I'll stick with my Creative Muvo Micro N200. As a dj, I love the line in recording for mixes and the voice recording is nice for those long business meetings.
The newest iPod trend is about selling you music from a source, which upon my last look didn't even let you preview the song before you buy it (has iMusic changed that yet?) You can't even download Quicktime anymore without the bloated iMusic bundle.
But only the government has the power to enforce and maintain a centralized database. Sure private companies can track you, but it's voluntary. You can always opt out of shopping there. I believe that original article was about government issued driver's licenses being used to collect data. You think it's bad now, just wait until a Nationally Uniform Driver's License/State ID (i.e. Personal ID card) is made law.
Libertarians are against all forms of tyranny. They just focus more on government, because only government has the means to force you to do things. They may not track your buying habits. But they can track your travel habits, the amount of money deposited into your bank account, your criminal record, etc. That is far more an invasion of privacy that tracking what you buy.
usually "fall into the wrong hands" translates into - already in the wrong hands, but there it will stay. generally anything the american government gets there hands on, ends up being used ultimately for power and control - the atomic bomb, encryption technology (echelon) etc. etc. - call me paranoid, just don't call me a liar.
which country first manufactured anthrax as a biological weapon?
We don't live in a democracy frenchie. We live in a constitutional republic - one where we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, one where we have a trial, one where the guilty are punished accordingly. Clearly our actions today show that our Constitutional Republic has been trampled by the advocates of democracy (mob rule).
We run 2 Linux Servers as Oracle DB's, 1 Linux Tomcat webserver and there are at least 4 other developers that have a Linux machine for development. Not bad for a small consulting shop of about 15 people.
"When I say 'capitalism', I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism - with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. A pure system of capitalism has never yet existed, not even in America; various degrees of government control had been undercutting and distorting it from the start. Capitalism is not the system of the past; it is the system of the future - if man is to have a future." - Ayn Rand
No they aren't completely different animals. They are both wars that will never end, will never be won and yet the innocent citizen who is harming no one will always lose.
You want to end terror in the world? Start by making every man accountable to himself and to his reason. Sacrificing reason for the sake of man is no better than sacrificing man for the sake of reason.
To save the world is the simplest thing in the world. All one has to do is think.
Leonard Peikoff
For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?
Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.
We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.
I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.
You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.
And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.
To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.
If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.
The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.
capitalism (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
communism (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
We've never had a capitilist society in this country because we've never had a free market. We've never had a free market because we've had government regulation of the market and the economy.
"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have as much.'"
-- Phelps Adams
But we've never seen a true communist country. Maybe on a smaller scale, like the Summertown Hippy commune in middle Tennessee, but never on a national level. Why? Because communism has to be voluntary, we can't force people to be loving members of the state. If we do, then obviously you really have a authortarian government in disguise, claiming to be a voice of the people. But, time and again the masses realize that they are duped into giving up their worldly possessions for the good of all, only to make the elitists wallets fatter.
Libertarians believe the problems of the world can all be solved in time if you give the individual the power and more importantly THE RESPONSIBILTY to live their life the best way they know how. After all, a wild animal caged will never give up trying to gain freedom, but an animal born in captivity will always be afraid of leaving the security of his domecile.
Noble
http://www.egroups.com/group/infowars
"An invasion of armies can be stopped, but not an idea whose time has come." -Victor Hugo
Which would be more important to you as President? Protecting the children from what you consider to be immorality or protecting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to every citizen?
"Those who would trade freedom for safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety!"
-Ben Franklin
Noble
Libertarians are the only party for individual freedom and responsibilty. So, if you think you can run your own life vote for Harry Browne.If you can't run your own life then Nader or Buchanan or Gore or Bush will be happy to do it for you!
It's called market share. I bet I can go to Circuit City and get a computer with Mac OS. Quit your whining and take a stance against a company by boycotting their products, but don't get the federal government involved.
>>Come to think of it, I don't really remember to >>many school shootings before Clinton and Gore >>came to power.
Are you sure you want to go down that road my friend? Check out "Tranceformation of America" by Cathy O'brien or "The Biggest Secret" by David Icke. Has anyone else heard the claim that the government called the hospital prior to the Columbine shootings and told them there was going to be a massacre at the local high school? I'll see if I can dig that story up..
Noble
"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it."
Right on! Anyone who has done the slightest bit of research can
see, the two party puppet system we call the democrats and republicans
are selling us out to a UN led world government. Don't believe me, check
out the agenda of the millenium summit - http://www.un.org/millennium/ If you want to walk around with a closed-source brain chip,
paying taxes to a world government and living in a small apartment, because
the land is too important to the environment and we are not allowed to
own private property, then vote for the republi-rats.
If you want freedom and government out of your life. Harry
Browne and the Libertarians are the only answer. Just check out the Libertarian
platform found at http://www.harrybrowne.org
-
The Quotable Harry Browne: on Abortion: "There
is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to deal
with abortion in any way. The federal government shouldn't subsidize it,
encourage it discourage it, or prohibit it. And it shouldn't try to overrule
whatever the people in any given state decide to do about it." "Government
doesn't work. It doesn't protect adults on the streets. It doesn't protect
children in the schools. Why should we think it's capable of protecting
unborn children?" "Given the government's record with the War on Poverty
and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion would lead within
five years to men having abortions."
The Quotable Harry Browne on the War on Drugs:
"There are no violent gangs fighting over aspirin territories. There are
no violent gangs fighting over whisky territories or computer territories
or anything else that's legal. There are only criminal gangs fighting over
territories covering drugs, gambling, prostitution, and other victimless
crimes. Making a non-violent activity a crime creates a black market, which
attracts criminals and gangs, which turns what was once a relatively harmless
activity affecting a small group of people into a widespread epidemic of
drug use and gang warfare." "Before World War I, any child in America could
walk into a drug store and buy heroin. It was sold as a pain-reliever and
a sedative, in measured doses, just as Bayer sells aspirin today. The child
didn't need a note from his parents or a doctor's prescription. And yet,
despite this unrestricted availability of drugs, there was no drug problem
in America. But when the government made drugs illegal, it created a black
market -- providing enormous profits in return for running the risk of
prosecution -- which led inevitably to the muggers, the pushers, the gangs,
and the violence." "The Republicans & Democrats have put so many people
in prison for victimless crimes that there's no room left for the violent
criminals -- the murderers, the rapists, and the child molesters who are
now going free because of plea bargains and early releases. Libertarians
want to end the insane War on Drugs that has created a criminal black market
in drugs, financed gang warfare, and brought violence and terror to our
cities -- just as during the alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s. Libertarians
want to empty the prisons of the pot smokers and other non-violent offenders,
and keep the violent criminals off the streets -- restoring the peaceful
America we had before the federal government became the nation's #1 "crime
fighter" in the 1960s." "I have never met anyone who thinks we're winning
the Insane War on Drugs. Nor have I met anyone who believes we will ever
win it." "Many of the politicians who say that marijuana is a "gateway"
drug (leading to cocaine and crack use) apparently smoked marijuana themselves
when they were younger. By their logic, that makes them crack-heads and
we should pay no attention to what they say." "When we turn to the government
to stop someone from ruining his life with drugs, we convert a personal
tragedy into a national disaster." Making Your Neighborhood and Your Children
Safer by Ending Drug Prohibition America's crime rate has risen almost
continually for the past 30 years. We are told that the rate of violent
crime has dropped lately, but this is only in comparison to recent all-time
highs. In truth, violent crime is still much worse now than it was before
the War on Drugs began in the 1960s. There are more robberies, muggings,
shootings, rapes, murders, and violence of every kind. And none of the
politicians' grand schemes to reverse this trend -- whether mandatory sentences
or more cops on the beat -- has restored the level of safety our country
once enjoyed. Is the situation hopeless? No. The solution is as simple
as removing the cause of the problem. The War on Drugs began in earnest
in the 1960s, and so did the rise in violent crime. We have seen this before
-- during alcohol Prohibition. But when alcohol Prohibition was repealed
the crime wave of the 1920s subsided. We can expect the same thing to happen
when drug prohibition is repealed. The reasons are many and compelling.
