Demanding "big business accountability" and regulation of the environment IS BIG Government-- its getting the government into your lives- regulating your bed room, how you do business etc.
The thing is, you think its good when done to the other guy, but object when I imply it gets done to everybody.
This is a hypocrisy that you should think about-- here's an idea-- there is no need for regulation of business. Business regulation is just as bad as criminalizing homosexuality.
That's the litmus test- if you can't see that, you may just be a hypocrite.
If you think without these regulations, restaurants would be poisoning people, etc, you're not thinking very clearly.
If you think it started with Bush2 you're not paying attention.
Clinton worked hard to criminalize encryption, self-defense, homosexuality, etc.
And before him, along with congress during these whole periods, the politicians worked to increase their power base and their control over people.
Any democracy without really stringent controls on the government is a tyranny.
It really started here in 1919 when the constitution was ammended to allow income tax- the federal government has been growing like crazy since then. And the feds are far less accountable than your local state or city government. The New Deal, the gun bans of 1930 and 1968, the war on drugs that started soon after 1919... all of that is the result of people putting big government fans into power.
We need to rollback the last 100 years of laws- almost everything needs to go, except women voting.
A lot of slashdotters attack libertarians, but the root cause of this kind of FCC mandated regulation of your lives is your trust in big government. Both liberals and conservatives want big governmetn and what that creates is huge departments that have no accountability to anyone, except congress, and even then they are not held in check.
The FCC has no right to prevent me from buying any product I want form anyone who wants to sell it to me-- whether it has copy protection or not.
Every time you vote democrat or republican or green, you are voting for these unanswerable, unchecked government powers.
You're just reaping what you've sown.
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Of course not-- he has learned the lesson I haven't learned: If you refuse to make an argument, its hard to argue with you.
I keep making arguments, only to be ignored and called names, which makes this exercise a bit pointless for me.
Re:Don't blame me, I voted for Nader...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
No, they just want to disassemble every company in the country, and eliminate the entire economy.
Well. 1) No they don't. 2) Why would that be a bad thing? and 3) Don't the libertarians want that as well?
Ah, that's just sad.
1) Yes they do- its in their platform. Read the review of it I posted at the top of this thread.
2) IT would be a bad thing because nobody would have a job, we'd all be starving and poor.
3) Hell no.
You really should learn the positions of the parties, you'd be able to place your votes better.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1, Troll
Yeah, I know my friend in earthquake prone california is sitting in a house that will be destroyed at the first medium earthquake in the area because the CODES prevented him from building a SAFE house. Him being a geologist and working with an architect who was an expert on the issue was irrelevant to them-- anything out of the ordinary, and you aren't allowed to do it-- even on your own land, without house financing, etc.
Convicted felons ARE able to buy guns on a whim, gun laws do nothing to stop that-- they stop YOU from buying them if hte FBI decides they don't want you to (by whatever criteria they wish.)
As usual, you stupid americans don't value human rights and you call anyone who does an idiot.
You deserve the tyranny you're getting, and the oppression you're asking for.
Re:What do we think, you ask?
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Oh, yeah, I've been on a tree farm. I know what tree farmers mean when they say it.
But that's nothing like what the human hating fascist green freaks mean when they say it.
They want to limit the population, and if they get their way, they'll probably practice genocide to get there, but who knows, maybe they won't go that far.
Either way, its worth calling them on it when they use meaningless bullshit terms.
I notice you didn't provide a definition either.
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Hey, dipshit. The thread was "Are geeks Green". So I went into the green party analysis.
For someone who demands facts, and reasoning you provide none- you don't even address the topic, you just give us a long disseration of your opinion on me.
Here's a clue: I don't care.
I have pointed out why I am right. Argue the issue if you wish, but bashing me is stupid.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Uh, when clearcutting occurs on private property, the trees are replanted.
Yucca mountain- may be safe, may not be, don't know. IF you want to argue it isn't argue it.
But you're saying that killing people is justified because of pollution, and that's silly.
Re:What do we think, you ask?
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Now that really isn't too hard to understand as a concept, is it? Practicalities are another matter
Ha! That says it all there.
REally "sustainable growth" is just a code phrase for "We want to make driving an SUV punishable by death."
Clearly you don't understand debate, economics or Facts.
Otherwise you would have provided a disagreement for me to try and prove, you idiot.
Re:Don't blame me, I voted for Nader...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 1
The democrats want to take away our guns.
