You're right, republicans are socialists... and there really isn't any difference between their brand and the democrats.. the democrats are a bit more communist and the republicans are a bit more nationalist (eg: fascist) but they are both socialist parties... really both manifestations of the one socialist party that has taken over the country.
You point out the conflicts-- but I think these are ironies due to ignorance.
IF people who wanted to help the poor actually understood economics, they'd realize that the minimum wage law and unions destroy jobs and create poverty.
But they are simply too ignorant (and/or too stupid) to know this, or recognize this truth when pointed out to them.
So, they continue to advocate poverty in the name of helping the poor.
And when they are a majority, as they are when you include socialist republicans in the mix, they can run roughshod over the constittuion.
Eventually, though, somethings going to give, and the country is going to go really bankrupt (which it technically already is, and has been for 70 years) and have a major currency crises... or they get to the point where they start implementing their concentration camp plans and that sparks an open revolt.
I notice that they down-moderated your post. Gee, what a surprise.
If you haven't been there, check out the Mises institute-- www.mises.org. Some good economics books, downloadable for free.
But the meaning of the second ammendment is clear.
The militia is all the people... not the national guard which was formed a hundred years later!
Arms means all arms in use to defend the country-- who do you think owned the cannons and warships that defended us from the british?
Private citizens.
IF you endorse a limitation, or infringement of the second ammendment, you endorse the violation of the right of self defense-- which, like free speech, is a fundamental human right.
IF you cannot defend yourself under the law, it is that much easier for the law to turn you into a slave.
Oh, and if you think I'm a republican, you've already lost.
You advocate the war on Iraq while opposing it. After all, the majority of the representatives from the party who's presidential candidate you voted for last election voted for the war on Iraq, and explicitly did so in violation of the constitution (Which requires a declaration of war).
The founding fathers, the framers of the constittuion, did not want a standing army! They were explicit on that. Get very clear- they did not want a standing army, no navy, no marines, no national guard. They wanted a militia of the people-- which is MUCH HARDER to be adventurous in the middle east with.
You support a standing army, and you oppose the constitution and liberty.
What's the point of trying to argue against an argument based on false premises? There is none.
Course your audience, who never checks premises, confuses a logical conclusion from false premises to be "truth". I guess that's what you're counting on.
Just once I'd like to see a argument against libertarianism from someone who actually understood it.
The hidden assumption is not even an assumption at all, let alone hidden. It is a statement too broad to be true or false, as sometimes it is true and sometimes it is false.
You know, if your assertsions were correct, you could show errors in my thought process.
But instead, you make an assertion, and think its some sort of an argument. You don't seem to know the difference.
I had to reject traditional thinking when I found its errors to eventually work out for myself what is called libertarianism by you. (And, incorrectly, I might add.. why add "Big-L" when you don't know the distinction?)
You on the other hand, have nothing to offer but a personal attack-- no argument, no reason-- and your personal attack, ironically enough, is that I'm not using reason.
Unfortunately, I no longer find such statements amusing. They're just sad, really.
Yes, you would rather have other people carry guns and envoforce your will.
The difference between you and someone (not a libertarian) who carries a gun and shoots people when he doesn't get his way is that you don't have the guts to risk being shot back at-- -you'd rather have hired goons do it for you.
You have no clue how libertarians would solve the problem, and its a shame you've embraced socialism.
The second ammendment does not need to be interpreted... as with the rest of the constitution-- if you're "interpreting it" your violating its intention.
The constitutional language is clear "Shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation.
You, the ACLU, and socialists of all stripes who oppose the Bill of Rights and the rest of the constitution can whine about "intepretation" but the fact of the matter is, if you don't; support the Bill of Rights, you oppose the foundation of our country.
Without the second ammendment, the first ammendment is meaningless.
Sigh... go take an economics class sometime. Or read "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlit. ITs short enough that you can get thru it.
IF you're bashing republicans, you haven't even begun to get a clue yet-- there is no difference between the republicans and the democrats. Both are socialist parties.
