The ACLU and others will press court cases that arise from abuses from these laws and some of these new powers will be curtailed.
Yeah, cause as we all know, the trend of history is towards more freedom and less government.
Have some simple faith please in the maturity of our society: the abuses will be curtailed.
Sorry, I don't see any evidence of this. Perhaps the most extreme abuses, but even then I have my doubts. Ruby Ridge anyone? Waco? I still haven't seen any curtailing of that abuse of power. How about making it illegal to own gold? Nope, still there, and likely would still be strictly enforced. Forced automatic withdrawl of taxes? Yup, still there. Drug war? Still no sign of the end.
Or- brace yourself, a good judge on a bench somewhere will smack down the spooks who get out of line.
Yeah, so the govt can holler about how such and such judge is an enemy of the people and freedom has suffered a terrible loss etc. Big outcry from the uninformed, the media incite it further and next thing you know this judge is out of a job as a measure of political expediency. The more time passes, the fewer judges with the guts to do what is right vs what is good for their career we have.
Look at the number of judges that look the other way when abuses of the law come around re: drug offenders.
Or, get this: has anyone here ever heard of the free press?
Yeah, I read about it in history books. What good is a free press that tows the government line? Granted, they/all/ don't. But the major media outlets where the masses get their information do. I'll grant you that's not entirely their fault. It's the people's responsibility to know what is going on, but I do hold the media at least partially responsible.
a nation at peace just had the equivalent of 3 ICBMs launched at it successfully
Shyeah right. You obviously have no concept of the destructive power of ICBMs.
Take a deep breath, wait a year, have the press run a few exposes on some rights abuses, and watch how the tide of popular opinion runs then.
Heh. Like all the exposes that are run right now have reformed the hidious regulations on those that just want to help others? Or the excessive govt spending on pork projects? Or any of the other excesses of govt really? Nope. Cause people sit and watch it and go "that's ridiculous" and then when voting time comes along they listen to the talking heads of mass media and vote for someone who wears a nice tie.
Remember Star Wars of the Reagan era? Remember the missile defense shield of recent history? Billions of dollars spent on orbiting gigawatt lasers, and what the heck did that do? Less than 2 dozen guys board planes with box cutters fer chrissake and a few hours flight training
That's ridiculous. Those programs weren't/aren't intended to stop that sort of threat. They are one of the few legitimate functions of the central govt, and that's defending our country from attacks. A specific sort of attack.
The only protection against what happened on 9/11 is an armed citizenry. Course, instead, we just made it easier, but that's typical.
My first thought here was "Huh?", until I remembered that NY has some of the most restrictive carry laws in the country. So yes, in an area where your right to defend yourself against an attacker has been stripped away this is probably true. Your chance of a mugging likely/does/ go up.
However, it's not like the cameras provide much protection. If it does then why is the crime rate in NY still so high? Why do we see criminals on America's most wanted where they have video footage of them in the act?
Freedom of speech would still exist if it hadn't been so seriously abused.
Assuming you aren't still trolling, you appear to not understand the basic nature of Freedom.
The bill of rights does not lay out freedoms that have been granted to us by some benevolent government entity. They recognize rights that each person has by virtue of their creation. It is/not/ something that can be 'revoked'. It was this basic concept that underlies everything.
Don't confuse priviledges (like driving, if indeed that is a priviledge which some don't believe it is) with freedoms.
Bottom line. We don't have Freedom of speech/religion/keep & bear arms/protection from illegal search, etc because the constitution says we do. We have them because we do. Period. Attempting to restrict or remove those freedoms is tyranny and treason.
"up to and including the current (January 2001) release, PGP 7.0.3"
(Emphasis mine of course)
To me, this reads as a veiled warning. Post PGP 7.0.3 has no such guarantees. Put that together
with the fact that I don't trust NAI in the least. In fact, I trust them so little, that PZ even working for them caused me to regard even his
statements as suspect during his tenure there.
Of course, I might be reading into his words there, and perhaps before this announcement reasonable people might have thought me paranoid. But how about now?
Does anyone still trust the PGP implementation released by McAffee? If the veiled warning by Phillip Zimmerman wasn't enough to raise concern (heck, his leaving at all should be enough to raise concern) then their quick decision to work with FBI here in this fashion ought to be the final nail.
