There's a number of batteries out there with a higher charge density than LiIon. The problem is that most of them are primary cells - not secondary. No capacity for recharge.
For example, there's a way to make a Tesla go 3k miles on a single charge. Thing is, the battery that could do that consumes aluminum in a non-reversable* fashion. So their proposal was to replace something like 1/3rd of the lithium with their battery, so that you had the 'range extension' if necessary.
The impression I get reading some of the more extreme Libertarian literature is that the writers can't imagine the perfidy of some humans.
You would be correct with that, which is why I'm a moderate libertarian. There needs to be functions in society to hopefully stop people before they dig themselves a hole so deep that they can never dig themselves out. Things like murder, extreme pollution, etc...
The problem I have with libertarian philosophy is that it doesn't look to me like it would work well with humans under modern conditions, much like Marxism or assuming most users have a clue about computer security.
To be fair, most philosophies have this problem if you keep them 'pure'. Fortunately, I'm a moderate.
The impression I got from reading a Libertarian platform is that the writers didn't have a clue as to how to make things like pollution controls work, so they put down something ideologically pure and kept going.
Pollution is indeed a complicated topic. Keep in mind that I'm working from memory, simplifying, and as a moderate trying for a system that I think would, more or less, work.
Preconceptions: 1. We last the ability to have a technological society without pollution. Hell, we lack the ability to have society at all without pollution. Even stone age humans had pollution. 2. It is impractical to the point of impossibility to track every injury from pollution to a specific source. 3. Our quality of life will be maximized by the proper balancing of economic yet polluting production, pollution controls, and curbing of polluting production.
Ergo, for any given economic activity that produces pollution - internalize the external costs by charging them. Proceeds go towards providing universal medical care or something. Basically, create a list of how much they're emitting into whatever forms, and consult a table that's our best guess at how much damage, say, airborne mercury, causes. Multiply by something like 1.2-2.0 to account for pollution usually ending up being worse than we first thought, and to handle the administrative costs.
They put controls in to reduce their pollution, great, lower fees. If they can't curb their pollution via technological means and can't operate economically under the fees, well, that's a sign that they shouldn't be operating, right? It means that they're a net negative profit maker when you include external costs.
For things like individuals, I'd build the fees into the supply lines - a more polluting vehicle will have to pay a larger estimated pollution fee than a less polluting vehicle. Gasoline will have a tax on it to cover the pollution, etc...
Some people who call themselves libertarians are anarchists,
Yeah, a known problem. 'Anarchy' got a bad name, so they're trying to usurp ours.:(
I'm a moderate libertarian, and I disagree with the party a lot, thing is - I disagree with them less than the other parties, so they're who I identify with.
True, but the same thing can be said about ending any government agency with which you perceive to be of negative effectiveness, as opposed to simply not benefiting you directly.
The government is a biological system in that sense - even a small change seemingly completely unrelated can and probably will eventually affect you, in some slight or even drastic way.
People pay less for digital copies of media without understanding that they weren't buying a property right, only a usage right. Kinda like a refundable versus non-refundable airline ticket.
Except that with the cartel stuff currently going on, they're not paying less.
Okay, they might be paying $2 less than the cover price for a hardback, but I can't think of the last time I actually paid cover price for a physical book, period.
If you're a deal shopper like me, then even new physical books are still cheaper than the e-book versions, with rare exceptions.
Not sure why you're bothering to repeat stuff back at me...
Anyways, a 400 mile holiday is easily doable with a Tesla. If you're talking 400 miles round trip, go on holiday, charge at your destination. If it's 400 miles each leg, then you stop at a supercharger station for lunch, it'll give you ~200 miles in ~30 minutes.
You don't need to change the battery every 5 years. They're looking to see how much they last past 10 now.
Yes, Teslas are expensive. Tesla is promising the next vehicles will be a lot cheaper.
The first EVs were actually nickel-iron, back in 1909(EVs are not 'new'). Then they were Lead Acid. The EV1, during it's production run, started with lead-acid but was upgraded to NiMH.
