You are so narrow-minded, that you've completely ignored the fact that -- for the vast majority -- I agree with you. I again refer you to my first post, in which I stated all of my views on the poll-issues, most of which agree completely or mostly with the Libertarian position. Yet, according to you, because I don't embrace ideas which I don't think would work or which I think would result in negative outcomes, I'm some kind of communist under-cover. Maybe you should go back to the McCarthy era.
I very well realize what the nazi acronym means, however I think that their party is fascist, not communist. In any event, that's irrelevant. The point is that while you insist on labelling me as some far-left communist, some other nutjob on the left insists on labelling me as a nazi.
Your refusal to talk about the important issue here, which I brought up, borders on absurdity. Teacher's salaries are irrelevant? Nonsense. Teaching is a difficult profession, requiring good teaching skills, patience, and a relatively complete knowledge of the subject field. Teachers are not going to work for free. They need to be paid.
There are no economics behind your statements (e.g., that a woman making 7k/yr can have her child educated*). Since you obviously have difficulties with simple logic, I will explain this for you very clearly.
1. For children to be educated, the costs parents have to pay are the teacher's salaries, administrative costs, building costs, and just general overhead and inefficiencies to running a school.
3. Without public schooling, the parents must burden these costs entirely by themselves. Now, of course, the costs don't go away because of public schooling. But they are distributed among many, with more burden being placed on the richer (this would be true even if there was a flat-tax), so that even poor children are educated.
4. As I conclusively pointed out earlier, someone making 7k/yr -- even without paying any taxes at all -- is in no way capable of sending her child to school, feeding her child, clothing her child, and providing shelter for her child.
Personally, I don't give a damn about adults who find themselves in a situation of poverty, since they were responsible for the actions putting them there.
But children aren't. Children shouldn't go without food, clothing, shelter, and education, just because their parents happen to be poor.
Now, if you are arguing that a completely free-market education system, with no public schools, would be more economically efficient and produce more competitive results than our current public schools, I agree -- because there would be competition. However, I see no reason why publicly funded schools can't compete with eachother for that public funding, much like scientific labs compete with eachother for their grant-funding from the government.
Furthermore, in a completely free-market education system with no public funding, many children would receive no education at all. That is something I cannot accept; and if you want others to accept your proposals, you'd best be able to show that under your system, just as many kids are educated as under the current one.
My numbers for teacher's salaries are the facts, so whether or not they make sense to you is irrelevant. Teacher's have to get paid, and people making 7k/yr are in no way capable of paying for their children's education.
Another problem with your proposal to free-market everything is how it affects research. The public domain -- which is where NIH-funded research goes -- has been a great boon for scientific progress, and the freedom of humankind. I don't see corporations putting information into the public domain. Of course, it is entirely possible that voluntary non-government agencies could fund basic research and applied research to be made freely publicly available, and it is reasonable that under a Libertarian-ideal, such freedom-denying things as copyright, patents, and trademarks
Ah, I see. That does indeed seem unconstitutional. It's fine for someone to get a restraining order against you without you having any chance to defend yourself, as that is not a criminal punishment, nor a violation of your rights. But, in regards to no longer being allowed to have guns, that is unconstitutional.
Hahahah, sure. No, I'm not "making up numbers". I've responded to all of your positions, and watched your insulting and belittling flash-presentation. If you want anyone to take your views seriously, I suggest you don't treat them like children, which is precisely what that flash presentation does. You come off sounding like Hillary Clinton.
The truth of the matter is, I believe in most of what that flash site presents, and most Libertarian views. That's an ideal. But, I also believe that every child has the right to an education -- a real education. There is no way that a woman making 7k/yr can support the living needs of herself and her child, and send her child to school.
As for "making up numbers", you're the only one who's doing that, so please don't try to turn this around on me. I'm not the one making absurd claims about a woman living off of 7k being able to support her children. It is obvious that you simply cannot form any response to the facts of the world.
Here's the facts. And the real facts are even less forgiving than the lala 'if everything were perfect' numbers I proposed. From 1999 - 2000, teacher's salaries in the US ranged from a low of $29,145 to a high of $52,500, with the average at $41,575.
So, let's see how this woman living in poverty, making 7k/yr, fares with that. At the minimum, her child has to have classes in physical education, science, mathematics, social studies, and english. That's 5 classes. 5 * $41,575 = $207,875. Divide that by 30 -- which is, let's face it, as many kids as one teacher can reasonably handle -- and you get that each student would have to pay the school $6,929 dollars to accomodate the teacher's salary. So, our woman making $7,000/yr has about 71 dollars left over. I need go no further.
Real school expenses will, of course, be higher than that, because nothing is perfectly efficient. Student's have to be taught in buildings, PE classes need facilities, and other classes need books and other materials.
Your entire argument has revolved around you making up numbers, and acting as if they are facts (e.g., 10 times more buying power, or whatever it was). Now, quite frankly, I'm not all against you. I even have you listed as one of my friends, and I happen to agree with you on most issues. My original post indicated the candidate I would vote for is Libertarian. Yet, you have twisted this argument so much that, according to you, because I point out specific concrete evidence of why your plan won't work, I am a "marxist". This is a hillarious contrast to another Slashdot poster who has practically accused me of being a nazi.
Every time a libertarian's on the ballot, I've voted for him. In all other cases, I decide on it issue-by-issue. That makes me Libertarian. So why don't you just fuck off with your simplistic two-party thinking? There damn well is shame to being a republican or democrat -- neither of those parties supports freedom.
Wrong. You have to ask someone to stop doing something, and they have to continue doing it, for it to be sexual harassment. Obviously, some things if done once are illegal anyways, but they are sorts of sexual assault, not words.
A consultant is not an employee. If anything, a consultant's client -- in this case, the woman -- is the customer, and can terminate the ongoing consultating at any time for any reason. She could stop going to him as a consultant, and start going to someone else, explicitly saying that it's because he wouldn't fuck her. That's not sexual harassment. I can go into a hair-style shop, and ask the woman cutting my hair if she'll have sex with me. If she says no, then if i continue asking her again, then it's sexual harassment. However, I am well within my rights to outright tell her, "ok, then I'll get my hair cut elsewhere because of that". Since I am her customer -- not her boss -- I have no power over her.
This woman is precisely that. The consultant's customer. She can stop being his customer for any reason she wants. Of course, her boss might disagree with her, and say "not using his advice because he won't fuck you isn't a good reason".
you get it into your think stupid fucking skull. Let me be clear. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. Period. End of discussion. There are many significant issues upon which I disagree with both parties.
So, either you simply cannot read and understand plain English, or you are choosing to ignore what I say to satisfy your need to be a mouth-foaming liberal screaming about the infidels who would dare not vote for liberals. Last time I checked, Libertarians were the most popular 3rd party, obtaining more votes than any other party. I see no reason why a Libertarian won't be on the ballot when it comes time to vote.