How can anyone trust anything NAI produces anymore?
I doubt very many people with a clue did even before this. But at that time their rather powerfull marketing machine was able to keep the $$$ rolling in from joe blows buying computers with the software pre-installed and computer "hobbyists" who think they know what they are doing and recommend software like McAffee and NAV and so on because the names are well known.
The problem, in my opinion, is that sales of McAfee's products will NOT drop because of this. You're forgetting that 99% of the people who buy that product do so because of FUD
Hrm. I'd say close but no cigar. 99^ of the people who buy McAffee garbage buy it because of marketing. Which is only partly "FUD". It's also because it comes pre-installed on a lot of systems, and because they see the ads all over.
People who really need it to test systems are in a position where they should have the capability or the resources to generate a "test script" for themselves, once given an accurate description of the vulnerability.
I disagree. Consider the fact that we are talking about windows admins here. There are many that yes, could in fact generate their own test. Unfortunately, that is not the vast majority of those that would call themselves an "admin". So you have to dumb it down for them. Sure, you can say who cares, if they don't know what they're doing let them suffer the consequences, but with the advent of worms like Code Red and Nimda we suffer the consequences as well, through increased traffic on our pipes and servers. We need to provide these ignoramuses with as many tools as possible.
And before one of you decides to flame me with a stellar example of your poor grasp of the english language and stunningly small vocabulary, I recognize there are unix admins like this too. But we are talking about MS here, and there are FAR more MS admins of this nature than there are unix admins in that group.
Sure. Look here.
It's handy, and not difficult to setup. As someone else has said in this thread, you might look into using an sslwrapper and then just use ssl smtp instead, or as well. (Wrapping isn't officially supported anymore, but you can still do it, and it's not hard to setup)
Setup port forwarding your mail server from a higher port (like say 2025) and have your faculty set that as the SMTP port in their client. (Outlook express at least can do this, I think outlook can too)
You're right, I don't particularly care for windows. However, that affects only me. If someone else wants to use windows it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Windows is not perfect, but for running a game that is WRITTEN for the damn OS, its the proper tool. How many games are bug free these days? Not that many that I can tell that are released for the PC. Hell some aren't even bug free that are released for the cosoles.
You're right. Windows is not perfect. From this (astonishingly enough) mostly coherent section of your comment I assume you are responding to the last portion of my comment, where I found the concept of windows being a 100% perfect product ludicrous. Maybe toral meant to say that it was the perfect tool for the job, but it's not my job to interpret or read into his comment. If that's what he meant to say, it's what he should've said.
Say what you mean, mean what you say.
And, just to provoke you a little more, here's a link you might find handy.
I personally think Loki had the right idea, but they learned that people would rather just dual boot, it is simple, clean and flexable. Dual booting allows you to play WHATEVER windows games you want!
I dont' think that's the lesson for loki at all. I think the lesson for loki is that a large portion of linux gamers are impatient. They are not willing to wait 6mos, a year, or even 2 years for the great new windows game to come out on linux. Instead they'd rather buy it now, dual boot, then get the linux version later when it's available at no cost.
I think as long as loki is developing games post-windows releases they should charge for the linux version no matter if you have the windows version already or not.
And of course, the other lesson is that obviously to a large section of linux gamers they are far more interested in playing the latest game than making the sacrifices necessary to see linux become an OS to be considered in game development.
I disagree. A lot of people probably dual boot, but many of us don't. I for one, do not buy any games not supported under linux. Buying the windows version only hurts Loki's business opportunity. If I wait and only buy the linux version it encourages companies to go cross platform and not make us wait so long. Market forces are still fairly powerfull, but only if we are willing to make the sacrifice required to bring them to bear. (This is the reason that most boycotts fail.)
Also, there are quite a few of us who build our own systems, which thus don't come with windows.
Which isn't free even when it comes with your system, but has a more tangible cost when you have
to buy a license seperately.
This is going to be incredibly hard when a 100% perfect product already exists to do this: Windows
*rofl* 100% perfect product? What color is the sky in your world?
Hrm. I would just like to point out that MS created admins that are afraid to apply patches. Worse yet, they created admins who don't understand their importance and relevance. They reduced the admin to a grunting buffoon and now they want to complain that they didn't do a good enough job protecting their O/S from its own shoddy development.