A new one might replace Lithium Ion soon and make it lighter and smaller again.
Unlikely, for 'soon' we'd be hearing about it being tested in labs and such right now. Instead we're hearing about things like the gigafactory to cut the price of a battery pack in half again.
Disclaimer: Not a vaper. Have never cared for (recreational) drugs so no interest beyond thinking it's an interesting use of technology.
I'm not one either.
Another thought - even if they're getting their nicotine from tobacco, they might be getting it from 'scrap' tobacco that was deemed unfit for use in cigars, cigarettes, as dip, etc...
i really don't understand how lithium was ever deemed safe for pocket devices. if i had a tesla car, i'd be really scared of even the smallest collision. fortunately, my hybrid has a NiMH battery.
Which tells me that you haven't examined the risks. For example, you don't worry about the gasoline tank in your hybrid, but that's a lot more likely to be involved in or cause a fire.
Tesla has had a few cars catch fire, but at a lower rate than traditional vehicles. Perhaps even more notably, they've been able to warn their occupants to get out, and even then erupt in fire slowly enough for people to safely escape.
Looking at the other comments, it seems that people are attempting to use dodgy cells in them.
I know that the first thing people will reach for is regulatory oversight, including banning them, but I remember that Underwriter's Laboratories isn't a government agency, and people are buying vaporizers from dodgy sources. Lawsuits, in this case, can only do so much I think. The companies will simply go bankrupt.
So I have to ask, as I'm a non-smoker who hasn't looked into it, are there any safety organizations that have published safety standards and are offering their guarantee mark to vaporizers that meet said safety standards?
A few stories like this making the rounds of e-cig communication lines(forums, magazines, websites), and the saying to 'get a UL listed one or you risk it blowing up!', and safety should improve.
I think it would be fair to say that you don't believe the DEA in its current form benefits you personally.
In it's current form, how many people can say that the DEA benefits them, if they're not being employed by the DEA? It's a law enforcement agency. Most interactions, I'd think, would be negative. Also, note that I didn't say the DEA in my post. There's a lot more than the DEA involved in the war on drugs...
That being said, I listed the war on drugs because it doesn't actually affect me personally very much, positive or negative. Not only do I not use drugs, I'm not looking to use drugs.
Sure, you can twist it out and say that since the DEA 'doesn't benefit me', I'm looking to get rid of it because the less government there is, the less government spending there is, and the less taxes necessary.
But that gets into the point where you can say "No, they're only against bits of the government they don't think will benefit them personally." about everybody.
I actively think that the DEA harms the country. I think that it and the ATF need to be gutted and the law enforcement aspects merged with the FBI, the tax aspects with the IRS*, and the drug regulation with the FDA. DHS needs to be overtaken by the DoD. etc...
*As long as you have tax collection, you need the IRS or an equivalent agency. So I'm not going to play with a re-naming game. You need tax collection to fund law enforcement, courts, defense, etc...
1. 99% of people don't want to have to drive to a gas station either. 2. With most trips, you don't have to 'wait for a charge' either, you just charge at night as you say for the 3k range vehicle. Job pursuits have separated me and my parents enough that driving isn't an option, so it's been a long time since I was more than 50 miles from home without just flying there. 3. The pressures are a lot higher with hydrogen than with LPG, and hydrogen likes leaking through tinier openings(it'll leak straight through standard uncoated steel, for example). So 'everything' is going to have to be beefier. LPG is easy in comparison.
Look, I'm with you on 100 mile ranged EVs. That's just too short. But the 300 mile Teslas? Those can handle just about anything, with the main problem beihttps://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9144201&cid=52181465#ng charger availability - and that used to be an issue for petrol as well until you had sufficient saturation with fueling stations.
Hell, I've driven through areas where they tell you to fill up at every station - because the next one might be over 200 miles away.
No, they're only against bits of the government they don't think will benefit them personally.