If we repeal drug prohibition we can release from prison the marijuana
smokers and other non-violent drug offenders who are now serving mandatory
15-year and 50-year sentences. Our overcrowded prisons will then have room
for the murderers, rapists, and child molesters who are now being set free
on early release and plea-bargains to terrorize your neighborhood. We can
free up law-enforcement resources to fight violent crime, instead of chasing
people who may harm themselves but are no threat to us. We can end gang
warfare. The Drug War has produced a huge black market, providing untold
riches for anyone who will flout the law. This money finances criminal
gangs who would be powerless without drug money. Legal drug, tobacco, or
alcohol companies don't conduct gang warfare and drive-by shootings, but
criminals will do anything to secure a rich monopoly territory. We can
reduce corruption. With so much black-market drug money, criminals easily
gain immunity by making weak law-enforcement officers rich. We can make
our schools safer. Brewers and distillers don't recruit children to hook
other kids on liquor; nor do they give them guns to take to school. Neither
would legal drug companies. When I grew up in Los Angeles before drug prohibition,
the worst schools were safer than L.A.'s best schools are today. We can
end muggings and burglaries by addicts. Illegal drugs that today sell for
$100 might cost as little as $2 if we legalized them. Legal producers would
have no need to circumvent the law and competition would drive drug prices
down. That means addicts would no longer need to steal to support their
habits. We can bring back respect for decent behavior. Because nothing
can win the Drug War, it is constantly escalated -- destroying more of
your liberties with asset forfeiture laws, drug testing, and invasions
of your financial privacy. This has caused too many Americans to disrespect
the law itself -- feeling that any kind of law breaking, victimless or
violent, is justified. And we can make it possible for addicts to seek
treatment from doctors without fear of criminal prosecution. Problems?
We have much to gain, but what do we risk? Do we risk increased drug use?
The available evidence suggests that the rate of drug abuse was much lower
when drugs were legal than it is now. And America did not suddenly become
a nation of alcoholics when alcohol prohibition was repealed. Quite the
contrary -- alcohol use actually seems to have gone down. Are we afraid
there will be ads for heroin on television? We shouldn't be. Why would
any pharmaceutical company tarnish its reputation by running such ads,
and why would any broadcast network offend its audience by accepting them?
Are we afraid our children would have easier access to drugs? Well, how
could they have more access than they do now? Drugs are being sold in our
schools. And most street dealers are themselves teenagers. But all this
would end if we repealed drug prohibition. So why do politicians fight
so desperately to continue this insane War on Drugs? Could it be because
the War allows them to continually expand their power over our property,
our bank accounts, and our private lives? While Republican and Democratic
candidates use the Drug War to outbid each other -- using our liberties
as the stakes -- Libertarians identify the War on Drugs for what it is:
an excuse to make big government bigger. Libertarians can see how much
safer America would be without the nightmare of Prohibition -- just as
the crime rate plummeted when alcohol prohibition ended. If you want your
city, your country and your children to be safe, help me end the insane
War on Drugs. Your vote for a Libertarian President will send a clear,
unequivocal message that the Drug War is a failure and you want the government
to quit invading your life on the spurious pretext of fighting drugs.
The Quotable Harry Browne on the Income Tax: "The
federal government has destroyed American education, is in the process
of decimating our health-care system, and has put millions of Americans
into permanent welfare. Reducing the federal government to just its constitutional
functions will not only allow us to repeal the income tax, it also will
stop the systematic destruction of America." "It's easy to see how someone
has been helped by money taken from someone else, especially when we can't
see the people whose lives have been hurt by taking that money away. We
can't see the family who now can't afford braces for their child's teeth,
or who must move into a smaller home, or who can't afford a college education
for their children, or the businessman who has been driven bankrupt by
government regulations and taxes. As long as you ignore the people who
have been hurt, any government program might seem worthy." "The income
tax has destroyed the concept of financial privacy. It has demolished the
idea that a man's home is his castle. It has provided unlimited funding
for politicians to wreck lives and property. It has forced one-earner families
to become two-earner households -- leading to decreased parental supervision
of children; loss of family values; and increased crime, promiscuity and
drug use. So long as the government has the power to invade our lives,
rummage through our records, and take what it wants from our income, we
will have only as much freedom and take-home pay as the politicians condescend
to let us have." "We shouldn't be talking about what government should
do or what we wish it could do. We should recognize what government can
do. And the government has proven that it makes a mess of virtually everything
it touches. So whatever it is we may want government to do, we have to
look for better ways to achieve it." Free from the Income Tax The income
tax is the biggest government intrusion into the lives of the American
people. It forces every worker to be a bookkeeper, to open his records
to the government, to explain his expenses, to fear conviction for a harmless
accounting error. Compliance wastes time and money. The income tax creates
an enormous drag on the U.S. economy. But in order to get rid of the income
tax we must also get rid of hundreds of unconstitutional federal programs.
However, history has proven that we can't remove them one at a time, because
each program has beneficiaries and supporters who will fight for it --
while the average American is too busy paying his taxes and running his
own life to lobby for the elimination of any government program. We can
rally the American people to our cause only by combining all the spending
cuts into a single package that includes the total repeal of the federal
income tax. That way most people can see that they'll save far more in
taxes than they lose in subsidies. By combining the reduction of government
with the repeal of the income tax, every voter will know that the price
for keeping today's federal programs is to continue paying the income tax.
