And you sir are a true liberal that we need more of!
Neoliberals are just as fascist as many neoconservatives. You however realize that although you may not agree with the message, you will fight for their right to say it.
I consider myself classically liberal, or in modern terms, libertarian.
Yup. I tried to use ruffies once to get with a chick. I guess you are supposed to put them in HER drink, not yours:-( Man did I have a headache the next day!
The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn't matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.
The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.
Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?
Yeah, except for the fact that the US is NOT a democracy, never has been, and hopefully never will be. The US is a constitutional republic in which the representatives are democratically elected.
Democracy is 'two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner'. Or more realistically, democracy is the majority voting to outlaw the speech and opinion of minorities. And even more realistically, democracy is 10 of your neighbors voting to take your land and divide it up among themselves. Majority rule is a BAD THING!
Well, the Interstate Commerce Clause (ICC) says that Congress has the duty to 'regulate interstate commerce'. That seems straight forward but back in the day when that was written, the language is not the same. During that time period and in that context "regulate" meant 'to make regular'. If you remember your American history at the time all of the states were having money problems, inflation, different fiat standards, trade wars, etc. The entire point of the ICC was to make commerce regular or uniform in between the states, not to actually regulate commerce in the way that we think of today.
I am a hardcore libertarian but I am also a ham radio operator and understand that the RF spectrum would be completely unusable unless there were some sort of "traffic lights" as you say in place.
The Constitution is a contract between the States, period. It is not a divine document handed down from the heavens. It is not a creation of all of the People of the land. It is a creation by the delegates of individual governments and is a contract between the states to which they agreed. And the War Between the States was the largest initial downfall of the Constitution because the result of the War set precedents that were absolutely contrary to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Who cares? If you dont like the view of a specific news org, then get your info from another one.
And you use the word "monopoly" very loosely. Now that the Internet is in place there is very little barrier to entry to be a journalist. In other words competition for news outlets is at its peak!
That would be like saying Linus T has a monopoly on Linux because he happens to be heavily involved in the distro market.
The FCC is a bit sticky because really it isn't authorized to exist in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. Legally all RF spectrum management should be reserved to the States. However I do realize that would create utter chaos, and I might could see how RF spectrum management might be able to be stretched to fit the "interstate commerce clause".
Nevertheless, the ONLY function of the FCC would be spectrum management. And by this I mean deciding what services are on what freqs etc ensuring the local radio station doesn't trample aviation or military communications etc. The FCC should NOT be involved in any content decisions, telcom decisions, land-line anything, or anything that is not directly involved with the RF spectrum.
As a libertarian (and a member of the Libertarian party) I oppose this on several grounds. First off, Caveat emptor. Secondly, on a legal aspect, the sale of a product or service is a direct contract between two private entities - the consumer and the producer (or retailer); the government should not be involved. If damage to the consumer was being done and the consumer could prove negligence or malice then a lawsuit would probably be the result. Litigation is usually better than legislation because actual damages are awarded meaning I would rather trust a judge than a politician.
Third, and most importantly, the US Federal government is NOT authorized to regulate the food and drug market, thus the FDA is an unconstitutional and illegal organization. No where in Article I Section 8 does the Constitution authorize Congress to regulate the food and drug markets. I realize this is more of a Constitutional Conservative position than a libertarian position, but both points are valid.
I went to Middle Tenn State Univ. My major is Recording Industry Management (I am an audio engineer). When everyone graduates from the RIM major they all want RIM jobs. http://www.mtsu.edu/~record/
Yes, the US Senate should be comprised of delegates from each state legislature. This way the States actually had a say in how the Fed operated which is proper seeing as how the Fed is a creation of the States and only exists as long as the individual States say it does.
Judge Andrew Neapolitan chronicles this very thing in his books Constitution in Exile and Constitutional Chaos. Both are an EXCELLENT read and provide a view into Constitutional law from a very intelligent viewpoint.
