Again, we are not a democracy, however we are acting like an authoritarian statist society. If the public was not apathetic and did not elect people with zero integrity into office, then we wouldn't be in the position we are in now.
Regarding the budget you are going to be proven wrong right here:
Well..... there was an interesting case in Florida a year or two ago in which the DUI breathalyzers were not open-source. Because of this a court found that they were not open to examination, in other words, there was no due process because the methods of its functionality was not public.
A fault was found in that it miscalculated a BAC several times and the court ordered the source code revealed. Therefore everyone in Florida who was prosecuted for a DUI with one of these devices has the validity of the charges in question.
I don't know the case name, but I am sure you can Google for more info.
No, but he was using someone else's art without compensating them for it. And worse yet, he was using someone else's art to make himself money (he owned the bar).
It isn't theft, it's infringement.
Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only the expression of those ideas.
The real problem here is that copyrights have been extended waaaaaaay beyond what they should. After 20 something years or so art is either a part of the social aspect of society, or no one has heard of it. This is the fault of Congress.
Exactly - and it's a civil offense, NOT a criminal offense (at least in the US). Typically one cannot be arrested here in the US for this type of behavior. Getting sued/fined is more likely.
I think you are forgetting the fact that "resources" are property of someone, thus they don't have to be shared. All rights are derived from property by God (or nature).
In other words, if a bunch of people live in a desert and they all buy their water from a single supplier and that supplier decided not to sell anymore the people would have a few options:
1) Pack up and move closer to another source 2) One or more individuals would start their own firm to provide water - there would be a demand and due to scarcity a profit would be possible 3) If there was a pre-existing contract with the original supplier, sue them for breach but in the mean time see #2
So again I think you are forgetting that in the free market people own property (resources are NOT communal), AND, people are also free to start their own firms.
In the late 19th century they realized that hands-off was the best approach. But they also realized that they had to protect the market in a free and competitive atmosphere.
And most Libertarians do not really want a standing Armyc nor do they want interventionism or US imperialism. The Constitution limits it for 2 years anyway. Many Libertarians would prefer a private military (of which I personally do not). I think you need ro re-read some L(l)ibertairan issue statements before you begin to talk about things in which you are obviously uneducated.
According to what I have read the largest expenditures in the Fed budget are welfare programs; NOT the military (but that is #2).
Although you are not American, your ignorance is showing like a great deal of many of my fellow citizens. I'll ignore for the second that you cannot even spell Constitution or realize that it is capitalized (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that English isn't your first language). But also each state government has a constitution of its own and they are all modeled after the US Constitution.
While our ideas might differ about quality/quantity of regulation, most everything else you have mentioned is inaccurate and pure rubbish. Please get an education or a clue.
Yes - I realize that Fed started overreaching its bounds after the Civil War. Lincoln, Teddy, and FDR, were the biggest detriments to the US Constitution in my opinion.
But the ADA itself has still out stepped its bounds. The Fed has no ability to tell me who my business can and cannot serve. If I don't want to serve blacks, Hispanics, Jews, or white people, that is my choice. If I want to serve Jews on M-T-W and Muslims on F-Sat-Sun but never Buddhists, and Christians only on odd numbered days of the month, then that is my choice. It would be a stupid choice, but the Fed has no right to dictate how my business can and cannot serve.
Now, what the fed CAN do is say that all US governmental offices must comply with this specific non-discrimination act. In other words the gov must be accessible to all. In fact if the gov was NOT accessible to all, then I would have a problem with it.
Obviously this is a states rights' issue. And yes I realize that the courts have ruled differently on this matter, but sometimes the courts can be WRONG!
Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html
I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.
First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting. Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are? You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.
If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.
Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.
Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"
Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.
Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!
And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (which are written in plain English by the way), then PLEASE do no
Actually you are the troll as evidenced by your inability to choose other words besides profanity. Not to mention the fact that your post doesn't really make sense as a response to my post. If you would like to rephrase your point so that it is comprehendible, and choose some more intelligent language, I might be able to give you a better response.
I never said I wanted a government with zero power. That is anarchy. I want a small and limited government. If a company is violating Constitutional anti-trust/monopoly laws, then yes the government should be powerful enough to take them down. But it should not be regulating much of anything in the marketplace.
Free markets are NOT created by governments, they are only limited by governments. In other words, we START will a free market naturally until the government begins to manipulate and erode it. And in a free market an oligopoly can NOT seize total power and 'do anything it wants'. Competition is always around the corner doing anything to get an edge. Stamping out competition is a clear violation of anti-trust and monopoly laws which the government should prosecute on.