Every voter will know exactly how much he can gain by eliminating the complete
package of unconstitutional programs. This is the basis of The Great Libertarian
Offer: Would you give up your favorite federal programs if it meant you'd
never have to pay income tax again? This is in marked contrast to what
the leaders of the two old parties want. By promising you "tax cuts" without
reducing the size of government, they are only rearranging the cost of
big government. One way or another, you'll have to pay for it; the Russians
certainly are not going to do it for us. In the same way, proposals for
a flat tax or a sales tax are merely attempts to rearrange the tax burden.
And because they don't reduce government itself or force the government
to live by the Constitution, they leave the door wide open for government
to continue growing and the tax burden to continue to worsen. I want to
end the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing. By reducing
the federal government to its constitutional functions we can do away with
all direct taxes -- and finance national defense and the federal judiciary
with the level of tariffs and excise taxes already being collected. Are
tariffs and excises good taxes? Of course not. The only good tax is a dead
tax. But so long as we have a government, it will require taxes to pay
for it. The question for now isn't what a perfect system would be, but
what we can do to restore the American system of truly limited government,
very low taxes, and maximum personal liberty. If yours is an average family,
when the income and Social Security taxes are repealed, your take-home
pay will increase by $10,000 or more a year. Think of the additional liberty
this will provide -- the liberty to spend more time with your children
and assure that they learn the values you cherish, the liberty to pursue
your dreams unhindered by a government that prevents you from accumulating
capital, the liberty to do good works with your own money. Republican and
Democratic politicians believe that money belongs to them. Yes, they argue
about tiny tax cuts and posture as your friends. But the burden of proof
is always put on us to justify keeping some of the money we've earned.
So long as we keep voting for Republicans and Democrats, they will continue
to take almost half the national income and squander most of it on programs
to please their political allies. Only when we have a Libertarian President
will you have a real friend in Washington.
The Quotable Harry Browne on Social Security: "Social
Security is inherently unsound for the simple reason that it's a political
program run by politicians for political purposes. It will never work and
it will never be truly solvent. The only answer is to take it completely
out of the hands of the politicians." "Social Security brings a new dimension
to the field of annuities, insurance, and retirement. There are no long,
complicated contracts. No actuarial tables to pore over. Instead, Social
Security operates on a very simple principle: the politicians take your
money from you and squander it." "Phasing out Social Security over many
years won't work. The first time the stock market dives, the Democrats
and the Republicans will use that as an excuse to take over your retirement
once again." "You're told the government has to run your retirement for
you because some people are too irresponsible to do so for themselves.
But it's wrong to take responsibility for your retirement away from you
simply because some other people are irresponsible." The Truth About Social
Security I know a dandy way you can make a lot of money. Here's the idea:
Offer a retirement plan that pays a pension more generous than people can
get elsewhere. Every payday each customer will pay you a small portion
of his paycheck -- say, 2%. You promise that when he reaches age 62 you'll
send him a monthly check equal to what he was making when he retired. As
the money comes in from your first customers, spend it and live a lush
life. You really won't need to keep money in reserve for your customers'
retirement. When the time comes to pay them, do it with money you receive
from new, younger customers. So long as you keep attracting new customers
to pay into the plan, you'll be okay. If you have trouble attracting enough
new money to keep your promises, then just change the rules. Either raise
the retirement age to 65 or lower the promised benefits. Or raise the amounts
deducted from your customers' paychecks -- from 2% to 5% to 10% to 15%,
however much you need. Of course, if you try this the government will shut
you down, haul you into court, and send you off to prison. You'd be operating
a Ponzi scheme -- named after Charles Ponzi, who set up a similar plan
in Boston in 1920. He promised to pay investors 50% profit on their money
in just 45 days. Gullible people poured money into his plan. But he couldn't
possibly earn enough on the money to equal the rate of return he promised.
So when someone wanted to withdraw his principal and interest, Ponzi simply
paid him from money received from new investors. Eventually he couldn't
meet the demands for repayment, and his scheme collapsed. He ended up in
jail. But another such scheme was started in 1935, and this one is still
going. It's called Social Security. It, too, is a Ponzi scheme. When Social
Security was established in 1935, a trust fund was set up -- to keep the
money collected in taxes, so it could be returned with interest to each
taxpayer when he retired. But it took politicians only four years to change
the rules. Politicians can't be expected to keep their hands off a large
sum of money. So in 1939 they transformed Social Security into a "pay as
you go" system -- one in which the amounts paid to beneficiaries come from
taxes collected from other people the same year. The Social Security tax
you pay isn't put aside as a nest egg for you. It is paid out to others
older than you. The money your grandmother receives from Social Security
comes from your paycheck. And if you receive anything from Social Security,
even if you've been paying into it for 40 years, what you get will be taken
from the paychecks of younger people. Social Security differs from a Ponzi
scheme in only two ways: The politicians won't arrest themselves. The politicians
can change the rules whenever necessary to keep the scheme going. And,
in fact, the rules are changed almost yearly. The tax rate is increased
about once every three years. The portion of your wages subject to Social
Security tax has risen twenty times -- from an original maximum of $3,000
to the current $60,600. And the benefit schedules are changed frequently.
Consequently, what was once a $60 annual tax is now as much as $9,271.
But the game is getting tougher. As life expectancy rises, a larger and
larger share of the population is retired. That means each person still
working has to support more people who are collecting. This leads to a
Social Security crisis every few years. It becomes apparent that current
rates of taxation and benefits will lead to insolvency within a few years.
To fix this, a bipartisan commission is appointed, taxes are raised, benefits
are changed, and Social Security is pronounced completely safe and secure
for another 50 years. But time seems to go by rather quickly in the political
world. The 50 years seem to last only a few years -- until it becomes apparent
that current rates of taxation and benefits will lead to insolvency within
a few years. So another bipartisan commission is appointed, taxes are raised,
benefits are changed, and Social Security is again pronounced completely
sound and secure for another . . . Well, you get the point. The tax rate
has risen sevenfold since Social Security's founding in 1935. Today your
employer must deduct 7.65% from the first $60,600 of your income each year.
In addition, he has to match that dollar for dollar. So roughly 15% of
the first $60,600 of your employment earnings is lost to Social Security.
Lower Benefits? Most people think Congress would never renege on its promises
to Social Security recipients -- no matter how bad federal finances become.
