You're certainly free to help out as many poor, starving seniors as you wish, but you have no right to empower the government to demand everyone else hand over a significant portion of their income at gunpoint to help out said seniors. That certainly isn't heartless. It demonstrates the idea that property rights worthwhile and worth protecting. What do you have against private property?
Consumers can drive a bad business out of existance by not buying its products. How do I drive an oppressive government out of existance again? Oh yeah, bloodshed, and lots of it. No thanks. I'd rather fight with my wallet than my gun.
The problem with your philosophy is that there is not a realistic check on the power of the State. What can possibly check the power of the State? A Constitution? Unfortunately, the State the enforces the Constitution, so no help there. The voters? Not really, because a majority can always enforce its will on the minority and deprive it its rights if the government allows it. Secession? Nope. Lincoln ended that as an option. When the government becomes too powerful and oppressive, the only check on it is armed revolution, something I envision we will again see in our lifetime as the U.S. economy crumbles in the 21st century.
The U.S. became the most powerful economic force in history largely because it has adhered to free-market principles for most of its existance, not because it had a big, powerful government. If that was the prime reason, the Soviet Union would not have collapsed as quickly as it did, historically speaking. Unfortunately, we are no longer a free-market paradise; we are a nation of crony capitalists, subsidized businesses, and tax slaves for the State. The transformation from Republic to Fascist State is nearly complete.
CatsCradle writes "The Seattle Times has an article about Microsoft's Foundation and their new partnership with Comcast to provide a TIVO like service."
Thanks for that link to the Microsoft homepage! I've been looking for that.
You probably believe that B.S. story about the Russians, right?
KSTP news embeds with the 101st Airbourne filmed the explosives at Al Qa Qaa. The evidence in indisputable no matter how you try to spin it.
For a truly reprehensible action, how about how the Bush administration waited until after the election to attack Fallujah so that they wouldn't have to deal with all negative consequences of casualties beforehand. Talk about putting politics ahead of everything else!
End federal taxation and eliminate the welfare/warfare State altogether. Return the power of government to the local level where citizens actually have a chance to keep it in check instead of letting a bunch of redneck hicks in Alabama waving the American Flag dictate our foreign policy or a bunch of blue-blooded elitists on the coasts tell us how we have to pay for everyone's health care.
The Project for the New American Century - a neoconservative thinktank established in the '90s - published a document in 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which advocates preemption with an emphasis on the militarization of space. You can read it here.
The people who've signed off at the bottom of this madness are the principle figures in George W. Bush's administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. as shown on this page.
Get ready world! What you've seen thus far is only the beginning.
1) First President to institute a draft 2) First President to institute a tax on income 3) Suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus 4) Jailed thousands of Northern dissenters to Civil War 5) Shut down Northern newspapers that opposed his policies 6) Advocated deporting all Negroes to Liberia 7) Advocated Total War against Southern civilians 8) Eliminated secession as a check against oppressive government
and many, many more.
Your idea that Lincoln was somehow interested in freeing the slaves is misguided. The Emancipation Proclamation only declared slaves free in areas that the Union had no control over. Those slave states that were controlled by the Union were allowed to keep their slaves. Lincoln was hoping for a slave revolt in other areas.
Lincoln also said he would not free a single slave if it would keep the Union intact. You need to break free of the myth that Lincoln is this great American hero. His goal was to maintain this nation as a single entity and prevent Southerners from establishing their own nation. Now ask yourself, why should the U.S. be allowed to secede from England, but the Confederacy should not be allowed to secede from the Union? Granted, slavery was an abomination, but Union soldiers did not go to war to die for abolition. Their goal was to prevent the South from asserting its independence. The wise thing would have been to allow the South to secede and allow slavery to end on its own, as was happening everywhere in the Western Hemisphere. Eventually, the South would have been a world pariah similar to the way South Africa was perceived several years ago.
I suggest this book for an alternative view on Lincoln. You may not agree with everything in it, but at least you'll understand why many don't perceive him the same way you do.
You're on the right track, but I have to disagree with your definition of what constitutes a right.
How is the freedom not to be killed a behavior? How is the freedom not to be enslaved a behavior? How is the desire to be left alone to pursue your own dreams (assuming they do not infringe on anyone else's) a behavior. These are not behaviors. They are expectations of the citizens of any civilized society in which liberty is of paramount importance.
