Except after outlawing them, Gun violence went up dramatically in the UK. See, the thing y'all haven't figured out is, criminals-- you know, the ones we want protection from-- thy don't follow the law. All the UK has done is make the innocent people defenseless.
Generally, in areas with more guns, there is less crime.
TOTALLY. Apple pushed really hard for a liberal license, and got it. And now the world has embraced this liberal license.
IF they want to bitch, they should bitch to the RIAA.
I think this is really about people wanting to steal content and do so conveniently. Its not that hard to steal content, and Apple is at best providing an inconvenience to it.
Talk about misguided, but then, its european socialists who think that profit is evil, so what can you expect?
I'm perplexed as to why people persist in fantasizing that conspiracies are hard to do, hard to keep secret.
The entirety of the monetary system, including the founding of the federal reserve, and the manipulation of gold prices is a conpsiracy. And its well documented and done in the public eye. Its "conspiracy" because people banded together, and the public remains ignorant.
But you can point people to all the admissions of the conspiracy by the conspirators in the world and their faith in government the benevolant will not be shaken.
Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.
on
Back to the Moon
·
· Score: 1
Another false economy- -war verses government boondoggle. Wait, war is a government boondoggle.
Why is it you assume that anything useful has to come from government?
Most scientific advancement comes from private enterprise. And big foolish goals do nothing but keep people poor.
I'm sure you had a great time at taxpayer expense. Lucky you. But it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't change the fact that the country would have been better off-- technologically and financially-- if we hadn't wasted that money.
Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.
on
Back to the Moon
·
· Score: 1
Before being smug, you should try and actually comprehend what you're replying to.
All those things would have come much sooner had NASA not taken that money out of hte economy. We would have had cellphones, the internet, and a thousand other technological advancements about 10 years earlier if a signficant portion of the GDP hadn't been redirected to a race to the moon that didn't really benefit anyone.
And fuel cells were invented a long time before NASA started using them... and the integrated circuit wasn't even invented by NASA.
You make the false assumption that without NASA spending these advancements wouldn't have happened. Yet the reality is that they would have happened faster.
Ding, indeed.
Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.
on
Back to the Moon
·
· Score: 1
Right, and for every $1 paid to NASA at least %90 of it went into things other than R&D. I think I'm being generous, but its a reasonable figure, and of that R&D, most of it went to things that had no practical value (Eg: little of today's business is focused on going to the moon.)
The problem with this is that if that money had been left in the economy, far more pure reasearch would have been done.
People look at the spending and then look at the return-- $1-$9, or $0.10 to $9, and think that's a great return on investment.
But they ignore the fact that the $1 came from somewhere, and it came from people who would have likely invested $1 or more of those retained earnings in R&D, after the earnings worked thru the economy a couple times.
People never calculate how much economic damage was done by taking that $1 out of the economy. Due to compounding, it is likely to be far more than $9. But assuming its only $9 in damage, then you have a situation where your spending was less than half as effective as not doing the spending.
These figures (eg: your $9 figure) are generally rather generous in estimating economic impact. But we do know that in a capitalist economy retained capital goes to growth, and that growth results in a lot of pure R&D.
So, if you actually account for the opportunity cost, NASA was a detriment.
You're wasting time. It doesn't matter how often you point out a hole or inconsistency with the official conspiracy theory, they will just ignore it, call you a nut, and believe their conspiracy theory. They wil lsay you're a conspiracy theorist and ignore that what they believe is also a conpsiracy theory, and one which doesn't make much sense.
But since the government said it, and they are unwilling to seriously look at the evidence, or consider anything that doesn't agree with the official conspiracy theory, they will not pay attention to you.
Re:It should be a lot cheaper than in the 60s.
on
Back to the Moon
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
False economics. For every $1 paid to nasa, maybe $0.10 went into R&D that had a practical use here on earth, and that's generous, as most of it went to overhead, materials and non-R&D stuff. And what did go into R&D was mostly to solve problems for getting to the moon, not for getting products to market.