Bill Clinton most certainly supported draconian laws, such as anti-encryption laws and the DMCA. The point being, that on social liberty, Democrats are hardly any better -- if at all -- than Republicans. The opposite point is also for the most part true: in regards to economic liberty, Republicans are hardly any better, if at all, than Democrats. Democrats support bankruptcy for individuals, while Republicans support it for businesses; both of which steal money from those who were responsible with their finances, and give it to those who have proven that they can't handle money.
Again, you provide no evidence. Simply pointing to the Clinton era and saying, "that was good" does not prove -- or even suggest -- that Democrats have superior economic policy. The boom of the 90's had absolutely zero -- shit, nadda -- to do with fat Bill. It was an unrealistic boon, propelled by irrational exuberance regarding tech-stocks, and stocks in general. As long as history counts, the economy has run in cycles of ups and downs. Excess bull markets inevitably collapse under the weight of their own hype; while excess bear markets inevitably relent due to the unrealistic nature of pessimism.
Of course, if you weren't so stupid, you would realize this. You would realize that, in fact, the stock market is up over the past 10 years, and quite significantly. You would realize that now is in fact the perfect time to be investing money; I don't fault you for not realizing this, as most people are stupid and invest during the unrealistic heights of market-booms, and pull out of the market during the unrealistic lows. And, of course, you would realize that the US President has very little to do directly with the economy (if anything, the effects are secondary, and require the approval of Congress). Remember, the President can't do anything himself.
Even if I was to buy your inane idea that the DMCA is purely the fault of the democrats you really think that the DMCA is as bad as the patriot act or the TIA program? I suppose you do because the democrats are inherently evil right?
Did I say that the DMCA was purely the fault of Democrats? No, I didn't. I said Democrats were just as guilty of denying social freedoms as have been Republicans. The USAPA hasn't affect me much, and will not do so in the future; the DMCA has and does. Of course, the USAPA is not good. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are inherently evil. They simply don't believe in freedom.
A liberterian will run. You will not for him/her. You will not write in a candidate of your choice. You will vote for the republican.
Why don't you just shut the fuck up and put your foot in your mouth? You don't know a flying fuck about what I will or will not do. And, of course, like a typical nutjob partisan on the left or right, you have ignored everything I've said which discredits your case. I have pointed out that there are many Democrats who I would glady vote for, including Rick Boucher.
If there is so little difference then why not vote for the democrat? If you feel obliged to vote for somebody on the ballot and if there is no difference anyway then what do you care? Just vote democrat then you can be honest when you say you don't care.
People who actually have principles don't vote for someone because "they don't care who wins or looses". They don't just flip a coin and deci
(1) Until she tells me to stop doing it, it's no longer sexual harassment.
(2) In regards to CA and restraining orders, the second amendment doesn't give you the right to constantly hang around someone.
(3) My entire point was that if I refused to come back to her salon as a customer, she would have no cause -- what-so-ever -- for complaint against me. This is the same situation as it would be if this woman didn't ask the consultant back after he asks her not to ask him out anymore.
Ok, that was a little bit smug...but, hey, I'm entitled to be a jerk once in a while...ok, maybe once or twice a week...ok, maybe once or twice a day...ok, maybe all the time
He's a consultant. Big difference. Simply having gone to a consultant several times in no way obligates an individual to continually go to that consultant. She could refuse to have him back as a consultant because she didn't like a tick in his gesture, or for any other reason she could come up with.
he's not really an employee, and thus can't be fired. No-one has the right to be contracted as an outside consultant, and having several deals as an outside consultant does not in any way constitute any kind of obligation.
The choice is simple for him. He can simply ask her to stop asking him out, and say no. If she continues, it's sexual harassment. If not, it isn't. If she stops using him as an outside consultant, then it's tough shit for him, for the above-reasons.
Consider this scenario. I regularly go to a hair-stylist who's a attractive woman, and regularly ask her out, and make comments about how pretty she is. She's more than welcomed to ask me to stop, and then if I continue, it's sexual harassment. But if I stop going there, then she has no legal grounds on which to complain.
Indeed, there is a good argument to be made that I was just doing whatever I could to obey the law, since -- being around her -- I just couldn't resist asking her that.
The patriot act was born in the republican party and lives in the republican party.
Perhaps so, but many democrats supported it. You also ignore the draconian acts supported by Democrats, which makes you a fucking hypocrite. DMCA, 1998 CTEA, anti-encryption laws, and a host of other legislation that violates our civil liberties -- all supported by Democrats, especially Sen Fritz. Bill Clinton came up with the idea of anti-encryption laws, and signed the DMCA into law.
In regards to economic policy, you provide no evidence what-so-ever. I'm not saying all of Bush' economic policies are great (the subsidies you mentioned aren't), but many of them are. Tax-cuts, for one. Scaling up the 10% tax bracket to 7k is good, for one thing (btw, those in the 15% and 27% tax bracket are very much affected by the 10% bracket, as it determines their base rate). Bush' retirement plan proposals are good (you obviously refused to read the web-page on Bush' proposed LSA's and RSA's that I provided). Furthermore, Bush is likely to support new bankruptcy revisions that would exempt Roth IRA's from the claims of creditors. Another good thing.
Oh, and of course there's the fact that the stock market has had a very nice run from March to present.
when push comes to shove you will choose a republican. Why not just admit that you are a republican?
Let me refrase that in two ways so you understand how insulting and untrue that is, in regards to choosing between two undesireable alternatives:
"When push come to shove, you would vote for Hitler over Stalin. Why not just admit that you're a nazi?"
"When push comes to shove, you would vote for STalin over Hitler. Why not just admit that you're a communist?"
No, moron. In this particular case, I would choose a Republican, because the Democrats running against Bush are assholes, and really have no plan. They do not support economic measures that would help me, as Bush does. If a Libertarian runs, I will vote for him. In other cases -- if I lived in Rick Boucher's state -- I would vote for a Democrat. But, you are obviously too much of a partison zealot to realize that.
Furthermore, you talk about Bush electing anti-choice USSC justices. First, the nominees of a President don't always vote the way he wants them to. History is littered with examples. Second, Bush nominates USSC justices -- he doesn't elect them. I believe that the Congress and Senate (or maybe just one, I forget) has to approve of his choice. That's why Bork -- though nominated -- never sat on the USSC.
My suggestion to you: stop being such a simplistic ignoramus. With regard to Democrat/Republican, party lines are very blurred, and there is basically little difference. The only intelligent way to vote is to look at the candidates history of support on various issues, proposed plans, and history of success in regards to getting proposals through.
To try to simplify things beyond reason. Libertarians are really Republicans, because -- according to you -- they prefer Republicans to Democrats, given a choice between the two.
