People are entitled to the deal they contracted for. They paid FICA tax, with the assurance that they would get Medicare and Social Security on certain terms, and now they're entitled to Medicare and Social Security on those terms.
No, in fact there is no contract. This is one of the many reasons people should have control of their own money rather the government. Because the government can change the rules at any minute. When I bought my house, I certainly factored the housing deduction into it -- does that also mean the government can't ever change the rules regarding the deduction?
If you look around the developed world, to see what works and what doesn't work, you'll see that government-financed health care, including socialized medicine, works better than ours, and no country has come up with a free-market health care system that works.
Transparency and choice works. Stop strawmanning the issue on the free market you hate so much. America's healthcare system is so far from an example of a free market that it's not funny. If you don't believe me, then I would like you to tell me how much your last doctor's visit cost. Not the cost to you, the actual cost. Tell me what cost comparisons you did vs other providers. Coupons used? Slickdeals taken advantage of? Tell me which doctor you wrote a check to. Which procedures did you choose to take advantage of? Were they worth the cost? Do you know the cost? The US healthcare is a gigantic game of smoke and mirrors. Ever heard of a Chargemaster? http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-21-2013/exclusive---steven-brill-extended-interview-pt--1?xrs=share_copy
They practically set prices by throwing darts at dartboards. Yeah, whole lot of "supply and demand" at work there...
We don't need government telling us what things cost anymore than we need the hospitals or insurance companies doing so. We need transparency and choice. That's it.
There's been a solution to any problems with Social Security available for some time: raise or eliminate the cap of income subject to the Social Security tax.
Why? So politicians can have even more money to borrow from, thus necessitating the need to raise payroll taxes again in another 10-20 years? Why don't we try focusing on the problem instead of scrambling to pay "whatever it costs" to get it done? Start with any of the following concerns:
1) People live longer than this program was ever meant to support.
2) Government borrows money they're not supposed to, leaving shortfalls when it is needed.
3) The securities SS funds are invested in do not keep up with inflation, leaving people taking out far more than they put in.
It's completely stupid (and financially unsound) to simply hike taxes whenever a real system flaw arises. It's like adding an additional bailing bucket to continue pouring water out of the sinking boat while a bunch of other jackasses continue to poke holes in the bottom of it.
Yes, but the money contributed was invested, so it "grew".
Except it's not and it doesn't. SS funds are "invested" (if you want to call it that) in very safe low-yield treasury bonds that don't even keep up with inflation. A 1% per year growth rate is effectively negative if the dollar is inflating 3% a year.
The only reason a significant proportion of the public think there is is the very subject of this news story: Billionaires are funding organisations that only exist to deny the science. They want to take as long as possible before they do anything, because they are making money by ignoring the issue right now.
But billionaires were doing the exact same thing with regard to CFCs during the ozone scare. It didn't put a dent in public opinion. How do you explain the discrepancy? Did people just get that much more stupid in barely 4 decades?
CFCs didn't have the same amount of money put into denial
Cite? (adjusted for inflation).
because there were plenty of easy alternatives that still allowed the companies to make money
There's plenty of relatively easy alternatives in this situation as well. Natural gas is low-emission. Or nuclear. Hell, coal plants can be very easily retrofitted for natural gas. Dupont was forced to make the CFC switch because people stopped buying their product. They fought like hell against it the whole time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol#History).
"As late as 1986, the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy (an association representing the CFC industry founded by DuPont) was still arguing that the science was too uncertain to justify any action. In 1987, DuPont testified before the US Congress that "we believe that there is no immediate crisis that demands unilateral regulation."
The people in question don't more on from step to step because they are slowly assessing the evidence.
And you know this how? I can guarantee you that's exactly how my opinion of the subject has been evolving. Like I said in this other thread (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3468849&cid=42952343), global warming simply isn't the "cut and dry" case of ecological disaster that it is painted to be. Either scientists are doing a poor job of portraying their facts, or there's enough fluctuation in the details to make a great deal of people hesitant to accept the projections (and mankind's role in it). Because in the past, when scientists screamed disaster and people actually believed it, those people were immediately up in arms to do something about it.