So, if the $0.10 that actually went to useful R&D resulted in $9 in economic growth... then if the whole $1 that went to NASA had been retained by the economy (it was taxes, remember) then $90 in economic growth would have resulted. (As the value not destroyed by NASA on a project with no positive economic impact, would have circled the economy at least ten times before going somewhere that was a dead end, so each $1 retained would have resulted in at least $1 in R&D even if the initial dollar was spent on floor wax.)
Socialists (eg: anyone who supports government development of anything) always point to the benefits, but never pay attention to the costs. And the costs are always much higher than the benefits.
If they' just shut down NASA a private space program would get to the moon again faster than NASA could. NASA is interfering with private efforts,and of course, sucking billions out of the economy that would otherwise be available for a wide range of research and development.
And this is just the economic argument. It doesn't even address the massive number of truely talented people who could have prusued access to space in an economically viable way, who were instead wasted working for NASA for 20-30 years. NASA's brain drain probably exceeds its budget impact by an order of magnitude. Imagine what kind of a space industry we'd have if venture capitalists could have underwritten access to space back when the technology was just viable and everyone wanted it? (Unlike now when 40 years of NASA incompetance have caused people to give up on the possibility.)
Fortunately, private entities are working on it. But they have to fight NASA every step of the way.
The government doesn't have the right to restrict trade - as they do with the prohibitions of gambling, drugs, prostitution and just about everything else.
But the government also doesn't have the right to restrict your livlihood by taxing you to support others.
Repealing either of these is an improvement over the status quo. Fixing either wrong would be progress.
But ironically, the people who want one, want the other, and they use each to support thier arguments for the other. The nanny staters will just not tolerate individuality.
Conservation is evil. Efficiency is good. You want to make your process more efficient, great.
If you want to say that I can't be allowed to buy the power I need to do what I want, then you are denying me the most basic right in existance.
If someting is rare, then let the market determine its price. Market forces will cause people to find alternatives.
Conservation-- government mandated rationing-- causes people who could even afford the high price (Because the benefit to society is so great) to be denied the opportunity to provide it.
Conservation is bad for society. Energy is the currency and the source of growth, and growth is the ONLY way to improve the standard of living.
Conservation is the path to soviet russia style living.
There's no deciding necessary. What it says is not really up for debate. Only people who want to violate it come up with creative interpretations.
Find anywhere that it authorizes the governemnt to regulate communications. If you will look in the enumerated powers clause, you will see that it clearly doesn't. If you look at the first amemndment, you see that not only is it not allowed to, but it is specifically forbidden from regulating communication.
No creative interpretation is necessary. The constitution says what it means and means what it says.
The interstate commerce clause is irrelevant to this discussion, because we are not talking about moving material, we are talking about communications. Whether the communications are paid for - like the pamphlets in the time of the framing of the constitution- or not is irrelevant.
Even if the interstate commerce clause was applicable, the first ammendment trumps it.
You really need to read the constitution. You know, yourself. Stop listening to what fascists tell you about it... read it.
Actually, realistically, this could be achieved. Switch to nuclear power-- which happens to be the cleanest, most efficient, safest and cheapest form of power on the planet. Allocate some of that electricity to the production of synthetic oil, and thus you would need to import no oil.
The objection to nukes is often the storage of uranium... but the thing is, where do people think uranium comes from? The answer is, it is mined. Its prevelant in many areas of the planet, and there was even a natural nuclear reactor in africa a couple hundred years ago. Putting it into some sort of fancy storage system is fine if people want to... over the last 50 years with hundreds of plants operating, the total leftover uranium is about the volume of a small house. Easy to store... and likely a valuable resource in the future.
Both Congress and the SCOTUS are irrelevant to the constitution... read the constitution.
Congress passes many laws that are unconstitutional, and even the SCOTUS agrees that when it does so, the laws are null and void at the moment signed into law.
The SCOTUS thinks its the supreme decider of the constitution, but any literate person can read the document themselves and see when the government is acting illegally.
