"Society" as an organic entity does not exist; it is only an agglomeration of individuals.
And anyway, "society" is in fact none of the government's business--the government's sole legitimate concern is punishing those who violate an individual's rights.
Quite simply, US postgraduate education programs are the best in the world--so much so that their pool of applicants is representative of the ethnic makeup of the entire world, rather than of just the United States.
This assumes that it's OK for the government to insert itself in a private agreement between employer and employee in the first place, which is blatantly false.
That's the rationale for it, sure. But those laws aren't based on reality.
The laws on which you are basing that argument are utter absurd.
It's not like radio waves are just floating free in the sky, to be hooked onto. They are generated within a transmitter SOMEBODY OWNS, and sent out via an antenna SOMEBODY OWNS.
When you say "When a broadcast company like Fox acquires a license from the govt to broadcast, they agree to follow the FCC's rules and operate in the public's best interest,", the unstated premise is that it is in fact legitimate for the state to require a license to make radio broadcasts.
I reject that premise. I oppose those laws.
It's not enough to simply say "it's the law." You also need to explain why it SHOULD be the law.
As a point of fact, I can see a place in government initially allocating frequency space, sort of like it did with land in the 19th century--so, for instance, government could auction off the block of frequencies from 92.0 to 92.2 MHz over a circle with a radius of 250 statute miles centered over Moscow, Idaho or whatever, and then after that treating them just like land--so if your broadcast infringes upon frequency space owned by someone else, you're trespassing--so you'd better be sure you don't exceed your range or bandwidth limitations.
And after the initial allocation, it's theirs to do what they want with--just like land, they can resell it to whoever they wish, or transmit whatever they want on it.
My general point is, though, the laws on which you are basing your argument are themselves absurd. They are illegitimate, null, and void, and no one has any moral obligation to abide by them. I realize the courts have ruled otherwise--all that means is that the courts are wrong.
Climatologists are uniquely and especially qualified to tell us what's going on with the climate. I don't doubt that what they're saying, is happening.
However, the ultimate question is: what is the most effective course of action to limit the impact of climate change--if indeed it will have any--on human activity?
It does not necessarily follow that the answer is to stop what is causing climate change. Perhaps it would be a more efficient use of resources to address not climate change itself, but rather its effects.
For instance, resources that go into cleaning up power plants are resources that can't be used to, say, develop a better means of combating malaria. Perhaps this new malaria treatment would have a more beneficial impact than stopping whatever is causing climate change.
Yes, this is a rather simplified example, but hopefully it helps you get the idea of what I'm talking about.
No, I don't know for sure if that will be the case--but neither does anyone else, and especially not climatologists.
This is an area where climatologists have no special competence, and that is why their policy suggestions are not necessarily more worthy of consideration than those of the average layman uneducated in economics and the other social sciences. They have no specific qualifications that enables them to discuss, say, risk aversion or time rates of preference, or individual subjective values.
If the goal is to limit the impact of climate change on human activity, then climatologists should not have any special role in the formation of public policy.
Modern societies and their economies are so complex that no individual or monolithic panel can ever hope to comprehend them fully. Over the past few centuries, the free market has demonstrated time and time again that it is the best method yet devised for dealing with just these sorts of problems. No one individual or government can know what the best means of dealing with climate change is--if it is even a problem. But the free market, by aggregating millions and billions of individuals, each with their own bits of information, can.
And if it turns out that the market does not respond to climate change, that is a sign that perhaps it's not as harmful to human activity as climatologists claim.
Political parties are not a part of the government. They are a private organization. That they exist for the purpose of backing candidates to political office is irrelevant--they are groups of private individuals, formed for their own purposes. Thus, for the state to mandate the method by which they choose who they run for office is a violation of their right of free association; in other words, it is a violation of their individual liberties.
The Founders did not create a democracy for the sake of having a democracy.
They created a democracy because they found it was, overall, the best means of ensuring individual liberty.
So if a way is discovered to change the system that would perhaps make it less democratic, but more protective of individual liberty, why not do it?
This is why the original method of selecting the Senate was (and still is) a good idea. This is why the Electoral College was (and still is) a good idea. This is why leaving it up to political parties--which are private organizations and should be treated just like any other private organization--to decide their own means for choosing their candidates.
The problem is this: What do you do about the candidates or parties (such as my own Libertarian party) that are opposed to such an idea on principle? You can't hardly expect us to violate our own principles to get elected, yet using the mechanism you have set up we must. So we're forced to either abandon our principles, break the law, or get shut out of the process.
Another problem: Why should I be compelled to fund the campaign of someone whose ideas I find reprehensible?
that killing another human being while one has the equal option of not killing him, while it's impossibly to prevent that innocent lives will be killed as well, is basically an action of state-sponsored revenge, and thus it's an action which exhibits a primitive influence, as well as marked by crudeness.