When the bill of rights was authored "regulated" meant 'to make regular'. That sort of changes the meaning a bit from our current common misinterpretation of it as well as with the ISCC which says "Congress can...regulate commerce between the states".e regular commerce between the states and for a militia that was in a regular state of readiness.
Regardless of that, in your first paragraph you talk about the slippery slope and the government using the list of gun owners to begin rounding up guns. Don't think that can happen, eh? Tell that to the Britains where the exact thing you mention did indeed happen. The government (especially the Federal gov) really has no authorization to know what kind of items I possesses or things I purchase.
I would like to point out a distinction though. I think we can all agree that murder is amoral. However killing is not always amoral. There are several instances I can think of when killing is acceptable - such as in defense, hunting for food, and sometimes war. There are probably other times when killing is acceptable morally...
Check these guys out: http://www.snsmix.com/ They mix rock and hip hop and do an AWESOME job of it.
The one reason I have Sirius satellite radio is for Ch #34 "Boombox" It's a channel which does nothing but breakbeats, remixes, and "mash-ups" which is basically what you have described.
Yes because the analog vinyl/turntable system will reproduce a different set of harmonics and a different type of distortion than a digital system. Our ears can absolutely tell a difference in these types of distortion which is what makes vinyl "sound warmer".
First off the US isn't a democracy, never has been, and (legally) never will be. It's a "constitutional republic in which the representatives are democratically elected". Please note that is NOT the same thing as a democracy.
When the government educates people, the schools teach the government agenda. If the government happens to be in a conservative phase (as it is now) then conservative ideas will tend to dominate. When the government happens to be in a liberal phase, liberal ideas will often dominate.
And if government schools (specifically K-12) were abolished that doesn't mean that people would not educate themselves or their children. College isn't mandatory but millions are still attending because they see that education has value.
Not only do I not want the government raising my children for me, but I should not be forced to pay to raise other people's children. Non-governmental schools offer more choice, more freedom, and in most cases a higher quality education. The average middle/working class family would be better off financially if all levels of the government refunded all the tax money spent on education.
You make a great case for abolishing government schools. Where I come from (Florida) my school district spent more money per year per student than it cost to attend one of our premier local private prep schools. By the way the prep school's students tested higher on average compared to government school students.
Nevertheless, the government shouldn't be involved in the business of education.
Perhaps, but the benefit to living in an open and free society with limited government is that ANYONE is able and allowed to compete in the market place to become millionaires and billionaires. This is why keeping the government small and limited is essential to ensuring the overall wealth of the nation continue to grow, especially to the middle class.
Big business likes big government because big government has the power to regulate and legislate in favor of big business. This means that effective regulation can stomp out small business competition and give big business a free pass. A small and limited government could not actively participate in this, thus large business must compete against small business.
Artificial barriers to entry (think laws and regulation) stifle the sole proprietor, small biz owner, and entrepreneur. Its in these arenas that the common man has a chance to make big money. Did you know that over 80% of all millionaires in the US are first generation wealthy? The book "Millionaire Next Door" documents this.
The problem with the telcom industry is that the government (at all levels this time) has over expanded its bounds and decided that the telcom market needs to be regulated. When the government gets involved in anything, the result is usually negative. This is why I am a Libertarian voting for small limited government, individual liberties, and personal freedoms.
Slashdot Mirror
And you sir are a true liberal that we need more of!
Neoliberals are just as fascist as many neoconservatives. You however realize that although you may not agree with the message, you will fight for their right to say it.
I consider myself classically liberal, or in modern terms, libertarian.
If you think that's bad, check out the levitra logo!
Yup. I tried to use ruffies once to get with a chick. I guess you are supposed to put them in HER drink, not yours :-( Man did I have a headache the next day!
I personally think that after Iran Brazil will be the next nuclear state.
And this is why I will be voting Libertarian every chance I get!