If you will read it, you will see there is no enumeration of a power to regulate communication, and the first ammendment explicitly forbids it.
Great, just what the country needs- - another lawyer ignorant of the law.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
There it is, plain as day. Since there is no enumerated power to regulate the airwaves, no laws are necessary or proper to do so!
Stop reading a bunch of books that tell you the document doesn't say what it plainly says. Try reading the actual document yourself.
Also notice: "The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added."
and "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The first ammendment enumerates that speech is protected, any other speech related rights are retained by the people.
The FCC is the federal COMMUNICATIONS commission. Any action it takes, by definition, is regulation of communication.
So, not only is it unconstitutional under the enumerated clause, its explicitly called out as a right in the first ammendment.
It seems constitutional to you because you have no freaking clue what the constitution says... like most americans.
The bottom line is, if the constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to regulate something, then the federal government doesn't have that power.
This is according to the constitution. It enumerates the powers the government has... and then says these are the only powers they have.
Its unfortunate that americans are so ignorant of their own constitution, that mentioning it makes one a troll.
Go read it-- show me where it gives feds power to regulate airwaves, and then otice where it says "all rights not enumerated here are reserved to the people and the several states"
Not unlike the monopoly the FCC granted itself, unconstitutionally and illegally, over all specturm.
The FCC is selling something it never owned in the first place... and then, of course, using the violence of the state (eg: cops with guns and courts which will back them up, even though there is no basis in the constitution for it).
The pathetic thing is that it was over 50 years ago that spread spectrum technology was invented-- obliviating even the "tragedy of the commons" fallacy to justify these sales.
Government is the problem here, and as usual, government is pretending to be the solution.
Let me tell you, filing a business license is a great way to become personally acquainted with every level of government in your state, because they will all call you up with forms for you to fill out and taxes for you to pay.
Being a business is a licensed class, and unless you *need* to, don't do it.
What you have is a hobby. Keep it a hobby. If you're concerned about being sued, well a small business will not protect you, you'll still have to hide your assets anyway.
If you keep it as a hobby you don't have to pay taxes on the income, provided it doesn't exceed your hobby expenses. IF you keep it as a hobby you dont' have to file countless forms every three months, pay thousands ot lawyers accountents, etc. And if you keep it as a hobby you are better protected.
The only reason you would ever want to form a business is if you plan to sell stock, or if you need to form a partnership and have joint property.
Seriously. People have been told a lot of gruff, and of course, accountants and lawyers have spread the idea that you need to lawyer up and have an accountant going over everything.
But you don't. Regular old tax software will handle your small business accounting as far as the IRS is concerned (and if you get some you'll see the advantages to keeping it a hobby) The IRS recognizes hobbies as a legitimate area where you can make some money, and while they will want their share of it, tehy will only want a share of your profits.
Forming a business results in a never ending amount of hassle-- from a greatly increased amount of bulk mail to periodic calls and even visits from random taxing authorities you've never heard of.
I learned my lesson once, never again.
Also, if you do want to form a business for whatever reasn, consider forming it out of state-- nevada is a good state, or out of hte country, such as in the carribean. In that case, you just need to file a registration to do business in your state. Since the business is not domiciled in your state, its a much lower burden of paperwork and regulation.
And virtually every business friendly country, or business friendly state is likely to give you a vastly better level of business protection (privacy, insulation etc) than your home state.
Maybe government for THEM. The problem is that their government is ready, willing and able to use violence to force me to comply with their wishes, even when they have no right-- for instance, taxing my income.
The only reason they can get away with this is because most people are ignorant-- not stupid, but ignorant. They have been awashed with propaganda from the moment they were born. Hell, even the other guy in the thread who agreed with me thinks there are some uses for governmetn.
Anarchism is a workable system. If some fools want to form a commune in an anarchistic society, they can. They just can't declare themselves the supreme soviet-- or, well, they can do that too, they will just be ignored.
The only reason government has any power over you is because YOU give it to them... if even a small percentage put their foot down, the government would crumble.
and I don't mean by violent revolution, I mean of its own accord. Just stop paying taxes. Stop following their edicts.