Yes, that's all very nice. But when that new patch from MS breaks your system all to hell then you are out a backups server until you can restore from backup. (You do have backups right?)
The problem is that MS doesn't just give out patches, their patches tend to depend on other patches which depend on other patches and so on requiring you to potentially do all kinds of damage to your system before you can even begin to worry about patching the security hole.
And of course, that makes regression testing very difficult. And again, the sheer volume of patches that have to be applied vs. Unix. Someone has already bosted the numbers claiming linux's security holes were higher than MS's. That's just baloney. There may have been more unix bugs released, but how many of them affect EVERYONE. When MS has a bug, you are almost always affected, because everything is integrated. But that's not the case with linux. None of the bugs for apps like sendmail, wsftp, samba, or bind affected me. Irun qmail, djbdns, proftpd, and don't run samba. You can't compare linux bugs to MS bugs that way. If you want to make a comparison, you have to do with upgrades that nearly every linux user has to apply fixes for. I guarantee you that number is an insignificant fraction of the total reported this year.
There is a significant distance between us and them. I dunno the last time we drug a bunch of people into an arena and shot them in the back of the head for drug trafficking.
I also don't know the last time we executed or stoned a woman for letting a veil fall from her face.
You completely failed to take into account the differences in our laws and system of justice.
Re:Emacs emulation in vim?
on
VIM 6.0 is Out
·
· Score: 1
Hrm. I assume you mean:!emacs since sh is for
a generic shell. But even that doesn't really
work all around.;-)
2) Strong encryption is worthless if backdoors are placed into it- see Matt Blaze's skillful discovery of every single law enforcement key within the Clipper system.
Ah, but this is no longer an issue. The DMCA makes reverse-engineering or circumenting a security measure illegal remember? So we have nothing to fear on this front.
Thing is, there are some businesses where people will just not pay up front the necessary costs for the service. Some of them (dot-coms come to mind) are spurious, and should fail. But airlines and other mass transit systems are vastly necessary. They are the grease in the gears of an economy, moving people and stuffs around. Because it's necessary, the government, in moments of need by the industry and sanity by the government, steps in to provide necessary funding.
While you have expanded your comments you have not really said why the economy would fail if some of these companies went under. Nor have you offered proof that they would fail w/out government subsidies.
Do I think they would? Probably. But as long as there is a need, someone is going to try and provide it. Because if people need it there is money to be made there. It's the foundation of how a free market economy works.
Part of the problem the airlines have is the increased cost of complying with FAA regulations. W/out that you increase profitability. Which I'm sure makes a lot of people cringe in fear. People think w/out the FAA planes would use substandard parts and crash all the time. Baloney. Airlines make money off their customers. If they kill them all where would they be? It's not in their best interest. And if they kill their existing customer base they are going to have a hard time drawing new customers. So, the ones who have poor safety records/etc will go out of business and get swallowed up by better companies.
With this, I think prices would go down. Quality of travel might too. You might have more cramped spaces. You might have no meal on a long flight or no in-flight movie if you are cheap. But that's each travellers choice.
If it was still too high, sure, the airlines would be in trouble. If the cost of air travel is more than it's worth they should be. In which case people would use other methods until someone came up with a cheaper method.
A free market economy is strong and works very well. Where it falls apart is when Govts start meddling with it.
Libertarian philosophy tends to think that people are completely rational (as well as economic genuises). Clearly, this is not so. So sometimes we need to do things the inefficient way, just because it can't be done any other way. It's not theft, just reality.
People who believe in a free market understand what motivates people. It's obvious from observing the world. And that's why a free market works so well. It doesn't require anything special from the people who participate in it. You just have to be human.
Did I misstate anything about Libertarianism?
In general what we are really talking about here is free market economics. It's not just libertarians who agree with that, so it might be a good idea to call it what it is. Libertarians are a diverse lot, and some might agree or disagree with your stated position of the party platform so I'll stay away from commenting on that here.
It's in areas like this where Libertarian economic theory falls down; sometimes subsidies are necessary. It might be robbing Peter to pay Paul, but psychologically, it doesn't seem that way to the average guy. And nine-tenths of econ is really mass psychologogy.