So do the greens! In fact, they are more extreme on this count. The only party that consistently doesn't is the LP. But you're totally right to fear this.
hey want to keep draconian drug laws
So do the greens! They call for the abolition of the war on drugs, but NOT the decriminalization of drugs- so basically they just want to change the name of the war on drugs.
They want to keep government regulation of the monetary system while removing all checks on economic bads and monopolies.
No, they don't want government regulation of the monetary system- its time to go to gold so that the government can't cheat people with inflation. AS to economic checks the free market is far more effective at stopping monopolies than the government-- for every real monopoly they've destroyed they have CREATED a dozen, (using these "economic checks" in many cases) And every natural monopoly the government has broken up was being punished by the market already-- if the government hadn't gotten involved the monopoly would have been broken up by natural means and produced a much more robust economy in the proces.
They want a free for all with regard to drugs such that it will no longer be possible to determine what is safe and effective.
That's just absurd. Actually, right now you CAN'T find out what's safe and effective, but under a libertarian regime you could, cause the drug commpanies would have to show it-- the FDA makes drugs less safe, not more.
They want personal possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
That's just absurd- they don't want this. Its interesting that you have to make up such crap to defend your position.
BTW, who's weapons do you think it was that wan the war of independance and the civil war? Those were private cannons, guns, and weapons of "mass destruction". Individuals are generally responsible, and more reliable and trustworthy than the government.
Needless to say for most, they would destroy our country.
In other words, nobody is trustworthy to own guns. Thats what this is really about- you don't trust your fellow man, which usually means you have reason not to because you want to steal from him.
I don't think any of them would destroy our country.
No, they just want to disassemble every company in the country, and eliminate the entire economy.
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Uh, be happy to if you'd given me reason to doubt anything I've said.
See, you have to provide logic or reason or even facts before I try and disprove you-- but you haven't so, sitting there and saying "teach me economics" doesn't really get you points.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Gee, a spelling flame! Wow, the last resort of those with no logic, facts nor reason.
The green party platform I'm referencing implements all the goals given by the rest of the green parties.
That you guys have no standard platform (other than the one I'm pointing to) is your problem, not mine. Nadar ran on the platform so its worth knowing what he endorsed, even if he didn't have the guts to admit it.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Who do you think is injured or killed when a tree spike violently destroys the machine cutting the tree (as its designed to do)? The operator or any people standing by.
It certainly is terrorism-- whether its violence against people directly or not, it is designed to scare loggers from working and is designed to kill people and machines.
Terrorism is a word that is overrused these days, but that' doesn't make it less appropriate-- before 9/11 they were called "eco-terrorists".
And when GreenWAR RAMS a boat with their boat and causes it to sink they aren't just destrying the boat- they are putting everyone aboard at risk.
That the resort to violence shows their true colors- that the word "Peace" in the name is more important to you than their actual actions shows your gullibility.
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
If you want me to cite facts, you have to challeng my assertions.
Just calling me names and showing us all that you've heard of the ad hominem logical fallacy-- but not that you understood it, as your example so aptly provides, doesn't score you any points.
Challenge the contention and I'll defend it, just whining that I haven't proven something is stupid, and the lie on the face of it- I have provided the green party platform, and that is a fact.
Its actually pretty explicit about what it says- pointing it out doesn't require more than pointing it out.
IF you want to dispute something, dispute it, but that you choose not to shows the poor thinking going on on your side.
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
I have provided reason to defend my position. As usual for your type, you don't.
If you really were a lawyer, you could provide logic, if you had the facts you could state them.
Since I have done both and I'm not a lawyer, you lose.
Its not my job to teach you economics, but hell, look at the guy who won the nobel prize this year. Look at what is taught in economics these days (Except at the most leftist institutions.)
IOW, your ignorance is your claim that you're right. Gee, impressive. Your law degree apparently isn't worth much.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Its really funny you should say this given that the media is totally leftist-- and that it is centralized because the GOVERNMENT forces it to!
Not all the whining about right wing talk radio-- the right wingers actually get to talk and you guys just can't stand it! Such freedom supporters you are.
Capitalism and market forces do NOT Require a fully informed consumer to work-- that's a flat out lie and that assumption does not exist in market theory.
Anyone who doesn't like the service at a restaurant is fully informed- he's been there. buwsinesses survive due to repeat business, not one time customers.