Liberals, however, have a particular affinity ofr persecuting the poor. Every liberal program out there causes poverty.
You just are so ignorant of economics that you blithely keep supporting them.
I might just do that, unfortunately, governent is a disease that has spread world wide... and the government here attacks places that don't conform to its wishes.
When you start respecting human rights, you'll hate the government as well.
At any rate, I have the right to be here. The government which has forsaken the constitution is illegitimate and should be shut down.
You're just making shit up and presuming its true.
Not much point in arguing with someone who lacks any understanding of economics. (Blaming globalization for the loss of jobs is just ignorant.)
Anyway, the bottom line is you want to force peopel to live based on your idea of what their lifesyle should be. Typical socialist fascism.
You oppose human rights and there's no point in arguing with you about the details-- at the end of the day, you want to initiate violence on people who don't meet your approval. (After all, that's what citations for people who's cars aren't expensive enough is.)
There's no point in continuing to respond.... I will never accept the oppression you advocate.
Cars do not harm you. That's the error in your logic.
Furthermore, you still don't understand what libertarianism is.
And finally, the idea that cars force us into war is absurd.
That big government socialists like you have caused hte governmetn to go to war with iraq is irrelevant to my right to drive cars. You are responsible for oyur own acctions (And I guarantee you voted for a big government socialist last election. If you hadn't you'd understand what libertarian means.)
Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure.
You profess support for government provided "national defense".... so you must love that war we're involved with Iraq, eh?
If it weren't for government having taken over this job--- soemthing the founding fathers warned against! They EXPLICITLY wanted the national defense to not be part of the federal government! -- we wouldn't be adventuring out to settle our presidents personal score.
Everything government does, is a violation of human rights. Government cannot exist without violating human rights. Whenever you advocate the g overnment doing something, if you look closely you'll see you are advocating the violation of human rights.
This is why this country was set up to be a country with very minimal government...
Godwins law is for those who are too stupid to recognize that the Nazis really did exist. But its true. The Nazis are a historical fact. Therefore, accurate comparisons to them are logically valid.
You have conceded the argument because you are apparently too historically ignorant to make an actual counter argument.
The Nazis did exist. Godwins "law" is the resort of the ignorant and the racist who cannot handle making a counter argument.
You have apparently never read the constitution-- that's disturbing!
Citizens do not vote on rights... they do not have the moral authority, and the constitution DOES NOT ALLOW IT.
Rights are inherent, recognized by the constitution, but not granted by the constitution... and certainly cannot be voted away because a bunch of ignorant idiots decide they want to force peopel to live another way.
Get educated and grow up. You don't have the right to force people to live according to your lifestyle... so stop trying.
Travel by car is an inherent human right, recognized by the constitution in the 9th ammendment.
Of course you doubt they could-- you have the undying faith in the government our socialist system indoctrinated you into having.
And so you do nothing, while you're right to have that letter delivered in 2 days instead of 10, for only $0.12 is usurped.
Furthermore, the argument can't be made that without the government doing it it wouldn't have gotten done--when the government took over this service and pushed everyone out, there were people already providing the service.
The reason the government took it over was to control what was said! TO prevent people from sending political mail the government didn't agree with! They don't do this anymore, but that was the reason we have the US Postal Service.
Read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner if you want to know why the US Postal service is unconstitutional... and it will give you a good perspective on teh constitution in general.
Well, I'm glad to see we agree. Then if some private entity has a road that is causing massive amounts of polution and actual damages to neighboring property, then the neighbors can take it up with them.
Much better than a bunch of people in government trying to regulate what people do. Someone here said you shouldnt' be allowed to live 30 miles from work... totally rediculous.
The thing is government has been taken over by people who want to control other people-- and thus government has become immoral (if it wasn't always).
I was not talking about driving someone elses car, I'm talking about driving my own car.
Therefore, the analogy is limiting your ability to print with your own printing press, not someone elses.
This right is protected by the constitution (in that the constituion does not give the government the right to regulate travel, and thus that right is retained according to the constitution.)