Actually, it's pretty damn easy to determine when someone is trampling on the rights of others. Unfortunately, the citizens no longer have the power to check the inevitable abuse of governmental power. In the D of I, Jefferson explicitly recognizes the power of the people to tear down a government that abuses its power and replace it with a more freedom-friendly one. The last check on governmental tyranny is secession. Unfortunately, Lincoln killed that one in the War between the States. Now there is no recourse for those who desire to be free other than bloody revolution.
The idea the a government composed of fallible men will somehow be more wise and virtuous than the men they govern is absurd. Ultimately, there is no way to restrain a government that is out of control.
First, the odds of anyone's vote changing a presidential election are so miniscule that it borders on the impossible. Even so, assume that my single vote does turn the election. What have I accomplished?
First, I am now personally responsible for every affront that the winner commits. Without my vote, that candidate would have not had the authority to do anything. Secondly, no politician can be trusted to do what he said when he was running for office. Why should I put my trust in proven charlatans? So basically, my vote comes down to a guess about which candidate will do the least harm to the world. Not a particularly compelling reason if you ask me.
Actually, if your guy blows up the world, I have every reason in the world to bitch about it. You don't. Your vote helped give him the authority to do so.
but you're right. The fallacy that "every vote counts" is ridiculous, and all we need to do is look at Florida 2000 to prove it.
Despite the fact that only 527 vote separated the candidates, the Supreme Court ultimately appointed the President. This demonstrates that in a razor-thin election, the decision will ultimately be wrested from the hands of the electorate and placed in the hands of the judiciary. So let's summarize:
1) In a blowout election, your vote is irrelevant. 2) In a tight election, your vote is irrelevant.
I'm in Arizona, and we will certainly go Red*. As such, I'm voting for Badnarik with the hope that the Libertarian vote will be dramatically higher than it was in 2000.
Baby steps...
* If the decision was in doubt, I'd certainly vote Kerry as Bush has proven to be the most hostile to the rights of U.S. citizens as any administration since Lincoln's.
Not voting is a perfectly reasonable stance. If you believe that no one man should have the authority to unleash death and destruction upon the world, why would you pick one guy over the other simply because he will cut your taxes or give you free health care?
Unfortunately, due to the War on Drugs, there's no better way to draw attention to yourself than to carry around huge wads of cash. Banks are required to report any withdrawals of $10,000 or more to the Feds. So how exactly do I pay for that new car or put a down-payment on a house without the government snooping into my affairs?
That sounds like one of those terrible poll questions. What does it mean when you ask whether or not an entire country, as some kind of vague entity is in someway, anyway, involved? It could mean absolutely anything. If the 9/11 attacks were partially motivated by the first US invasion, you could say that it was involved.
You obviously didn't click through and read the link. The actual question was whether or not the regime of Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11. 42% of the respondants said yes while 44% said no. Is this willful ignorance, laziness, cognitive dissonance, or something else? How can this many people still support such an untenable position? This blows the whole "we need to provide free digital converters to the needy so they can stay informed" argument out of the water.
Sorry, I'm confused here, are you "for" keeping people informed or against it. This post sounds like you wish people were more informed not less.
I'm not for either option. My point was that the public is vastly uninformed and nothing will change that. There is no point in wasting effort trying to inform someone who dismisses overwhelming evidence when it contradicts their preconceived notions. Giving everyone a "free" digital convertor so they can watch T.V. and "stay informed" is ludicrous.
Really, nice fact, where are your figures. I like to see both the facts on the 'vast majority' and the 'constant fear'.
Fine, it was an exaggeration, but I'd estimate that at least 98% of the people I know have never been the victim of a violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery), yet ask them if crime is an important issue to them personally and they'll say yes. The images we get from television exert an overwhelming influence upon us that is not indicative of what our actual lives are like.
You act your vote actually has a chance of determining something. It doesn't. Better to continue to strengthen the numbers of an alternative than to push the Big Two's vote totals from 100,000,000 to 100,000,001.
Slashdot Mirror
You're certainly free to help out as many poor, starving seniors as you wish, but you have no right to empower the government to demand everyone else hand over a significant portion of their income at gunpoint to help out said seniors. That certainly isn't heartless. It demonstrates the idea that property rights worthwhile and worth protecting. What do you have against private property?