Sheesh, LEARN SOME ECONOMICS. And Marx doesn't count.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
The government is an evil monopoly-- you don't pay the money they demand, they come and throw you in jail.
A corporation, if they don't make a sale, tries harder next time to get your business.
Its amazing that you cannot see the difference between these two situation.
What you also fail to realize is that there is no such thing as legitimate "collective" power- also this collectivism you talk about invariable is a justification to use FORCE against people you don't like-- and the reasons you give are excuses.
After all, if they weren't merely excuses, then people wouldn't be giving smoking as an issue- anyone can smoke and its not "pollution"-- the smoking issue is about control.
As is all collectivism. You hate individualism, and want to force everyone to conform, and so you try to get a political system going to support it.
In the end, it will turn out you don't care about ANY individual rights and want everyone to be a slave to the state-- let me guess, you don't support the elimination of taxes, the elimination of building codes (which prevent safety, not encourage it) the elimination of gun laws (Which make us all less safe), right? Cause if you don't then you endorse the wholesale violations of human rights.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Uh, funny, you accuse me of being paranoid that everyone's a communist (I'm not, but the greend avowedly are communists) and THEN go on to claim communism really isn't that bad!
Anyway, if you'd BOTHERED TO READ THE PLATFORM, they do want the destruction of call companies, and they call for it explicitely, and of course this will ruin the country if it actually happens, and result in the slaughter of thousands of people- cause many of them will refused to do it.
That's logic, and I note that you did not respond to the logic, you just tried to pick nits.
As for europe- its going down the drain pretty fast due to socialist, as is canada. Canada can't even keep its doctors, as they flee to the US so they can actually get paid, and people there have to wait years for surugery.
Socialism aka communism is a total failure-- and the only states where you can pretend it works are ones where it isn't fully implemented and capitalism is allowed to prop it up.
Look at china-- adopting some capitalism to try and compensate for the fact that SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK.
Re:You look for your self what they want
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
The US Green party platform is up for everyone to see.
The link I provided tears it apart and shows that it really is communism, just warmed over and renamed.
Re:This is too easy...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Also, beware people who throw out arguments without facts to back them up
Uh, I pointed to the facts, and I referenced others. Unfortunately, you never did showed the same curtesy.
Anyway, generally accepted by economics is what I was referencing. Marx has been disproven (he made statements to verify his theories, and on his terms he has failed.) Keynes has been disproven- every country that follows his advice has done poorly, and many of them have switched to the chicago school and done very well.
Every year it seems a chicago school person gets another nobel award.
Yes, like any scientific field there are people who advocate crackpot theories, but the chicago school (and the vienna school) have won over with consistent results and reproducibility.
There is debate between the two schools, but only fools (aka Democrats and some republicans) advocate keynsian economics these days.
Certainly it has been known for the last 50 years to be non-functional.
And the areas where government regulation is "Called for" by you guys are well known to be false ones-- monopolies, unless CREATED by the government, invariably will fall to anti-monopoly forces in the market. It is very difficult to sustain a monopoly, unless you have government backing. (And all the monopolies in this country have-- though IBM and MS which were percieved to be monopolies were attacked before monopoly forces could have full effect, but the evidence of their effect was obvious even when they were attacked.)
Sorry, I get to speak to "Generally accepted" economics theories because they ARE. And I cite the nobel committee as my authority- and actually, every economist I know (which includes some prominent ones.)
No, they debate over lots of things-- but not the existence of market forces or the superiority of market theory in most situations.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Right- you point out that they have initiated violence against people and thus have become a terrorist cause.
This is just showing their leftist communist stripe-- they really just want power, and will use violence to get it.
The greatest irony is that you oppose "Monopolies" like microsoft, while endorsing a far worse one.
But if you hate microsoft, you can boycott them. You can refused to do business with them, work for them, or buy their shares. You have that choice.
But for the government, you have no choice. Tehy take your tax money, your social security money, and they provide no services-- the social security fund is bankrupt (By definition- they owe more than they have) the police are sketchy at best, and they caused 9/11 and still haven't prosecuted the murderers for Waco.
Yet you don't have a choice- you can't even refuse these services-- you have to pay, or they force you to. You have to submit to their "Service" or they put you in jail.
The worse monopoly of all is the government-- they force their customers to pay at gunpoint and they give them no choice in the quality of services.
You can't even go to an outside vendor and pay them instead if you want police protection or a private first class mail service (There was a couple of these before the government created a monopoly for themselves.)
