Not in the least. Libertarians are much too practical to believe that a perfect utopia is even possible. We know that we have certain responsibilities to ourselves and other members of the society in which we live, and we would simply like to have the liberty to address those responsibilities in our own ways.
There is a place for limited government. The current government has far exceeded those limits. Just because we want to constrain government within strict limits does not mean that we wish to abolish it altogether.
Besides, a free people with the freedom to use their own resources is far better at distributing wealth than any command economy ever was or could possibly be.
If I speak out against what I consider to be excessive taxation, does that mean I don't have to pay those taxes? Does it make me a hypocrite for paying them?
The original came complete with volcanoes and hurricanes and other "extreme weather". Maybe they should just download it from some abandonware site. Save a lot of money.
If only the courts worked on pure logic, your argument would be convincing. Unfortunately, precedent and political considerations outweigh any possible application of pure logic. If you ever saw the sort of specious nonsense that passes for a "reasonable argument" in constitutional law, you would despair of the future of the republic.
US Federal prosecutors have a vast array of methods they can employ to make it difficult for a defendant to exercise his rights. They can freeze assets, making it nearly impossible to hire proper lawyers to present a case. They can "throw the book" at the defendant, listing dozens or hundreds of individual charges which each must be rebutted. They can do massive "document dumps" in the millions of pages to make it extremely difficult for the defendant's legal team to analyze them all. They can use their position to intimidate the defendant's insurers and/or corporations to compel them to withhold legal assistance, as was done in several high-profile white-collar prosecutions. It takes a great deal of money to mount an effective defense against prosecutors with nearly unlimited budgets, as Federal prosecutors are.
And then of course prosecutors have qualified immunity, which means that it is very difficult to make any kind of charges stick against them, no matter how egregious their behavior. We also see this with police officers in the infamous wrong-address SWAT raids.
I stand corrected. According to the ATF FAQ for National Firearms Act weapons, you need a permit from the ATF to buy or sell. That's probably the "tax stamp" you're talking about.
Q: How can an individual legally acquire NFA firearms?
Basically, there are 2 ways that an individual (who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from receiving or possessing firearms) may legally acquire NFA firearms:
By transfer after approval by ATF of a registered weapon from its lawful owner residing in the same State as the transferee.
By obtaining prior approval from ATF to make NFA firearms.
You know what else sucks? Getting put down as a complainer and "not a team player" because management wants us to write new stuff instead of reworking old stuff that works well enough.
It seems that the perps in this scenario are using standard boilerplate forms to threaten lawsuits. Could some astute lawyer (IANAL) produce a standard boilerplate response form and offer it for a nominal fee? I think there is precedent for that in regards to a music copyright violation lawsuit-mill.
It's not a question of them not wanting to share their works. The works were published but the original ownership documentation is lost or just not accessible and so it's practically impossible to determine who actually owns the rights to the works at the present time. Publishers won't touch them because they aren't willing to risk the big lawsuit if and when an owner actually shows up with the paperwork.
The epic journey of Nina Paley and "Sita Sings the Blues" through the copyright system is the best example I know of.
Crooks aren't usually looking for trouble like they might find in a gun-owner's house. They want to have the upper hand, not a possible confrontation with an armed citizen.
Maybe Hotmail blew him off because he acts just like any other spammer. Changing domains and using remailer proxies isn't exactly the behavior of the usual legitimate bulk emailer. And yes, I do subscribe to a few of those, and I use ATT's Yahoo email account and I get my subscribed stuff just fine.
That's just silly. If you can't be arsed to do something about your "honest it's not spam" emails getting blocked, you don't have any business complaining about the people who do the blocking. Stop complaining about "the free market" as if you'd prefer an unfree one.
Slashdot Mirror
We didn't choose a king, we chose a president. He's supposed to execute the laws that Congress makes, not to take advantage of every phony "crisis".
Not in the least. Libertarians are much too practical to believe that a perfect utopia is even possible. We know that we have certain responsibilities to ourselves and other members of the society in which we live, and we would simply like to have the liberty to address those responsibilities in our own ways.
There is a place for limited government. The current government has far exceeded those limits. Just because we want to constrain government within strict limits does not mean that we wish to abolish it altogether.
Besides, a free people with the freedom to use their own resources is far better at distributing wealth than any command economy ever was or could possibly be.
This is where I point out that Social Security is not Welfare unless it is, for the purposes of Democrats who want to call Libertarians names.