Yup.
But this doesn't apply to the death penalty, because murderers are not human.
There is more to being a human being than mere biology. Part of being human is an embrace of man's capability for rational thought. This means dealing with other humans by means of reason and persuasion rather than violence and brute force. Thus, when one kills a human being, he renounces the moral and intellectual status that is a necessary part of being a human being; thus, he himself ceases to be a human. It is therefore perfectly ok to kill a murderer since what is being killed is not a human being, and so whoever kills him does not renounce his own humanity.
Those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it. They only understand violence and brute force, and so must be dealt with in those terms.
It is possible to have a state without it protecting people from themselves.
For example, the state can protect people FROM OTHER PEOPLE, or not even do that but simply punish those who cause harm to others AFTER THE FACT (what I advocate).
First off, rights are not a matter of "should" but of "is".
Second, they do indeed have such a right, precisely because those who don't like those conditions are free to do without.
If I'm selling it, I get to set the terms of sale. I might be willing to negotiate, but in the end if we don't reach an agreement that's acceptable to me I don't make the sale--just like if we don't reach an agreement that's acceptable to you you don't make the purchase.
Why should Apple be able to dictate how its customers use that music after they've purchased it?
Because those customers agreed to those terms as one of the conditions of the sale! It's a simple question of freedom of contract.
Think about how you'd feel if Microsoft decided that the only browsers you're allowed to use in Windows are browsers developed by Microsoft.
How I or anyone else would feel is irrelevant. It's Microsoft's product, to attach whatever terms it wishes to as a condition of sale. If you don't like them, don't buy the product.
You do indeed have the right to offer whatever you want at whatever price you want. Depending on the particular combination of variables, a particular price offered might not be one at which a product will sell, but you have every right to do it PRECISELY BECAUSE everyone else has the right to refuse to buy it.
Except, producers of something have every right to attach whatever conditions they wish to that product. If you don't like those conditions, don't use it. It's that simple.
Slashdot Mirror
"Society" as an organic entity does not exist; it is only an agglomeration of individuals.
And anyway, "society" is in fact none of the government's business--the government's sole legitimate concern is punishing those who violate an individual's rights.
Quite simply, US postgraduate education programs are the best in the world--so much so that their pool of applicants is representative of the ethnic makeup of the entire world, rather than of just the United States.
It doesn't "effect a few dozen people"; it "affects a few dozen people."
Learn the difference, please.
Misuse of "effect/affect" is one of my biggest semantic pet peeves.
To "effect" something is to bring it about or into being; to "affect" something is to have an influence on it.
This assumes that it's OK for the government to insert itself in a private agreement between employer and employee in the first place, which is blatantly false.
Liberty is desirable for its own sake, regardless of its consequences.
Practical arguments are irrelevant.
"Atlas Shrugged" strikes again.
Even those laws that you do mention are illegitimate, and there is no moral obligation to abide by them.
That's the rationale for it, sure. But those laws aren't based on reality.
The laws on which you are basing that argument are utter absurd.
It's not like radio waves are just floating free in the sky, to be hooked onto. They are generated within a transmitter SOMEBODY OWNS, and sent out via an antenna SOMEBODY OWNS.
When you say "When a broadcast company like Fox acquires a license from the govt to broadcast, they agree to follow the FCC's rules and operate in the public's best interest,", the unstated premise is that it is in fact legitimate for the state to require a license to make radio broadcasts.
I reject that premise. I oppose those laws.
It's not enough to simply say "it's the law." You also need to explain why it SHOULD be the law.
As a point of fact, I can see a place in government initially allocating frequency space, sort of like it did with land in the 19th century--so, for instance, government could auction off the block of frequencies from 92.0 to 92.2 MHz over a circle with a radius of 250 statute miles centered over Moscow, Idaho or whatever, and then after that treating them just like land--so if your broadcast infringes upon frequency space owned by someone else, you're trespassing--so you'd better be sure you don't exceed your range or bandwidth limitations.
And after the initial allocation, it's theirs to do what they want with--just like land, they can resell it to whoever they wish, or transmit whatever they want on it.
My general point is, though, the laws on which you are basing your argument are themselves absurd. They are illegitimate, null, and void, and no one has any moral obligation to abide by them. I realize the courts have ruled otherwise--all that means is that the courts are wrong.
Not true.
Barry Goldwater, 1964.
If I had been 21 in 1964, I would have voted for Barry Goldwater without hesitation. I still would today. And I will vote for Ron Paul in 2008.
Climatologists are uniquely and especially qualified to tell us what's going on with the climate. I don't doubt that what they're saying, is happening.
However, the ultimate question is: what is the most effective course of action to limit the impact of climate change--if indeed it will have any--on human activity?
It does not necessarily follow that the answer is to stop what is causing climate change. Perhaps it would be a more efficient use of resources to address not climate change itself, but rather its effects.