I don't do drugs, not even alcohol or tobacco. I believe that the War on Drugs needs to be ended because it's a massive imposition on liberty, and not just on drug users. I also think that the current push to ban(at least virtually) vaporizers is wrong, despite zero desire to use one.
No, I do not limit myself to 'bits of the government' that would benefit me personally.
Okay. First thing, realize that neither liberal nor conservative philosophies are particularly pacifistic. Second, that there's a difference between an individual using force, and the government doing so.
Individuals and government both have the right to use violence to prevent imminent harm by violence. Otherwise, if you have been harmed through the improper actions of another, the correct action is to ask for redress, and if that is not satisfactory, to sue. After the court passes judgement, yes, violence may ultimately be involved in the enforcement of the court order. Such is life.
Some cites: source "One possible position is extreme pacifism, according to which individuals are never permitted to use non-consensual force against others. Another is moderate pacifism, according to which individuals are permitted to use non-consensual force against others only when necessary in self-defense (or the defense of others). This moderate view would allow the use of force against a person to prevent her from wrongfully using force against others, but it would not allow the use of force to rectify past violations (e.g., punish or extract compensation from the rights-violator). Most libertarian positions would allow the use of force for cases of rectification. Many would allow the use of force for retributive punishment, but some—Barnett (1998), for example—reject retributive punishment and insist that compensation for wrongful harms is the sole justification for the rectificatory use of force." Non-agression principle
Like many philosophical points, a couple sentences is far from enough to adequately explain such a complicated topic.
It's even more complicated in that as a moderate libertarian, I'm willing to set aside the non-agression principle in cases where there's sufficient evidence that holding to it will lead to increased human suffering. It's just that I hold that, in general, it's the best option, and that any breaking from it needs to be carefully weighed and considered.
"for sure later" implies that there's time to get government forces involved, so no, you're not allowed to hire mercenaries to go attack your rival because your rival is totally going to hire mercenaries to attack you.
That's anarchy and warlordism, not libertarianism.
Also, "barrage"? Do we know of him funding any lawsuits besides Hogan's?
A car that takes more than 5 minutes to fill is not fit for purpose.
Define the purpose. Seriously, we're looking at probably a million different 'purposes', when it comes to cars, even if we combine ones that are less than 1% different into bands.
It might not be fit for YOUR purpose, but since people are buying them, they're fit for theirs. Would a theoretical EV which still takes 30 minutes to fill, but has a 3,000 mile range still be unsuitable?
Also, it's fairly likely that the process would take more than 5 minutes, as there will be more safeties and interlocks to deal with.
So what was "wrong" with telling the world what a racist [nypost.com], immoral [dailymail.co.uk] piece of shit that Hulk Hogan is?
Nothing. Of course, that wasn't what the lawsuit was about, now was it?
Even the second lawsuit probably has to do with violations of court orders and agreements about anything to do with the sex tape, which is again a valid use of the courts.
Funding a lawsuit to stop a wrong from being done is nothing at all the same as funding a lawsuit with the intent of stopping unrelated behavior that you just happen to not like.
I may not have phrased it quite the way I should have. Funding 'valid' lawsuits is all well and good. Valid, in this case, means a case put forth in good faith that a wrong or tort offense has been committed. I apologize for giving you that impression
Frivolously suing people, or funding frivolous lawsuits, is something that needs to die in a fire. SLAPP* lawsuits, deliberately trying to run people out of money, time, or just dedication, and all that needs to be stopped.
Still, given my supporting sentence, isn't taking the idea that SLAPP lawsuits are libertarian a little on the distorted side? And what does publicly funding the lawsuit have to do with being libertarian or not? Does my name need to be announced to the public as supporting a court case whenever one of the non-profits I donate to decides to help with somebody's defense?
It takes a big government with guns to enforce libel laws, so yes. They are the opposite of libertarian.
Common mistake, libertarians aren't for weak or 'small' government, though we are for a smaller government than is currently in place.