The senseless and horrific killings last week on the campus of Virginia Tech University reinforced an uneasy feeling many Americans experienced after September 11th: namely, that government cannot protect us. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, a determined individual or group still can cause great harm. Perhaps the only good that can come from these terrible killings is a reinforced understanding that we as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.
t m
Although Virginia does allow individuals to carry concealed weapons if they first obtain a permit, college campuses within the state are specifically exempted. Virginia Tech, like all Virginia colleges, is therefore a gun-free zone, at least for private individuals. And as we witnessed, it didn't matter how many guns the police had. Only private individuals on the scene could have prevented or lessened this tragedy. Prohibiting guns on campus made the Virginia Tech students less safe, not more.
The Virginia Tech tragedy may not lead directly to more gun control, but I fear it will lead to more people control. Thanks to our media and many government officials, Americans have become conditioned to view the state as our protector and the solution to every problem. Whenever something terrible happens, especially when it becomes a national news story, people reflexively demand that government do something. This impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty. It is completely at odds with the best American traditions of self-reliance and rugged individualism.
Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?
To read more visit here:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst042307.h
"Security and Liberty" by US Congressman Ron Paul
Yeah, except for the fact that the US is NOT a democracy, never has been, and hopefully never will be. The US is a constitutional republic in which the representatives are democratically elected.
Democracy is 'two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner'. Or more realistically, democracy is the majority voting to outlaw the speech and opinion of minorities. And even more realistically, democracy is 10 of your neighbors voting to take your land and divide it up among themselves. Majority rule is a BAD THING!
Well, the Interstate Commerce Clause (ICC) says that Congress has the duty to 'regulate interstate commerce'. That seems straight forward but back in the day when that was written, the language is not the same. During that time period and in that context "regulate" meant 'to make regular'. If you remember your American history at the time all of the states were having money problems, inflation, different fiat standards, trade wars, etc. The entire point of the ICC was to make commerce regular or uniform in between the states, not to actually regulate commerce in the way that we think of today.
I am a hardcore libertarian but I am also a ham radio operator and understand that the RF spectrum would be completely unusable unless there were some sort of "traffic lights" as you say in place.
The Constitution is a contract between the States, period. It is not a divine document handed down from the heavens. It is not a creation of all of the People of the land. It is a creation by the delegates of individual governments and is a contract between the states to which they agreed. And the War Between the States was the largest initial downfall of the Constitution because the result of the War set precedents that were absolutely contrary to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
Who cares? If you dont like the view of a specific news org, then get your info from another one.
And you use the word "monopoly" very loosely. Now that the Internet is in place there is very little barrier to entry to be a journalist. In other words competition for news outlets is at its peak!
That would be like saying Linus T has a monopoly on Linux because he happens to be heavily involved in the distro market.
The FCC is a bit sticky because really it isn't authorized to exist in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution. Legally all RF spectrum management should be reserved to the States. However I do realize that would create utter chaos, and I might could see how RF spectrum management might be able to be stretched to fit the "interstate commerce clause".
Nevertheless, the ONLY function of the FCC would be spectrum management. And by this I mean deciding what services are on what freqs etc ensuring the local radio station doesn't trample aviation or military communications etc. The FCC should NOT be involved in any content decisions, telcom decisions, land-line anything, or anything that is not directly involved with the RF spectrum.
As a libertarian (and a member of the Libertarian party) I oppose this on several grounds. First off, Caveat emptor. Secondly, on a legal aspect, the sale of a product or service is a direct contract between two private entities - the consumer and the producer (or retailer); the government should not be involved. If damage to the consumer was being done and the consumer could prove negligence or malice then a lawsuit would probably be the result. Litigation is usually better than legislation because actual damages are awarded meaning I would rather trust a judge than a politician.
Third, and most importantly, the US Federal government is NOT authorized to regulate the food and drug market, thus the FDA is an unconstitutional and illegal organization. No where in Article I Section 8 does the Constitution authorize Congress to regulate the food and drug markets. I realize this is more of a Constitutional Conservative position than a libertarian position, but both points are valid.
I went to Middle Tenn State Univ. My major is Recording Industry Management (I am an audio engineer). When everyone graduates from the RIM major they all want RIM jobs. http://www.mtsu.edu/~record/
Yes, the US Senate should be comprised of delegates from each state legislature. This way the States actually had a say in how the Fed operated which is proper seeing as how the Fed is a creation of the States and only exists as long as the individual States say it does.