The Constitution gives us an unlimited right to contract. Yes - people can come together and enter into contract collectively to do anything they want as long as it isn't illegal, coerced, and doesn't violate anyone else's rights. If a town wants to come together and EVERYONE agrees that the group will share in say a satellite service, that is ok. What ISN'T ok is when the majority of the town votes for this, and then FORCES taxes/service (limits choice/competition) on those that voted against it. You fail to grasp that specific concept. The majority CAN NOT impose its will on the minority under the US Constitution - we don't live in a democracy. There are of course a few minor exceptions to this none of which are within the scope of this conversation.
And when you post in the future to discuss ideas such as this you might consider refraining from profanity, it would make you look ignorant.
No where in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution is Congress authorized to legislate employment/labor laws (unless it happens to be across state lines). Congress is also not authorized to specify building design to residential or commercial facilities. Congress is also not authorized to legislate telcos within state bounds, nor can they dictate to state governments the design of their buildings either.
Besides all of that, those classified as 'disabled' in the US is roughly 20%. There is obviously a niche market for these people and the free market would begin to cater to them obviously as it would be profitable to do so.
Lessons? 1- It's illegal anyway 2- The free market will handle it
Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html
I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.
First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting.
Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are? Wan to know who supports them? Want to see their voting record? You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.
If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.
Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.
Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"
Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.
Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!
And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (which are written in plain English by the way), then
Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html
I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.
First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting.
Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are? Want to read an incumbent's voting record in simple language? Want to know how interest groups rate the candidates? You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.
If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.
Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.
Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"
Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.
Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!
And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (
"The real crux of it is that democracy trumps economics. If 50%+1 of the people say that we should all pay taxes for a health care system, we do it. If 50%+1 of the people say we turn the rest into dog food, we do it. There are balances to prevent rash, insane changes, but ultimately the people can do anything. The people want a national bank to buffer against economic fluctuations (imagine if entire military had to be sold for scrap everytime there was a downturn), so we do it. The people don't want losing a job or becoming too sick to work to be a death-sentence, so we establish a welfare system. The people don't want to have the spend time and money doing background checks into supposed hospitals and doctors everytime they have a medical emergency, so the government regulates hospitals and medical licensing. Are you tyrant enough to say that we should cast aside democracy because of your weak spine in the face of a deduction from your paycheque -- a paycheque that is already being scaled-up to take that deduction into account?"
Thank GOD that we don't actually live in a democracy. In a democracy, your neighbors can vote to take your house and land. In a democracy, it is mob rule. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Democracy does NOT protect the minority. The US is a Constitutional Republic with a representative form of government in which the reps are democratically elected. We DO NOT live in a democracy, and people who think that we do are uneducated.
Under the Constitution (which has unfortunately been steadily eroding since Lincoln) there are VERY specific things in which can and cannot be done by the government. The people of the US cannot vote to suspend the right to free speech. They cannot vote to make the President a life-time appointment. They cannot vote to make Senators all noblemen.
The problem is that over the course of time, mostly since just before the Civil War, the elected officials have steadily crossed the line bit by bit and eroded the original intent of the Constitution by the founding fathers.
"Monopolies, cartels, exclusivity deals that lock out new players, etc"
In a free market, the only monopolies that exist with any longevity are those that are government-supported. Think about today. Which monopolies are alive and thriving? The phone companies? Supported by local municipalities. The power companies? The cable providers?
Why is this the case? It's simple. In a free market, when a monopoly exists, other firms enter the marketplace and begin to compete with that firm. Competition can only take place in a free market. Even Microsoft was slammed by the DoJ, not because of its size, but because of its predatoryial practices. There is nothing wrong with having large market share, but if the company is anti-competitive or predatorial in nature, THEN there is a problem.
"But seriously -- how do YOU think small towns should get services like broadband, water-purification plants, sewer systems, and whatnot?"
It's simple, living that far out and having to pay extra for those services is the cost of living that far out. The government should not be involved.
"There are productive balances that can be achieved between total government management of everything and slavery to an oligarchy of industrialists." Slavery to industrialists doesn't exist in a free market. In a free market one is always free to work at another firm or start a firm of their own. With government intervention however, there is nothing one can do to get away from it. There is no choice with the government.