Microsoft may be assholes, and I may refuse to use their product, but when I have bought products from tehm they actually delivered. The government forcibly extracts %50 of my income every year (in total taxes) and delivers maybe 1/30th the value of what I pay. And I don't have choice to go to another supplier for the service-- and the service sucks.
Hell, the social security scam is an outright fraud many orders of magnitude bigger than enron, yet enron is shut down and it continues to worsen.
Yeah, you oppose monopolies- except for one. the one that has a monopoly on whether we get to have human rights or not.
Re:Green is not the real color...
on
Green Geeks?
·
· Score: 2
Libertarians call for the abolition of the dollar as a unit of currency, and of all government-issued coinage.
Do you know why? You try to make this sound radical. They wouldn't mind the dollar if it was still a gold standard-- but what they want is a unit of currency that has real value- rather than one that the government can devalue at will.
You should want that too, if you want economic security.
As usual, you guys use people's ignorance about economics to try and scare them AWAY from voting to protecting human rights, and instead voting for your plans that would make their retirement savings worthless!
Libertarians call for the abolition of all taxation, but also call for the prohibition of deficit spending. I guess they're planning to have a national "collection plate" day, or something.
Yep, this sounds really radical to people who are ignorant of the fact that the government gets money from other areas than taxation. Oh, and there's nothing to stop the government from charging people fees for actual use of their services.
Libertarians oppose antitrust legislation, which by the way is practically the only thing keeping Microsoft from coming into your house and eating your children.
The usual play on peoples ignorance and fear-- you know people hate microsoft, so anything that could be good for them must be bad, huh? IF you knew anything about monopolies you'd realize that this antitrust crap is really just a way to violate your human rights - you think linux is no threat to microsoft?
Libertarians want to abolish the Small Business Association. Just try to start a business without an SBA loan.
Funny, virtually EVERY business started in this country is started WITHOUT an SBA loan. Plus, there's no reason to abolish the SBA-- please show where in the platform libertarians call for its abolition-- I think you're lying.
Libertarians call for an end to utility rate regulation. Be prepared to spend at least twice as much for your electricity, gas, and water as you do now.
More scare tactcis based on ignorance. Unfortunately, I've worked for the power industry and I know for a fact that if there was a free market, power would go down in cost by HALF, not double. but then, to people who are too stupid to understand the basics of market economics, they may believe you. Notice what happened in california when the government regulators fucked up-- they doubled the price of power because they screwed up. In a free market situation that never would have happened-- others would have been able to step in (rather than JUST people who couldn't sell the electricity) to provide the power.
Libertarians want to get rid of the FAA, the CPSA, the NTSB, and the FDA. From now on, landing your plane, testing your kid's toys, ensuring that your car doesn't explode spontaneously, and making sure your food isn't poisonous will be your own responsibility. Be careful.
Libertarians call for the end of the public education system in this country. I know some public schools are pretty bad, but can't we agree that they're a hell of a lot better than nothing at all?
Typical socialist idiocy-- if the government doesn't do it, it doesn't get done?
STUPID. What do you think caused 9/11? The government. If they had let airlines control their security prior to 9/11 the pilots would have been armed, killed the terrorists and we would have had some aborted flights, rather than 3000 dead. The government DISARMED THE PILOTS, despite many hijackings that occured in the 70s, and the fact that most pilosts are ex-military and more than capable of handling a side arm.
Yeah, the government sure does make us safe!
And you think that the once every four year inspections are what keeps your food safe? Hell no-- we have a major beef recall right now. What keeps food safe is the fact that a company who poisons someone is going to have to pay them for the liability, and nobody will go somewhere that they get sick.
Sheesh. What idiocy-- you don't know basic economics, do you?
Libertarians call for the end of the public education system in this country. I know some public schools are pretty bad, but can't we agree that they're a hell of a lot better than nothing at all?
Another of the "if the government didn't do it, it wouldn't happen" fallacy. Fact is, if you elimiated taxation and you eliminted public schools, the POOREST americans would be able to send their kids to schools FAR BETTER and far better financed than the richest americans do now-- becuase the cost of operating a school (or any business) would be lower, incomes would be much higher across the board (on top of being able to keep all of it instead of half of it) etc.
Funny how you want to keep the poor poor and thier kids UNEDUCATED.
If you actually understand the basics of economics, and believe in human rights, then libertarian is the only way to vote.
Otherwise you're voting for oppression, poverty and environmental destruction.