Judge Andrew Neapolitan chronicles this very thing in his books Constitution in Exile and Constitutional Chaos. Both are an EXCELLENT read and provide a view into Constitutional law from a very intelligent viewpoint.
Holy shit I will second that! If I am awake between the hours of 4am-noon I am usually a pretty miserable mass of humanity :-(
When the bill of rights was authored "regulated" meant 'to make regular'. That sort of changes the meaning a bit from our current common misinterpretation of it as well as with the ISCC which says "Congress can...regulate commerce between the states".e regular commerce between the states and for a militia that was in a regular state of readiness.
Regardless of that, in your first paragraph you talk about the slippery slope and the government using the list of gun owners to begin rounding up guns. Don't think that can happen, eh? Tell that to the Britains where the exact thing you mention did indeed happen. The government (especially the Federal gov) really has no authorization to know what kind of items I possesses or things I purchase.
I would like to point out a distinction though. I think we can all agree that murder is amoral. However killing is not always amoral. There are several instances I can think of when killing is acceptable - such as in defense, hunting for food, and sometimes war. There are probably other times when killing is acceptable morally...
Cool.
Check these guys out: http://www.snsmix.com/ They mix rock and hip hop and do an AWESOME job of it.
The one reason I have Sirius satellite radio is for Ch #34 "Boombox" It's a channel which does nothing but breakbeats, remixes, and "mash-ups" which is basically what you have described.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mashup_(music)
I am an audio engineer and to listen to someone use technology to creatively fuse music together makes my hair stand on end.
Yes because the analog vinyl/turntable system will reproduce a different set of harmonics and a different type of distortion than a digital system. Our ears can absolutely tell a difference in these types of distortion which is what makes vinyl "sound warmer".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion
I am an audio engineer (but I do not consider myself an audiophile)
First off the US isn't a democracy, never has been, and (legally) never will be. It's a "constitutional republic in which the representatives are democratically elected". Please note that is NOT the same thing as a democracy.
When the government educates people, the schools teach the government agenda. If the government happens to be in a conservative phase (as it is now) then conservative ideas will tend to dominate. When the government happens to be in a liberal phase, liberal ideas will often dominate.
And if government schools (specifically K-12) were abolished that doesn't mean that people would not educate themselves or their children. College isn't mandatory but millions are still attending because they see that education has value.
Not only do I not want the government raising my children for me, but I should not be forced to pay to raise other people's children. Non-governmental schools offer more choice, more freedom, and in most cases a higher quality education. The average middle/working class family would be better off financially if all levels of the government refunded all the tax money spent on education.
You make a great case for abolishing government schools. Where I come from (Florida) my school district spent more money per year per student than it cost to attend one of our premier local private prep schools. By the way the prep school's students tested higher on average compared to government school students.
Nevertheless, the government shouldn't be involved in the business of education.
Perhaps, but the benefit to living in an open and free society with limited government is that ANYONE is able and allowed to compete in the market place to become millionaires and billionaires. This is why keeping the government small and limited is essential to ensuring the overall wealth of the nation continue to grow, especially to the middle class.
;-)
Big business likes big government because big government has the power to regulate and legislate in favor of big business. This means that effective regulation can stomp out small business competition and give big business a free pass. A small and limited government could not actively participate in this, thus large business must compete against small business.
Artificial barriers to entry (think laws and regulation) stifle the sole proprietor, small biz owner, and entrepreneur. Its in these arenas that the common man has a chance to make big money. Did you know that over 80% of all millionaires in the US are first generation wealthy? The book "Millionaire Next Door" documents this.
Vote Libertarian
That's good. All businesses should be exempt from paying taxes.
The problem with the telcom industry is that the government (at all levels this time) has over expanded its bounds and decided that the telcom market needs to be regulated. When the government gets involved in anything, the result is usually negative. This is why I am a Libertarian voting for small limited government, individual liberties, and personal freedoms.