I'm not a guru on Freenet but the FBI can track data as it moves between any two IP addresses. It doesn't matter if the data file is encrypted, it can be tracked unless every machine-to-machine exchange is uniquely ambiguated.
End-to-end encryption is implemented. All significant (>32KB) data is inserted under its SHA hash. Forgery is impossible. Pointers to data may be inserted encrypted and signed with the publisher's public key.
Link-by-link PKI will emerge shortly. Traffic analysis is nevertheless possible. More complex node behaviors have been proposed (transferring filler data, regular intervals for transfers, etc.) but may prove too costly for widespread deployment. An ultra-secure variant of Freenet is a plausible endeavor.
Wheelchair salesmen wield chainsaws in search of new customers.
Your ideas about socialism are wrong. I have never heard a socialist promote a society like the one you describe.
Of course not. Those men all believed that democratic socialism could rectify scores of social ills. They were all wrong-- socialism amplified them. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie work their hardest, within the confines of a just property law, to prevent the proletariat from competing. To arrive at socialism, throw out the law.
Socialism: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry, or an economic system based on state ownership of capital.
Do you disagree over the definition? If so, please correct it.
I don't see how socialism (as per that definition) could be implemented without a trusted arbitrator. Do you?
By what measure should the success of a program like D.A.R.E. be judged?
If the sole objective is to prevent drug use, then the most logical strategy is to warn of the unavoidable, devastating consequences of drug use. Enact strict penalties for drug use (already done) and emphasize them. That's the Big Brother Knows Best strategy -- we're right, and if you fuck up, we're gonna get you!
On the other hand, a program like D.A.R.E. might have the goal of inculcating into the student a respect for the inevitable consequences of any action (a basic idea). For example, students might be taught the risks of drug use, and how to weigh them against the benefits. This is the Free Society strategy, where a person is trusted to make his own choices about his life.
In its current incarnation, D.A.R.E. falls between these two ideals. They do emphasize the harm that the government will do to a person convicted of drug crimes, but they also preach autonomous decision-making and risk-assessment skills. In other words, we trust you to make the Right Choice, but we've got a gun aimed at your head just in case.
Interestingly, a government at either end of the spectrum would be relatively small and efficient, while a government in the middle (like ours) is by necessity brobdingnagian. On one hand, Big Brother can mandate personal, head-mounted video cameras to be worn by every citizen. They can be efficiently monitored, and if anyone's behavior was not acceptable, that person could be swiftly dealt with. On the other hand, a libertarian government would entrust its citizens to make their own choices-- therefore a legal system would be necessary to resolve disputes. Either way, the government is actually quite small and efficient, due to the simplicity of its mission.
The American government (as a whole, state and federal) does not enslave its people, nor does it allow them freedom to make their own choices. This duplicity of intent renders it inefficient and costly. And what could be better for the government? They have found the key to our collective bank vault. It is ambiguity.
What better way to bankrupt a corporation than to be unsure of the product that must be produced!
In the long term, we will colonize the stars. In the long term, we will develop technology that will eliminate our silly pollution like a modern bulldozer could level a primitive hut. Besides, even if the average man is an indecent environment-destroying asshole, don't you become equally indecent by trying to impose upon them your values about the environment? (BTW, how would you feel if we transformed the Earth into a wonderful utopia? If it meant that nature, as you know it, would become extinct?)
Those links are a mockery of my question. Nader does not advocate ending the War on Drugs. No -- he wants to use "creative solutions" to end drug use. (Somewhere in there is an exemption for marijuana. What is it, exactly? Is there a catch? Can I grow and sell it, or may I only possess it?) I have the right to freely buy and use all drugs. With that right comes responsibility. By the way: what makes pot any more deserving of legality than, say, ecstasy (methylenedioxyamphetamine)?
In his article on racism, Nader refers to "redlining" by the electric company. This, from what I can tell, involves the electric company not providing service to people who do not pay their bills. Am I wrong?