Ah, the standard Slashdot Apple bashing... so communistic, anybody that makes money on software must be a monopolist, right! They monopolize the whole computer!
Nevermind that they have minority market share. Slashdot types hate them because they charge money.
But the thing is, they charge money for something that actually works really well... and thats what really rubs you the wrong way. They have competed with microsoft better than Linux so far... and produced a better product.
Actually, you made me work 30 miles away by driving out the jobs.
ITs funny,you want to hold other people responsible "Get a closer job" without knowing anything about thier situation-- maybe two of them have jobs and were only able to get jobs 60 miles apart, so they live as close to their jobs as possible.
You don't care.
You'd ratehr they be unemployed because you don't think they should be allowed to have cars.
Fascist. You don't know the meaning of the word libertarian.
Thats waht it boils down to-- forcing people to live according to your desires.
You shoudln't be paying taxes on roads you're not using-- so why don't we privatize roads?
This is the thing about government it takes over something that could be done privately and then pits people against each other for the payment of it.
IF we had private roads you would pay less cause you don't use them, and I would pay less because I would be paying a competantly managed company , rather than the incompetantly run government which can't do anything without spending 6 times market price and giving 1/3 the expected value.
When we get socialised health care in this coutnry people will be making the same argument-- we should ban smoking cause they are tired of paying taxes to provide health care to smokers.
One day, I remain hopeful, you guys will realize that it is the government taking over these things that is the root of the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right, republicans are socialists... and there really isn't any difference between their brand and the democrats.. the democrats are a bit more communist and the republicans are a bit more nationalist (eg: fascist) but they are both socialist parties... really both manifestations of the one socialist party that has taken over the country.
You point out the conflicts-- but I think these are ironies due to ignorance.
IF people who wanted to help the poor actually understood economics, they'd realize that the minimum wage law and unions destroy jobs and create poverty.
But they are simply too ignorant (and/or too stupid) to know this, or recognize this truth when pointed out to them.
So, they continue to advocate poverty in the name of helping the poor.
And when they are a majority, as they are when you include socialist republicans in the mix, they can run roughshod over the constittuion.
Eventually, though, somethings going to give, and the country is going to go really bankrupt (which it technically already is, and has been for 70 years) and have a major currency crises... or they get to the point where they start implementing their concentration camp plans and that sparks an open revolt.
I notice that they down-moderated your post. Gee, what a surprise.
If you haven't been there, check out the Mises institute-- www.mises.org. Some good economics books, downloadable for free.
WTF? Yeah, that you socialsits are putting forth loyalty oaths and making laws that force kids to say them is consistent with my assertions.
You trying to be ironic? Or are you just ignorant of the history of the Pledge?
The Pledge of Allegience has nothing to do with the constitution, other than the facct that forcing people to say it violates the Bill of Rights.
Yeah, the NRA sucks.
But the meaning of the second ammendment is clear.
The militia is all the people... not the national guard which was formed a hundred years later!
Arms means all arms in use to defend the country-- who do you think owned the cannons and warships that defended us from the british?
Private citizens.
IF you endorse a limitation, or infringement of the second ammendment, you endorse the violation of the right of self defense-- which, like free speech, is a fundamental human right.
IF you cannot defend yourself under the law, it is that much easier for the law to turn you into a slave.
Oh, and if you think I'm a republican, you've already lost.
Go get a clue.
I don't appreciate a good strawmen, but I can recognize one and you just provided one.
You advocate the war on Iraq while opposing it. After all, the majority of the representatives from the party who's presidential candidate you voted for last election voted for the war on Iraq, and explicitly did so in violation of the constitution (Which requires a declaration of war).
The founding fathers, the framers of the constittuion, did not want a standing army! They were explicit on that. Get very clear- they did not want a standing army, no navy, no marines, no national guard. They wanted a militia of the people-- which is MUCH HARDER to be adventurous in the middle east with.
You support a standing army, and you oppose the constitution and liberty.
Check your premises.
What's the point of trying to argue against an argument based on false premises? There is none.
Course your audience, who never checks premises, confuses a logical conclusion from false premises to be "truth". I guess that's what you're counting on.