As long as we have governments, people will be this stupid. That's what government is-- encouragement of stupidity, not to mention theft, etc.
As long as there are governments, there will be people trying to use them to take power that doesn't belong to them.
The only thing worse than the US controlling the internet, is the UN or EU, or any other government organization-- all of whom, you note, are unaccountable to most people. EVen if the US had fair elections, its not like germans get to vote in them. The UN and EU don't even have direct elections.
Government is the problem, and until it is destroyed, all of its "Benefits"-- war, disease, poverty-- will continue.
So, the cops needed to bust open the ATMs and take DVDs from the store in order to help people?
Really, the fact of hte matter is, the cops are stealing those guns because its useful for cops to cover their tracks by throwing down a gun.
The reality is cops are no better, no honest, and a LOT LESS LAW ABIDING than regular people. They are a criminal organization in most cities (war on drugs is unconstitutional, thus every cop who participates is a felon, by definition.)
IF you've paid attention at all the cops are not in the driect line of fire, they are NOT HELPING ANYONE THERE.
The cops are stopping people from leaving the city, they are herding people into areas and then abandoning them for THREE DAYS.
The cops are blocking the fucking Red Cross from being able to get into the city.
How much do you need to understand before it sinks in that the hurricane was a natural disaster, but the COPS ARE WHAT'S SCREWING EVERTHING UP?
No, you just have no clue what libertarianism is. And so you made stuff up, or believed what some non-libertarian told you.
Now that you're talking to actual libertarians, they are shooting you down left and right.
Some libertarians are minarchists and some are anarchochapitalists, but the difference is really minor. The difference with objectivists is over only a few issues.
The differences between reality and the bullshit you';ve been posting here is pretty major-- so when you lecture us about what libertarians believe, you should expect to be called for the idiot you're making yourself out to be.
Slashdot Mirror
It is a complex issue, but that doesn't undermine the general trend. The japanese culture is very different.
Except after outlawing them, Gun violence went up dramatically in the UK. See, the thing y'all haven't figured out is, criminals-- you know, the ones we want protection from-- thy don't follow the law. All the UK has done is make the innocent people defenseless.
Generally, in areas with more guns, there is less crime.
TOTALLY. Apple pushed really hard for a liberal license, and got it. And now the world has embraced this liberal license.
IF they want to bitch, they should bitch to the RIAA.
I think this is really about people wanting to steal content and do so conveniently. Its not that hard to steal content, and Apple is at best providing an inconvenience to it.
Talk about misguided, but then, its european socialists who think that profit is evil, so what can you expect?
I'm perplexed as to why people persist in fantasizing that conspiracies are hard to do, hard to keep secret.
The entirety of the monetary system, including the founding of the federal reserve, and the manipulation of gold prices is a conpsiracy. And its well documented and done in the public eye. Its "conspiracy" because people banded together, and the public remains ignorant.
But you can point people to all the admissions of the conspiracy by the conspirators in the world and their faith in government the benevolant will not be shaken.
Another false economy- -war verses government boondoggle. Wait, war is a government boondoggle.
Why is it you assume that anything useful has to come from government?
Most scientific advancement comes from private enterprise. And big foolish goals do nothing but keep people poor.
I'm sure you had a great time at taxpayer expense. Lucky you. But it doesn't make it right, and it doesn't change the fact that the country would have been better off-- technologically and financially-- if we hadn't wasted that money.
Before being smug, you should try and actually comprehend what you're replying to.
All those things would have come much sooner had NASA not taken that money out of hte economy. We would have had cellphones, the internet, and a thousand other technological advancements about 10 years earlier if a signficant portion of the GDP hadn't been redirected to a race to the moon that didn't really benefit anyone.
And fuel cells were invented a long time before NASA started using them... and the integrated circuit wasn't even invented by NASA.
You make the false assumption that without NASA spending these advancements wouldn't have happened. Yet the reality is that they would have happened faster.
Ding, indeed.