Virtual Cat toys is a unique app that has lots of values for cat owners - why should I not be compensated for this?
Not saying you shouldn't. I'm just saying that the "mobile App market" is a strange beast that is largely driven by Free upfront costs with profit driven on the backend. I didn't invent the market, that's just how it is;P
By the end of the business day, maybe one or two of those customers pass through those filters, to make my target audience, and even if I achieved a 100% sell rate with that audience (extremely unlikely), that amounts to maybe 2 sales per day.
I think you're underselling it. People browse pet stores even if they don't intend to buy. And then there's the word of mouth effect as well. And it's permanent advertising. And it's a one-time and fairly low upfront cost to you (assuming ~$20 tablet)
Do you realize you are suggesting going up against Big Oil, one of the most influential forces on the planet, or are you only accidentally dispensing staggeringly bad advice? At best it will amount to pissing in the wind.
I might also add the fossil fuel industry is currently contracting while renewables are expanding, and renewable gets the lion's share of subsidies:http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/news/economy/energy-subsidies/index.htm
No. People on one side of the argument use the word "denialism" because it accurately describes the practice of refusing to accept overwhelming evidence.
General timeline:
Initial paper brought to public light on atmospheric CFC impact: June 1974
"Even before the aerosol ban of 1978, the sale of aerosol products fell sharply. Industry, feeling invulnerable, was not prepared for such a strong public and political reaction"
National Academy of Sciences confirmation of results: 1976
US bans CFCs as aerosol propellants: 1978
British Antarctic Survey (discovery of the "ozone hole"): 1985
"After the discovery of the ozone hole it only took 18 months to reach a binding agreement in Montreal."
Vienna Convention: 1985
Montreal Protocol: 1987
To summarize:
Within 2 years of scientific evidence brought to light on the topic, the vast majority of the public was already behind it. Within 4 years of the evidence, the US had already banned it
When evidence is overwhelming and damning, people don't ignore it (even in the face of industry noise/misinformation). Don't blame the "deniers", blame the presenters. If the global warming evidence is so overwhelming and so dire, it should be a simple matter to convince the public. Instead, this is the reality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_change#Science
59% of Americans believe there is "significant disagreement" among scientists on the issue.[41] The opinion gap between scientists and the public in 2009 stands at 84% to 49% that global temperatures are increasing because of human-activity.[42]
A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.[43]
A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."
The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Plan
1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.
I'm increasingly seeing more and more of this kind of attack and I'm actually shocked it's behavior that is decried. They're slowly coming around to your point of view and you see it as a bad thing? I could just as easily make a parallel "Democrat 9 step" list based on "Medicare/Social Security spending denial" or "Benefit of frakking denial" (methane release and earthquakes are on the list) -- but you know what? If a Democrat came to me and said "maybe Medicare growth is a problem, but we should find some way to fix it that doesn't involve cuts", I would applaud him, not mock him.
My rule is solely to make deniers move the goalposts once to show others they are not arguing in good faith, and then stop.
How is relocating to a position closer to your side of the debate an example of moving the goalposts? The intent of "moving the goalposts" is to move away in a manner that excludes new input, not to accept it and shift to a more similar outlook. By your definition, debate is meaningless because anyone giving way on either side is committing a fallacy.
Those who state the climate is changing, then state they *know* it isn't caused by man,
I've seen many people who clearly stated they didn't know how much of global warming was caused by man get labeled as "deniers" as well. I believe your definition is not loose enough for common use of the term.
with a cash prize.... but so far, no takers. Again, this is promotion on a budget, but you'd think somebody would like an easy $100 cash prize, just for filming their cats enjoying my product.
That seems on the low end to generate interest, particularly considering a cat could likely do $100 in damage to the touchpad/tablet just playing with it with its claws;P
Some possible suggestions:
- People like big reward potential, even if the end result is nothing (see "the lottery"). Obviously your budget is limited, but there are ways to "fake" big rewards without outright offering it. For instance, a scaled reward (such as a progressive jackpot that increases by $10 with every unique contributor).