The simple fact is, neither Democrats nor Republican have given me or anyone else much reason to have faith in them. The USA Patriot act was supported by Democrats too. So was the DMCA.
The reason I'd rather have Bush over his Democrat counterparts is that Bush supports superior economic policy. Lower taxes, vastly superior retirement accounds (see the page on LSA), and he will probably support the new Bankruptcy Reform Act, which exempts Roth IRA's from the claims of creditors. Furthermore, the anti-liberty social policies of Bush -- particularly, anti-choice and anti-gay rights -- are unlikely to go anywhere.
This is simply a case of Democrats lying to try to get more non-conformist voters. Democrats do not support freedom anymore than Republicans do. Pres. Clinton signed the DMCA into law, and also supported the anti-encryption laws. Sen. Hollings, one of the biggest enemy of digital freedom, is a Democrat. For the most part, when it comes to uniting against both the economic and social liberties of citizens, the Democratic and Republican parties are just two sides of the same coin.
I got your link to work. For someone so concerned with freedoms, it's funny that your link requires the use of a non-free browser and non-free (both as in speech) plugin. Anyways, I suggest that if you want people to take you seriously, you take them seriously. Unless you are trying to indoctrinate children, that flash site is insulting to one's intelligence. It rather reminds me of Christian Sunday School for children ("God loves you, God loves your parents, etc").
Your economics are all a bunch of fluff. Last time I checked, it costs 100k/student per year in public schools. But, let's just assume that the market could drive down that price to something more reasonable.
Let's just assume a perfectly efficient world. Good elementary and high school teachers will work for $30,000 a year. There is no overhead, no building costs for the schools, no administration costs, no repairs costs for anything. So, each teacher works for 30k/yr. Now, for all practical purposes, one teacher can only handle about 30 elementary or high school kids. In college, one teacher can teach 200 to 500 -- but college professors don't have to spoon-feed things, and don't have to deal with behaviour problems.
So, each teacher works for 30k/yr and teachers 30 kids in one class. Now, lets go over the minimum number of classes required. Each year, there will be courses in 1 English, 2 Social Studies, 3 Science, 4 Mathematics, and 5 Physical Education. You coul also add courses in Health, Law, and financial self-management in high school, because they will need it: but let's just assume that everyone can easily learn about those things on their own (yea, right).
So, you have 5 teachers working for 30k/yr teaching 30 kids per class. That means that each student has to pay 5 * $30,000 / 30, or $5,000. So, how exactly is someone making $7,500 dollars per year going to pay that $5,000 dollars a year?
That leaves her with only $2,500 left, which won't pay for all of her other expenses -- shelter, transportation, clothing, food -- no matter which way you look at it. Even shopping at the best value stores and assuming no taxes, you probably have to spend at least $100 a year on clothes, for parent and child. Food costs money too. At least $25/wk, times 52 weeks per year, amounts to $1,300 dollars. Then, you have to live someplace. Let's say it amounts to $50/month, even though the cheapest place I could find to live where I am is 230/mo (and that's a senior home). With all of these optimistic figures, you're now down $2,000, meaning that $500 is left over. Health insurance? I work at a university, which offers good deals on Health Insurance. Mother + child = family, so you're talking about family health-insurance. That's about $75/month, or $900 per year. Ah, I already don't need to go any further...the woman already can't afford to pay for minimum required living expenses.
And, of course, this is an idealized example. In the real world, teachers work for more than $30,000 per year, there are over-head costs, and schools are run in buildings -- which means that tuition for elementary and high schools would be much higher.
Until you can show me with some reasonable numbers -- not just this crap you pull out of thin air -- how a woman making $7,000 per year can support herself and a child, your ideal is doomed in the real world.
The problem with your argument is that you are just accepting empty platitudes written on the Libertarian Party's home page as implicit truths. You pull some random numbers out of no-where (e.g., half of people's income is taken by taxes). I can give you no website that expresses my views, because I think for myself; thus, any website written by anyone other than me cannot possibly reflect my views.
Your link refers to a site which has nothing to do with Libertarianism. I suggest you fix it if you want me to look at it.
In regards to taxation, the only way the government can fulfill it's obligations is by some taxation. It is true that the required functions of the government (infrastructure, protecting our rights in courts, and protecting us from outside threats) would cost much less than the government currently takes in in taxes (perhaps 1/10th, according to the latest pie graphs from IRS forms). But that's still a lot of money. And it's not going to be paid for by voluntary contributions. I also doubt that nation-wide lotteries could provide enough money.
No, someone making 7k a year is not capable of taking care of their children's needs. Food, clothing, shelter -- all of that is expensive, even without a 10% sales tax. Then, of course, there is the cost of education. How do you propose that these people send their children to school on 7k a year, less all of the other required living expenses? Last time I checked, it costs 100,000 USD/yr for one year of high-school education.
The poorest in this country are getting many more benefits than the equivalent amount they are paying in cash, because money is coming from the top down.
But, you seem to maintain that it is possible for poor people to meet the needs of their children. So, I propose that you show me how they can do so, given the following assumptions: (1) They are not taxed at all; (2) They receive no help from the government or elsewhere (sorry, but you can't count on the random luck of charitable contributions); (3) Single mother is earning 7k/yr with one child.
So, how is someone making $7,000/yr (or less) who has kids going to pay for:
* Minimum required shelter and heating, so that they don't freeze to death in the winter.
* The safety of their children. Living in whatever shit-hole they would live in on that salary will naturally mean that they will live in a city-area populated by gangs.
* Food. They have to eat too.
* Clothing. Though parents can wear the same clothes year in and year out until they start to fall apart, children grow fast. Even if you assume that the parents buy clothes a size or two too large, they still need to buy new clothes pretty often.
* Medical costs. Children get ear-infections, colds, the flu, cuts, bruises, and even broken bones quite often. All this costs money to treat. Especially if it is serious enough to require a visit to the doctor. Doctor's don't work for free. Furthermore, I assume that this poor child will probably get beat up more often by his classmates, who don't wear shoes with holes in them. I almost forgot that kids can be pretty mean to eachother.
* Elementary, middle, and high school. With no public schools, nor any schools guaranteed that these parents can rely on to send their children to, they'll have to pay for their children to be educated themselves. Oh yea, to have a real job these days -- you know, something other than flipping hamburgers at McDonald's -- you need to go to college. The parent can't count on his or her child getting a scholarship or grant, as the child might not be smart enough. Most people are of average intelligence, and average intelligence doesn't get grants and scholarships.
Simply put, I don't see how the extra $3,500 that those making 7k/yr would get if all taxes were abolished and all social programs eliminated, would allow them to live. If you think that 7k is enough to provide food, shelter, clothing, and education to a child -- as well as the minimum required living for yourself -- then you are overly idealistic and optimistic.