We're for a limited government, which means a government that is restricted in scope of duties, not power to implement said duties. The government is too small/weak if it can't enforce court orders.
Unfortunately, there's a fairly intense(for the size of the party itself) misinformation campaign that mixes up Anarchist views with libertarian views.
For example, we ask why the hell do we have the TSA. We don't try to limit it to, say, 5k employees, we try to get rid of the whole thing. If the FBI is swamped handling cases(murder/kidnapping/theft/etc...), maybe they do need more money for personnel, but the DEA needs to go away. Etc...
I wish I knew if this was intended as irony or a libertarian admitting that they are in favor of tyranny.
Neither, I'd rate it as a fairly standard strawman attack on the philosophy.
Though 'doing whatever the fuck you want within the law' is libertarian so long as the law is well written.
My cliffs note version: "So long as everybody involved are informed consenting competent adults, do what you will"
For that matter, even if it is within the law, if you go harming somebody who's not consenting or not competent(such as being underage), expect to be hauled into court to pay damages.
Indeed. Courts are the Libertarian answer to just about everything, rather than regulations. An awful lot of slashdotters get us mixed up with anarchists.
That being said, as a moderate libertarian I'm for keeping some regulations around.
The other thing I took out of it was that I asked him since the government under his Libertarian ideals was incredibly weak and small, what did you do when you had problems, like for example, some manufacturer sells you bad medicine? Simple - you sue. So instead of the government being your big stick the legal system is. So yes, I think it's very much in keeping with Libertarian principles to simply sue people you don't agree with.
Okay, first up, I'm not a fundie big-L Libertarian, but a more pragmatic little-l one. Still, I might have a couple corrections for you. One - Weak and small government - I'm for a limited, not a weak, government. I see a 'weak' government as one that can't enforce it's mandates. In this sense, China has a weak government in the area of pollution because, despite the best, strongest, laws in the world* for environmental protection, they are unable or unwilling to enforce said mandates. On the other hand, a limited government is one that is only to practice it's power within narrowly defined guidelines. The constitution was supposed to produce a limited government. However, as long as it's within those guidelines it should be as strong as necessary. If it is determined that you need to be arrested for crimes, you should be getting arrested.
Second, you shouldn't be suing people simply for disagreeing with you. You should fund your own advertising campaign for that. It's when people have wronged you, harmed you, in some way that you should sue. Developed bronchitis because the local coal power plant doesn't want to install environmental controls? Lawsuit. Local news agency mislead you by lying? Lawsuit. Local store sold you e coli tainted peanut butter? Lawsuit. Etc...
And yes, that means that the courts need the power to enforce their findings, and that at least theoretically they really need to be better operating. As a small-l, I'm willing to accept a certain amount of legislation intended to keep people from needing to go to court in the first place. Pollution, for example.
*Seriously, they have the best environmental laws on the books.
As a libertarian, I see "Might makes right" a lot more coming from leftwing side of things, like when idiots block traffic to protest something nobody in traffic has any connection to, and thinking that is just fine and dandy.
I see "might makes right" as the sad truth of the world far too often. It's why we band up and put power into the hands of government, to hopefully have a neutral party willing to enforce a standard set of rules. The libertarian party are not anarchists, and 'weak' government is a misnomer - the correct phrase is 'limited'. A limited government is one that is only present in the areas granted to it. It should NOT be weak in those areas. It shouldn't be involved in areas where it hasn't been granted jurisdiction.
Anyways, have you noticed how most of the anti-libertarian posters seem to feel the need to post as anonymous cowards, while I'd say it's more the opposite for supporters?
Slashdot Mirror
There's a number of batteries out there with a higher charge density than LiIon. The problem is that most of them are primary cells - not secondary. No capacity for recharge.
For example, there's a way to make a Tesla go 3k miles on a single charge. Thing is, the battery that could do that consumes aluminum in a non-reversable* fashion. So their proposal was to replace something like 1/3rd of the lithium with their battery, so that you had the 'range extension' if necessary.