- People like competitions (see "Kittenwar.com") -- posting updates on the competition progress, or maybe the video that's "in the lead" at the moment, could generate a better response
- People like free -- I'm not entirely sure what your aversion to the "free" route is. There are many apps out there that turn a pretty good profit by the free+advertising route. I can tell you that I'll willing to "try" just about anything, but if the price goes up even one dollar, my interest in the product takes a substantial decline. In this product's case, it is especially true, because cats are fickle creatures. My cats could just as easily not react to the product, lose interest in 30 seconds, or play with it for days. I've had mixed success with various popular cat toys (though cardboard boxes of all shapes and sizes are always a huge win)
On a side note, ever consider a name change? "Virtual Cat Toys" seems very generic and forgettable (albeit accurate). It's like Twitter marketing itself as "One line chat program":)
I think you're right on with the demo angle though. Have you considered pushing more demo venues? Like say giving some free copies (potentially with a freebie el cheapo tablet: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412642,00.asp) to a local pet store, with the caveat they leave it on display so people can watch the cats play with it? Having your product on display there for all the traffic that passes through would be huge exposure. You could even offer a kickback to the store for each referral.
We did. First we did it via Obamacare. Then we did it via the recent fiscal cliff standoff (at the 450k+ income line). Yet we have yet to see a serious spending reduction proposal out of the White House.
those are examples of bad-faith use of the names, which isn't relevant in this case.
And that will be up to the arbitrator to decide. But the fact stands that Ron Paul is not acting hypocritically of his libertarian roots. He may just not have much of a case (though bad faith isn't the only reason that a domain can be taken away)
That is of course a ridiculous argument. The manufacturing of wind power plant components, the installation of solar grids, the maintenance of all these would easily create more jobs than the 25 guys it takes to run a coal plant.
I was just giving one example. It's not the only one. Nuclear has taken a big hit as well. And if you set the "Green incentive" high enough (such as banning fraking), natural gas could just as easily take a big hit (which would have a chained effect on the emerging natural gas vehicle industry, as well as the emerging natural gas export industry). The tapestry that is the free market isn't as simple as you seem to desire it to be. Just look at the tax rebates Obama passed in 2009 to stimulate the economy. He gave them primarily to the poor and middle class (who are supposed to be "spenders", whereas the rich are supposed to be "savers"). But what did the people do? They primarily socked the money away, or paid down debt. Net effect on economy: minimal to zero.
Gaming the system for one's personal advantage while screwing over others is exactly what the corporate-run state that libertarians support (whether eagerly or out of ignorance) is all about
Yup, and the liberal-run state is all about stealing every dime you can from everyone who has more than you so you can lead a lazy, unproductive life while making rich people's lives miserable. Viva la stereotypes.
Regulation is worng they say, regulation doesn't even work, they say.
This isn't regulation. It's contract dispute, the equivalent of two private parties approaching the legal system to settle a dispute. Government has to initiate action (rather than a private actor) on the free market for it to be regulation.
Specifically Ron Paul says the US should get out of the UN. The UN is evil, it's full of commies and muslims and jews and cooties. We don't want it and we don't need it. The Free Market is all we need, it fixes everything, except this one time please UN help me here on this one.
For one, Ron Paul's opposition to the UN are on military grounds, namely that it creates some of kind of international control over our sovereign military. For two, WIPO is a very small branch of the "larger UN". Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Ron Paul didn't choose to have domain name disputes resolved by an international organization. It was mandated by the private ICANN entity that WIPO to be the sole source of arbitration in all domain name disputes. If he could sue them in a US court, I'd sure he'd gladly pursue that course of action.
can you give me a purely libertarian explanation of why cybersquatting is wrong?
I have no particular problem with it. But that's irrelevant. I didn't write the contract that the domain owner agreed to. ICANN did, and to do business with them, there's a set of terms that had to be accepted. It's no different that any other business arrangement where money/services are exchanged.