Right, and for every $1 paid to NASA at least %90 of it went into things other than R&D. I think I'm being generous, but its a reasonable figure, and of that R&D, most of it went to things that had no practical value (Eg: little of today's business is focused on going to the moon.)
The problem with this is that if that money had been left in the economy, far more pure reasearch would have been done.
People look at the spending and then look at the return-- $1-$9, or $0.10 to $9, and think that's a great return on investment.
But they ignore the fact that the $1 came from somewhere, and it came from people who would have likely invested $1 or more of those retained earnings in R&D, after the earnings worked thru the economy a couple times.
People never calculate how much economic damage was done by taking that $1 out of the economy. Due to compounding, it is likely to be far more than $9. But assuming its only $9 in damage, then you have a situation where your spending was less than half as effective as not doing the spending.
These figures (eg: your $9 figure) are generally rather generous in estimating economic impact. But we do know that in a capitalist economy retained capital goes to growth, and that growth results in a lot of pure R&D.
So, if you actually account for the opportunity cost, NASA was a detriment.
You're wasting time. It doesn't matter how often you point out a hole or inconsistency with the official conspiracy theory, they will just ignore it, call you a nut, and believe their conspiracy theory. They wil lsay you're a conspiracy theorist and ignore that what they believe is also a conpsiracy theory, and one which doesn't make much sense.
But since the government said it, and they are unwilling to seriously look at the evidence, or consider anything that doesn't agree with the official conspiracy theory, they will not pay attention to you.
False economics. For every $1 paid to nasa, maybe $0.10 went into R&D that had a practical use here on earth, and that's generous, as most of it went to overhead, materials and non-R&D stuff. And what did go into R&D was mostly to solve problems for getting to the moon, not for getting products to market.
,and of course, sucking billions out of the economy that would otherwise be available for a wide range of research and development.
So, if the $0.10 that actually went to useful R&D resulted in $9 in economic growth... then if the whole $1 that went to NASA had been retained by the economy (it was taxes, remember) then $90 in economic growth would have resulted. (As the value not destroyed by NASA on a project with no positive economic impact, would have circled the economy at least ten times before going somewhere that was a dead end, so each $1 retained would have resulted in at least $1 in R&D even if the initial dollar was spent on floor wax.)
Socialists (eg: anyone who supports government development of anything) always point to the benefits, but never pay attention to the costs. And the costs are always much higher than the benefits.
If they' just shut down NASA a private space program would get to the moon again faster than NASA could. NASA is interfering with private efforts
And this is just the economic argument. It doesn't even address the massive number of truely talented people who could have prusued access to space in an economically viable way, who were instead wasted working for NASA for 20-30 years. NASA's brain drain probably exceeds its budget impact by an order of magnitude. Imagine what kind of a space industry we'd have if venture capitalists could have underwritten access to space back when the technology was just viable and everyone wanted it? (Unlike now when 40 years of NASA incompetance have caused people to give up on the possibility.)
Fortunately, private entities are working on it. But they have to fight NASA every step of the way.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
The government doesn't have the right to restrict trade - as they do with the prohibitions of gambling, drugs, prostitution and just about everything else.
But the government also doesn't have the right to restrict your livlihood by taxing you to support others.
Repealing either of these is an improvement over the status quo. Fixing either wrong would be progress.
But ironically, the people who want one, want the other, and they use each to support thier arguments for the other. The nanny staters will just not tolerate individuality.
Conservation is evil. Efficiency is good. You want to make your process more efficient, great.
If you want to say that I can't be allowed to buy the power I need to do what I want, then you are denying me the most basic right in existance.
If someting is rare, then let the market determine its price. Market forces will cause people to find alternatives.
Conservation-- government mandated rationing-- causes people who could even afford the high price (Because the benefit to society is so great) to be denied the opportunity to provide it.
Conservation is bad for society. Energy is the currency and the source of growth, and growth is the ONLY way to improve the standard of living.
Conservation is the path to soviet russia style living.
There's no deciding necessary. What it says is not really up for debate. Only people who want to violate it come up with creative interpretations.