*By the battery, at least.
The impression I get reading some of the more extreme Libertarian literature is that the writers can't imagine the perfidy of some humans.
You would be correct with that, which is why I'm a moderate libertarian. There needs to be functions in society to hopefully stop people before they dig themselves a hole so deep that they can never dig themselves out. Things like murder, extreme pollution, etc...
The problem I have with libertarian philosophy is that it doesn't look to me like it would work well with humans under modern conditions, much like Marxism or assuming most users have a clue about computer security.
To be fair, most philosophies have this problem if you keep them 'pure'. Fortunately, I'm a moderate.
The impression I got from reading a Libertarian platform is that the writers didn't have a clue as to how to make things like pollution controls work, so they put down something ideologically pure and kept going.
Pollution is indeed a complicated topic. Keep in mind that I'm working from memory, simplifying, and as a moderate trying for a system that I think would, more or less, work.
Preconceptions:
1. We last the ability to have a technological society without pollution. Hell, we lack the ability to have society at all without pollution. Even stone age humans had pollution.
2. It is impractical to the point of impossibility to track every injury from pollution to a specific source.
3. Our quality of life will be maximized by the proper balancing of economic yet polluting production, pollution controls, and curbing of polluting production.
Ergo, for any given economic activity that produces pollution - internalize the external costs by charging them. Proceeds go towards providing universal medical care or something. Basically, create a list of how much they're emitting into whatever forms, and consult a table that's our best guess at how much damage, say, airborne mercury, causes. Multiply by something like 1.2-2.0 to account for pollution usually ending up being worse than we first thought, and to handle the administrative costs.
They put controls in to reduce their pollution, great, lower fees. If they can't curb their pollution via technological means and can't operate economically under the fees, well, that's a sign that they shouldn't be operating, right? It means that they're a net negative profit maker when you include external costs.
For things like individuals, I'd build the fees into the supply lines - a more polluting vehicle will have to pay a larger estimated pollution fee than a less polluting vehicle. Gasoline will have a tax on it to cover the pollution, etc...
Some people who call themselves libertarians are anarchists,
Yeah, a known problem. 'Anarchy' got a bad name, so they're trying to usurp ours. :(
I'm a moderate libertarian, and I disagree with the party a lot, thing is - I disagree with them less than the other parties, so they're who I identify with.
You'd be better off if the War on Drugs ended.
True, but the same thing can be said about ending any government agency with which you perceive to be of negative effectiveness, as opposed to simply not benefiting you directly.
The government is a biological system in that sense - even a small change seemingly completely unrelated can and probably will eventually affect you, in some slight or even drastic way.
People pay less for digital copies of media without understanding that they weren't buying a property right, only a usage right. Kinda like a refundable versus non-refundable airline ticket.
Except that with the cartel stuff currently going on, they're not paying less.
Okay, they might be paying $2 less than the cover price for a hardback, but I can't think of the last time I actually paid cover price for a physical book, period.
If you're a deal shopper like me, then even new physical books are still cheaper than the e-book versions, with rare exceptions.
At 130 miles currently it's useless.
Not sure why you're bothering to repeat stuff back at me...
Anyways, a 400 mile holiday is easily doable with a Tesla. If you're talking 400 miles round trip, go on holiday, charge at your destination. If it's 400 miles each leg, then you stop at a supercharger station for lunch, it'll give you ~200 miles in ~30 minutes.
You don't need to change the battery every 5 years. They're looking to see how much they last past 10 now.
Yes, Teslas are expensive. Tesla is promising the next vehicles will be a lot cheaper.
The first EVs were actually nickel-iron, back in 1909(EVs are not 'new'). Then they were Lead Acid. The EV1, during it's production run, started with lead-acid but was upgraded to NiMH.
A new one might replace Lithium Ion soon and make it lighter and smaller again.
Unlikely, for 'soon' we'd be hearing about it being tested in labs and such right now. Instead we're hearing about things like the gigafactory to cut the price of a battery pack in half again.