The possible way I see that this could work is if we start deeming in courts that parents who don't make enough money are unfit parents, and take their children away from them, giving them to richer individuals.
(1) Get legal-insurance. You'll need it with those fucks.
(2) Put as much money as you can into 401(k) and 403(b) plans. According to the law, they are solidly protected from creditor claims, bankruptcy, and lawsuits.
(3) Put whatever's left in Traditional IRAs. They are also protected, by all state laws. Depending on the state you live in, so too many Roth IRA's be protected, though not all states have updated their legislation to provide Roth IRA's with that level of protection.
Thus, they can sue you all they want, but won't get all of your money. If you live in a state where RothIRA's are protected, then you can even get access to your contributions, which they couldn't touch.
References do not include the statements of some liberal supporter who's written an obviously biased argument. If you have any real references (like, numbers from the government), then provide them.
But, even if so, so what? Bill Clinton presided over an unrealistic economic bubble, supported by the dot-com and tech-stock craze. He didn't have to deal with terrorism, or with this economic recession that was caused by the irrational exuberance on wall-street.
The new entitlement programs -- such as the Medicare additions and the farm-bill -- are ill-advised and should be eliminated. That's part of the reason why GW Bush is only a 69% match for my vote (along with abortion and some other social issues). In regards to tax-cuts and the new retirement-programs that Bush has proposed, those are good both now and in the long-term, as they will allow Americans to save more money. Heaven forbid should the government actually have to cut back on it's spending a little bit.
The Non-aggression principle is the belief that nobody has the right to initiate violence against another.
I assume that this is in reference to our pre-emptive attack on Iraq. If someone is pulling back their arm to punch you, attacking them is acceptable. In any event, the US Government has no responsibility to anyone or anything other than US citizens (protecting the rights and safety of US citizens). The US gov't is here for US citizens, not for people in Africa, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, or South America. The US government is justified in taking international action where the probable cost of action is less than the probable cost of inaction, in terms of the rights and securities and well-being of US-citizens.
For instance, taking money from parents in order to provide a child welfare benefit will always result in less money put into feeding those kids than you would have if you just let the parents keep the money in the first place.
Wrong. Because with a graduated income tax -- or even a flat-percentage tax -- those making more money contribute more to the tax-system, which can help those who don't make enough money (even if not taxed at all) to support their children. Taxes or no taxes, someone making 7000 USD/yr is not capable of supporting their children's needs (clothes, shelter, food, education).
Tax-breaks are great, but not even the elimination of taxes altogether would allow those in the lowest tax-bracket to adequately care for their children without help.
Sure, if MS released everything under the EULA, it would not longer be the enemy. The superiority of software for GNU/Linux is another issue, entirely separate.
But that's not -- ever -- going to happen. So, since MS will never release FS/OSS, they are the enemy, and always will be.
But it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. Deciding who to vote on based on 13 issues? non-sense. There should be hundreds, or even thousands, of questions.
But, it, I think, does get a somewhat accurate general representation. Here's my results:
My results:
1. Libertarian Candidate (100%) Click here for info 2. Bush, George W. - US President (69%) Click here for info 3. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (58%) Click here for info 4. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (58%) Click here for info 5. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (57%) Click here for info 6. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (55%) Click here for info 7. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (51%) Click here for info 8. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (49%) Click here for info 9. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (49%) Click here for info 10. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (39%) Click here for info 11. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (38%) Click here for info 12. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (34%) Click here for info 13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (0%) Click here for info
Yep, I'd say that's just about right. I'd definately vote for a Libertarian candidate, no question. If none is available, Bush is second on the list, because the issues on which I'm Democratic don't affect me much, but tax-breaks and better retirement plans do, which Bush supports (see LifeTimeSavingsAccounts.com).
Here's my breakdown of where the Libertarian party is right and wrong. I won't provide much justification, since I assume I'm right and anyone who disagrees is wrong; such is the nature of having an opinion.
Taxes & Spending: "Libertarians believe that if government's role were limited to protecting our lives, rights and property, then America would prosper and thrive as never before. Then the federal government could concentrate on protecting our Constitutional rights and defending us from foreign attack. A federal government that did only those two things, could do them better and at a small fraction of the cost."
Right, with one additon. The government should also provide the basic infrastructure needed for society, like roads.
Social Services Funding: "Let's get government out of the charity business."
Right. A Democrat is someone who likes to call himself a philanthropist because he spends my money on his "good causes".
Welfare: "The bulk of your welfare tax dollars goes to pay the handsome salaries of well-educated welfare workers. The poor get little from government welfare except meager handouts and a cycle of despair." "Private charities and groups do a better and more efficient job of helping the truly needy get back on their feet."
Right, for the most part. However, we should not leave the well-being of children up to the chance and generosity of charity.
"No one has the right to cover his losses at taxpayer expense -- and yet wealthy corporations demand exactly that. The federal government has bailed out railroads, banks, and other corporations with your tax dollars. This must stop!"
Right. For both corporations and individuals. Just because a corporation or person mismanaged their financial lives doesn't mean they have the right to pass off their debt onto the rest of us. This doesn't mean courts have no role in structuring debt arrangements, so that people aren't enslaved for being debtors. Part of the fault also lies with creditors who provide credit to those so obviously unable to provide it, and then whine when they can't get 18%.
Security & Terrorism: "The Libertarian National Committee has voted to call for the repeal of the USA/Patriot Act, charging that it "sacrifices" the liberties of American citizens."
Right.
Foreign Affairs: "The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between
it's that we want to see the flaws in MS because we dislike their software for practical and ethical reasons.
However, pointing out flaws in MS software only helps MS. Very few people will change from MS to anything else, no matter how many flaws there are on it. It came with their computer, and they are of course too stupid (or so they think) to do anything else without borking their computer. So, by act of god, they're stuck with MS.
And, of course, MS can take any criticism of its software and use that to better its software. When confronting an opponent, you don't tell him of all the weaknesses you see, do you?
Many x86 laptops have titanium cases, and are certainly alot more sturdy than those cheesy plastic apples.
Sorry, but given the cheap crappy material Apple's making it's latest computers from, it's hardly a utopia. CD-ROM's made from cheap plastic do not impress me.
However, in the PC laptop market, I suggest Dell. Better yet, check out CraigWeb, which sells Laptops with Linux pre-installed.
Since 99% of the work is public domain. The vast majority of performances add nothing in particular to the work, and are simply copy-cat repeats of performances that have been being performed for the past hundred years (stuff conducted by Bernstein is an exception).
In any event, they don't particularly care. Conductors and instrumentalists make their money from live performances.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you are a hard-case nutjob.