Hrm. You claim it falls down here, but fail to state how. There is no point made describing the supposed weakness in this area, just a claim. Thus I find it difficult if not impossible to respond. Please expand on this thought if you would.
Why? Becuase if they go under, you are going to suffer. You are going to have to take the train, bus, car, mule, whatever. That will cause a massive destabilization of our business infrastructure, and will hurt our economy even further. It's the government's job to protect (and guide) the economy to recovery, so don't complain when they do that job.
Hrm. My copies of the founding documents must be incomplete. The pages where it details that part of the governments job are missing.
"Like the terrorists will use authorized encryption"
"And then, when the [insert thug group here] sees that they'll come knocking"
As long as most everyone else complies that will be true. But I think, particularly in the area of encryption, non-compliance (aka civil disobedience) will render this useless. If such a thing passed into law, and say 40% of US internet users continued to use encryption that was not vulnerable this would be useless. They will have a hard time throwing that many people in jail on a charge like this. Particularly if those people then quickly co-operate and decrypt the message to reveal a shopping list, or movie recommendation, or whatever. I'll grant you that they do this with "drug abusers" every day, but most drug abusers are not well educated intelligent contributing members of society. Ok, the drug abusers who get caught, particularly those that get shoved into the public eye. I will note that when someone of note gets tagged on a charge like that there is no real outrage in the country. Look at Robert Downey Junior. Most people just feel bad for him, or make some sort of excuse. Mainly because they don't see that he is really all that dangerous and what they are told about "drug users" doesn't match up. So I see a difference here between a war of that nature and the encryption war. There just aren't enough terrorists for them to point at percentage-wise amoung encryption users, so they'll have a much harder time selling it.
It's a simple matter of raising the signal to noise ratio to a point where they throw up their hands.
I emailed a local DJ at a clear channel station and asked him about it. He confirmed that it was true, but that it was only temporary, and that he thought the company was basically taking a better-safe-than-sorry approach. All of the songs will eventually be returned to regular play.
Bollocks. Read your own Constitution. US citizens have a right to have and bear arms for the formation of militias, the clear intention being to create an armed populace to fight foreign powers, not the American government.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Hrm. "Being necessary to the security of the free state" does not indicate only foreign powers. And if you read the writings of those who framed the constitution you'll see time and again they included taking up arms against your own govt in that. They expected us to have to do it, in fact, they didn't expect this country to last as long as it has w/out a bloody revolution.
As far as the militia goes, what do you think the militia was? It was every citizen of the US, acting individually. A lower court has ruled it was a corporate right, but that's baloney. It doesn't hold up under any valid form of analysis. We don't interpret any other right in the constitution that way. The first doesn't say it's an individual right either, but nobody claims that we don't have an individual right to free speech...yet. So we are expected to believe that they just magically expected us to grasp that this one right they really meant to be corporate, and not individual?
The dorks in the courts today may not be on our side, but the constitution is.
Hmmmm.
The right to bear arms against the government?
<irony>Isn't that terrorism?</irony>
Uh....no. No, as a matter of fact it isn't.
Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Terrorism is an attack against people/property not governments. It is often used to sway governments but it is not an attack on them. Yes, one of the planes attacked the pentagon, but even that was not an attack on the govt. Attacking the pentagon has a dramatic fear/panic affect on people who expect the govt, particularly the military arm, to be able to protect itself. If they can't even protect the pentagon it leaves sheeple feeling vulnerable.
The plan was not to USE the weapons against our government. Not unless it was absolutely necessary. The plan was for them to be a deterrent for agressors, both foreign and domestic.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, cause as we all know, the trend of history is towards more freedom and less government.
Have some simple faith please in the maturity of our society: the abuses will be curtailed.
Sorry, I don't see any evidence of this. Perhaps the most extreme abuses, but even then I have my doubts. Ruby Ridge anyone? Waco? I still haven't seen any curtailing of that abuse of power. How about making it illegal to own gold? Nope, still there, and likely would still be strictly enforced. Forced automatic withdrawl of taxes? Yup, still there. Drug war? Still no sign of the end.
Or- brace yourself, a good judge on a bench somewhere will smack down the spooks who get out of line.
