilist businesses.
I support the Institute for Justice. These guys are about freedom and focus on winning. I will never support the EFF who only want some freedom at the expense of supporting the political growth of power.
Also, devaluation of currency actually helps the solvency of a pension system.
I disagree in the long term intent of devaluation. Look at it this way, if you're expecting to earn 60% of your income upon retirement 30 years from today, and the government devalues currency 100% in that time (the U.S. is devaluing almost 10% a year!), then prices will be double, so you're really earning is actually 30% of your current income.
Increased payout times (longer life expectancy)
Fluctuations in the size of the working population (like the upcoming baby-boomer retirement in the US)
Fluctuations in the markets where pensions are invested, and poor decisions by fund management.
Companies not meeting growth targets.
You're right. And this is where the individual has way more ability to compensate for these things than the government planners can! If you live longer, you have to understand that the retirement age that government sets is unreasonable and you have to play for doing some work for the latter years after forced retirement. My father is retired but he is finding options to continue earning. All decisions by fund managers seem to be poor as they ignore the realities of the economy. I believe a fund manager who follows the Austrian School of thought would be the best to make investment decisions -- understanding that the stock market is manipulated directly by the central bank's printing of money and lowering/rising of interest rates counter to what the market can bear.
Pensions are just accrued expenses, whether there are tax incentives or not. Private pension failures happen, basically, for the same reasons that public pensions fail -- income being less than (current expenses + accrued expenses).
This is completely true, and why I don't have a pension, a 401K or any investment that is completely in the hands of other people. I put my money into cash-purchased property, gold and my own businesses or the businesses of others close to me. If you look at the wealthiest people based on net assets, you'll see that they are debt free and self-invested even if they aren't rich. I'm not rich by any means but I have wealth compared to my friends who live in US$500,000 houses 80% mortgaged and have hundreds of thousands of dollars in 401Ks. Plus my wealth is not time-related: I travel more, take more time off and work less than any other person I know, even though I earn significantly less.
Without regular periods of inflation, you get a stagnant economy in which everyone loses -- even those who keep their cash in a mattress, since there will be less to spend their cash on when they choose to do so.
That is a myth created by the Keynesians. In an economy with a fixed currency base (say gold) that fluctuates little in supply, inflation and deflation are not based on currency as the world economies currently are. If you have 100 units of currency in existance, the prices of goods fluctuates directly on supply and demand and disregard the currency base. Today, as central banks print more money, those in control of the newly printed currency have way more power than those of us that end up with the new bills. When there are 100 units of dollars in existance and the central bank prints 10 more, the people who can spend those 10 more first won't see a 10% inflationary change based on the new currency.
If you're not familiar with the Austrian Economic theory, check mises.org or read Murray Rothbard's "What Has Government Done To Our Money?" Both have decent, easy-to-understand articles on why government and private pensions fail and why anything tied to a fiat currency base can't last forever. Also Gene Callahan's "Economics for Real People" is a GREAT remake of Rothbard's classic.
For your information, the pensions crisis in Britain is by far and away going to be caused (for it hasn't happened yet) by all the Baby Boomers retiring at once, and every single one of them living an average of 8-10 years longer than their parents.
Which to me is BS because your birth rate is over 1.0 and has been from before the births of the so called Baby Boomers. This means that MORE people are paying into the fund. The U.K. continues to inflate the British Pound, causing non-stop devaluing of the currency. The U.K. also continues to devalue savings by reducing the return on savings accounts.
And as Lord Turner so aptly pointed out, if you left it up to your average 26 year old, they wouldn't put any money away for the future. It is the government's responsibility to put away 4% more of our GDP into the pensions fund, and to raise the retirement age at that.
Why? People don't save because your government manipulates savings returns AND offers the cushion of a social security program. China has one of the highest savings rates in the world. You (and I, in the U.S.) live with people who feel that government should take care of their retirements. I don't want any social security -- and I find ways to pay as little into the program as possible. I don't want a mortgage because I know that life can change at an instant, so I live in the best house I can afford without a mortgage or rent. Don't lay your future concerns on me, I'm not going to support you. To force others to pay for your lack of concern is ridiculous, and immoral.
I want to know that something is being done, by someone with the right sort of power and responsibility, to ensure the financial security of myself and my children in old age.
The government taxes you to save for your future? No. The government taxes you so that they can invest those dollars into the businesses of their cronies. Look at where your tax dollars REALLY go. They don't go into a fund to be protected for a rainy day. They go into loaning money at low interest rates to cronies. They go into fighting wars that are run by their cronies. They go into education systems that are managed by their cronies. Don't believe that government cares about you or any citizen -- they don't.
Even worse, they're inflating your currency every day, making your money worthless over time but giving them extra money to spend now before it is worthless. This is your government, and you want more?
If you are quite happy to have just anyone creating domains, that's great. But i think that most people would appreciate a responsible body of people in the know considering the propriety of creating and redefining domain names. In my opinion, it is far better to have some rules, than open the field up to just anybody, because that can only result in chaos.
We already have billions of domain names in existence and it isn't chaos because the market provides for companies to sort those domain names -- search engines, link managers, bookmarks and the like. Nothing would change in a free market. You'd just have lower prices and better competition. I'm glad we can agree to disagree, though!
First off, in many companies, it's just too hard to get that educational word out. I mean, I personally work for a compnay with 250K employees.
Educating on an issue doesn't happen overnight and doesn't have to happen from your employer. If you tell family and friends about the problems out there, the word will get out. The spammers and spywarers will be ahead of the game in the beginning, but Bad Things eventually lose out as more and more people become educated about those Bad Things. Maybe we can perfect operating systems enough so that spyware/adware won't have backdoors, but I still think we, as geeks, can do our job by educating those around us.
Half the time, users can't even follow simple directions because they just don't like using computers!
You're right, and the answer isn't "people are becoming more tech savvy" as the worst spyware-installation violators are the teens, it seems. Spyware also seems to be one of those things that IT consultants LIKE because it increases their income base/job security. I'm not saying education is the end-all be-all solution, but I don't see how patching and defending will ever be the answer. As OSes progress and as spyware infections disable more systems, the market of consumers has to get smart.