ICANN2, as you described it, would be perfectly fine. And I doubt Libertarians would care much either way. And Ron Paul wouldn't have a leg to stand on with ICANN2. However, with this organization under their terms, he does. That does not somehow make his actions "less libertarian".
Then shouldn't he be shying away from this government invention?
No, because case law and precedence is on Ron Paul's side. The current owners of the domain are in breach of ICANN contractual terms. He's handling it the same way any other private entity would handle such a breach, via the arbitrator (or legal system, which isn't possible in this case).
That's exactly the crux of the matter - Ron Paul is acting, and I believe he is confused into thinking that he is justified in pursing a trademark claim because last time he pursued a claim over his name he was justified
He isn't confused. He's going after the domain on the same ground as many others before him:
Turning to any -- and I mean ANY -- higher power to subvert that desired price is, by definition, appealing to a governing body to impose some form of regulation.
You do realize libertarians aren't anarchists, right? They believe in law (such as the courts), arbitration, contracts, government intervention to enforce private property rights. This particular cases hits all those. ICANN has a set of rules that a domain owner enters as terms of doing business -- this is a contract. If you found in breach of those rules, ICANN can take away your domain. Ron Paul's people are claiming the current owner of the domain has breached those rules. This isn't a matter of regulation. It's a matter of arbitration of existing contracts. For instance, another "contract breaking example" would be if a company hired you to perform a task for some fee. You perform the task and then they don't pay you. Is it then sacrilege for the libertarian employee to appeal to authority because they broke the terms of the contract? Hardly.
Just because you use another arm or governing body instead of the official United States government does not mean you aren't using the State.
*bangs head on wall* Libertarians are not anarchists
Wait wait wait. I'm confused. You see, you're using the R word and your calling it a "rule" but I think the word that Ron Paul and most libertarians like to use is "regulation" and then they spit because it leaves a dirty taste in their mouth
So the government is effectively spending our (i.e. taxpayers) money to shift X workers from industry Y to industry Z. The net result is zero on the economy, AND it costs the government money (which is an economic detractor). This is why free market advocates frequently clamor that the government rarely produces jobs. The government would be better off expanding/upgrading infrastructure. That at least _would_ produce new jobs (temporarily), because decaying infrastructure doesn't involve another competing industry.
Slashdot Mirror
No, in fact there is no contract. This is one of the many reasons people should have control of their own money rather the government. Because the government can change the rules at any minute. When I bought my house, I certainly factored the housing deduction into it -- does that also mean the government can't ever change the rules regarding the deduction?
Transparency and choice works. Stop strawmanning the issue on the free market you hate so much. America's healthcare system is so far from an example of a free market that it's not funny. If you don't believe me, then I would like you to tell me how much your last doctor's visit cost. Not the cost to you, the actual cost. Tell me what cost comparisons you did vs other providers. Coupons used? Slickdeals taken advantage of? Tell me which doctor you wrote a check to. Which procedures did you choose to take advantage of? Were they worth the cost? Do you know the cost? The US healthcare is a gigantic game of smoke and mirrors. Ever heard of a Chargemaster? http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-21-2013/exclusive---steven-brill-extended-interview-pt--1?xrs=share_copy
They practically set prices by throwing darts at dartboards. Yeah, whole lot of "supply and demand" at work there...
We don't need government telling us what things cost anymore than we need the hospitals or insurance companies doing so. We need transparency and choice. That's it.
Why? So politicians can have even more money to borrow from, thus necessitating the need to raise payroll taxes again in another 10-20 years? Why don't we try focusing on the problem instead of scrambling to pay "whatever it costs" to get it done? Start with any of the following concerns:
1) People live longer than this program was ever meant to support.
2) Government borrows money they're not supposed to, leaving shortfalls when it is needed.
3) The securities SS funds are invested in do not keep up with inflation, leaving people taking out far more than they put in.