Its not obvious, especially with so many people spreading lies like you do-- but anyone who investigates the situation will discover the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
Demanding "big business accountability" and regulation of the environment IS BIG Government-- its getting the government into your lives- regulating your bed room, how you do business etc.
The thing is, you think its good when done to the other guy, but object when I imply it gets done to everybody.
This is a hypocrisy that you should think about-- here's an idea-- there is no need for regulation of business. Business regulation is just as bad as criminalizing homosexuality.
That's the litmus test- if you can't see that, you may just be a hypocrite.
If you think without these regulations, restaurants would be poisoning people, etc, you're not thinking very clearly.
If you think it started with Bush2 you're not paying attention.
Clinton worked hard to criminalize encryption, self-defense, homosexuality, etc.
And before him, along with congress during these whole periods, the politicians worked to increase their power base and their control over people.
Any democracy without really stringent controls on the government is a tyranny.
It really started here in 1919 when the constitution was ammended to allow income tax- the federal government has been growing like crazy since then. And the feds are far less accountable than your local state or city government. The New Deal, the gun bans of 1930 and 1968, the war on drugs that started soon after 1919... all of that is the result of people putting big government fans into power.
We need to rollback the last 100 years of laws- almost everything needs to go, except women voting.
A lot of slashdotters attack libertarians, but the root cause of this kind of FCC mandated regulation of your lives is your trust in big government. Both liberals and conservatives want big governmetn and what that creates is huge departments that have no accountability to anyone, except congress, and even then they are not held in check.
The FCC has no right to prevent me from buying any product I want form anyone who wants to sell it to me-- whether it has copy protection or not.
Every time you vote democrat or republican or green, you are voting for these unanswerable, unchecked government powers.
You're just reaping what you've sown.
Of course not-- he has learned the lesson I haven't learned: If you refuse to make an argument, its hard to argue with you.
I keep making arguments, only to be ignored and called names, which makes this exercise a bit pointless for me.
No, they just want to disassemble every company in the country, and eliminate the entire economy.
Well. 1) No they don't. 2) Why would that be a bad thing? and 3) Don't the libertarians want that as well?
Ah, that's just sad.
1) Yes they do- its in their platform. Read the review of it I posted at the top of this thread.
2) IT would be a bad thing because nobody would have a job, we'd all be starving and poor.
3) Hell no.
You really should learn the positions of the parties, you'd be able to place your votes better.
Yeah, I know my friend in earthquake prone california is sitting in a house that will be destroyed at the first medium earthquake in the area because the CODES prevented him from building a SAFE house. Him being a geologist and working with an architect who was an expert on the issue was irrelevant to them-- anything out of the ordinary, and you aren't allowed to do it-- even on your own land, without house financing, etc.
Convicted felons ARE able to buy guns on a whim, gun laws do nothing to stop that-- they stop YOU from buying them if hte FBI decides they don't want you to (by whatever criteria they wish.)
As usual, you stupid americans don't value human rights and you call anyone who does an idiot.
You deserve the tyranny you're getting, and the oppression you're asking for.
Oh, yeah, I've been on a tree farm. I know what tree farmers mean when they say it.
But that's nothing like what the human hating fascist green freaks mean when they say it.
They want to limit the population, and if they get their way, they'll probably practice genocide to get there, but who knows, maybe they won't go that far.
Either way, its worth calling them on it when they use meaningless bullshit terms.
I notice you didn't provide a definition either.
Hey, dipshit. The thread was "Are geeks Green". So I went into the green party analysis.
For someone who demands facts, and reasoning you provide none- you don't even address the topic, you just give us a long disseration of your opinion on me.
Here's a clue: I don't care.
I have pointed out why I am right. Argue the issue if you wish, but bashing me is stupid.
Uh, when clearcutting occurs on private property, the trees are replanted.
Yucca mountain- may be safe, may not be, don't know. IF you want to argue it isn't argue it.
But you're saying that killing people is justified because of pollution, and that's silly.
Now that really isn't too hard to understand as a concept, is it? Practicalities are another matter
Ha! That says it all there.
REally "sustainable growth" is just a code phrase for "We want to make driving an SUV punishable by death."
Its all about control and thus, is fascist.
Clearly you don't understand debate, economics or Facts.
Otherwise you would have provided a disagreement for me to try and prove, you idiot.
The democrats want to take away our guns.