Consumers can drive a bad business out of existance by not buying its products. How do I drive an oppressive government out of existance again? Oh yeah, bloodshed, and lots of it. No thanks. I'd rather fight with my wallet than my gun.
The problem with your philosophy is that there is not a realistic check on the power of the State. What can possibly check the power of the State? A Constitution? Unfortunately, the State the enforces the Constitution, so no help there. The voters? Not really, because a majority can always enforce its will on the minority and deprive it its rights if the government allows it. Secession? Nope. Lincoln ended that as an option. When the government becomes too powerful and oppressive, the only check on it is armed revolution, something I envision we will again see in our lifetime as the U.S. economy crumbles in the 21st century.
The U.S. became the most powerful economic force in history largely because it has adhered to free-market principles for most of its existance, not because it had a big, powerful government. If that was the prime reason, the Soviet Union would not have collapsed as quickly as it did, historically speaking. Unfortunately, we are no longer a free-market paradise; we are a nation of crony capitalists, subsidized businesses, and tax slaves for the State. The transformation from Republic to Fascist State is nearly complete.
What do you call that, the Blue Screen of Reincarnation?
CatsCradle writes "The Seattle Times has an article about Microsoft's Foundation and their new partnership with Comcast to provide a TIVO like service."
Thanks for that link to the Microsoft homepage! I've been looking for that.
Slashdot comes through again!!!
After all he is an excellent driver!
You probably believe that B.S. story about the Russians, right?
KSTP news embeds with the 101st Airbourne filmed the explosives at Al Qa Qaa. The evidence in indisputable no matter how you try to spin it.
For a truly reprehensible action, how about how the Bush administration waited until after the election to attack Fallujah so that they wouldn't have to deal with all negative consequences of casualties beforehand. Talk about putting politics ahead of everything else!
The main difficulty appears to be making sure your guy wins without making it too obvious.
End federal taxation and eliminate the welfare/warfare State altogether. Return the power of government to the local level where citizens actually have a chance to keep it in check instead of letting a bunch of redneck hicks in Alabama waving the American Flag dictate our foreign policy or a bunch of blue-blooded elitists on the coasts tell us how we have to pay for everyone's health care.
The Project for the New American Century - a neoconservative thinktank established in the '90s - published a document in 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which advocates preemption with an emphasis on the militarization of space. You can read it here.
The people who've signed off at the bottom of this madness are the principle figures in George W. Bush's administration: Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et. al. as shown on this page.
Get ready world! What you've seen thus far is only the beginning.
Whatever. See my reply to the Parent for my arguments.
1) First President to institute a draft
2) First President to institute a tax on income
3) Suspended the Writ of Habeus Corpus
4) Jailed thousands of Northern dissenters to Civil War
5) Shut down Northern newspapers that opposed his policies
6) Advocated deporting all Negroes to Liberia
7) Advocated Total War against Southern civilians
8) Eliminated secession as a check against oppressive government
and many, many more.
Your idea that Lincoln was somehow interested in freeing the slaves is misguided. The Emancipation Proclamation only declared slaves free in areas that the Union had no control over. Those slave states that were controlled by the Union were allowed to keep their slaves. Lincoln was hoping for a slave revolt in other areas.
Lincoln also said he would not free a single slave if it would keep the Union intact. You need to break free of the myth that Lincoln is this great American hero. His goal was to maintain this nation as a single entity and prevent Southerners from establishing their own nation. Now ask yourself, why should the U.S. be allowed to secede from England, but the Confederacy should not be allowed to secede from the Union? Granted, slavery was an abomination, but Union soldiers did not go to war to die for abolition. Their goal was to prevent the South from asserting its independence. The wise thing would have been to allow the South to secede and allow slavery to end on its own, as was happening everywhere in the Western Hemisphere. Eventually, the South would have been a world pariah similar to the way South Africa was perceived several years ago.
I suggest this book for an alternative view on Lincoln. You may not agree with everything in it, but at least you'll understand why many don't perceive him the same way you do.
You're on the right track, but I have to disagree with your definition of what constitutes a right.
How is the freedom not to be killed a behavior? How is the freedom not to be enslaved a behavior? How is the desire to be left alone to pursue your own dreams (assuming they do not infringe on anyone else's) a behavior. These are not behaviors. They are expectations of the citizens of any civilized society in which liberty is of paramount importance.