Just once I'd like to see a argument against libertarianism from someone who actually understood it.
The hidden assumption is not even an assumption at all, let alone hidden. It is a statement too broad to be true or false, as sometimes it is true and sometimes it is false.
You know, if your assertsions were correct, you could show errors in my thought process.
But instead, you make an assertion, and think its some sort of an argument. You don't seem to know the difference.
I had to reject traditional thinking when I found its errors to eventually work out for myself what is called libertarianism by you. (And, incorrectly, I might add.. why add "Big-L" when you don't know the distinction?)
You on the other hand, have nothing to offer but a personal attack-- no argument, no reason-- and your personal attack, ironically enough, is that I'm not using reason.
Unfortunately, I no longer find such statements amusing. They're just sad, really.
Apparently you've never read the constitution, or you'd recognize that the constitution does not grant rights, it merely recognizes them.
It recognizes the right to travel in the 9th ammendment, part of the bill of rights.
Yes, you would rather have other people carry guns and envoforce your will.
The difference between you and someone (not a libertarian) who carries a gun and shoots people when he doesn't get his way is that you don't have the guts to risk being shot back at-- -you'd rather have hired goons do it for you.
You have no clue how libertarians would solve the problem, and its a shame you've embraced socialism.
The second ammendment does not need to be interpreted... as with the rest of the constitution-- if you're "interpreting it" your violating its intention.
The constitutional language is clear "Shall not be infringed" leaves no room for interpretation.
You, the ACLU, and socialists of all stripes who oppose the Bill of Rights and the rest of the constitution can whine about "intepretation" but the fact of the matter is, if you don't; support the Bill of Rights, you oppose the foundation of our country.
Without the second ammendment, the first ammendment is meaningless.
Hey idiot-- I'm assuming the vehicles are not going to pass... and so they get all these citations.
DOesn't matter if they only get one a week, they still can't afford to pay it, and so its persecution of the poor.
Sigh... go take an economics class sometime. Or read "Economics in one lesson" by Henry Hazlit. ITs short enough that you can get thru it.
IF you're bashing republicans, you haven't even begun to get a clue yet-- there is no difference between the republicans and the democrats. Both are socialist parties.
Liberals, however, have a particular affinity ofr persecuting the poor. Every liberal program out there causes poverty.
You just are so ignorant of economics that you blithely keep supporting them.
I might just do that, unfortunately, governent is a disease that has spread world wide... and the government here attacks places that don't conform to its wishes.
When you start respecting human rights, you'll hate the government as well.
At any rate, I have the right to be here. The government which has forsaken the constitution is illegitimate and should be shut down.
I have the moral high ground here.
You're just making shit up and presuming its true.
Not much point in arguing with someone who lacks any understanding of economics. (Blaming globalization for the loss of jobs is just ignorant.)
Anyway, the bottom line is you want to force peopel to live based on your idea of what their lifesyle should be. Typical socialist fascism.
You oppose human rights and there's no point in arguing with you about the details-- at the end of the day, you want to initiate violence on people who don't meet your approval. (After all, that's what citations for people who's cars aren't expensive enough is.)
There's no point in continuing to respond.... I will never accept the oppression you advocate.
Cars do not harm you. That's the error in your logic.
Furthermore, you still don't understand what libertarianism is.
And finally, the idea that cars force us into war is absurd.
That big government socialists like you have caused hte governmetn to go to war with iraq is irrelevant to my right to drive cars. You are responsible for oyur own acctions (And I guarantee you voted for a big government socialist last election. If you hadn't you'd understand what libertarian means.)
Government is a disease masquarading as its own cure.
You profess support for government provided "national defense".... so you must love that war we're involved with Iraq, eh?
If it weren't for government having taken over this job--- soemthing the founding fathers warned against! They EXPLICITLY wanted the national defense to not be part of the federal government! -- we wouldn't be adventuring out to settle our presidents personal score.