I read a report a while ago (yes I am lazy, if you care Google for it) where there was a theory that sperm count will drop with prolonged laptop usage. The reason? The heat from the laptop warms the testicles and slows sperm production.
I realize that semen |= testosterone but I think it was worth noting.
Slashdot Mirror
First off, from a Constitutional point of view, the Fed has NO BUSINESS in education!!!
But secondly, the free market can do a MUCH better job with education than the government can.
No big deal. We've had optically controlled theremins for years!
Again, we are not a democracy, however we are acting like an authoritarian statist society. If the public was not apathetic and did not elect people with zero integrity into office, then we wouldn't be in the position we are in now.
/ defense.pdf/ hhs.pdf/ ssa.pdf
Regarding the budget you are going to be proven wrong right here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/budget
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/budget
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/budget
Defense: 474 Billion in 2005
Health and Human Services: 579 Billion in 2005
Social Security: 563 Billion in 2005
Those two programs are almost 3 times as much as defense! I didn't even look at the other social programs like HUD, education, and labor.
You should do a little resarch before you talk out of your ass. It will make you look less ignorant.
Well..... there was an interesting case in Florida a year or two ago in which the DUI breathalyzers were not open-source. Because of this a court found that they were not open to examination, in other words, there was no due process because the methods of its functionality was not public.
A fault was found in that it miscalculated a BAC several times and the court ordered the source code revealed. Therefore everyone in Florida who was prosecuted for a DUI with one of these devices has the validity of the charges in question.
I don't know the case name, but I am sure you can Google for more info.
No, but he was using someone else's art without compensating them for it. And worse yet, he was using someone else's art to make himself money (he owned the bar).
It isn't theft, it's infringement.
Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only the expression of those ideas.
The real problem here is that copyrights have been extended waaaaaaay beyond what they should. After 20 something years or so art is either a part of the social aspect of society, or no one has heard of it. This is the fault of Congress.
Exactly - and it's a civil offense, NOT a criminal offense (at least in the US). Typically one cannot be arrested here in the US for this type of behavior. Getting sued/fined is more likely.
I think you are forgetting the fact that "resources" are property of someone, thus they don't have to be shared. All rights are derived from property by God (or nature).
In other words, if a bunch of people live in a desert and they all buy their water from a single supplier and that supplier decided not to sell anymore the people would have a few options:
1) Pack up and move closer to another source
2) One or more individuals would start their own firm to provide water - there would be a demand and due to scarcity a profit would be possible
3) If there was a pre-existing contract with the original supplier, sue them for breach but in the mean time see #2
So again I think you are forgetting that in the free market people own property (resources are NOT communal), AND, people are also free to start their own firms.
In the late 19th century they realized that hands-off was the best approach. But they also realized that they had to protect the market in a free and competitive atmosphere.
And most Libertarians do not really want a standing Armyc nor do they want interventionism or US imperialism. The Constitution limits it for 2 years anyway. Many Libertarians would prefer a private military (of which I personally do not). I think you need ro re-read some L(l)ibertairan issue statements before you begin to talk about things in which you are obviously uneducated.
Here are some resources:
http://www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml
http://www.theadvocates.org/publications.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
According to what I have read the largest expenditures in the Fed budget are welfare programs; NOT the military (but that is #2).
Although you are not American, your ignorance is showing like a great deal of many of my fellow citizens. I'll ignore for the second that you cannot even spell Constitution or realize that it is capitalized (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that English isn't your first language). But also each state government has a constitution of its own and they are all modeled after the US Constitution.
While our ideas might differ about quality/quantity of regulation, most everything else you have mentioned is inaccurate and pure rubbish. Please get an education or a clue.
Yes - I realize that Fed started overreaching its bounds after the Civil War. Lincoln, Teddy, and FDR, were the biggest detriments to the US Constitution in my opinion.
But the ADA itself has still out stepped its bounds. The Fed has no ability to tell me who my business can and cannot serve. If I don't want to serve blacks, Hispanics, Jews, or white people, that is my choice. If I want to serve Jews on M-T-W and Muslims on F-Sat-Sun but never Buddhists, and Christians only on odd numbered days of the month, then that is my choice. It would be a stupid choice, but the Fed has no right to dictate how my business can and cannot serve.
Now, what the fed CAN do is say that all US governmental offices must comply with this specific non-discrimination act. In other words the gov must be accessible to all. In fact if the gov was NOT accessible to all, then I would have a problem with it.
Obviously this is a states rights' issue. And yes I realize that the courts have ruled differently on this matter, but sometimes the courts can be WRONG!