So if I'm forced to participate in Social Security by paying payroll taxes, why is it hypocritical to accept the benefits of that participation?
The US pays 22% of the UN budget. They also withhold a certain amount that would go to certain UN programs which the US objects to.
If I speak out against what I consider to be excessive taxation, does that mean I don't have to pay those taxes? Does it make me a hypocrite for paying them?
Hypothetically.
The original came complete with volcanoes and hurricanes and other "extreme weather".
Maybe they should just download it from some abandonware site. Save a lot of money.
Forget E-Ink, you need something like this:
http://blog.makezine.com/2012/07/18/super-fast-electromagnetic-flip-dot-display/
If only the courts worked on pure logic, your argument would be convincing. Unfortunately, precedent and political considerations outweigh any possible application of pure logic. If you ever saw the sort of specious nonsense that passes for a "reasonable argument" in constitutional law, you would despair of the future of the republic.
US Federal prosecutors have a vast array of methods they can employ to make it difficult for a defendant to exercise his rights. They can freeze assets, making it nearly impossible to hire proper lawyers to present a case. They can "throw the book" at the defendant, listing dozens or hundreds of individual charges which each must be rebutted. They can do massive "document dumps" in the millions of pages to make it extremely difficult for the defendant's legal team to analyze them all. They can use their position to intimidate the defendant's insurers and/or corporations to compel them to withhold legal assistance, as was done in several high-profile white-collar prosecutions. It takes a great deal of money to mount an effective defense against prosecutors with nearly unlimited budgets, as Federal prosecutors are.
And then of course prosecutors have qualified immunity, which means that it is very difficult to make any kind of charges stick against them, no matter how egregious their behavior. We also see this with police officers in the infamous wrong-address SWAT raids.
I stand corrected. According to the ATF FAQ for National Firearms Act weapons, you need a permit from the ATF to buy or sell. That's probably the "tax stamp" you're talking about.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html#legally-acquire-nfa
Q: How can an individual legally acquire NFA firearms?
Basically, there are 2 ways that an individual (who is not prohibited by Federal, State, or local law from receiving or possessing firearms) may legally acquire NFA firearms:
By transfer after approval by ATF of a registered weapon from its lawful owner residing in the same State as the transferee.
By obtaining prior approval from ATF to make NFA firearms.
[27 CFR 479.62-66 and 479.84-86]
An AK-47 full-auto "machine gun" is already illegal. Full-auto weapons have been illegal since the 1930's.
You know what else sucks?
Getting put down as a complainer and "not a team player" because management wants us to write new stuff instead of reworking old stuff that works well enough.
http://www.meforum.org/3147/al-jazeera
Megalomania. Is that in the DSM? Ah, wiki says no, it's a type of narcissistic personality disorder.
It seems that the perps in this scenario are using standard boilerplate forms to threaten lawsuits. Could some astute lawyer (IANAL) produce a standard boilerplate response form and offer it for a nominal fee? I think there is precedent for that in regards to a music copyright violation lawsuit-mill.
It's just gone to that great backup tape in the clouds. One day, if you're very very good, you'll go there too and you can play with your pet again.
It's not a question of them not wanting to share their works. The works were published but the original ownership documentation is lost or just not accessible and so it's practically impossible to determine who actually owns the rights to the works at the present time. Publishers won't touch them because they aren't willing to risk the big lawsuit if and when an owner actually shows up with the paperwork.
The epic journey of Nina Paley and "Sita Sings the Blues" through the copyright system is the best example I know of.
You just shrugged off a whole lot of early jazz and blues recordings and the golden age of science fiction.
Assuming that you can identify the copyright holder. For many older works, that can be quite a problem.
It's called "astroturf" because it's fake, manufactured "grass roots".
Crooks aren't usually looking for trouble like they might find in a gun-owner's house. They want to have the upper hand, not a possible confrontation with an armed citizen.
Maybe Hotmail blew him off because he acts just like any other spammer. Changing domains and using remailer proxies isn't exactly the behavior of the usual legitimate bulk emailer. And yes, I do subscribe to a few of those, and I use ATT's Yahoo email account and I get my subscribed stuff just fine.
That's just silly. If you can't be arsed to do something about your "honest it's not spam" emails getting blocked, you don't have any business complaining about the people who do the blocking. Stop complaining about "the free market" as if you'd prefer an unfree one.