Yeah, so the govt can holler about how such and such judge is an enemy of the people and freedom has suffered a terrible loss etc. Big outcry from the uninformed, the media incite it further and next thing you know this judge is out of a job as a measure of political expediency. The more time passes, the fewer judges with the guts to do what is right vs what is good for their career we have. Look at the number of judges that look the other way when abuses of the law come around re: drug offenders.
Or, get this: has anyone here ever heard of the free press?
Yeah, I read about it in history books. What good is a free press that tows the government line? Granted, they /all/ don't. But the major media outlets where the masses get their information do. I'll grant you that's not entirely their fault. It's the people's responsibility to know what is going on, but I do hold the media at least partially responsible.
a nation at peace just had the equivalent of 3 ICBMs launched at it successfully
Shyeah right. You obviously have no concept of the destructive power of ICBMs.
Take a deep breath, wait a year, have the press run a few exposes on some rights abuses, and watch how the tide of popular opinion runs then.
Heh. Like all the exposes that are run right now have reformed the hidious regulations on those that just want to help others? Or the excessive govt spending on pork projects? Or any of the other excesses of govt really? Nope. Cause people sit and watch it and go "that's ridiculous" and then when voting time comes along they listen to the talking heads of mass media and vote for someone who wears a nice tie.
Remember Star Wars of the Reagan era? Remember the missile defense shield of recent history? Billions of dollars spent on orbiting gigawatt lasers, and what the heck did that do? Less than 2 dozen guys board planes with box cutters fer chrissake and a few hours flight training
That's ridiculous. Those programs weren't/aren't intended to stop that sort of threat. They are one of the few legitimate functions of the central govt, and that's defending our country from attacks. A specific sort of attack.
The only protection against what happened on 9/11 is an armed citizenry. Course, instead, we just made it easier, but that's typical.
However, it's not like the cameras provide much protection. If it does then why is the crime rate in NY still so high? Why do we see criminals on America's most wanted where they have video footage of them in the act?
Assuming you aren't still trolling, you appear to not understand the basic nature of Freedom.
The bill of rights does not lay out freedoms that have been granted to us by some benevolent government entity. They recognize rights that each person has by virtue of their creation. It is /not/ something that can be 'revoked'. It was this basic concept that underlies everything.
Don't confuse priviledges (like driving, if indeed that is a priviledge which some don't believe it is) with freedoms.
Bottom line. We don't have Freedom of speech/religion/keep & bear arms/protection from illegal search, etc because the constitution says we do. We have them because we do. Period. Attempting to restrict or remove those freedoms is tyranny and treason.
(Emphasis mine of course)
To me, this reads as a veiled warning. Post PGP 7.0.3 has no such guarantees. Put that together with the fact that I don't trust NAI in the least. In fact, I trust them so little, that PZ even working for them caused me to regard even his statements as suspect during his tenure there.
Of course, I might be reading into his words there, and perhaps before this announcement reasonable people might have thought me paranoid. But how about now?
How can anyone trust anything NAI produces anymore?
I doubt very many people with a clue did even before this. But at that time their rather powerfull marketing machine was able to keep the $$$ rolling in from joe blows buying computers with the software pre-installed and computer "hobbyists" who think they know what they are doing and recommend software like McAffee and NAV and so on because the names are well known.
Hrm. I'd say close but no cigar. 99^ of the people who buy McAffee garbage buy it because of marketing. Which is only partly "FUD". It's also because it comes pre-installed on a lot of systems, and because they see the ads all over.
I disagree. Consider the fact that we are talking about windows admins here. There are many that yes, could in fact generate their own test. Unfortunately, that is not the vast majority of those that would call themselves an "admin". So you have to dumb it down for them. Sure, you can say who cares, if they don't know what they're doing let them suffer the consequences, but with the advent of worms like Code Red and Nimda we suffer the consequences as well, through increased traffic on our pipes and servers. We need to provide these ignoramuses with as many tools as possible.
And before one of you decides to flame me with a stellar example of your poor grasp of the english language and stunningly small vocabulary, I recognize there are unix admins like this too. But we are talking about MS here, and there are FAR more MS admins of this nature than there are unix admins in that group.