You are so narrow-minded, that you've completely ignored the fact that -- for the vast majority -- I agree with you. I again refer you to my first post, in which I stated all of my views on the poll-issues, most of which agree completely or mostly with the Libertarian position. Yet, according to you, because I don't embrace ideas which I don't think would work or which I think would result in negative outcomes, I'm some kind of communist under-cover. Maybe you should go back to the McCarthy era.
I very well realize what the nazi acronym means, however I think that their party is fascist, not communist. In any event, that's irrelevant. The point is that while you insist on labelling me as some far-left communist, some other nutjob on the left insists on labelling me as a nazi.
Your refusal to talk about the important issue here, which I brought up, borders on absurdity. Teacher's salaries are irrelevant? Nonsense. Teaching is a difficult profession, requiring good teaching skills, patience, and a relatively complete knowledge of the subject field. Teachers are not going to work for free. They need to be paid.
There are no economics behind your statements (e.g., that a woman making 7k/yr can have her child educated*). Since you obviously have difficulties with simple logic, I will explain this for you very clearly.
1. For children to be educated, the costs parents have to pay are the teacher's salaries, administrative costs, building costs, and just general overhead and inefficiencies to running a school.
3. Without public schooling, the parents must burden these costs entirely by themselves. Now, of course, the costs don't go away because of public schooling. But they are distributed among many, with more burden being placed on the richer (this would be true even if there was a flat-tax), so that even poor children are educated.
4. As I conclusively pointed out earlier, someone making 7k/yr -- even without paying any taxes at all -- is in no way capable of sending her child to school, feeding her child, clothing her child, and providing shelter for her child.
Personally, I don't give a damn about adults who find themselves in a situation of poverty, since they were responsible for the actions putting them there.
But children aren't. Children shouldn't go without food, clothing, shelter, and education, just because their parents happen to be poor.
Now, if you are arguing that a completely free-market education system, with no public schools, would be more economically efficient and produce more competitive results than our current public schools, I agree -- because there would be competition. However, I see no reason why publicly funded schools can't compete with eachother for that public funding, much like scientific labs compete with eachother for their grant-funding from the government.
Furthermore, in a completely free-market education system with no public funding, many children would receive no education at all. That is something I cannot accept; and if you want others to accept your proposals, you'd best be able to show that under your system, just as many kids are educated as under the current one.
My numbers for teacher's salaries are the facts, so whether or not they make sense to you is irrelevant. Teacher's have to get paid, and people making 7k/yr are in no way capable of paying for their children's education.
Another problem with your proposal to free-market everything is how it affects research. The public domain -- which is where NIH-funded research goes -- has been a great boon for scientific progress, and the freedom of humankind. I don't see corporations putting information into the public domain. Of course, it is entirely possible that voluntary non-government agencies could fund basic research and applied research to be made freely publicly available, and it is reasonable that under a Libertarian-ideal, such freedom-denying things as copyright, patents, and trademarks
Ah, I see. That does indeed seem unconstitutional. It's fine for someone to get a restraining order against you without you having any chance to defend yourself, as that is not a criminal punishment, nor a violation of your rights. But, in regards to no longer being allowed to have guns, that is unconstitutional.
Hahahah, sure. No, I'm not "making up numbers". I've responded to all of your positions, and watched your insulting and belittling flash-presentation. If you want anyone to take your views seriously, I suggest you don't treat them like children, which is precisely what that flash presentation does. You come off sounding like Hillary Clinton.
The truth of the matter is, I believe in most of what that flash site presents, and most Libertarian views. That's an ideal. But, I also believe that every child has the right to an education -- a real education. There is no way that a woman making 7k/yr can support the living needs of herself and her child, and send her child to school.
As for "making up numbers", you're the only one who's doing that, so please don't try to turn this around on me. I'm not the one making absurd claims about a woman living off of 7k being able to support her children. It is obvious that you simply cannot form any response to the facts of the world.
Here's the facts. And the real facts are even less forgiving than the lala 'if everything were perfect' numbers I proposed. From 1999 - 2000, teacher's salaries in the US ranged from a low of $29,145 to a high of $52,500, with the average at $41,575.
So, let's see how this woman living in poverty, making 7k/yr, fares with that. At the minimum, her child has to have classes in physical education, science, mathematics, social studies, and english. That's 5 classes. 5 * $41,575 = $207,875. Divide that by 30 -- which is, let's face it, as many kids as one teacher can reasonably handle -- and you get that each student would have to pay the school $6,929 dollars to accomodate the teacher's salary. So, our woman making $7,000/yr has about 71 dollars left over. I need go no further.
Real school expenses will, of course, be higher than that, because nothing is perfectly efficient. Student's have to be taught in buildings, PE classes need facilities, and other classes need books and other materials.
Your entire argument has revolved around you making up numbers, and acting as if they are facts (e.g., 10 times more buying power, or whatever it was). Now, quite frankly, I'm not all against you. I even have you listed as one of my friends, and I happen to agree with you on most issues. My original post indicated the candidate I would vote for is Libertarian. Yet, you have twisted this argument so much that, according to you, because I point out specific concrete evidence of why your plan won't work, I am a "marxist". This is a hillarious contrast to another Slashdot poster who has practically accused me of being a nazi.
Every time a libertarian's on the ballot, I've voted for him. In all other cases, I decide on it issue-by-issue. That makes me Libertarian. So why don't you just fuck off with your simplistic two-party thinking? There damn well is shame to being a republican or democrat -- neither of those parties supports freedom.
Wrong. You have to ask someone to stop doing something, and they have to continue doing it, for it to be sexual harassment. Obviously, some things if done once are illegal anyways, but they are sorts of sexual assault, not words.
A consultant is not an employee. If anything, a consultant's client -- in this case, the woman -- is the customer, and can terminate the ongoing consultating at any time for any reason. She could stop going to him as a consultant, and start going to someone else, explicitly saying that it's because he wouldn't fuck her. That's not sexual harassment. I can go into a hair-style shop, and ask the woman cutting my hair if she'll have sex with me. If she says no, then if i continue asking her again, then it's sexual harassment. However, I am well within my rights to outright tell her, "ok, then I'll get my hair cut elsewhere because of that". Since I am her customer -- not her boss -- I have no power over her.
This woman is precisely that. The consultant's customer. She can stop being his customer for any reason she wants. Of course, her boss might disagree with her, and say "not using his advice because he won't fuck you isn't a good reason".
you get it into your think stupid fucking skull. Let me be clear. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. Period. End of discussion. There are many significant issues upon which I disagree with both parties.
So, either you simply cannot read and understand plain English, or you are choosing to ignore what I say to satisfy your need to be a mouth-foaming liberal screaming about the infidels who would dare not vote for liberals. Last time I checked, Libertarians were the most popular 3rd party, obtaining more votes than any other party. I see no reason why a Libertarian won't be on the ballot when it comes time to vote.