So do the greens! In fact, they are more extreme on this count. The only party that consistently doesn't is the LP. But you're totally right to fear this.
hey want to keep draconian drug laws
So do the greens! They call for the abolition of the war on drugs, but NOT the decriminalization of drugs- so basically they just want to change the name of the war on drugs.
They want to keep government regulation of the monetary system while removing all checks on economic bads and monopolies.
No, they don't want government regulation of the monetary system- its time to go to gold so that the government can't cheat people with inflation. AS to economic checks the free market is far more effective at stopping monopolies than the government-- for every real monopoly they've destroyed they have CREATED a dozen, (using these "economic checks" in many cases) And every natural monopoly the government has broken up was being punished by the market already-- if the government hadn't gotten involved the monopoly would have been broken up by natural means and produced a much more robust economy in the proces.
They want a free for all with regard to drugs such that it will no longer be possible to determine what is safe and effective.
That's just absurd. Actually, right now you CAN'T find out what's safe and effective, but under a libertarian regime you could, cause the drug commpanies would have to show it-- the FDA makes drugs less safe, not more.
They want personal possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
That's just absurd- they don't want this. Its interesting that you have to make up such crap to defend your position.
BTW, who's weapons do you think it was that wan the war of independance and the civil war? Those were private cannons, guns, and weapons of "mass destruction". Individuals are generally responsible, and more reliable and trustworthy than the government.
Needless to say for most, they would destroy our country.
In other words, nobody is trustworthy to own guns. Thats what this is really about- you don't trust your fellow man, which usually means you have reason not to because you want to steal from him.
I don't think any of them would destroy our country.
No, they just want to disassemble every company in the country, and eliminate the entire economy.
Uh, be happy to if you'd given me reason to doubt anything I've said.
See, you have to provide logic or reason or even facts before I try and disprove you-- but you haven't so, sitting there and saying "teach me economics" doesn't really get you points.
Gee, a spelling flame! Wow, the last resort of those with no logic, facts nor reason.
The green party platform I'm referencing implements all the goals given by the rest of the green parties.
That you guys have no standard platform (other than the one I'm pointing to) is your problem, not mine. Nadar ran on the platform so its worth knowing what he endorsed, even if he didn't have the guts to admit it.
Who do you think is injured or killed when a tree spike violently destroys the machine cutting the tree (as its designed to do)? The operator or any people standing by.
It certainly is terrorism-- whether its violence against people directly or not, it is designed to scare loggers from working and is designed to kill people and machines.
Terrorism is a word that is overrused these days, but that' doesn't make it less appropriate-- before 9/11 they were called "eco-terrorists".
And when GreenWAR RAMS a boat with their boat and causes it to sink they aren't just destrying the boat- they are putting everyone aboard at risk.
That the resort to violence shows their true colors- that the word "Peace" in the name is more important to you than their actual actions shows your gullibility.
If you want me to cite facts, you have to challeng my assertions.
Just calling me names and showing us all that you've heard of the ad hominem logical fallacy-- but not that you understood it, as your example so aptly provides, doesn't score you any points.
Challenge the contention and I'll defend it, just whining that I haven't proven something is stupid, and the lie on the face of it- I have provided the green party platform, and that is a fact.
Its actually pretty explicit about what it says- pointing it out doesn't require more than pointing it out.
IF you want to dispute something, dispute it, but that you choose not to shows the poor thinking going on on your side.
I have provided reason to defend my position. As usual for your type, you don't.
If you really were a lawyer, you could provide logic, if you had the facts you could state them.
Since I have done both and I'm not a lawyer, you lose.
Its not my job to teach you economics, but hell, look at the guy who won the nobel prize this year. Look at what is taught in economics these days (Except at the most leftist institutions.)
IOW, your ignorance is your claim that you're right. Gee, impressive. Your law degree apparently isn't worth much.
Its really funny you should say this given that the media is totally leftist-- and that it is centralized because the GOVERNMENT forces it to!
Not all the whining about right wing talk radio-- the right wingers actually get to talk and you guys just can't stand it! Such freedom supporters you are.
Capitalism and market forces do NOT Require a fully informed consumer to work-- that's a flat out lie and that assumption does not exist in market theory.
Anyone who doesn't like the service at a restaurant is fully informed- he's been there. buwsinesses survive due to repeat business, not one time customers.
Sheesh, LEARN SOME ECONOMICS. And Marx doesn't count.
The government is an evil monopoly-- you don't pay the money they demand, they come and throw you in jail.