Sure. Look here. It's handy, and not difficult to setup. As someone else has said in this thread, you might look into using an sslwrapper and then just use ssl smtp instead, or as well. (Wrapping isn't officially supported anymore, but you can still do it, and it's not hard to setup)
Setup port forwarding your mail server from a higher port (like say 2025) and have your faculty set that as the SMTP port in their client. (Outlook express at least can do this, I think outlook can too)
You're right, I don't particularly care for windows. However, that affects only me. If someone else wants to use windows it doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Windows is not perfect, but for running a game that is WRITTEN for the damn OS, its the proper tool. How many games are bug free these days? Not that many that I can tell that are released for the PC. Hell some aren't even bug free that are released for the cosoles.
You're right. Windows is not perfect. From this (astonishingly enough) mostly coherent section of your comment I assume you are responding to the last portion of my comment, where I found the concept of windows being a 100% perfect product ludicrous. Maybe toral meant to say that it was the perfect tool for the job, but it's not my job to interpret or read into his comment. If that's what he meant to say, it's what he should've said.
Say what you mean, mean what you say.
And, just to provoke you a little more, here's a link you might find handy.
I dont' think that's the lesson for loki at all. I think the lesson for loki is that a large portion of linux gamers are impatient. They are not willing to wait 6mos, a year, or even 2 years for the great new windows game to come out on linux. Instead they'd rather buy it now, dual boot, then get the linux version later when it's available at no cost.
I think as long as loki is developing games post-windows releases they should charge for the linux version no matter if you have the windows version already or not.
And of course, the other lesson is that obviously to a large section of linux gamers they are far more interested in playing the latest game than making the sacrifices necessary to see linux become an OS to be considered in game development.
Also, there are quite a few of us who build our own systems, which thus don't come with windows. Which isn't free even when it comes with your system, but has a more tangible cost when you have to buy a license seperately.
This is going to be incredibly hard when a 100% perfect product already exists to do this: Windows
*rofl* 100% perfect product? What color is the sky in your world?
The problem is that MS doesn't just give out patches, their patches tend to depend on other patches which depend on other patches and so on requiring you to potentially do all kinds of damage to your system before you can even begin to worry about patching the security hole.
And of course, that makes regression testing very difficult. And again, the sheer volume of patches that have to be applied vs. Unix. Someone has already bosted the numbers claiming linux's security holes were higher than MS's. That's just baloney. There may have been more unix bugs released, but how many of them affect EVERYONE. When MS has a bug, you are almost always affected, because everything is integrated. But that's not the case with linux. None of the bugs for apps like sendmail, wsftp, samba, or bind affected me. Irun qmail, djbdns, proftpd, and don't run samba. You can't compare linux bugs to MS bugs that way. If you want to make a comparison, you have to do with upgrades that nearly every linux user has to apply fixes for. I guarantee you that number is an insignificant fraction of the total reported this year.
Your attempts to be inflammatory are hardly conducive to intelligent discussion on the subject.
There is a significant distance between us and them. I dunno the last time we drug a bunch of people into an arena and shot them in the back of the head for drug trafficking.
I also don't know the last time we executed or stoned a woman for letting a veil fall from her face.
You completely failed to take into account the differences in our laws and system of justice.
Hrm. I assume you mean :!emacs since sh is for
;-)
a generic shell. But even that doesn't really
work all around.
zsh: command not found: emacs
1 returned
Press RETURN or enter command to continue
Ah, but this is no longer an issue. The DMCA makes reverse-engineering or circumenting a security measure illegal remember? So we have nothing to fear on this front.
(</sarcasm>)
While you have expanded your comments you have not really said why the economy would fail if some of these companies went under. Nor have you offered proof that they would fail w/out government subsidies.
Do I think they would? Probably. But as long as there is a need, someone is going to try and provide it. Because if people need it there is money to be made there. It's the foundation of how a free market economy works.
Part of the problem the airlines have is the increased cost of complying with FAA regulations. W/out that you increase profitability. Which I'm sure makes a lot of people cringe in fear. People think w/out the FAA planes would use substandard parts and crash all the time. Baloney. Airlines make money off their customers. If they kill them all where would they be? It's not in their best interest. And if they kill their existing customer base they are going to have a hard time drawing new customers. So, the ones who have poor safety records/etc will go out of business and get swallowed up by better companies.