Bill Clinton most certainly supported draconian laws, such as anti-encryption laws and the DMCA. The point being, that on social liberty, Democrats are hardly any better -- if at all -- than Republicans. The opposite point is also for the most part true: in regards to economic liberty, Republicans are hardly any better, if at all, than Democrats. Democrats support bankruptcy for individuals, while Republicans support it for businesses; both of which steal money from those who were responsible with their finances, and give it to those who have proven that they can't handle money.
Again, you provide no evidence. Simply pointing to the Clinton era and saying, "that was good" does not prove -- or even suggest -- that Democrats have superior economic policy. The boom of the 90's had absolutely zero -- shit, nadda -- to do with fat Bill. It was an unrealistic boon, propelled by irrational exuberance regarding tech-stocks, and stocks in general. As long as history counts, the economy has run in cycles of ups and downs. Excess bull markets inevitably collapse under the weight of their own hype; while excess bear markets inevitably relent due to the unrealistic nature of pessimism.
Of course, if you weren't so stupid, you would realize this. You would realize that, in fact, the stock market is up over the past 10 years, and quite significantly. You would realize that now is in fact the perfect time to be investing money; I don't fault you for not realizing this, as most people are stupid and invest during the unrealistic heights of market-booms, and pull out of the market during the unrealistic lows. And, of course, you would realize that the US President has very little to do directly with the economy (if anything, the effects are secondary, and require the approval of Congress). Remember, the President can't do anything himself.
Even if I was to buy your inane idea that the DMCA is purely the fault of the democrats you really think that the DMCA is as bad as the patriot act or the TIA program? I suppose you do because the democrats are inherently evil right?
Did I say that the DMCA was purely the fault of Democrats? No, I didn't. I said Democrats were just as guilty of denying social freedoms as have been Republicans. The USAPA hasn't affect me much, and will not do so in the future; the DMCA has and does. Of course, the USAPA is not good. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are inherently evil. They simply don't believe in freedom.
A liberterian will run. You will not for him/her. You will not write in a candidate of your choice. You will vote for the republican.
Why don't you just shut the fuck up and put your foot in your mouth? You don't know a flying fuck about what I will or will not do. And, of course, like a typical nutjob partisan on the left or right, you have ignored everything I've said which discredits your case. I have pointed out that there are many Democrats who I would glady vote for, including Rick Boucher.
If there is so little difference then why not vote for the democrat? If you feel obliged to vote for somebody on the ballot and if there is no difference anyway then what do you care? Just vote democrat then you can be honest when you say you don't care.
People who actually have principles don't vote for someone because "they don't care who wins or looses". They don't just flip a coin and deci
(1) Until she tells me to stop doing it, it's no longer sexual harassment.
(2) In regards to CA and restraining orders, the second amendment doesn't give you the right to constantly hang around someone.
(3) My entire point was that if I refused to come back to her salon as a customer, she would have no cause -- what-so-ever -- for complaint against me. This is the same situation as it would be if this woman didn't ask the consultant back after he asks her not to ask him out anymore.
Ok, that was a little bit smug...but, hey, I'm entitled to be a jerk once in a while...ok, maybe once or twice a week...ok, maybe once or twice a day...ok, maybe all the time
He's a consultant. Big difference. Simply having gone to a consultant several times in no way obligates an individual to continually go to that consultant. She could refuse to have him back as a consultant because she didn't like a tick in his gesture, or for any other reason she could come up with.
he's not really an employee, and thus can't be fired. No-one has the right to be contracted as an outside consultant, and having several deals as an outside consultant does not in any way constitute any kind of obligation.
The choice is simple for him. He can simply ask her to stop asking him out, and say no. If she continues, it's sexual harassment. If not, it isn't. If she stops using him as an outside consultant, then it's tough shit for him, for the above-reasons.
Consider this scenario. I regularly go to a hair-stylist who's a attractive woman, and regularly ask her out, and make comments about how pretty she is. She's more than welcomed to ask me to stop, and then if I continue, it's sexual harassment. But if I stop going there, then she has no legal grounds on which to complain.
Indeed, there is a good argument to be made that I was just doing whatever I could to obey the law, since -- being around her -- I just couldn't resist asking her that.
The patriot act was born in the republican party and lives in the republican party.
Perhaps so, but many democrats supported it. You also ignore the draconian acts supported by Democrats, which makes you a fucking hypocrite. DMCA, 1998 CTEA, anti-encryption laws, and a host of other legislation that violates our civil liberties -- all supported by Democrats, especially Sen Fritz. Bill Clinton came up with the idea of anti-encryption laws, and signed the DMCA into law.
In regards to economic policy, you provide no evidence what-so-ever. I'm not saying all of Bush' economic policies are great (the subsidies you mentioned aren't), but many of them are. Tax-cuts, for one. Scaling up the 10% tax bracket to 7k is good, for one thing (btw, those in the 15% and 27% tax bracket are very much affected by the 10% bracket, as it determines their base rate). Bush' retirement plan proposals are good (you obviously refused to read the web-page on Bush' proposed LSA's and RSA's that I provided). Furthermore, Bush is likely to support new bankruptcy revisions that would exempt Roth IRA's from the claims of creditors. Another good thing.
Oh, and of course there's the fact that the stock market has had a very nice run from March to present.
when push comes to shove you will choose a republican. Why not just admit that you are a republican?
Let me refrase that in two ways so you understand how insulting and untrue that is, in regards to choosing between two undesireable alternatives:
"When push come to shove, you would vote for Hitler over Stalin. Why not just admit that you're a nazi?"
"When push comes to shove, you would vote for STalin over Hitler. Why not just admit that you're a communist?"
No, moron. In this particular case, I would choose a Republican, because the Democrats running against Bush are assholes, and really have no plan. They do not support economic measures that would help me, as Bush does. If a Libertarian runs, I will vote for him. In other cases -- if I lived in Rick Boucher's state -- I would vote for a Democrat. But, you are obviously too much of a partison zealot to realize that.
Furthermore, you talk about Bush electing anti-choice USSC justices. First, the nominees of a President don't always vote the way he wants them to. History is littered with examples. Second, Bush nominates USSC justices -- he doesn't elect them. I believe that the Congress and Senate (or maybe just one, I forget) has to approve of his choice. That's why Bork -- though nominated -- never sat on the USSC.
My suggestion to you: stop being such a simplistic ignoramus. With regard to Democrat/Republican, party lines are very blurred, and there is basically little difference. The only intelligent way to vote is to look at the candidates history of support on various issues, proposed plans, and history of success in regards to getting proposals through.
To try to simplify things beyond reason. Libertarians are really Republicans, because -- according to you -- they prefer Republicans to Democrats, given a choice between the two.
The simple fact is, neither Democrats nor Republican have given me or anyone else much reason to have faith in them. The USA Patriot act was supported by Democrats too. So was the DMCA.