...because I don't want ASS PRINTS ON MY DOOR!
(obligatory Futurama quote)
I wrote an op-ed piece about this the other day:
DON'T VOTE!!!
Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html
I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.
First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting.
Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are?
You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.
If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.
Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.
Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"
Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.
Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!
And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (which are written in plain English by the way), then PLEASE do no
Pat Buchanan: 9%
But does it run Linux?
Actually you are the troll as evidenced by your inability to choose other words besides profanity. Not to mention the fact that your post doesn't really make sense as a response to my post. If you would like to rephrase your point so that it is comprehendible, and choose some more intelligent language, I might be able to give you a better response.
I never said I wanted a government with zero power. That is anarchy. I want a small and limited government. If a company is violating Constitutional anti-trust/monopoly laws, then yes the government should be powerful enough to take them down. But it should not be regulating much of anything in the marketplace.
Free markets are NOT created by governments, they are only limited by governments. In other words, we START will a free market naturally until the government begins to manipulate and erode it. And in a free market an oligopoly can NOT seize total power and 'do anything it wants'. Competition is always around the corner doing anything to get an edge. Stamping out competition is a clear violation of anti-trust and monopoly laws which the government should prosecute on.
The Constitution gives us an unlimited right to contract. Yes - people can come together and enter into contract collectively to do anything they want as long as it isn't illegal, coerced, and doesn't violate anyone else's rights. If a town wants to come together and EVERYONE agrees that the group will share in say a satellite service, that is ok. What ISN'T ok is when the majority of the town votes for this, and then FORCES taxes/service (limits choice/competition) on those that voted against it. You fail to grasp that specific concept. The majority CAN NOT impose its will on the minority under the US Constitution - we don't live in a democracy. There are of course a few minor exceptions to this none of which are within the scope of this conversation.
And when you post in the future to discuss ideas such as this you might consider refraining from profanity, it would make you look ignorant.
Trust me - I am quite aware. I was simply limiting the scope of the post to the fed.
The ADA is unconstitutional.
No where in Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution is Congress authorized to legislate employment/labor laws (unless it happens to be across state lines). Congress is also not authorized to specify building design to residential or commercial facilities. Congress is also not authorized to legislate telcos within state bounds, nor can they dictate to state governments the design of their buildings either.
Besides all of that, those classified as 'disabled' in the US is roughly 20%. There is obviously a niche market for these people and the free market would begin to cater to them obviously as it would be profitable to do so.
Lessons?
1- It's illegal anyway
2- The free market will handle it
DON'T VOTE!!!
Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html
I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.
First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting.
Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are? Wan to know who supports them? Want to see their voting record?
You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.
If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.
Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.
Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"
Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.
Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!
And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (which are written in plain English by the way), then
It reminds me of this t-shirt from T-Shirt Hell:
8 8.gif
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a588/a5
DON'T VOTE!!!
Have any of you seen the AARP commercial on TV that says 'Don't Vote?!" I have caught it a couple of times. If you haven't seen it, you can see it here: http://www.dontvote.com/spots.html
I tend to agree with this idea: DON'T VOTE! If you do not understand a few basic concepts, then please DO NOT VOTE.
First off, one must educate themselves BEYOND the personality marketing and the basic sound bites. One must study the policy positions of the candidates prior to voting. Have you done this yet? It's real easy to study, simply visit the websites of the candidates and look at the section that titled 'issues' and read their statements. Sometimes they make their policy and issues statements vague and ambiguous. If this is the case with a candidate that you are considering, then don't vote for that candidate because you don't know what you are getting.
Want to know all of the candidates who are running and what their websites are? Want to read an incumbent's voting record in simple language? Want to know how interest groups rate the candidates?
You can check that here: http://www.vote-smart.org/index.htm
Next, look and see who is giving money to these people. You can do that very easily here: http://opensecrets.org/ This handy website lists every member of Congress, every candidate, and shows all of the financial contributions for their campaign. This is a good way to see who has influence with the winner.
If you plan on voting for a Democrat or a Republican then you are PART OF THE PROBLEM, and I ask you to also not vote! The Republicans want to expand the government, take your children's money and erode your civil liberties. The Democrats want to expand the government, take your money (and your children's money), and also erode your civil liberties. They are practically the same party with very little difference between the two.
Democrats pander to the poor/minorities, Republicans pander to the religious community. Both groups are being USED by these two parties in order to gain political power. Do you think the Democrats really care about the poor? Not unless it buys votes. Do you think the Republicans really care about the religious conservatives? Not unless it buys votes.