Find anywhere that it authorizes the governemnt to regulate communications. If you will look in the enumerated powers clause, you will see that it clearly doesn't. If you look at the first amemndment, you see that not only is it not allowed to, but it is specifically forbidden from regulating communication.
No creative interpretation is necessary. The constitution says what it means and means what it says.
The interstate commerce clause is irrelevant to this discussion, because we are not talking about moving material, we are talking about communications. Whether the communications are paid for - like the pamphlets in the time of the framing of the constitution- or not is irrelevant.
Even if the interstate commerce clause was applicable, the first ammendment trumps it.
You really need to read the constitution. You know, yourself. Stop listening to what fascists tell you about it... read it.
Actually, realistically, this could be achieved. Switch to nuclear power-- which happens to be the cleanest, most efficient, safest and cheapest form of power on the planet. Allocate some of that electricity to the production of synthetic oil, and thus you would need to import no oil.
The objection to nukes is often the storage of uranium... but the thing is, where do people think uranium comes from? The answer is, it is mined. Its prevelant in many areas of the planet, and there was even a natural nuclear reactor in africa a couple hundred years ago. Putting it into some sort of fancy storage system is fine if people want to... over the last 50 years with hundreds of plants operating, the total leftover uranium is about the volume of a small house. Easy to store... and likely a valuable resource in the future.
Both Congress and the SCOTUS are irrelevant to the constitution... read the constitution.
Congress passes many laws that are unconstitutional, and even the SCOTUS agrees that when it does so, the laws are null and void at the moment signed into law.
The SCOTUS thinks its the supreme decider of the constitution, but any literate person can read the document themselves and see when the government is acting illegally.
If you will read it, you will see there is no enumeration of a power to regulate communication, and the first ammendment explicitly forbids it.
Great, just what the country needs- - another lawyer ignorant of the law.
"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
There it is, plain as day. Since there is no enumerated power to regulate the airwaves, no laws are necessary or proper to do so!
Stop reading a bunch of books that tell you the document doesn't say what it plainly says. Try reading the actual document yourself.
Also notice:
"The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added."
and
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The first ammendment enumerates that speech is protected, any other speech related rights are retained by the people.
The FCC is the federal COMMUNICATIONS commission. Any action it takes, by definition, is regulation of communication.
So, not only is it unconstitutional under the enumerated clause, its explicitly called out as a right in the first ammendment.
QED.
It seems constitutional to you because you have no freaking clue what the constitution says... like most americans.
The bottom line is, if the constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to regulate something, then the federal government doesn't have that power.
This is according to the constitution. It enumerates the powers the government has... and then says these are the only powers they have.
Its unfortunate that americans are so ignorant of their own constitution, that mentioning it makes one a troll.
Go read it-- show me where it gives feds power to regulate airwaves, and then otice where it says "all rights not enumerated here are reserved to the people and the several states"
Not unlike the monopoly the FCC granted itself, unconstitutionally and illegally, over all specturm.
The FCC is selling something it never owned in the first place... and then, of course, using the violence of the state (eg: cops with guns and courts which will back them up, even though there is no basis in the constitution for it).
The pathetic thing is that it was over 50 years ago that spread spectrum technology was invented-- obliviating even the "tragedy of the commons" fallacy to justify these sales.
Government is the problem here, and as usual, government is pretending to be the solution.
OSX is secure, it won't be hackers.
It will be the president (either the current tyrant or maybe a democrat tyrant that replaces him).
It will be done by executive order, and of course it would be illegal for apple to talk about it.
You've read 1984, haven't you? Those weren't TVs, they were computers.
Let me tell you, filing a business license is a great way to become personally acquainted with every level of government in your state, because they will all call you up with forms for you to fill out and taxes for you to pay.
Being a business is a licensed class, and unless you *need* to, don't do it.
What you have is a hobby. Keep it a hobby. If you're concerned about being sued, well a small business will not protect you, you'll still have to hide your assets anyway.