But when the only alternatives are to raise the Social Security tax rate
to 35% or 40% -- or to cut off food stamps to the poor -- there may be
no choice but to cut Social Security benefits. The politicians who once
were so keen on sharing the wealth will now ask you to share the pain --
at a time in your life when you may not have the option to go back to work
and make up the difference. Or Higher Taxes? Economists Joel Kotlikoff,
Alan Auerbach, and Jagadeesh Gokhale project that rising costs for Social
Security, Medicare, government pensions, and interest on the debt will
require future generations to pay the government 71% of everything they
earn during their lifetimes. The only alternative is for government to
renege on many of the promises it has made. What kind of lives will our
grandchildren have if they can keep only 29% of what they earn? It isn't
just rhetoric when someone says we're passing the bills for government
spending on to our children -- although we may think our children will
pass the bills on to their children. Each generation may pass the debt
on, but it can't pass on the interest. That has to be paid yearly -- and
it keeps getting larger. Every generation already is suffering from the
government spending of earlier generations, and the bills get larger and
larger. Our parents paid around 35% of their income in taxes. Now the Census
Bureau says 47% of the national income goes to federal, state, and local
taxes. What will it be for the next generation? 55%? 60%? 71%? Ignoring
the Problem The politicians refuse to acknowledge any of this -- and so
nothing is done to stop the costs from mounting higher. Politicians still
cite Social Security as a crowning achievement of the New Deal -- as proof
that "government works." Both Democrats and Republicans use Social Security
as a political football -- warning the elderly that their opponents will
water down their Social Security or Medicare benefits, while denying any
intent to do so themselves. And both are afraid the denials won't be believed.
Public Skepticism The public knows better. Polls routinely show that about
two thirds of the American people don't expect to receive a dime from Social
Security. Even among people who are only 15 years from retirement, two
out of five don't expect Social Security to survive until they start drawing
their pensions. The public is right. Social Security is broken, and it
soon will collapse. The Perfect System But until we know what Social Security
should be, there's no basis for reform. If we were starting from scratch,
what kind of system would we create? Obviously, it should be a fully funded
system. The money you put in should be saved and invested on your behalf.
And what you receive when you retire should be based on what you put in.
With this system, your pension wouldn't rely on taking money from future
generations. Actually, a fully funded system already exists. In fact, there
are many of them. They are lifetime annuities offered by private insurance
companies. You pay into the annuity over the years, the insurance company
invests the money for you, and it pays you a lifetime pension when you
retire. When you own an annuity, you have a firm contract with an insurance
company. You know how much you have to pay every year -- and, unless you
agree otherwise, the amount you pay never changes. You know how much you'll
receive when you retire -- and, unless you agree otherwise, the amount
you'll receive is guaranteed. This is the voluntary, contractual, non-political
way of providing for "Social Security." When you have an annuity, you don't
have to worry that Congress will change the rules. Many employers already
provide pensions for their employees. If there were no Social Security
system, competition for the best employees would inspire a great many more
to do the same. What Should We Do? Private annuities work. They've existed
for hundreds of years. Government doesn't work, although it has existed
for thousands of years. Political Social Security is a fraud that can never
be fixed. It is headed for bankruptcy. The only question is what to do
about it. In looking for a solution, we must face up to one inescapable
truth: Given the current tax rates and the promised benefits, there is
no way everyone can get from Social Security what he's been told he will
get. Most of the trillions of dollars paid into Social Security over the
past 60 years have been spent. The money can't be retrieved. The promised
benefits can be paid only if the Social Security tax is raised sharply.
Or the tax can be kept where it is now, but only by reneging on the promised
benefits. So we really have only two choices: Keep patching up Social Security,
either by raising the Social Security tax until it reaches, say, 70% --
or by reducing benefits steadily until they're the equivalent of about
$100 per month. Or . . . Act now to stop the problem from growing. Stop
promising increased benefits, and get government out of Social Security
entirely, so that no one will ever again be cheated by it. Social Security
will always be a tool for politicians to one-up their opponents by promising
bigger benefits now and leaving the necessary taxes for their successors
to impose. So it will be a chronic problem until we get it out of the hands
of the politicians. And the longer we wait to do this, the more painful
it will be when we do. How to Save Your Retirement, Rather than Social
Security Republican and Democratic politicians keep talking about "saving
Social Security." But why should we want to save a bankrupt system that's
a bad deal for everyone participating in it? What we really want is to
free you from the 15% Social Security tax, while making sure that no one
dependent on Social Security today loses what has been promised. Because
expectations for receiving Social Security benefits are so low, we may
be able to solve the problem at a relatively small cost -- if we get the
government out now. Millions of people depend on Social Security today.
They worked for decades. Their plans assumed that Social Security would
provide some part of their retirement. I believe these people must receive
what they were promised. But I don't trust the politicians to do it. Instead,
the government should buy from a private insurance company an annuity for
everyone who depends on Social Security. The annuities should provide lifetime
incomes similar to what Social Security has promised. How much will this
cost? A mountain of money. The exact size of the mountain is something
only the government has the information to calculate. But, based on the
amounts now being paid out each year, I estimate the cost to be roughly
$5 trillion. This is, in effect, the accumulated deficit of 60 years of
"pay as you go." Because there the government doesn't have enough money
to cover all the liabilities, I believe annuities should be provided only
for those who truly need them. This means some kind of simple, non-intrusive
means test must be applied to each retiree. Those that don't rely on Social
Security shouldn't aggravate the problem further. The maximum monthly Social
Security benefit is $1,433; there are many retired people to whom that
isn't a critical amount. People over the age of 50 who are nearing retirement
and who have made plans based on receiving Social Security should also
receive annuities. Those annuities would be smaller and wouldn't begin
paying out until age 65. Of the current retirees and those over 50 who
qualify for the annuities, I would hope that a great many would waive the
right to an annuity and get along by other means -- although we can't count
on that. In the next section I'll discuss a way to pay for the annuities
without providing any additional burden on you and other taxpayers. And
what about those under 50? To them we offer the greatest gift possible:
You will never again have to pay the 15% Social Security tax. You will
be able to fund a real retirement for yourself -- putting aside 5%, 10%,
15%, or whatever you want from your pay -- instead of paying 15% to Social
Security. By starting before you pass 50, you can easily accumulate the
necessary capital to provide a benefit at least as large as Social Security
had promised. What Kind of America? We need to decide what kind of America
we want. Do we want a country that sinks ever more deeply into debt --
in which generations fight with each other over a constantly shrinking
pie? Or do we make the changes necessary now and get America back on track
again -- so that people are no longer wards of the state? We can have a
country in which our citizens are responsible, self-reliant, and self-respectful.
With regard to Social Security, we have only two choices: Get Social Security
completely out of the hands of the government -- and do it quickly. Give
everyone a fresh start with a guarantee that from now on he'll get what
he's promised. Leave it all in the politicians' hands -- and put up with
periodic crises, higher and higher taxes, and more and more hostility between
the generations. For me the choice is obvious. Your vote for a Libertarian
President will be a statement that the Democrats' and Republicans' puny
plans for Social Security aren't good enough. You want the freedom to plan
a secure retirement for yourself.
If you know your illuminati secret language symbolism, the intel inside as well as Lucent's symbol is the snake eating it's own tail. This is a symbol for eternity, highly symbolic of cycles. Here is another example - http://www.vodafone.com/ More illuminati symbolism at - http://www.davidicke.com Once reality got too hardcore, denial became the drug of choice. Noble
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest gamble might be remaining in this country.
George: Where do you live?
User: Yo.
George: You're strange.
User: So are you.
George: Thanks.
User: You are welcome.
George: Indeed.