With this, I think prices would go down. Quality of travel might too. You might have more cramped spaces. You might have no meal on a long flight or no in-flight movie if you are cheap. But that's each travellers choice.
If it was still too high, sure, the airlines would be in trouble. If the cost of air travel is more than it's worth they should be. In which case people would use other methods until someone came up with a cheaper method.
A free market economy is strong and works very well. Where it falls apart is when Govts start meddling with it.
Libertarian philosophy tends to think that people are completely rational (as well as economic genuises). Clearly, this is not so. So sometimes we need to do things the inefficient way, just because it can't be done any other way. It's not theft, just reality.
People who believe in a free market understand what motivates people. It's obvious from observing the world. And that's why a free market works so well. It doesn't require anything special from the people who participate in it. You just have to be human.
Did I misstate anything about Libertarianism?
In general what we are really talking about here is free market economics. It's not just libertarians who agree with that, so it might be a good idea to call it what it is. Libertarians are a diverse lot, and some might agree or disagree with your stated position of the party platform so I'll stay away from commenting on that here.
Hrm. You claim it falls down here, but fail to state how. There is no point made describing the supposed weakness in this area, just a claim. Thus I find it difficult if not impossible to respond. Please expand on this thought if you would.
Hrm. My copies of the founding documents must be incomplete. The pages where it details that part of the governments job are missing.
I don't suppose you could paste up your copies?
"Like the terrorists will use authorized encryption"
"And then, when the [insert thug group here] sees that they'll come knocking"
As long as most everyone else complies that will be true. But I think, particularly in the area of encryption, non-compliance (aka civil disobedience) will render this useless. If such a thing passed into law, and say 40% of US internet users continued to use encryption that was not vulnerable this would be useless. They will have a hard time throwing that many people in jail on a charge like this. Particularly if those people then quickly co-operate and decrypt the message to reveal a shopping list, or movie recommendation, or whatever. I'll grant you that they do this with "drug abusers" every day, but most drug abusers are not well educated intelligent contributing members of society. Ok, the drug abusers who get caught, particularly those that get shoved into the public eye. I will note that when someone of note gets tagged on a charge like that there is no real outrage in the country. Look at Robert Downey Junior. Most people just feel bad for him, or make some sort of excuse. Mainly because they don't see that he is really all that dangerous and what they are told about "drug users" doesn't match up. So I see a difference here between a war of that nature and the encryption war. There just aren't enough terrorists for them to point at percentage-wise amoung encryption users, so they'll have a much harder time selling it.
It's a simple matter of raising the signal to noise ratio to a point where they throw up their hands.
I emailed a local DJ at a clear channel station and asked him about it. He confirmed that it was true, but that it was only temporary, and that he thought the company was basically taking a better-safe-than-sorry approach. All of the songs will eventually be returned to regular play.
Hrm. "Being necessary to the security of the free state" does not indicate only foreign powers. And if you read the writings of those who framed the constitution you'll see time and again they included taking up arms against your own govt in that. They expected us to have to do it, in fact, they didn't expect this country to last as long as it has w/out a bloody revolution.
As far as the militia goes, what do you think the militia was? It was every citizen of the US, acting individually. A lower court has ruled it was a corporate right, but that's baloney. It doesn't hold up under any valid form of analysis. We don't interpret any other right in the constitution that way. The first doesn't say it's an individual right either, but nobody claims that we don't have an individual right to free speech...yet. So we are expected to believe that they just magically expected us to grasp that this one right they really meant to be corporate, and not individual?
The dorks in the courts today may not be on our side, but the constitution is.
The right to bear arms against the government?
<irony>Isn't that terrorism?</irony>
Uh....no. No, as a matter of fact it isn't.
Terrorism:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Terrorism is an attack against people/property not governments. It is often used to sway governments but it is not an attack on them. Yes, one of the planes attacked the pentagon, but even that was not an attack on the govt. Attacking the pentagon has a dramatic fear/panic affect on people who expect the govt, particularly the military arm, to be able to protect itself. If they can't even protect the pentagon it leaves sheeple feeling vulnerable.
The plan was not to USE the weapons against our government. Not unless it was absolutely necessary. The plan was for them to be a deterrent for agressors, both foreign and domestic.