Admittedly, the US doesn't subscribe to the basic principle of liberty anymore, but then neither does anyone else! The previous post on buying your freedom (see a Latin American country for the best price) is a real option -- but also a tenuous one, subject to the whims of an easily influenced populace.
The primary advantage of North America is that it has a reasonable amount of individual freedoms combined with very high geographical and cultural flexibility. This means that if life on the eastern seaboard is becoming too oppressive for you, it is relatively easy to move to South Dakota or someplace with very different perspective on the individual lifestyle. It also works in reverse: Some people live a lifestyle that is more accepted and "free" in San Francisco than in the Rocky Mountains or the Bible Belt. If you're more inclined to the NY -> SD direction, check out a book like "Strategic Relocation" (Amazon link).
I admit I'm a little pessimistic about the whole country turning around towards a more principled, freedom oriented approach. Every country in the world has way too much inertia towards voting themselves more benefits at the expense of the structure required to maintain liberty.
I think Mark Dominus' article was an attempt to illustrate the dangers of the former drifting into the latter. Many of us tend to hang in the grey area between the two.
Just don't trust any one source with your brain and you won't find yourself feeling taken in by the problems inherent to news reporting.
All editors are information filters. This implies an inherent bias in all news reporting. Even those that try to follow the highest ethical standards of journalism demonstrate their own bias, slant and personal agenda as they filter the noise to create news. (NPR is an excellent example). Those who depend upon a reduced filter set for their news and understanding of the world, are submitting themselves to a mild form of brainwashing.
Unfortunately many of our standard news sources are acting like overlapping filters -- which only serves to encourage narrowmindedness in thier audience. If you only get your news from one TV station, it isn't going to help much to listen to the other networks. It takes a fair amount of effort to find the combination of filters that will allow us to be truly informed informed individuals while keeping the "noise" level down to a managable level.
Your vote is only truly wasted if you don't take the time to evaluate the real breadth of options out there.
Here is the SHORT list: sort @lastname;
Harry Browne (Libertarian)
Pat Buchanan (Reform)
George W. Bush (Republican)
Al Gore (Democrat)
John Hagelin (Natural Law)
David McReynolds (Socialist)
Ralph Nader (Green)
Howard Phillips (Constitution)
Since CmdrTaco is down on candidate's websites today, I'll just link to issues2000.org where you can find out what each candidate intends to do about your favorite topic. But it won't tell you much about the candidates personality and only indirectly about their charachter.
. ..And another one bites the dust. One would think that these big companies would take a page from history. Wang, DEC, even IBM not to mention countless governments large and small continue to prove that buraucracy will suck you dry.
Sorry about PARC. Another Techie's Camelot in peril of the forces of finance. It reminds me of the saying:
Companies generate profits . . .
First from the Engineers,
Then from the Sales and PR Reps,
Followed by Maintainence and Support,
And finally by the Lawyers.
PARC has been great, but it is just at the wrong end of the Xerox's corperate lifecycle.
CmdrTaco's political potpourri of a post effectively illustrates the reason the Electoral College was invented in the first place. It wasn't to keep the wealthy few in charge as implied by Brin and other slashdotters, but out of fear that much of the population would be susceptible to the games of charachter assasination and information bias. In their time of relatively limited education and information flow, campaign PR spinners didn't have to use any of today's more sophisticated tactics to sway public opinion. It was hoped that by choosing a few people who tended to keep their brains screwed on straight, the nation would make the right choice despite the wool being pulled over the public's eyes.
Now, whether or not this experiment has actually worked (or is worth continuing) is another question. But I am impressed with the insight into human nature that some of these early Americans showed. Unfortunately their fears continue to be confirmed two centuries later . . . despite the progress in education and information availability.
Is there something inherently wrong with corporate sponsors? I would be interested if you know that these particular corperations have a certain political agenda they are trying to push by this, but otherwise . . . better them than my tax dollars since I don't support either of the two candidates allowed.
1) The success of the American Experiment is what really created the diamond. It was the unique method of restructuring political power by the US Constitution that changed the way the world works. Mr. Brin conveniently skips over this discontinuity of history to make American political conclusions based on the circumstances of 16th century aristocracy and medieval feudalism. With all it's faults, the constitution effectively shifted power towards the individual and away from the inherently power hungry governments. Gore represents a party that believes more power should rest in the hand of government, with the hope that this power can be used to make the world a better place. But power shifted away from the individual creates a condition, for better or worse, more like the pyramid than the diamond. As other experiments in government have proven, it is not the redistribution of wealth, but the redistribution of power and freedom that flattens the pyramid and improves the standard of living for all.
2) Mr. Brin's criticism of Nader hits my sore point about presidential elections. He askes us to look beyond the candidate's platform and evaluate the personality of the candidate as well. (BTW this is a big campaign thrust for Bush). I am frusterated by the fact that only third party candidates are allowed have a real personality. Gore has gone through more personality overhauls in the last year than I thought possible. Bush's personality remains as unsubstatial as his Doonsbury charachiture. The Media's insistance on a two party election is killing the spice, variety and interest possible in a presidential election.