A corporation, if they don't make a sale, tries harder next time to get your business.
Its amazing that you cannot see the difference between these two situation.
What you also fail to realize is that there is no such thing as legitimate "collective" power- also this collectivism you talk about invariable is a justification to use FORCE against people you don't like-- and the reasons you give are excuses.
After all, if they weren't merely excuses, then people wouldn't be giving smoking as an issue- anyone can smoke and its not "pollution"-- the smoking issue is about control.
As is all collectivism. You hate individualism, and want to force everyone to conform, and so you try to get a political system going to support it.
In the end, it will turn out you don't care about ANY individual rights and want everyone to be a slave to the state-- let me guess, you don't support the elimination of taxes, the elimination of building codes (which prevent safety, not encourage it) the elimination of gun laws (Which make us all less safe), right? Cause if you don't then you endorse the wholesale violations of human rights.
Uh, funny, you accuse me of being paranoid that everyone's a communist (I'm not, but the greend avowedly are communists) and THEN go on to claim communism really isn't that bad!
Anyway, if you'd BOTHERED TO READ THE PLATFORM, they do want the destruction of call companies, and they call for it explicitely, and of course this will ruin the country if it actually happens, and result in the slaughter of thousands of people- cause many of them will refused to do it.
That's logic, and I note that you did not respond to the logic, you just tried to pick nits.
As for europe- its going down the drain pretty fast due to socialist, as is canada. Canada can't even keep its doctors, as they flee to the US so they can actually get paid, and people there have to wait years for surugery.
Socialism aka communism is a total failure-- and the only states where you can pretend it works are ones where it isn't fully implemented and capitalism is allowed to prop it up.
Look at china-- adopting some capitalism to try and compensate for the fact that SOCIALISM DOESN'T WORK.
The US Green party platform is up for everyone to see.
The link I provided tears it apart and shows that it really is communism, just warmed over and renamed.
Also, beware people who throw out arguments without facts to back them up
Uh, I pointed to the facts, and I referenced others. Unfortunately, you never did showed the same curtesy.
Anyway, generally accepted by economics is what I was referencing. Marx has been disproven (he made statements to verify his theories, and on his terms he has failed.) Keynes has been disproven- every country that follows his advice has done poorly, and many of them have switched to the chicago school and done very well.
Every year it seems a chicago school person gets another nobel award.
Yes, like any scientific field there are people who advocate crackpot theories, but the chicago school (and the vienna school) have won over with consistent results and reproducibility.
There is debate between the two schools, but only fools (aka Democrats and some republicans) advocate keynsian economics these days.
Certainly it has been known for the last 50 years to be non-functional.
And the areas where government regulation is "Called for" by you guys are well known to be false ones-- monopolies, unless CREATED by the government, invariably will fall to anti-monopoly forces in the market. It is very difficult to sustain a monopoly, unless you have government backing. (And all the monopolies in this country have-- though IBM and MS which were percieved to be monopolies were attacked before monopoly forces could have full effect, but the evidence of their effect was obvious even when they were attacked.)
Sorry, I get to speak to "Generally accepted" economics theories because they ARE. And I cite the nobel committee as my authority- and actually, every economist I know (which includes some prominent ones.)
No, they debate over lots of things-- but not the existence of market forces or the superiority of market theory in most situations.
Right- you point out that they have initiated violence against people and thus have become a terrorist cause.
This is just showing their leftist communist stripe-- they really just want power, and will use violence to get it.
The greatest irony is that you oppose "Monopolies" like microsoft, while endorsing a far worse one.
But if you hate microsoft, you can boycott them. You can refused to do business with them, work for them, or buy their shares. You have that choice.
But for the government, you have no choice. Tehy take your tax money, your social security money, and they provide no services-- the social security fund is bankrupt (By definition- they owe more than they have) the police are sketchy at best, and they caused 9/11 and still haven't prosecuted the murderers for Waco.
Yet you don't have a choice- you can't even refuse these services-- you have to pay, or they force you to. You have to submit to their "Service" or they put you in jail.
The worse monopoly of all is the government-- they force their customers to pay at gunpoint and they give them no choice in the quality of services.
You can't even go to an outside vendor and pay them instead if you want police protection or a private first class mail service (There was a couple of these before the government created a monopoly for themselves.)