For instance, resources that go into cleaning up power plants are resources that can't be used to, say, develop a better means of combating malaria. Perhaps this new malaria treatment would have a more beneficial impact than stopping whatever is causing climate change.
Yes, this is a rather simplified example, but hopefully it helps you get the idea of what I'm talking about.
No, I don't know for sure if that will be the case--but neither does anyone else, and especially not climatologists.
This is an area where climatologists have no special competence, and that is why their policy suggestions are not necessarily more worthy of consideration than those of the average layman uneducated in economics and the other social sciences. They have no specific qualifications that enables them to discuss, say, risk aversion or time rates of preference, or individual subjective values.
If the goal is to limit the impact of climate change on human activity, then climatologists should not have any special role in the formation of public policy.
Modern societies and their economies are so complex that no individual or monolithic panel can ever hope to comprehend them fully. Over the past few centuries, the free market has demonstrated time and time again that it is the best method yet devised for dealing with just these sorts of problems. No one individual or government can know what the best means of dealing with climate change is--if it is even a problem. But the free market, by aggregating millions and billions of individuals, each with their own bits of information, can.
And if it turns out that the market does not respond to climate change, that is a sign that perhaps it's not as harmful to human activity as climatologists claim.
Political parties are not a part of the government. They are a private organization. That they exist for the purpose of backing candidates to political office is irrelevant--they are groups of private individuals, formed for their own purposes. Thus, for the state to mandate the method by which they choose who they run for office is a violation of their right of free association; in other words, it is a violation of their individual liberties.
Why the hell should a political party be able to use state resources to conduct its affairs in the first place?
Ohh, a democracy fetishist.
The Founders did not create a democracy for the sake of having a democracy.
They created a democracy because they found it was, overall, the best means of ensuring individual liberty.
So if a way is discovered to change the system that would perhaps make it less democratic, but more protective of individual liberty, why not do it?
This is why the original method of selecting the Senate was (and still is) a good idea. This is why the Electoral College was (and still is) a good idea. This is why leaving it up to political parties--which are private organizations and should be treated just like any other private organization--to decide their own means for choosing their candidates.
The problem is this: What do you do about the candidates or parties (such as my own Libertarian party) that are opposed to such an idea on principle? You can't hardly expect us to violate our own principles to get elected, yet using the mechanism you have set up we must. So we're forced to either abandon our principles, break the law, or get shut out of the process.
Another problem: Why should I be compelled to fund the campaign of someone whose ideas I find reprehensible?
That assumes that all producers experience cost increases at the same time, which isn't always the case.
Your error is in thinking that sovereignty rests with the nation.
It doesn't.
Sovereignty rests solely with the individual, and any attempt to usurp it must be fought tooth and nail.
Yup.
But this doesn't apply to the death penalty, because murderers are not human.
There is more to being a human being than mere biology. Part of being human is an embrace of man's capability for rational thought. This means dealing with other humans by means of reason and persuasion rather than violence and brute force. Thus, when one kills a human being, he renounces the moral and intellectual status that is a necessary part of being a human being; thus, he himself ceases to be a human. It is therefore perfectly ok to kill a murderer since what is being killed is not a human being, and so whoever kills him does not renounce his own humanity.
Those who have rejected reason cannot be conquered by it. They only understand violence and brute force, and so must be dealt with in those terms.
Except that would involve infringing upon the freedom of those who have committed no violent acts against others, which is in itself barbaric.
False dichotomy.
It is possible to have a state without it protecting people from themselves.
For example, the state can protect people FROM OTHER PEOPLE, or not even do that but simply punish those who cause harm to others AFTER THE FACT (what I advocate).
First off, rights are not a matter of "should" but of "is".
Second, they do indeed have such a right, precisely because those who don't like those conditions are free to do without.
If I'm selling it, I get to set the terms of sale. I might be willing to negotiate, but in the end if we don't reach an agreement that's acceptable to me I don't make the sale--just like if we don't reach an agreement that's acceptable to you you don't make the purchase.
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
It is not the role of the state to protect people from themselves.
Grow up.
Because those customers agreed to those terms as one of the conditions of the sale! It's a simple question of freedom of contract.
How I or anyone else would feel is irrelevant. It's Microsoft's product, to attach whatever terms it wishes to as a condition of sale. If you don't like them, don't buy the product.
Wrong.
You do indeed have the right to offer whatever you want at whatever price you want. Depending on the particular combination of variables, a particular price offered might not be one at which a product will sell, but you have every right to do it PRECISELY BECAUSE everyone else has the right to refuse to buy it.
Except, producers of something have every right to attach whatever conditions they wish to that product. If you don't like those conditions, don't use it. It's that simple.
That's not acceptable.
Companies have a right to manufacture their product however they wish. Consumers have a right to refuse to purchase whatever they wish.
"More laws" is not the answer.