Why shouldn't the wealthiest 1% pay 34% of all taxes when they own 40% of the wealth in the country?
Because owning 40% of the wealth in the country doesn't increase their need for government support and services (in most cases, it reduces it). They are forced to pay many times more for the same services that the other 99% receive. Additionally, the more wealth the 1% is left with, the easier it is for me to get funding to launch a cool idea -- or get a job with those who have the cool ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
The primary advantage of North America is that it has a reasonable amount of individual freedoms combined with very high geographical and cultural flexibility. This means that if life on the eastern seaboard is becoming too oppressive for you, it is relatively easy to move to South Dakota or someplace with very different perspective on the individual lifestyle. It also works in reverse: Some people live a lifestyle that is more accepted and "free" in San Francisco than in the Rocky Mountains or the Bible Belt. If you're more inclined to the NY -> SD direction, check out a book like "Strategic Relocation" (Amazon link) .
I admit I'm a little pessimistic about the whole country turning around towards a more principled, freedom oriented approach. Every country in the world has way too much inertia towards voting themselves more benefits at the expense of the structure required to maintain liberty.
"Language Advocacy" = Fine
"Language Bigotry" = Destructive
I think Mark Dominus' article was an attempt to illustrate the dangers of the former drifting into the latter. Many of us tend to hang in the grey area between the two.
All editors are information filters. This implies an inherent bias in all news reporting. Even those that try to follow the highest ethical standards of journalism demonstrate their own bias, slant and personal agenda as they filter the noise to create news. (NPR is an excellent example). Those who depend upon a reduced filter set for their news and understanding of the world, are submitting themselves to a mild form of brainwashing.
Unfortunately many of our standard news sources are acting like overlapping filters -- which only serves to encourage narrowmindedness in thier audience. If you only get your news from one TV station, it isn't going to help much to listen to the other networks. It takes a fair amount of effort to find the combination of filters that will allow us to be truly informed informed individuals while keeping the "noise" level down to a managable level.
Here is the SHORT list:
sort @lastname;
- Harry Browne (Libertarian)
- Pat Buchanan (Reform)
- George W. Bush (Republican)
- Al Gore (Democrat)
- John Hagelin (Natural Law)
- David McReynolds (Socialist)
- Ralph Nader (Green)
- Howard Phillips (Constitution)
Since CmdrTaco is down on candidate's websites today, I'll just link to issues2000.org where you can find out what each candidate intends to do about your favorite topic. But it won't tell you much about the candidates personality and only indirectly about their charachter.Sorry about PARC. Another Techie's Camelot in peril of the forces of finance. It reminds me of the saying:
PARC has been great, but it is just at the wrong end of the Xerox's corperate lifecycle.
Now, whether or not this experiment has actually worked (or is worth continuing) is another question. But I am impressed with the insight into human nature that some of these early Americans showed. Unfortunately their fears continue to be confirmed two centuries later . . . despite the progress in education and information availability.
Is there something inherently wrong with corporate sponsors? I would be interested if you know that these particular corperations have a certain political agenda they are trying to push by this, but otherwise . . . better them than my tax dollars since I don't support either of the two candidates allowed.
1) The success of the American Experiment is what really created the diamond. It was the unique method of restructuring political power by the US Constitution that changed the way the world works. Mr. Brin conveniently skips over this discontinuity of history to make American political conclusions based on the circumstances of 16th century aristocracy and medieval feudalism. With all it's faults, the constitution effectively shifted power towards the individual and away from the inherently power hungry governments.
Gore represents a party that believes more power should rest in the hand of government, with the hope that this power can be used to make the world a better place. But power shifted away from the individual creates a condition, for better or worse, more like the pyramid than the diamond. As other experiments in government have proven, it is not the redistribution of wealth, but the redistribution of power and freedom that flattens the pyramid and improves the standard of living for all.
2) Mr. Brin's criticism of Nader hits my sore point about presidential elections. He askes us to look beyond the candidate's platform and evaluate the personality of the candidate as well. (BTW this is a big campaign thrust for Bush). I am frusterated by the fact that only third party candidates are allowed have a real personality. Gore has gone through more personality overhauls in the last year than I thought possible. Bush's personality remains as unsubstatial as his Doonsbury charachiture. The Media's insistance on a two party election is killing the spice, variety and interest possible in a presidential election.
If you can't convince 'em, regulate 'em.
Because owning 40% of the wealth in the country doesn't increase their need for government support and services (in most cases, it reduces it). They are forced to pay many times more for the same services that the other 99% receive. Additionally, the more wealth the 1% is left with, the easier it is for me to get funding to launch a cool idea -- or get a job with those who have the cool ideas.