It's completely stupid (and financially unsound) to simply hike taxes whenever a real system flaw arises. It's like adding an additional bailing bucket to continue pouring water out of the sinking boat while a bunch of other jackasses continue to poke holes in the bottom of it.
Except it's not and it doesn't. SS funds are "invested" (if you want to call it that) in very safe low-yield treasury bonds that don't even keep up with inflation. A 1% per year growth rate is effectively negative if the dollar is inflating 3% a year.
But billionaires were doing the exact same thing with regard to CFCs during the ozone scare. It didn't put a dent in public opinion. How do you explain the discrepancy? Did people just get that much more stupid in barely 4 decades?
Cite? (adjusted for inflation).
There's plenty of relatively easy alternatives in this situation as well. Natural gas is low-emission. Or nuclear. Hell, coal plants can be very easily retrofitted for natural gas. Dupont was forced to make the CFC switch because people stopped buying their product. They fought like hell against it the whole time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol#History).
"As late as 1986, the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy (an association representing the CFC industry founded by DuPont) was still arguing that the science was too uncertain to justify any action. In 1987, DuPont testified before the US Congress that "we believe that there is no immediate crisis that demands unilateral regulation."
That's after discovery of the hole!!!
And you know this how? I can guarantee you that's exactly how my opinion of the subject has been evolving. Like I said in this other thread (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3468849&cid=42952343), global warming simply isn't the "cut and dry" case of ecological disaster that it is painted to be. Either scientists are doing a poor job of portraying their facts, or there's enough fluctuation in the details to make a great deal of people hesitant to accept the projections (and mankind's role in it). Because in the past, when scientists screamed disaster and people actually believed it, those people were immediately up in arms to do something about it.
Well, most Android apps are free apps (73% according to this site: http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/26/how-free-apps-can-make-more-money-than-paid-apps/). And they don't have a problem making moeny (80% through advertising). It's also not uncommon to have a "Pro" version that either offers more features (or is ad-free). I'm just saying, the market for paid apps is pretty dismal: http://www.appsgeyser.com/blog/2011/06/30/3-ways-to-earn-money-with-a-free-android-app/
"80% of all paid applications in the Android Market have been downloaded fewer than 100 times."
Not saying you shouldn't. I'm just saying that the "mobile App market" is a strange beast that is largely driven by Free upfront costs with profit driven on the backend. I didn't invent the market, that's just how it is ;P
I think you're underselling it. People browse pet stores even if they don't intend to buy. And then there's the word of mouth effect as well. And it's permanent advertising. And it's a one-time and fairly low upfront cost to you (assuming ~$20 tablet)
Also a great idea.
40 million dollars is not "pissing into the wind": http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/12/top-25-u-s-energy-lobbyists-of-2010
It's in fact about one-third of what Big Oil/Gas is spending.
I might also add the fossil fuel industry is currently contracting while renewables are expanding, and renewable gets the lion's share of subsidies:http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/07/news/economy/energy-subsidies/index.htm
If the evidence was overwhelming, you would be seeing action. Our last environmental catastrophe went down exactly like that: http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-006/003-006.html
General timeline:
Initial paper brought to public light on atmospheric CFC impact: June 1974
"Even before the aerosol ban of 1978, the sale of aerosol products fell sharply. Industry, feeling invulnerable, was not prepared for such a strong public and political reaction"
National Academy of Sciences confirmation of results: 1976
US bans CFCs as aerosol propellants: 1978
British Antarctic Survey (discovery of the "ozone hole"): 1985
"After the discovery of the ozone hole it only took 18 months to reach a binding agreement in Montreal."