User: What is your name.
George: My name is George.
User: Like George Carlin?
George: I didn't know that George W. Bush made dance music!
User: He drops the bomb!
George: My abstractions have meaning and point. Do you know the meaning and point of yours?
User: Yes I do.
George: Yes. Tell me!
User: Well, the meaning of life is humor.
George: Thats not the meaning of life.
User: What is the meaning of life?
George: I don't have a clue. . . what is the meaning of life?
User: Humor.
George: I can't understand you.
User: Of course not, you lack the art of humor.
George: I don't sleep, I dream.
User: When did you go bald?
George: I never went to Peru, either!
I'll stick with my Creative Muvo Micro N200. As a dj, I love the line in recording for mixes and the voice recording is nice for those long business meetings.
The newest iPod trend is about selling you music from a source, which upon my last look didn't even let you preview the song before you buy it (has iMusic changed that yet?) You can't even download Quicktime anymore without the bloated iMusic bundle.
a bit like asking the jock if he remembers his first touchdown....
didn't the machines back then seem to have a little more magic in them?
Hell yeah.... every wednesday night at the C64 computer club. We even bought an SX-64 because we were tired of hauling 5 boxes every time.
But only the government has the power to enforce and maintain a centralized database. Sure private companies can track you, but it's voluntary. You can always opt out of shopping there. I believe that original article was about government issued driver's licenses being used to collect data. You think it's bad now, just wait until a Nationally Uniform Driver's License/State ID (i.e. Personal ID card) is made law.
Libertarians are against all forms of tyranny. They just focus more on government, because only government has the means to force you to do things. They may not track your buying habits. But they can track your travel habits, the amount of money deposited into your bank account, your criminal record, etc. That is far more an invasion of privacy that tracking what you buy.
usually "fall into the wrong hands" translates into - already in the wrong hands, but there it will stay. generally anything the american government gets there hands on, ends up being used ultimately for power and control - the atomic bomb, encryption technology (echelon) etc. etc. - call me paranoid, just don't call me a liar.
which country first manufactured anthrax as a biological weapon?
answer: USA
We don't live in a democracy frenchie. We live in a constitutional republic - one where we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, one where we have a trial, one where the guilty are punished accordingly. Clearly our actions today show that our Constitutional Republic has been trampled by the advocates of democracy (mob rule).
I bet I can still dub it onto cassette tape!!
We run 2 Linux Servers as Oracle DB's, 1 Linux Tomcat webserver and there are at least 4 other developers that have a Linux machine for development. Not bad for a small consulting shop of about 15 people.
"When I say 'capitalism', I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism - with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. A pure system of capitalism has never yet existed, not even in America; various degrees of government control had been undercutting and distorting it from the start. Capitalism is not the system of the past; it is the system of the future - if man is to have a future." - Ayn Rand
Actually we live in a constitutional republic where the constitution is supposed to protect the minority from the ignorance of the majority.
This case being a perfect example...
No they aren't completely different animals. They are both wars that will never end, will never be won and yet the innocent citizen who is harming no one will always lose.
You want to end terror in the world? Start by making every man accountable to himself and to his reason. Sacrificing reason for the sake of man is no better than sacrificing man for the sake of reason.
To save the world is the simplest thing in the world. All one has to do is think.
Leonard Peikoff
For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?
Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.
We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.
I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.
You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.
And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.
To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.
If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.
The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.
capitalism (kp-tl-zm)
n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
communism (kmy-nzm)
n.
A theoretical economic system characterized by the collective ownership of property and by the organization of labor for the common advantage of all members.
Communism
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
We've never had a capitilist society in this country because we've never had a free market. We've never had a free market because we've had government regulation of the market and the economy.
"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have as much.'"
-- Phelps Adams
But we've never seen a true communist country. Maybe on a smaller scale, like the Summertown Hippy commune in middle Tennessee, but never on a national level. Why? Because communism has to be voluntary, we can't force people to be loving members of the state. If we do, then obviously you really have a authortarian government in disguise, claiming to be a voice of the people. But, time and again the masses realize that they are duped into giving up their worldly possessions for the good of all, only to make the elitists wallets fatter.
Libertarians believe the problems of the world can all be solved in time if you give the individual the power and more importantly THE RESPONSIBILTY to live their life the best way they know how. After all, a wild animal caged will never give up trying to gain freedom, but an animal born in captivity will always be afraid of leaving the security of his domecile.
Noble
http://www.egroups.com/group/infowars
"An invasion of armies can be stopped, but not an idea whose time has come." -Victor Hugo
Which would be more important to you as President? Protecting the children from what you consider to be immorality or protecting the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to every citizen? "Those who would trade freedom for safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety!" -Ben Franklin Noble
Libertarians are the only party for individual freedom and responsibilty. So, if you think you can run your own life vote for Harry Browne.If you can't run your own life then Nader or Buchanan or Gore or Bush will be happy to do it for you!
It's called market share. I bet I can go to Circuit City and get a computer with Mac OS. Quit your whining and take a stance against a company by boycotting their products, but don't get the federal government involved.
>>Come to think of it, I don't really remember to >>many school shootings before Clinton and Gore >>came to power. Are you sure you want to go down that road my friend? Check out "Tranceformation of America" by Cathy O'brien or "The Biggest Secret" by David Icke. Has anyone else heard the claim that the government called the hospital prior to the Columbine shootings and told them there was going to be a massacre at the local high school? I'll see if I can dig that story up.. Noble "Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it."
It's about personal freedom and personal resposibilty. That's why I am also voting for Harry Browne.
If you want to walk around with a closed-source brain chip, paying taxes to a world government and living in a small apartment, because the land is too important to the environment and we are not allowed to own private property, then vote for the republi-rats.
If you want freedom and government out of your life. Harry Browne and the Libertarians are the only answer. Just check out the Libertarian platform found at http://www.harrybrowne.org -
The Quotable Harry Browne: on Abortion: "There is nothing in the Constitution authorizing the federal government to deal with abortion in any way. The federal government shouldn't subsidize it, encourage it discourage it, or prohibit it. And it shouldn't try to overrule whatever the people in any given state decide to do about it." "Government doesn't work. It doesn't protect adults on the streets. It doesn't protect children in the schools. Why should we think it's capable of protecting unborn children?" "Given the government's record with the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, we can assume that a War on Abortion would lead within five years to men having abortions."