Disclaimer: Not a vaper. Have never cared for (recreational) drugs so no interest beyond thinking it's an interesting use of technology.
I'm not one either.
Another thought - even if they're getting their nicotine from tobacco, they might be getting it from 'scrap' tobacco that was deemed unfit for use in cigars, cigarettes, as dip, etc...
And all but a couple bucks of that cigarette pack are taxes, so it's not money that the tobacco industry is seeing.
My answer would be that e-cigs likely use synthetic nicotine.
i really don't understand how lithium was ever deemed safe for pocket devices. if i had a tesla car, i'd be really scared of even the smallest collision. fortunately, my hybrid has a NiMH battery.
Which tells me that you haven't examined the risks. For example, you don't worry about the gasoline tank in your hybrid, but that's a lot more likely to be involved in or cause a fire.
Tesla has had a few cars catch fire, but at a lower rate than traditional vehicles. Perhaps even more notably, they've been able to warn their occupants to get out, and even then erupt in fire slowly enough for people to safely escape.
Looking at the other comments, it seems that people are attempting to use dodgy cells in them.
I know that the first thing people will reach for is regulatory oversight, including banning them, but I remember that Underwriter's Laboratories isn't a government agency, and people are buying vaporizers from dodgy sources. Lawsuits, in this case, can only do so much I think. The companies will simply go bankrupt.
So I have to ask, as I'm a non-smoker who hasn't looked into it, are there any safety organizations that have published safety standards and are offering their guarantee mark to vaporizers that meet said safety standards?
A few stories like this making the rounds of e-cig communication lines(forums, magazines, websites), and the saying to 'get a UL listed one or you risk it blowing up!', and safety should improve.
I think it would be fair to say that you don't believe the DEA in its current form benefits you personally.
In it's current form, how many people can say that the DEA benefits them, if they're not being employed by the DEA? It's a law enforcement agency. Most interactions, I'd think, would be negative. Also, note that I didn't say the DEA in my post. There's a lot more than the DEA involved in the war on drugs...
That being said, I listed the war on drugs because it doesn't actually affect me personally very much, positive or negative. Not only do I not use drugs, I'm not looking to use drugs.
Sure, you can twist it out and say that since the DEA 'doesn't benefit me', I'm looking to get rid of it because the less government there is, the less government spending there is, and the less taxes necessary.
But that gets into the point where you can say "No, they're only against bits of the government they don't think will benefit them personally." about everybody.
I actively think that the DEA harms the country. I think that it and the ATF need to be gutted and the law enforcement aspects merged with the FBI, the tax aspects with the IRS*, and the drug regulation with the FDA. DHS needs to be overtaken by the DoD. etc...
*As long as you have tax collection, you need the IRS or an equivalent agency. So I'm not going to play with a re-naming game. You need tax collection to fund law enforcement, courts, defense, etc...
1. 99% of people don't want to have to drive to a gas station either.
2. With most trips, you don't have to 'wait for a charge' either, you just charge at night as you say for the 3k range vehicle. Job pursuits have separated me and my parents enough that driving isn't an option, so it's been a long time since I was more than 50 miles from home without just flying there.
3. The pressures are a lot higher with hydrogen than with LPG, and hydrogen likes leaking through tinier openings(it'll leak straight through standard uncoated steel, for example). So 'everything' is going to have to be beefier. LPG is easy in comparison.
Look, I'm with you on 100 mile ranged EVs. That's just too short. But the 300 mile Teslas? Those can handle just about anything, with the main problem beihttps://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=9144201&cid=52181465#ng charger availability - and that used to be an issue for petrol as well until you had sufficient saturation with fueling stations.
Hell, I've driven through areas where they tell you to fill up at every station - because the next one might be over 200 miles away.
Or even if the case itself is 'with merit',
The best case of barratry I remember was the DC Judge who went nuts on a dry-cleaning business for losing his pants. Suing a small business for $67M.