Vienna Convention: 1985
Montreal Protocol: 1987
To summarize:
Within 2 years of scientific evidence brought to light on the topic, the vast majority of the public was already behind it. Within 4 years of the evidence, the US had already banned it
When evidence is overwhelming and damning, people don't ignore it (even in the face of industry noise/misinformation). Don't blame the "deniers", blame the presenters. If the global warming evidence is so overwhelming and so dire, it should be a simple matter to convince the public. Instead, this is the reality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_climate_change#Science
59% of Americans believe there is "significant disagreement" among scientists on the issue.[41] The opinion gap between scientists and the public in 2009 stands at 84% to 49% that global temperatures are increasing because of human-activity.[42] A July 2011 Rasmussen Reports poll found that 69% of adults in the USA believe it is at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified global warming research.[43] A September 2011 Angus Reid Public Opinion poll found that Britons (43%) are less likely than Americans (49%) or Canadians (52%) to say that "global warming is a fact and is mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities." The same poll found that 20% of Americans, 20% of Britons and 14% of Canadians think "global warming is a theory that has not yet been proven."
I'm increasingly seeing more and more of this kind of attack and I'm actually shocked it's behavior that is decried. They're slowly coming around to your point of view and you see it as a bad thing? I could just as easily make a parallel "Democrat 9 step" list based on "Medicare/Social Security spending denial" or "Benefit of frakking denial" (methane release and earthquakes are on the list) -- but you know what? If a Democrat came to me and said "maybe Medicare growth is a problem, but we should find some way to fix it that doesn't involve cuts", I would applaud him, not mock him.
How is relocating to a position closer to your side of the debate an example of moving the goalposts? The intent of "moving the goalposts" is to move away in a manner that excludes new input, not to accept it and shift to a more similar outlook. By your definition, debate is meaningless because anyone giving way on either side is committing a fallacy.
I've seen many people who clearly stated they didn't know how much of global warming was caused by man get labeled as "deniers" as well. I believe your definition is not loose enough for common use of the term.
That seems on the low end to generate interest, particularly considering a cat could likely do $100 in damage to the touchpad/tablet just playing with it with its claws ;P
Some possible suggestions:
- People like big reward potential, even if the end result is nothing (see "the lottery"). Obviously your budget is limited, but there are ways to "fake" big rewards without outright offering it. For instance, a scaled reward (such as a progressive jackpot that increases by $10 with every unique contributor).
- People like competitions (see "Kittenwar.com") -- posting updates on the competition progress, or maybe the video that's "in the lead" at the moment, could generate a better response
- People like free -- I'm not entirely sure what your aversion to the "free" route is. There are many apps out there that turn a pretty good profit by the free+advertising route. I can tell you that I'll willing to "try" just about anything, but if the price goes up even one dollar, my interest in the product takes a substantial decline. In this product's case, it is especially true, because cats are fickle creatures. My cats could just as easily not react to the product, lose interest in 30 seconds, or play with it for days. I've had mixed success with various popular cat toys (though cardboard boxes of all shapes and sizes are always a huge win)
On a side note, ever consider a name change? "Virtual Cat Toys" seems very generic and forgettable (albeit accurate). It's like Twitter marketing itself as "One line chat program" :)
I think you're right on with the demo angle though. Have you considered pushing more demo venues? Like say giving some free copies (potentially with a freebie el cheapo tablet: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2412642,00.asp) to a local pet store, with the caveat they leave it on display so people can watch the cats play with it? Having your product on display there for all the traffic that passes through would be huge exposure. You could even offer a kickback to the store for each referral.
We did. First we did it via Obamacare. Then we did it via the recent fiscal cliff standoff (at the 450k+ income line). Yet we have yet to see a serious spending reduction proposal out of the White House.
7 minutes in? Bet he shoots first.
And that will be up to the arbitrator to decide. But the fact stands that Ron Paul is not acting hypocritically of his libertarian roots. He may just not have much of a case (though bad faith isn't the only reason that a domain can be taken away)
I was just giving one example. It's not the only one. Nuclear has taken a big hit as well. And if you set the "Green incentive" high enough (such as banning fraking), natural gas could just as easily take a big hit (which would have a chained effect on the emerging natural gas vehicle industry, as well as the emerging natural gas export industry). The tapestry that is the free market isn't as simple as you seem to desire it to be. Just look at the tax rebates Obama passed in 2009 to stimulate the economy. He gave them primarily to the poor and middle class (who are supposed to be "spenders", whereas the rich are supposed to be "savers"). But what did the people do? They primarily socked the money away, or paid down debt. Net effect on economy: minimal to zero.