Actually, it's pretty damn easy to determine when someone is trampling on the rights of others. Unfortunately, the citizens no longer have the power to check the inevitable abuse of governmental power. In the D of I, Jefferson explicitly recognizes the power of the people to tear down a government that abuses its power and replace it with a more freedom-friendly one. The last check on governmental tyranny is secession. Unfortunately, Lincoln killed that one in the War between the States. Now there is no recourse for those who desire to be free other than bloody revolution.
The idea the a government composed of fallible men will somehow be more wise and virtuous than the men they govern is absurd. Ultimately, there is no way to restrain a government that is out of control.
First, the odds of anyone's vote changing a presidential election are so miniscule that it borders on the impossible. Even so, assume that my single vote does turn the election. What have I accomplished?
First, I am now personally responsible for every affront that the winner commits. Without my vote, that candidate would have not had the authority to do anything. Secondly, no politician can be trusted to do what he said when he was running for office. Why should I put my trust in proven charlatans? So basically, my vote comes down to a guess about which candidate will do the least harm to the world. Not a particularly compelling reason if you ask me.
Actually, if your guy blows up the world, I have every reason in the world to bitch about it. You don't. Your vote helped give him the authority to do so.
but you're right. The fallacy that "every vote counts" is ridiculous, and all we need to do is look at Florida 2000 to prove it.
Despite the fact that only 527 vote separated the candidates, the Supreme Court ultimately appointed the President. This demonstrates that in a razor-thin election, the decision will ultimately be wrested from the hands of the electorate and placed in the hands of the judiciary. So let's summarize:
1) In a blowout election, your vote is irrelevant.
2) In a tight election, your vote is irrelevant.
Hooray for democracy!!!
if you're just voting because someone told you to, please don't vote.
Unless they told you to vote against Bush. Then it's OK!
I'm in Arizona, and we will certainly go Red*. As such, I'm voting for Badnarik with the hope that the Libertarian vote will be dramatically higher than it was in 2000.
Baby steps...
* If the decision was in doubt, I'd certainly vote Kerry as Bush has proven to be the most hostile to the rights of U.S. citizens as any administration since Lincoln's.
Not voting is a perfectly reasonable stance. If you believe that no one man should have the authority to unleash death and destruction upon the world, why would you pick one guy over the other simply because he will cut your taxes or give you free health care?
If you want privacy, pay cash only
....
Unfortunately, due to the War on Drugs, there's no better way to draw attention to yourself than to carry around huge wads of cash. Banks are required to report any withdrawals of $10,000 or more to the Feds. So how exactly do I pay for that new car or put a down-payment on a house without the government snooping into my affairs?
Damned if you do,
Jack Handy posts to Slashdot!
That sounds like one of those terrible poll questions. What does it mean when you ask whether or not an entire country, as some kind of vague entity is in someway, anyway, involved? It could mean absolutely anything. If the 9/11 attacks were partially motivated by the first US invasion, you could say that it was involved.
You obviously didn't click through and read the link. The actual question was whether or not the regime of Saddam Hussein was directly involved in 9/11. 42% of the respondants said yes while 44% said no. Is this willful ignorance, laziness, cognitive dissonance, or something else? How can this many people still support such an untenable position? This blows the whole "we need to provide free digital converters to the needy so they can stay informed" argument out of the water.
Sorry, I'm confused here, are you "for" keeping people informed or against it. This post sounds like you wish people were more informed not less.
I'm not for either option. My point was that the public is vastly uninformed and nothing will change that. There is no point in wasting effort trying to inform someone who dismisses overwhelming evidence when it contradicts their preconceived notions. Giving everyone a "free" digital convertor so they can watch T.V. and "stay informed" is ludicrous.
Really, nice fact, where are your figures. I like to see both the facts on the 'vast majority' and the 'constant fear'.
Fine, it was an exaggeration, but I'd estimate that at least 98% of the people I know have never been the victim of a violent crime (murder, rape, armed robbery), yet ask them if crime is an important issue to them personally and they'll say yes. The images we get from television exert an overwhelming influence upon us that is not indicative of what our actual lives are like.
Except for the fact that a Supreme Court decision put Bush in office. So much for democracy!!!
You act your vote actually has a chance of determining something. It doesn't. Better to continue to strengthen the numbers of an alternative than to push the Big Two's vote totals from 100,000,000 to 100,000,001.