Are you happy with the country as it is? Would you like to change direction? Polls have suggested that the majority of voting citizens are not happy with the state or direction of our nation, yet keep voting for Republicans and Democrats. Isn't a popular definition of insanity: "repeating the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result?"
Personally, I will be voting for any candidate that is NOT a Democrat or a Republican. I realize that most 3rd party or independent candidates do not have a chance to win (yet) but I also want to send a crystal clear message to the current political cartel/oligopoly that they do NOT represent me and I will no longer support their stranglehold on the American democratic process.
Why don't others vote for 3rd party or independents? In most races there are plenty of 3rd/independent candidates that are conservative or liberal and do not have a (R) or (D) next to their name. However many voters 'want to be on the winning side' and cast their ballots in that manner. Lots of people say they don't want to waste their vote on someone who will lose. I have a question to people who vote with the idea of 'voting for the candidate who is most likely to win' -- since when did our democratic process become a sporting event?! Voting for the person most likely to win is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you want change, think about changing the way you vote!
And finally, if you do not have a good understanding of history, if you have not educated yourself on our democratic process, if you do not understand the rule of law, if you have not read the Constitution and Deceleration of Independence (
"The real crux of it is that democracy trumps economics. If 50%+1 of the people say that we should all pay taxes for a health care system, we do it. If 50%+1 of the people say we turn the rest into dog food, we do it. There are balances to prevent rash, insane changes, but ultimately the people can do anything. The people want a national bank to buffer against economic fluctuations (imagine if entire military had to be sold for scrap everytime there was a downturn), so we do it. The people don't want losing a job or becoming too sick to work to be a death-sentence, so we establish a welfare system. The people don't want to have the spend time and money doing background checks into supposed hospitals and doctors everytime they have a medical emergency, so the government regulates hospitals and medical licensing. Are you tyrant enough to say that we should cast aside democracy because of your weak spine in the face of a deduction from your paycheque -- a paycheque that is already being scaled-up to take that deduction into account?"
Thank GOD that we don't actually live in a democracy. In a democracy, your neighbors can vote to take your house and land. In a democracy, it is mob rule. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. Democracy does NOT protect the minority. The US is a Constitutional Republic with a representative form of government in which the reps are democratically elected. We DO NOT live in a democracy, and people who think that we do are uneducated.
Under the Constitution (which has unfortunately been steadily eroding since Lincoln) there are VERY specific things in which can and cannot be done by the government. The people of the US cannot vote to suspend the right to free speech. They cannot vote to make the President a life-time appointment. They cannot vote to make Senators all noblemen.
The problem is that over the course of time, mostly since just before the Civil War, the elected officials have steadily crossed the line bit by bit and eroded the original intent of the Constitution by the founding fathers.
"Monopolies, cartels, exclusivity deals that lock out new players, etc"
In a free market, the only monopolies that exist with any longevity are those that are government-supported. Think about today. Which monopolies are alive and thriving? The phone companies? Supported by local municipalities. The power companies? The cable providers?
Why is this the case? It's simple. In a free market, when a monopoly exists, other firms enter the marketplace and begin to compete with that firm. Competition can only take place in a free market. Even Microsoft was slammed by the DoJ, not because of its size, but because of its predatoryial practices. There is nothing wrong with having large market share, but if the company is anti-competitive or predatorial in nature, THEN there is a problem.
"But seriously -- how do YOU think small towns should get services like broadband, water-purification plants, sewer systems, and whatnot?"
It's simple, living that far out and having to pay extra for those services is the cost of living that far out. The government should not be involved.
"There are productive balances that can be achieved between total government management of everything and slavery to an oligarchy of industrialists." Slavery to industrialists doesn't exist in a free market. In a free market one is always free to work at another firm or start a firm of their own. With government intervention however, there is nothing one can do to get away from it. There is no choice with the government.
Ham radio operators have been doing this for quite a while. It's called Automatic Position Reporting System.
It was developed by a ham radio operator and the Naval Academy:
http://www.aprs.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APRS
No seriously..... imagine a Beowulf cluster of these things...
I read a report a while ago (yes I am lazy, if you care Google for it) where there was a theory that sperm count will drop with prolonged laptop usage. The reason? The heat from the laptop warms the testicles and slows sperm production.
I realize that semen |= testosterone but I think it was worth noting.