Note: The dry cleaners offered to settle for $3k-$12k, but the judge refused, and was representing himself in court.
No, they're only against bits of the government they don't think will benefit them personally.
I don't do drugs, not even alcohol or tobacco. I believe that the War on Drugs needs to be ended because it's a massive imposition on liberty, and not just on drug users. I also think that the current push to ban(at least virtually) vaporizers is wrong, despite zero desire to use one.
No, I do not limit myself to 'bits of the government' that would benefit me personally.
*shrug*
It's a Socratic method 'teaching' question thing anyways, the results aren't stored anywhere.
...Wow. I wonder how that got missed?
Okay. First thing, realize that neither liberal nor conservative philosophies are particularly pacifistic. Second, that there's a difference between an individual using force, and the government doing so.
Individuals and government both have the right to use violence to prevent imminent harm by violence. Otherwise, if you have been harmed through the improper actions of another, the correct action is to ask for redress, and if that is not satisfactory, to sue. After the court passes judgement, yes, violence may ultimately be involved in the enforcement of the court order. Such is life.
Some cites:
source
"One possible position is extreme pacifism, according to which individuals are never permitted to use non-consensual force against others. Another is moderate pacifism, according to which individuals are permitted to use non-consensual force against others only when necessary in self-defense (or the defense of others). This moderate view would allow the use of force against a person to prevent her from wrongfully using force against others, but it would not allow the use of force to rectify past violations (e.g., punish or extract compensation from the rights-violator). Most libertarian positions would allow the use of force for cases of rectification. Many would allow the use of force for retributive punishment, but some—Barnett (1998), for example—reject retributive punishment and insist that compensation for wrongful harms is the sole justification for the rectificatory use of force."
Non-agression principle
Like many philosophical points, a couple sentences is far from enough to adequately explain such a complicated topic.
It's even more complicated in that as a moderate libertarian, I'm willing to set aside the non-agression principle in cases where there's sufficient evidence that holding to it will lead to increased human suffering. It's just that I hold that, in general, it's the best option, and that any breaking from it needs to be carefully weighed and considered.
"for sure later" implies that there's time to get government forces involved, so no, you're not allowed to hire mercenaries to go attack your rival because your rival is totally going to hire mercenaries to attack you.
That's anarchy and warlordism, not libertarianism.
Also, "barrage"? Do we know of him funding any lawsuits besides Hogan's?
A car that takes more than 5 minutes to fill is not fit for purpose.
Define the purpose. Seriously, we're looking at probably a million different 'purposes', when it comes to cars, even if we combine ones that are less than 1% different into bands.
It might not be fit for YOUR purpose, but since people are buying them, they're fit for theirs. Would a theoretical EV which still takes 30 minutes to fill, but has a 3,000 mile range still be unsuitable?
Also, it's fairly likely that the process would take more than 5 minutes, as there will be more safeties and interlocks to deal with.
So what was "wrong" with telling the world what a racist [nypost.com], immoral [dailymail.co.uk] piece of shit that Hulk Hogan is?
Nothing. Of course, that wasn't what the lawsuit was about, now was it?
Even the second lawsuit probably has to do with violations of court orders and agreements about anything to do with the sex tape, which is again a valid use of the courts.
Funding a lawsuit to stop a wrong from being done is nothing at all the same as funding a lawsuit with the intent of stopping unrelated behavior that you just happen to not like.
I may not have phrased it quite the way I should have. Funding 'valid' lawsuits is all well and good. Valid, in this case, means a case put forth in good faith that a wrong or tort offense has been committed. I apologize for giving you that impression
Frivolously suing people, or funding frivolous lawsuits, is something that needs to die in a fire. SLAPP* lawsuits, deliberately trying to run people out of money, time, or just dedication, and all that needs to be stopped.