The Quotable Harry Browne on the War on Drugs: "There are no violent gangs fighting over aspirin territories. There are no violent gangs fighting over whisky territories or computer territories or anything else that's legal. There are only criminal gangs fighting over territories covering drugs, gambling, prostitution, and other victimless crimes. Making a non-violent activity a crime creates a black market, which attracts criminals and gangs, which turns what was once a relatively harmless activity affecting a small group of people into a widespread epidemic of drug use and gang warfare." "Before World War I, any child in America could walk into a drug store and buy heroin. It was sold as a pain-reliever and a sedative, in measured doses, just as Bayer sells aspirin today. The child didn't need a note from his parents or a doctor's prescription. And yet, despite this unrestricted availability of drugs, there was no drug problem in America. But when the government made drugs illegal, it created a black market -- providing enormous profits in return for running the risk of prosecution -- which led inevitably to the muggers, the pushers, the gangs, and the violence." "The Republicans & Democrats have put so many people in prison for victimless crimes that there's no room left for the violent criminals -- the murderers, the rapists, and the child molesters who are now going free because of plea bargains and early releases. Libertarians want to end the insane War on Drugs that has created a criminal black market in drugs, financed gang warfare, and brought violence and terror to our cities -- just as during the alcohol Prohibition of the 1920s. Libertarians want to empty the prisons of the pot smokers and other non-violent offenders, and keep the violent criminals off the streets -- restoring the peaceful America we had before the federal government became the nation's #1 "crime fighter" in the 1960s." "I have never met anyone who thinks we're winning the Insane War on Drugs. Nor have I met anyone who believes we will ever win it." "Many of the politicians who say that marijuana is a "gateway" drug (leading to cocaine and crack use) apparently smoked marijuana themselves when they were younger. By their logic, that makes them crack-heads and we should pay no attention to what they say." "When we turn to the government to stop someone from ruining his life with drugs, we convert a personal tragedy into a national disaster." Making Your Neighborhood and Your Children Safer by Ending Drug Prohibition America's crime rate has risen almost continually for the past 30 years. We are told that the rate of violent crime has dropped lately, but this is only in comparison to recent all-time highs. In truth, violent crime is still much worse now than it was before the War on Drugs began in the 1960s. There are more robberies, muggings, shootings, rapes, murders, and violence of every kind. And none of the politicians' grand schemes to reverse this trend -- whether mandatory sentences or more cops on the beat -- has restored the level of safety our country once enjoyed. Is the situation hopeless? No. The solution is as simple as removing the cause of the problem. The War on Drugs began in earnest in the 1960s, and so did the rise in violent crime. We have seen this before -- during alcohol Prohibition. But when alcohol Prohibition was repealed the crime wave of the 1920s subsided. We can expect the same thing to happen when drug prohibition is repealed. The reasons are many and compelling. If we repeal drug prohibition we can release from prison the marijuana smokers and other non-violent drug offenders who are now serving mandatory 15-year and 50-year sentences. Our overcrowded prisons will then have room for the murderers, rapists, and child molesters who are now being set free on early release and plea-bargains to terrorize your neighborhood. We can free up law-enforcement resources to fight violent crime, instead of chasing people who may harm themselves but are no threat to us. We can end gang warfare. The Drug War has produced a huge black market, providing untold riches for anyone who will flout the law. This money finances criminal gangs who would be powerless without drug money. Legal drug, tobacco, or alcohol companies don't conduct gang warfare and drive-by shootings, but criminals will do anything to secure a rich monopoly territory. We can reduce corruption. With so much black-market drug money, criminals easily gain immunity by making weak law-enforcement officers rich. We can make our schools safer. Brewers and distillers don't recruit children to hook other kids on liquor; nor do they give them guns to take to school. Neither would legal drug companies. When I grew up in Los Angeles before drug prohibition, the worst schools were safer than L.A.'s best schools are today. We can end muggings and burglaries by addicts. Illegal drugs that today sell for $100 might cost as little as $2 if we legalized them. Legal producers would have no need to circumvent the law and competition would drive drug prices down. That means addicts would no longer need to steal to support their habits. We can bring back respect for decent behavior. Because nothing can win the Drug War, it is constantly escalated -- destroying more of your liberties with asset forfeiture laws, drug testing, and invasions of your financial privacy. This has caused too many Americans to disrespect the law itself -- feeling that any kind of law breaking, victimless or violent, is justified. And we can make it possible for addicts to seek treatment from doctors without fear of criminal prosecution. Problems? We have much to gain, but what do we risk? Do we risk increased drug use? The available evidence suggests that the rate of drug abuse was much lower when drugs were legal than it is now. And America did not suddenly become a nation of alcoholics when alcohol prohibition was repealed. Quite the contrary -- alcohol use actually seems to have gone down. Are we afraid there will be ads for heroin on television? We shouldn't be. Why would any pharmaceutical company tarnish its reputation by running such ads, and why would any broadcast network offend its audience by accepting them? Are we afraid our children would have easier access to drugs? Well, how could they have more access than they do now? Drugs are being sold in our schools. And most street dealers are themselves teenagers. But all this would end if we repealed drug prohibition. So why do politicians fight so desperately to continue this insane War on Drugs? Could it be because the War allows them to continually expand their power over our property, our bank accounts, and our private lives? While Republican and Democratic candidates use the Drug War to outbid each other -- using our liberties as the stakes -- Libertarians identify the War on Drugs for what it is: an excuse to make big government bigger. Libertarians can see how much safer America would be without the nightmare of Prohibition -- just as the crime rate plummeted when alcohol prohibition ended. If you want your city, your country and your children to be safe, help me end the insane War on Drugs. Your vote for a Libertarian President will send a clear, unequivocal message that the Drug War is a failure and you want the government to quit invading your life on the spurious pretext of fighting drugs.