The reason I'd rather have Bush over his Democrat counterparts is that Bush supports superior economic policy. Lower taxes, vastly superior retirement accounds (see the page on LSA), and he will probably support the new Bankruptcy Reform Act, which exempts Roth IRA's from the claims of creditors. Furthermore, the anti-liberty social policies of Bush -- particularly, anti-choice and anti-gay rights -- are unlikely to go anywhere.
This is simply a case of Democrats lying to try to get more non-conformist voters. Democrats do not support freedom anymore than Republicans do. Pres. Clinton signed the DMCA into law, and also supported the anti-encryption laws. Sen. Hollings, one of the biggest enemy of digital freedom, is a Democrat. For the most part, when it comes to uniting against both the economic and social liberties of citizens, the Democratic and Republican parties are just two sides of the same coin.
I got your link to work. For someone so concerned with freedoms, it's funny that your link requires the use of a non-free browser and non-free (both as in speech) plugin. Anyways, I suggest that if you want people to take you seriously, you take them seriously. Unless you are trying to indoctrinate children, that flash site is insulting to one's intelligence. It rather reminds me of Christian Sunday School for children ("God loves you, God loves your parents, etc").
Your economics are all a bunch of fluff. Last time I checked, it costs 100k/student per year in public schools. But, let's just assume that the market could drive down that price to something more reasonable.
Let's just assume a perfectly efficient world. Good elementary and high school teachers will work for $30,000 a year. There is no overhead, no building costs for the schools, no administration costs, no repairs costs for anything. So, each teacher works for 30k/yr. Now, for all practical purposes, one teacher can only handle about 30 elementary or high school kids. In college, one teacher can teach 200 to 500 -- but college professors don't have to spoon-feed things, and don't have to deal with behaviour problems.
So, each teacher works for 30k/yr and teachers 30 kids in one class. Now, lets go over the minimum number of classes required. Each year, there will be courses in 1 English, 2 Social Studies, 3 Science, 4 Mathematics, and 5 Physical Education. You coul also add courses in Health, Law, and financial self-management in high school, because they will need it: but let's just assume that everyone can easily learn about those things on their own (yea, right).
So, you have 5 teachers working for 30k/yr teaching 30 kids per class. That means that each student has to pay 5 * $30,000 / 30, or $5,000. So, how exactly is someone making $7,500 dollars per year going to pay that $5,000 dollars a year?
That leaves her with only $2,500 left, which won't pay for all of her other expenses -- shelter, transportation, clothing, food -- no matter which way you look at it. Even shopping at the best value stores and assuming no taxes, you probably have to spend at least $100 a year on clothes, for parent and child. Food costs money too. At least $25/wk, times 52 weeks per year, amounts to $1,300 dollars. Then, you have to live someplace. Let's say it amounts to $50/month, even though the cheapest place I could find to live where I am is 230/mo (and that's a senior home). With all of these optimistic figures, you're now down $2,000, meaning that $500 is left over. Health insurance? I work at a university, which offers good deals on Health Insurance. Mother + child = family, so you're talking about family health-insurance. That's about $75/month, or $900 per year. Ah, I already don't need to go any further...the woman already can't afford to pay for minimum required living expenses.
And, of course, this is an idealized example. In the real world, teachers work for more than $30,000 per year, there are over-head costs, and schools are run in buildings -- which means that tuition for elementary and high schools would be much higher.
Until you can show me with some reasonable numbers -- not just this crap you pull out of thin air -- how a woman making $7,000 per year can support herself and a child, your ideal is doomed in the real world.
The problem with your argument is that you are just accepting empty platitudes written on the Libertarian Party's home page as implicit truths. You pull some random numbers out of no-where (e.g., half of people's income is taken by taxes). I can give you no website that expresses my views, because I think for myself; thus, any website written by anyone other than me cannot possibly reflect my views.
Your link refers to a site which has nothing to do with Libertarianism. I suggest you fix it if you want me to look at it.
In regards to taxation, the only way the government can fulfill it's obligations is by some taxation. It is true that the required functions of the government (infrastructure, protecting our rights in courts, and protecting us from outside threats) would cost much less than the government currently takes in in taxes (perhaps 1/10th, according to the latest pie graphs from IRS forms). But that's still a lot of money. And it's not going to be paid for by voluntary contributions. I also doubt that nation-wide lotteries could provide enough money.
No, someone making 7k a year is not capable of taking care of their children's needs. Food, clothing, shelter -- all of that is expensive, even without a 10% sales tax. Then, of course, there is the cost of education. How do you propose that these people send their children to school on 7k a year, less all of the other required living expenses? Last time I checked, it costs 100,000 USD/yr for one year of high-school education.
The poorest in this country are getting many more benefits than the equivalent amount they are paying in cash, because money is coming from the top down.
But, you seem to maintain that it is possible for poor people to meet the needs of their children. So, I propose that you show me how they can do so, given the following assumptions: (1) They are not taxed at all; (2) They receive no help from the government or elsewhere (sorry, but you can't count on the random luck of charitable contributions); (3) Single mother is earning 7k/yr with one child.
So, how is someone making $7,000/yr (or less) who has kids going to pay for:
* Minimum required shelter and heating, so that they don't freeze to death in the winter.
* The safety of their children. Living in whatever shit-hole they would live in on that salary will naturally mean that they will live in a city-area populated by gangs.
* Food. They have to eat too.
* Clothing. Though parents can wear the same clothes year in and year out until they start to fall apart, children grow fast. Even if you assume that the parents buy clothes a size or two too large, they still need to buy new clothes pretty often.
* Medical costs. Children get ear-infections, colds, the flu, cuts, bruises, and even broken bones quite often. All this costs money to treat. Especially if it is serious enough to require a visit to the doctor. Doctor's don't work for free. Furthermore, I assume that this poor child will probably get beat up more often by his classmates, who don't wear shoes with holes in them. I almost forgot that kids can be pretty mean to eachother.
* Elementary, middle, and high school. With no public schools, nor any schools guaranteed that these parents can rely on to send their children to, they'll have to pay for their children to be educated themselves. Oh yea, to have a real job these days -- you know, something other than flipping hamburgers at McDonald's -- you need to go to college. The parent can't count on his or her child getting a scholarship or grant, as the child might not be smart enough. Most people are of average intelligence, and average intelligence doesn't get grants and scholarships.
Simply put, I don't see how the extra $3,500 that those making 7k/yr would get if all taxes were abolished and all social programs eliminated, would allow them to live. If you think that 7k is enough to provide food, shelter, clothing, and education to a child -- as well as the minimum required living for yourself -- then you are overly idealistic and optimistic.
The possible way I see that this could work is if we start deeming in courts that parents who don't make enough money are unfit parents, and take their children away from them, giving them to richer individuals.
Go to the first post I posted. And look at the candidate that it says is my first choice: 100% Libertarian. So please RTFC.