If you keep it as a hobby you don't have to pay taxes on the income, provided it doesn't exceed your hobby expenses. IF you keep it as a hobby you dont' have to file countless forms every three months, pay thousands ot lawyers accountents, etc. And if you keep it as a hobby you are better protected.
The only reason you would ever want to form a business is if you plan to sell stock, or if you need to form a partnership and have joint property.
Seriously. People have been told a lot of gruff, and of course, accountants and lawyers have spread the idea that you need to lawyer up and have an accountant going over everything.
But you don't. Regular old tax software will handle your small business accounting as far as the IRS is concerned (and if you get some you'll see the advantages to keeping it a hobby) The IRS recognizes hobbies as a legitimate area where you can make some money, and while they will want their share of it, tehy will only want a share of your profits.
Forming a business results in a never ending amount of hassle-- from a greatly increased amount of bulk mail to periodic calls and even visits from random taxing authorities you've never heard of.
I learned my lesson once, never again.
Also, if you do want to form a business for whatever reasn, consider forming it out of state-- nevada is a good state, or out of hte country, such as in the carribean. In that case, you just need to file a registration to do business in your state. Since the business is not domiciled in your state, its a much lower burden of paperwork and regulation.
And virtually every business friendly country, or business friendly state is likely to give you a vastly better level of business protection (privacy, insulation etc) than your home state.
Maybe government for THEM. The problem is that their government is ready, willing and able to use violence to force me to comply with their wishes, even when they have no right-- for instance, taxing my income.
The only reason they can get away with this is because most people are ignorant-- not stupid, but ignorant. They have been awashed with propaganda from the moment they were born. Hell, even the other guy in the thread who agreed with me thinks there are some uses for governmetn.
Anarchism is a workable system. If some fools want to form a commune in an anarchistic society, they can. They just can't declare themselves the supreme soviet-- or, well, they can do that too, they will just be ignored.
The only reason government has any power over you is because YOU give it to them... if even a small percentage put their foot down, the government would crumble.
and I don't mean by violent revolution, I mean of its own accord. Just stop paying taxes. Stop following their edicts.
As long as we have governments, people will be this stupid. That's what government is-- encouragement of stupidity, not to mention theft, etc.
As long as there are governments, there will be people trying to use them to take power that doesn't belong to them.
The only thing worse than the US controlling the internet, is the UN or EU, or any other government organization-- all of whom, you note, are unaccountable to most people. EVen if the US had fair elections, its not like germans get to vote in them. The UN and EU don't even have direct elections.
Government is the problem, and until it is destroyed, all of its "Benefits"-- war, disease, poverty-- will continue.
Some cops have figured it out:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/3611
So, the cops needed to bust open the ATMs and take DVDs from the store in order to help people?
Really, the fact of hte matter is, the cops are stealing those guns because its useful for cops to cover their tracks by throwing down a gun.
The reality is cops are no better, no honest, and a LOT LESS LAW ABIDING than regular people. They are a criminal organization in most cities (war on drugs is unconstitutional, thus every cop who participates is a felon, by definition.)
IF you've paid attention at all the cops are not in the driect line of fire, they are NOT HELPING ANYONE THERE.
The cops are stopping people from leaving the city, they are herding people into areas and then abandoning them for THREE DAYS.
The cops are blocking the fucking Red Cross from being able to get into the city.
How much do you need to understand before it sinks in that the hurricane was a natural disaster, but the COPS ARE WHAT'S SCREWING EVERTHING UP?
No, you just have no clue what libertarianism is. And so you made stuff up, or believed what some non-libertarian told you.
Now that you're talking to actual libertarians, they are shooting you down left and right.
Some libertarians are minarchists and some are anarchochapitalists, but the difference is really minor. The difference with objectivists is over only a few issues.
The differences between reality and the bullshit you';ve been posting here is pretty major-- so when you lecture us about what libertarians believe, you should expect to be called for the idiot you're making yourself out to be.
Go learn some freaking economics... you can start with:
"price gouging saves lives" http://www.mises.org/story/1593