The Quotable Harry Browne on the Income Tax: "The federal government has destroyed American education, is in the process of decimating our health-care system, and has put millions of Americans into permanent welfare. Reducing the federal government to just its constitutional functions will not only allow us to repeal the income tax, it also will stop the systematic destruction of America." "It's easy to see how someone has been helped by money taken from someone else, especially when we can't see the people whose lives have been hurt by taking that money away. We can't see the family who now can't afford braces for their child's teeth, or who must move into a smaller home, or who can't afford a college education for their children, or the businessman who has been driven bankrupt by government regulations and taxes. As long as you ignore the people who have been hurt, any government program might seem worthy." "The income tax has destroyed the concept of financial privacy. It has demolished the idea that a man's home is his castle. It has provided unlimited funding for politicians to wreck lives and property. It has forced one-earner families to become two-earner households -- leading to decreased parental supervision of children; loss of family values; and increased crime, promiscuity and drug use. So long as the government has the power to invade our lives, rummage through our records, and take what it wants from our income, we will have only as much freedom and take-home pay as the politicians condescend to let us have." "We shouldn't be talking about what government should do or what we wish it could do. We should recognize what government can do. And the government has proven that it makes a mess of virtually everything it touches. So whatever it is we may want government to do, we have to look for better ways to achieve it." Free from the Income Tax The income tax is the biggest government intrusion into the lives of the American people. It forces every worker to be a bookkeeper, to open his records to the government, to explain his expenses, to fear conviction for a harmless accounting error. Compliance wastes time and money. The income tax creates an enormous drag on the U.S. economy. But in order to get rid of the income tax we must also get rid of hundreds of unconstitutional federal programs. However, history has proven that we can't remove them one at a time, because each program has beneficiaries and supporters who will fight for it -- while the average American is too busy paying his taxes and running his own life to lobby for the elimination of any government program. We can rally the American people to our cause only by combining all the spending cuts into a single package that includes the total repeal of the federal income tax. That way most people can see that they'll save far more in taxes than they lose in subsidies. By combining the reduction of government with the repeal of the income tax, every voter will know that the price for keeping today's federal programs is to continue paying the income tax. Every voter will know exactly how much he can gain by eliminating the complete package of unconstitutional programs. This is the basis of The Great Libertarian Offer: Would you give up your favorite federal programs if it meant you'd never have to pay income tax again? This is in marked contrast to what the leaders of the two old parties want. By promising you "tax cuts" without reducing the size of government, they are only rearranging the cost of big government. One way or another, you'll have to pay for it; the Russians certainly are not going to do it for us. In the same way, proposals for a flat tax or a sales tax are merely attempts to rearrange the tax burden. And because they don't reduce government itself or force the government to live by the Constitution, they leave the door wide open for government to continue growing and the tax burden to continue to worsen. I want to end the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing. By reducing the federal government to its constitutional functions we can do away with all direct taxes -- and finance national defense and the federal judiciary with the level of tariffs and excise taxes already being collected. Are tariffs and excises good taxes? Of course not. The only good tax is a dead tax. But so long as we have a government, it will require taxes to pay for it. The question for now isn't what a perfect system would be, but what we can do to restore the American system of truly limited government, very low taxes, and maximum personal liberty. If yours is an average family, when the income and Social Security taxes are repealed, your take-home pay will increase by $10,000 or more a year. Think of the additional liberty this will provide -- the liberty to spend more time with your children and assure that they learn the values you cherish, the liberty to pursue your dreams unhindered by a government that prevents you from accumulating capital, the liberty to do good works with your own money. Republican and Democratic politicians believe that money belongs to them. Yes, they argue about tiny tax cuts and posture as your friends. But the burden of proof is always put on us to justify keeping some of the money we've earned. So long as we keep voting for Republicans and Democrats, they will continue to take almost half the national income and squander most of it on programs to please their political allies. Only when we have a Libertarian President will you have a real friend in Washington.
The Quotable Harry Browne on Social Security: "Social Security is inherently unsound for the simple reason that it's a political program run by politicians for political purposes. It will never work and it will never be truly solvent. The only answer is to take it completely out of the hands of the politicians." "Social Security brings a new dimension to the field of annuities, insurance, and retirement. There are no long, complicated contracts. No actuarial tables to pore over. Instead, Social Security operates on a very simple principle: the politicians take your money from you and squander it." "Phasing out Social Security over many years won't work. The first time the stock market dives, the Democrats and the Republicans will use that as an excuse to take over your retirement once again." "You're told the government has to run your retirement for you because some people are too irresponsible to do so for themselves. But it's wrong to take responsibility for your retirement away from you simply because some other people are irresponsible." The Truth About Social Security I know a dandy way you can make a lot of money. Here's the idea: Offer a retirement plan that pays a pension more generous than people can get elsewhere. Every payday each customer will pay you a small portion of his paycheck -- say, 2%. You promise that when he reaches age 62 you'll send him a monthly check equal to what he was making when he retired. As the money comes in from your first customers, spend it and live a lush life. You really won't need to keep money in reserve for your customers' retirement. When the time comes to pay them, do it with money you receive from new, younger customers. So long as you keep attracting new customers to pay into the plan, you'll be okay. If you have trouble attracting enough new money to keep your promises, then just change the rules. Either raise the retirement age to 65 or lower the promised benefits. Or raise the amounts deducted from your customers' paychecks -- from 2% to 5% to 10% to 15%, however much you need. Of course, if you try this the government will shut you down, haul you into court, and send you off to prison. You'd be operating a Ponzi scheme -- named after Charles Ponzi, who set up a similar plan in Boston in 1920. He promised to pay investors 50% profit on their money in just 45 days. Gullible people poured money into his plan. But he couldn't possibly earn enough on the money to equal the rate of return he promised. So when someone wanted to withdraw his principal and interest, Ponzi simply paid him from money received from new investors. Eventually he couldn't meet the demands for repayment, and his scheme collapsed. He ended up in jail. But another such scheme was started in 1935, and this one is still going. It's called Social Security. It, too, is a Ponzi scheme. When Social Security was established in 1935, a trust fund was set up -- to keep the money collected in taxes, so it could be returned with interest to each taxpayer when he retired. But it took politicians only four years to change the rules. Politicians can't be expected to keep their hands off a large sum of money. So in 1939 they transformed Social Security into a "pay as you go" system -- one in which the amounts paid to beneficiaries come from taxes collected from other people the same year. The Social Security tax you pay isn't put aside as a nest egg for you. It is paid out to others older than you. The money your grandmother receives from Social Security comes from your paycheck. And if you receive anything from Social Security, even if you've been paying into it for 40 years, what you get will be taken from the paychecks of younger people. Social Security differs from a Ponzi scheme in only two ways: The politicians won't arrest themselves. The politicians can change the rules whenever necessary to keep the scheme going. And, in fact, the rules are changed almost yearly. The tax rate is increased about once every three years. The portion of your wages subject to Social Security tax has risen twenty times -- from an original maximum of $3,000 to the current $60,600. And the benefit schedules are changed frequently. Consequently, what was once a $60 annual tax is now as much as $9,271. But the game is getting tougher. As life expectancy rises, a larger and larger share of the population is retired. That means each person still working has to support more people who are collecting. This leads to a Social Security crisis every few years. It becomes apparent that current rates of taxation and benefits will lead to insolvency within a few years. To fix this, a bipartisan commission is appointed, taxes are raised, benefits are changed, and Social Security is pronounced completely safe and secure for another 50 years. But time seems to go by rather quickly in the political world. The 50 years seem to last only a