Still, given my supporting sentence, isn't taking the idea that SLAPP lawsuits are libertarian a little on the distorted side? And what does publicly funding the lawsuit have to do with being libertarian or not? Does my name need to be announced to the public as supporting a court case whenever one of the non-profits I donate to decides to help with somebody's defense?
*Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation
It takes a big government with guns to enforce libel laws, so yes. They are the opposite of libertarian.
Common mistake, libertarians aren't for weak or 'small' government, though we are for a smaller government than is currently in place.
We're for a limited government, which means a government that is restricted in scope of duties, not power to implement said duties. The government is too small/weak if it can't enforce court orders.
Unfortunately, there's a fairly intense(for the size of the party itself) misinformation campaign that mixes up Anarchist views with libertarian views.
For example, we ask why the hell do we have the TSA. We don't try to limit it to, say, 5k employees, we try to get rid of the whole thing. If the FBI is swamped handling cases(murder/kidnapping/theft/etc...), maybe they do need more money for personnel, but the DEA needs to go away. Etc...
I wish I knew if this was intended as irony or a libertarian admitting that they are in favor of tyranny.
Neither, I'd rate it as a fairly standard strawman attack on the philosophy.
Though 'doing whatever the fuck you want within the law' is libertarian so long as the law is well written.
My cliffs note version: "So long as everybody involved are informed consenting competent adults, do what you will"
For that matter, even if it is within the law, if you go harming somebody who's not consenting or not competent(such as being underage), expect to be hauled into court to pay damages.
Indeed. Courts are the Libertarian answer to just about everything, rather than regulations. An awful lot of slashdotters get us mixed up with anarchists.
That being said, as a moderate libertarian I'm for keeping some regulations around.
The other thing I took out of it was that I asked him since the government under his Libertarian ideals was incredibly weak and small, what did you do when you had problems, like for example, some manufacturer sells you bad medicine? Simple - you sue. So instead of the government being your big stick the legal system is. So yes, I think it's very much in keeping with Libertarian principles to simply sue people you don't agree with.
Okay, first up, I'm not a fundie big-L Libertarian, but a more pragmatic little-l one. Still, I might have a couple corrections for you.
One - Weak and small government - I'm for a limited, not a weak, government. I see a 'weak' government as one that can't enforce it's mandates. In this sense, China has a weak government in the area of pollution because, despite the best, strongest, laws in the world* for environmental protection, they are unable or unwilling to enforce said mandates. On the other hand, a limited government is one that is only to practice it's power within narrowly defined guidelines. The constitution was supposed to produce a limited government. However, as long as it's within those guidelines it should be as strong as necessary. If it is determined that you need to be arrested for crimes, you should be getting arrested.
Second, you shouldn't be suing people simply for disagreeing with you. You should fund your own advertising campaign for that. It's when people have wronged you, harmed you, in some way that you should sue. Developed bronchitis because the local coal power plant doesn't want to install environmental controls? Lawsuit. Local news agency mislead you by lying? Lawsuit. Local store sold you e coli tainted peanut butter? Lawsuit. Etc...
And yes, that means that the courts need the power to enforce their findings, and that at least theoretically they really need to be better operating. As a small-l, I'm willing to accept a certain amount of legislation intended to keep people from needing to go to court in the first place. Pollution, for example.
*Seriously, they have the best environmental laws on the books.
As a libertarian, I see "Might makes right" a lot more coming from leftwing side of things, like when idiots block traffic to protest something nobody in traffic has any connection to, and thinking that is just fine and dandy.
I see "might makes right" as the sad truth of the world far too often. It's why we band up and put power into the hands of government, to hopefully have a neutral party willing to enforce a standard set of rules. The libertarian party are not anarchists, and 'weak' government is a misnomer - the correct phrase is 'limited'. A limited government is one that is only present in the areas granted to it. It should NOT be weak in those areas. It shouldn't be involved in areas where it hasn't been granted jurisdiction.
Anyways, have you noticed how most of the anti-libertarian posters seem to feel the need to post as anonymous cowards, while I'd say it's more the opposite for supporters?