Yup, and the liberal-run state is all about stealing every dime you can from everyone who has more than you so you can lead a lazy, unproductive life while making rich people's lives miserable. Viva la stereotypes.
This isn't regulation. It's contract dispute, the equivalent of two private parties approaching the legal system to settle a dispute. Government has to initiate action (rather than a private actor) on the free market for it to be regulation.
For one, Ron Paul's opposition to the UN are on military grounds, namely that it creates some of kind of international control over our sovereign military. For two, WIPO is a very small branch of the "larger UN". Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Ron Paul didn't choose to have domain name disputes resolved by an international organization. It was mandated by the private ICANN entity that WIPO to be the sole source of arbitration in all domain name disputes. If he could sue them in a US court, I'd sure he'd gladly pursue that course of action.
I have no particular problem with it. But that's irrelevant. I didn't write the contract that the domain owner agreed to. ICANN did, and to do business with them, there's a set of terms that had to be accepted. It's no different that any other business arrangement where money/services are exchanged.
ICANN2, as you described it, would be perfectly fine. And I doubt Libertarians would care much either way. And Ron Paul wouldn't have a leg to stand on with ICANN2. However, with this organization under their terms, he does. That does not somehow make his actions "less libertarian".
No, because case law and precedence is on Ron Paul's side. The current owners of the domain are in breach of ICANN contractual terms. He's handling it the same way any other private entity would handle such a breach, via the arbitrator (or legal system, which isn't possible in this case).
He isn't confused. He's going after the domain on the same ground as many others before him:
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ericjsinrod/2005-04-20-hillary-clinton_x.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2000/jun/02/news.juliaroberts
http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1291&context=chtlj
You do realize libertarians aren't anarchists, right? They believe in law (such as the courts), arbitration, contracts, government intervention to enforce private property rights. This particular cases hits all those. ICANN has a set of rules that a domain owner enters as terms of doing business -- this is a contract. If you found in breach of those rules, ICANN can take away your domain. Ron Paul's people are claiming the current owner of the domain has breached those rules. This isn't a matter of regulation. It's a matter of arbitration of existing contracts. For instance, another "contract breaking example" would be if a company hired you to perform a task for some fee. You perform the task and then they don't pay you. Is it then sacrilege for the libertarian employee to appeal to authority because they broke the terms of the contract? Hardly.
*bangs head on wall* Libertarians are not anarchists
There's leagues of difference between "breaking contractual terms you make with a place of business" and "government imposing its will on industry". This ICANN name stake thing is not uncommon. Hillary Clinton arbitrated to get her name back as well way back in 2005: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/ericjsinrod/2005-04-20-hillary-clinton_x.htm
*bangs head on wall* Libertarians are not anarchists
No, I don't. Because any subsidy that favors one industry merely extracts from another. Just look at the ass-raping the coal industry has been experiencing: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/04/report-up-to-17000-jobs-lost-from-coal-plant-shutdowns/
So the government is effectively spending our (i.e. taxpayers) money to shift X workers from industry Y to industry Z. The net result is zero on the economy, AND it costs the government money (which is an economic detractor). This is why free market advocates frequently clamor that the government rarely produces jobs. The government would be better off expanding/upgrading infrastructure. That at least _would_ produce new jobs (temporarily), because decaying infrastructure doesn't involve another competing industry.
I keep hearing this but have yet to see any data substantiating it. For instance, compare spending on defense (a right wing platform) vs entitlements (a left wing platform) and the past twenty-odd years have seen a dramatic shift to the left: http://www.heritage.org/~/media/InfoGraphics/2012/10/SRfedspendingnumbers2012p12chart1_600.ashx
Socially, the country has taken a huge step left as well: ask a gay American if they were better off 20 years ago.
By what factual logic do you think this country has been leaning right for twenty-odd years?