Everything government does, is a violation of human rights. Government cannot exist without violating human rights. Whenever you advocate the g overnment doing something, if you look closely you'll see you are advocating the violation of human rights.
This is why this country was set up to be a country with very minimal government...
Godwins law is for those who are too stupid to recognize that the Nazis really did exist. But its true. The Nazis are a historical fact. Therefore, accurate comparisons to them are logically valid.
You have conceded the argument because you are apparently too historically ignorant to make an actual counter argument.
The Nazis did exist. Godwins "law" is the resort of the ignorant and the racist who cannot handle making a counter argument.
You have apparently never read the constitution-- that's disturbing!
Citizens do not vote on rights... they do not have the moral authority, and the constitution DOES NOT ALLOW IT.
Rights are inherent, recognized by the constitution, but not granted by the constitution... and certainly cannot be voted away because a bunch of ignorant idiots decide they want to force peopel to live another way.
Get educated and grow up. You don't have the right to force people to live according to your lifestyle... so stop trying.
Travel by car is an inherent human right, recognized by the constitution in the 9th ammendment.
Of course you doubt they could-- you have the undying faith in the government our socialist system indoctrinated you into having.
And so you do nothing, while you're right to have that letter delivered in 2 days instead of 10, for only $0.12 is usurped.
Furthermore, the argument can't be made that without the government doing it it wouldn't have gotten done--when the government took over this service and pushed everyone out, there were people already providing the service.
The reason the government took it over was to control what was said! TO prevent people from sending political mail the government didn't agree with! They don't do this anymore, but that was the reason we have the US Postal Service.
Read "No Treason" by Lysander Spooner if you want to know why the US Postal service is unconstitutional... and it will give you a good perspective on teh constitution in general.
Well, I'm glad to see we agree. Then if some private entity has a road that is causing massive amounts of polution and actual damages to neighboring property, then the neighbors can take it up with them.
Much better than a bunch of people in government trying to regulate what people do. Someone here said you shouldnt' be allowed to live 30 miles from work... totally rediculous.
The thing is government has been taken over by people who want to control other people-- and thus government has become immoral (if it wasn't always).
False.
I was not talking about driving someone elses car, I'm talking about driving my own car.
Therefore, the analogy is limiting your ability to print with your own printing press, not someone elses.
This right is protected by the constitution (in that the constituion does not give the government the right to regulate travel, and thus that right is retained according to the constitution.)
Ah, so its worthless then. Remember this thread is about VPC-- A MAC PRODUCT.
If its not Mac, its CRAP.
Why is it so hard... Apple's not the most perfectly run company.
Why is it nobody is able to release a product that is competitive to Mac OS?
Ah, the standard Slashdot Apple bashing... so communistic, anybody that makes money on software must be a monopolist, right! They monopolize the whole computer!
Nevermind that they have minority market share. Slashdot types hate them because they charge money.
But the thing is, they charge money for something that actually works really well... and thats what really rubs you the wrong way. They have competed with microsoft better than Linux so far... and produced a better product.
Actually, you made me work 30 miles away by driving out the jobs.
,you want to hold other people responsible "Get a closer job" without knowing anything about thier situation-- maybe two of them have jobs and were only able to get jobs 60 miles apart, so they live as close to their jobs as possible.
ITs funny
You don't care.
You'd ratehr they be unemployed because you don't think they should be allowed to have cars.
Fascist. You don't know the meaning of the word libertarian.
Yes, you think people should drive less.
Thats waht it boils down to-- forcing people to live according to your desires.
You shoudln't be paying taxes on roads you're not using-- so why don't we privatize roads?
This is the thing about government it takes over something that could be done privately and then pits people against each other for the payment of it.
IF we had private roads you would pay less cause you don't use them, and I would pay less because I would be paying a competantly managed company , rather than the incompetantly run government which can't do anything without spending 6 times market price and giving 1/3 the expected value.
When we get socialised health care in this coutnry people will be making the same argument-- we should ban smoking cause they are tired of paying taxes to provide health care to smokers.
One day, I remain hopeful, you guys will realize that it is the government taking over these things that is the root of the problem.