(1) Get legal-insurance. You'll need it with those fucks.
(2) Put as much money as you can into 401(k) and 403(b) plans. According to the law, they are solidly protected from creditor claims, bankruptcy, and lawsuits.
(3) Put whatever's left in Traditional IRAs. They are also protected, by all state laws. Depending on the state you live in, so too many Roth IRA's be protected, though not all states have updated their legislation to provide Roth IRA's with that level of protection.
Thus, they can sue you all they want, but won't get all of your money. If you live in a state where RothIRA's are protected, then you can even get access to your contributions, which they couldn't touch.
References do not include the statements of some liberal supporter who's written an obviously biased argument. If you have any real references (like, numbers from the government), then provide them.
But, even if so, so what? Bill Clinton presided over an unrealistic economic bubble, supported by the dot-com and tech-stock craze. He didn't have to deal with terrorism, or with this economic recession that was caused by the irrational exuberance on wall-street.
The new entitlement programs -- such as the Medicare additions and the farm-bill -- are ill-advised and should be eliminated. That's part of the reason why GW Bush is only a 69% match for my vote (along with abortion and some other social issues). In regards to tax-cuts and the new retirement-programs that Bush has proposed, those are good both now and in the long-term, as they will allow Americans to save more money. Heaven forbid should the government actually have to cut back on it's spending a little bit.
And yet George Bush has increased the size of the govt more then any other president in recent history.
Any references for that, or is it just liberal dribble?
The Non-aggression principle is the belief that nobody has the right to initiate violence against another.
I assume that this is in reference to our pre-emptive attack on Iraq. If someone is pulling back their arm to punch you, attacking them is acceptable. In any event, the US Government has no responsibility to anyone or anything other than US citizens (protecting the rights and safety of US citizens). The US gov't is here for US citizens, not for people in Africa, Europe, Asia, the Middle East, or South America. The US government is justified in taking international action where the probable cost of action is less than the probable cost of inaction, in terms of the rights and securities and well-being of US-citizens.
For instance, taking money from parents in order to provide a child welfare benefit will always result in less money put into feeding those kids than you would have if you just let the parents keep the money in the first place.
Wrong. Because with a graduated income tax -- or even a flat-percentage tax -- those making more money contribute more to the tax-system, which can help those who don't make enough money (even if not taxed at all) to support their children. Taxes or no taxes, someone making 7000 USD/yr is not capable of supporting their children's needs (clothes, shelter, food, education).
Tax-breaks are great, but not even the elimination of taxes altogether would allow those in the lowest tax-bracket to adequately care for their children without help.
Sure, if MS released everything under the EULA, it would not longer be the enemy. The superiority of software for GNU/Linux is another issue, entirely separate.
But that's not -- ever -- going to happen. So, since MS will never release FS/OSS, they are the enemy, and always will be.
But it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. Deciding who to vote on based on 13 issues? non-sense. There should be hundreds, or even thousands, of questions.
But, it, I think, does get a somewhat accurate general representation. Here's my results:
My results:
1. Libertarian Candidate (100%) Click here for info
2. Bush, George W. - US President (69%) Click here for info
3. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (58%) Click here for info
4. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (58%) Click here for info
5. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (57%) Click here for info
6. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (55%) Click here for info
7. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (51%) Click here for info
8. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (49%) Click here for info
9. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (49%) Click here for info
10. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (39%) Click here for info
11. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (38%) Click here for info
12. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (34%) Click here for info
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (0%) Click here for info
Yep, I'd say that's just about right. I'd definately vote for a Libertarian candidate, no question. If none is available, Bush is second on the list, because the issues on which I'm Democratic don't affect me much, but tax-breaks and better retirement plans do, which Bush supports (see LifeTimeSavingsAccounts.com).
Here's my breakdown of where the Libertarian party is right and wrong. I won't provide much justification, since I assume I'm right and anyone who disagrees is wrong; such is the nature of having an opinion.
Taxes & Spending: "Libertarians believe that if government's role were limited to protecting our lives, rights and property, then America would prosper and thrive as never before. Then the federal government could concentrate on protecting our Constitutional rights and defending us from foreign attack. A federal government that did only those two things, could do them better and at a small fraction of the cost."
Right, with one additon. The government should also provide the basic infrastructure needed for society, like roads.
Social Services Funding: "Let's get government out of the charity business."
Right. A Democrat is someone who likes to call himself a philanthropist because he spends my money on his "good causes".
Welfare: "The bulk of your welfare tax dollars goes to pay the handsome salaries of well-educated welfare workers. The poor get little from government welfare except meager handouts and a cycle of despair." "Private charities and groups do a better and more efficient job of helping the truly needy get back on their feet."
Right, for the most part. However, we should not leave the well-being of children up to the chance and generosity of charity.
"No one has the right to cover his losses at taxpayer expense -- and yet wealthy corporations demand exactly that. The federal government has bailed out railroads, banks, and other corporations with your tax dollars. This must stop!"
Right. For both corporations and individuals. Just because a corporation or person mismanaged their financial lives doesn't mean they have the right to pass off their debt onto the rest of us. This doesn't mean courts have no role in structuring debt arrangements, so that people aren't enslaved for being debtors. Part of the fault also lies with creditors who provide credit to those so obviously unable to provide it, and then whine when they can't get 18%.
Security & Terrorism: "The Libertarian National Committee has voted to call for the repeal of the USA/Patriot Act, charging that it "sacrifices" the liberties of American citizens."
Right.
Foreign Affairs: "The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between
it's that we want to see the flaws in MS because we dislike their software for practical and ethical reasons.
However, pointing out flaws in MS software only helps MS. Very few people will change from MS to anything else, no matter how many flaws there are on it. It came with their computer, and they are of course too stupid (or so they think) to do anything else without borking their computer. So, by act of god, they're stuck with MS.
And, of course, MS can take any criticism of its software and use that to better its software. When confronting an opponent, you don't tell him of all the weaknesses you see, do you?
Why are we doing MS' work for them? Pointing out these flaws only helps MS to fix them.
If anything, we should be pointing out flaws in FS/OSS software so that we can make that better.
Many x86 laptops have titanium cases, and are certainly alot more sturdy than those cheesy plastic apples.
Sorry, but given the cheap crappy material Apple's making it's latest computers from, it's hardly a utopia. CD-ROM's made from cheap plastic do not impress me.
However, in the PC laptop market, I suggest Dell. Better yet, check out CraigWeb, which sells Laptops with Linux pre-installed.
Since 99% of the work is public domain. The vast majority of performances add nothing in particular to the work, and are simply copy-cat repeats of performances that have been being performed for the past hundred years (stuff conducted by Bernstein is an exception).
In any event, they don't particularly care. Conductors and instrumentalists make their money from live performances.