Microsoft may be assholes, and I may refuse to use their product, but when I have bought products from tehm they actually delivered. The government forcibly extracts %50 of my income every year (in total taxes) and delivers maybe 1/30th the value of what I pay. And I don't have choice to go to another supplier for the service-- and the service sucks.
Hell, the social security scam is an outright fraud many orders of magnitude bigger than enron, yet enron is shut down and it continues to worsen.
Yeah, you oppose monopolies- except for one. the one that has a monopoly on whether we get to have human rights or not.
Libertarians call for the abolition of the dollar as a unit of currency, and of all government-issued coinage.
Do you know why? You try to make this sound radical. They wouldn't mind the dollar if it was still a gold standard-- but what they want is a unit of currency that has real value- rather than one that the government can devalue at will.
You should want that too, if you want economic security.
As usual, you guys use people's ignorance about economics to try and scare them AWAY from voting to protecting human rights, and instead voting for your plans that would make their retirement savings worthless!
Libertarians call for the abolition of all taxation, but also call for the prohibition of deficit spending. I guess they're planning to have a national "collection plate" day, or something.
Yep, this sounds really radical to people who are ignorant of the fact that the government gets money from other areas than taxation. Oh, and there's nothing to stop the government from charging people fees for actual use of their services.
Libertarians oppose antitrust legislation, which by the way is practically the only thing keeping Microsoft from coming into your house and eating your children.
The usual play on peoples ignorance and fear-- you know people hate microsoft, so anything that could be good for them must be bad, huh? IF you knew anything about monopolies you'd realize that this antitrust crap is really just a way to violate your human rights - you think linux is no threat to microsoft?
Libertarians want to abolish the Small Business Association. Just try to start a business without an SBA loan.
Funny, virtually EVERY business started in this country is started WITHOUT an SBA loan. Plus, there's no reason to abolish the SBA-- please show where in the platform libertarians call for its abolition-- I think you're lying.
Libertarians call for an end to utility rate regulation. Be prepared to spend at least twice as much for your electricity, gas, and water as you do now.
More scare tactcis based on ignorance. Unfortunately, I've worked for the power industry and I know for a fact that if there was a free market, power would go down in cost by HALF, not double. but then, to people who are too stupid to understand the basics of market economics, they may believe you. Notice what happened in california when the government regulators fucked up-- they doubled the price of power because they screwed up. In a free market situation that never would have happened-- others would have been able to step in (rather than JUST people who couldn't sell the electricity) to provide the power.
Libertarians want to get rid of the FAA, the CPSA, the NTSB, and the FDA. From now on, landing your plane, testing your kid's toys, ensuring that your car doesn't explode spontaneously, and making sure your food isn't poisonous will be your own responsibility. Be careful.
Libertarians call for the end of the public education system in this country. I know some public schools are pretty bad, but can't we agree that they're a hell of a lot better than nothing at all?
Typical socialist idiocy-- if the government doesn't do it, it doesn't get done?
STUPID. What do you think caused 9/11? The government. If they had let airlines control their security prior to 9/11 the pilots would have been armed, killed the terrorists and we would have had some aborted flights, rather than 3000 dead. The government DISARMED THE PILOTS, despite many hijackings that occured in the 70s, and the fact that most pilosts are ex-military and more than capable of handling a side arm.
Yeah, the government sure does make us safe!
And you think that the once every four year inspections are what keeps your food safe? Hell no-- we have a major beef recall right now. What keeps food safe is the fact that a company who poisons someone is going to have to pay them for the liability, and nobody will go somewhere that they get sick.
Sheesh. What idiocy-- you don't know basic economics, do you?
Libertarians call for the end of the public education system in this country. I know some public schools are pretty bad, but can't we agree that they're a hell of a lot better than nothing at all?
Another of the "if the government didn't do it, it wouldn't happen" fallacy. Fact is, if you elimiated taxation and you eliminted public schools, the POOREST americans would be able to send their kids to schools FAR BETTER and far better financed than the richest americans do now-- becuase the cost of operating a school (or any business) would be lower, incomes would be much higher across the board (on top of being able to keep all of it instead of half of it) etc.
Funny how you want to keep the poor poor and thier kids UNEDUCATED.
If you actually understand the basics of economics, and believe in human rights, then libertarian is the only way to vote.
Otherwise you're voting for oppression, poverty and environmental destruction.
Its not obvious, especially with so many people spreading lies like you do-- but anyone who investigates the situation will discover the truth.
I know, I did, I used to be a liberal idiot too.