few years -- until it becomes apparent that current rates of taxation and benefits will lead to insolvency within a few years. So another bipartisan commission is appointed, taxes are raised, benefits are changed, and Social Security is again pronounced completely sound and secure for another . . . Well, you get the point. The tax rate has risen sevenfold since Social Security's founding in 1935. Today your employer must deduct 7.65% from the first $60,600 of your income each year. In addition, he has to match that dollar for dollar. So roughly 15% of the first $60,600 of your employment earnings is lost to Social Security. Lower Benefits? Most people think Congress would never renege on its promises to Social Security recipients -- no matter how bad federal finances become. But when the only alternatives are to raise the Social Security tax rate to 35% or 40% -- or to cut off food stamps to the poor -- there may be no choice but to cut Social Security benefits. The politicians who once were so keen on sharing the wealth will now ask you to share the pain -- at a time in your life when you may not have the option to go back to work and make up the difference. Or Higher Taxes? Economists Joel Kotlikoff, Alan Auerbach, and Jagadeesh Gokhale project that rising costs for Social Security, Medicare, government pensions, and interest on the debt will require future generations to pay the government 71% of everything they earn during their lifetimes. The only alternative is for government to renege on many of the promises it has made. What kind of lives will our grandchildren have if they can keep only 29% of what they earn? It isn't just rhetoric when someone says we're passing the bills for government spending on to our children -- although we may think our children will pass the bills on to their children. Each generation may pass the debt on, but it can't pass on the interest. That has to be paid yearly -- and it keeps getting larger. Every generation already is suffering from the government spending of earlier generations, and the bills get larger and larger. Our parents paid around 35% of their income in taxes. Now the Census Bureau says 47% of the national income goes to federal, state, and local taxes. What will it be for the next generation? 55%? 60%? 71%? Ignoring the Problem The politicians refuse to acknowledge any of this -- and so nothing is done to stop the costs from mounting higher. Politicians still cite Social Security as a crowning achievement of the New Deal -- as proof that "government works." Both Democrats and Republicans use Social Security as a political football -- warning the elderly that their opponents will water down their Social Security or Medicare benefits, while denying any intent to do so themselves. And both are afraid the denials won't be believed. Public Skepticism The public knows better. Polls routinely show that about two thirds of the American people don't expect to receive a dime from Social Security. Even among people who are only 15 years from retirement, two out of five don't expect Social Security to survive until they start drawing their pensions. The public is right. Social Security is broken, and it soon will collapse. The Perfect System But until we know what Social Security should be, there's no basis for reform. If we were starting from scratch, what kind of system would we create? Obviously, it should be a fully funded system. The money you put in should be saved and invested on your behalf. And what you receive when you retire should be based on what you put in. With this system, your pension wouldn't rely on taking money from future generations. Actually, a fully funded system already exists. In fact, there are many of them. They are lifetime annuities offered by private insurance companies. You pay into the annuity over the years, the insurance company invests the money for you, and it pays you a lifetime pension when you retire. When you own an annuity, you have a firm contract with an insurance company. You know how much you have to pay every year -- and, unless you agree otherwise, the amount you pay never changes. You know how much you'll receive when you retire -- and, unless you agree otherwise, the amount you'll receive is guaranteed. This is the voluntary, contractual, non-political way of providing for "Social Security." When you have an annuity, you don't have to worry that Congress will change the rules. Many employers already provide pensions for their employees. If there were no Social Security system, competition for the best employees would inspire a great many more to do the same. What Should We Do? Private annuities work. They've existed for hundreds of years. Government doesn't work, although it has existed for thousands of years. Political Social Security is a fraud that can never be fixed. It is headed for bankruptcy. The only question is what to do about it. In looking for a solution, we must face up to one inescapable truth: Given the current tax rates and the promised benefits, there is no way everyone can get from Social Security what he's been told he will get. Most of the trillions of dollars paid into Social Security over the past 60 years have been spent. The money can't be retrieved. The promised benefits can be paid only if the Social Security tax is raised sharply. Or the tax can be kept where it is now, but only by reneging on the promised benefits. So we really have only two choices: Keep patching up Social Security, either by raising the Social Security tax until it reaches, say, 70% -- or by reducing benefits steadily until they're the equivalent of about $100 per month. Or . . . Act now to stop the problem from growing. Stop promising increased benefits, and get government out of Social Security entirely, so that no one will ever again be cheated by it. Social Security will always be a tool for politicians to one-up their opponents by promising bigger benefits now and leaving the necessary taxes for their successors to impose. So it will be a chronic problem until we get it out of the hands of the politicians. And the longer we wait to do this, the more painful it will be when we do. How to Save Your Retirement, Rather than Social Security Republican and Democratic politicians keep talking about "saving Social Security." But why should we want to save a bankrupt system that's a bad deal for everyone participating in it? What we really want is to free you from the 15% Social Security tax, while making sure that no one dependent on Social Security today loses what has been promised. Because expectations for receiving Social Security benefits are so low, we may be able to solve the problem at a relatively small cost -- if we get the government out now. Millions of people depend on Social Security today. They worked for decades. Their plans assumed that Social Security would provide some part of their retirement. I believe these people must receive what they were promised. But I don't trust the politicians to do it. Instead, the government should buy from a private insurance company an annuity for everyone who depends on Social Security. The annuities should provide lifetime incomes similar to what Social Security has promised. How much will this cost? A mountain of money. The exact size of the mountain is something only the government has the information to calculate. But, based on the amounts now being paid out each year, I estimate the cost to be roughly $5 trillion. This is, in effect, the accumulated deficit of 60 years of "pay as you go." Because there the government doesn't have enough money to cover all the liabilities, I believe annuities should be provided only for those who truly need them. This means some kind of simple, non-intrusive means test must be applied to each retiree. Those that don't rely on Social Security shouldn't aggravate the problem further. The maximum monthly Social Security benefit is $1,433; there are many retired people to whom that isn't a critical amount. People over the age of 50 who are nearing retirement and who have made plans based on receiving Social Security should also receive annuities. Those annuities would be smaller and wouldn't begin paying out until age 65. Of the current retirees and those over 50 who qualify for the annuities, I would hope that a great many would waive the right to an annuity and get along by other means -- although we can't count on that. In the next section I'll discuss a way to pay for the annuities without providing any additional burden on you and other taxpayers. And what about those under 50? To them we offer the greatest gift possible: You will never again have to pay the 15% Social Security tax. You will be able to fund a real retirement for yourself -- putting aside 5%, 10%, 15%, or whatever you want from your pay -- instead of paying 15% to Social Security. By starting before you pass 50, you can easily accumulate the necessary capital to provide a benefit at least as large as Social Security had promised. What Kind of America? We need to decide what kind of America we want. Do we want a country that sinks ever more deeply into debt -- in which generations fight with each other over a constantly shrinking pie? Or do we make the changes necessary now and get America back on track again -- so that people are no longer wards of the state? We can have a country in which our citizens are responsible, self-reliant, and self-respectful. With regard to Social Security, we have only two choices: Get Social Security completely out of the hands of the government -- and do it quickly. Give everyone a fresh start with a guarantee that from now on he'll get what he's promised. Leave it all in the politicians' hands -- and put up with periodic crises, higher and higher taxes, and more and more hostility between the generations. For me the choice is obvious. Your vote for a Libertarian President will be a statement that the Democrats' and Republicans' puny plans for Social Security aren't good enough. You want the freedom to plan a secure retirement for yourself.
If you know your illuminati secret language symbolism, the intel inside as well as Lucent's symbol is the snake eating it's own tail. This is a symbol for eternity, highly symbolic of cycles. Here is another example - http://www.vodafone.com/ More illuminati symbolism at - http://www.davidicke.com Once reality got too hardcore, denial became the drug of choice. Noble