Why don't the rights to life, liberty, and property mean anything if one works at McDonalds? If I worked at McDonalds, I would still want them. For example, I would not want the government infringing my right to liberty by imprisoning me for taking LSD. I would not want you to take any of my stuff, and infringe my right to property. And I would definitely not want you to infringe my right to life! I would want to keep my entire paycheck, not just 75% of it. I would want the freedom to invest for my retirement the way I wanted to, not the way government wants (with the state of SS being what it is, I doubt it would pay for even my meager McDonalds retirement).
And why must I own the media and the means of production to enjoy my rights? I don't care about the media. I want my rights!
Zero Pollution Motors is a fiction. Tell me, how do you manufacture and run a van without causing any pollution?
Would I have to give the government my gold jewelry? Gold is non-renewable. Well, actually, it's not. We can synthesize gold in particle accellerators! If, in 50 years, we can replenish all the resources of the Earth, will the Green party drop these demands?
And, if oil is non-renewable, and nobody may pump it and use it, then what good is it? Is oil inherently good to have lying around? Do you marvel at rivers of oil on the Discovery Channel? Yeah, right. So what's the point? Pump all the Earth's oil. Then find other energy sources. Right?
Also, how can I mow my lawn? Will the police take my gas powered lawnmower and make me use a push-mower? How about heating my house? Can I still burn natural gas, or use electricity, which is made from non-renewable resources (since the Green party will close all the nuclear reactors, which make power cleanly and efficiently!)? How will I keep my house warm? I'll freeze! Your cops will make me freeze!
And what does "we support true-cost pricing" mean? What the hell is true-cost pricing? The "true-cost" of something is dictated by what I'll pay for it! The "true-cost" of a million barrels of oil, to you, is MEANINGLESS, because you would not buy them! And what does support mean? Will they fix prices, or won't they?
Also, they claim that under their plan, there will be no waste. Well, waste is a pejorative! A barrel of toxic chemicals might be waste to you, but I might highly prize it as, say, the ingrediant to a life-saving drug! Who decides what is and is not waste? What if I will haul away your waste and burn it to make electricity? Then what is waste?
And what's this crap about "we need to mimic natural systems in the way we manufacture and produce things"? Natural systems are brutal, unforgiving hells! In a natural system, I might walk to your house, strangle you and your family, and walk off with your property! Will the Green party make me behave like an animal? (I say this because humanity is, in fact, a wholly natural system -- but I think they define nature as not including me.)
I don't think anyone will disagree that the future will be as free or freer than the present, as the world gets rich and war fades away.
Why won't the future be an Orwellian nightmare? Perhaps humanity is doomed, by its very nature, to be enslaved and crushed. Maybe we will return to the dark ages -- or worse -- for a millennium or three. Maybe society will degrade into a mass of sheepishness, like the talk show Oprah, which consists of one "expert" making assertions and the entire audience in passionate agreement (there is no expert who is not granted complete and unthinking agreement). Oprah could lead her entire audience to a torturous death.
It scares me how sure you are. I'm not. I fear that fighting and dying for freedom will not be nearly enough. Freedom must be lived. Every day.
My opinion? Better to deal with a few top hats than lose your head.
I think socialism is a wonderful ideal, I really do. I can see why men like Orwell and Einstein could be enraptured by it.
They loved it because they saw no need, in this age of great technology, for anyone to starve in the streets. They felt that capitalism degraded the altruism and purity of men, and that there was no need to threaten terrible death on the working classes.
The tragedy is this: our compassion has created an army of bureaucrats whose income depends on the very things they have been called upon to extirpate! Poverty, crime, drugs -- all transformed into institutions of the state!
There is poverty! Why, give the government some more money.
There is crime! Why, give the government some more money.
There are drugs! Why, give the government some more money.
What makes Big Brother real happy? What pays his bills? Poverty, crime, and drugs!
Consider the War on Drugs. Old Uncle Sam needed a little extra cash, so he invented a new form of crime: the victimless crime! Ha! You know what? He makes seventeen BILLION bucks a year off it. Think about it -- the government steals our natural rights, and we reward it with BILLIONS of dollars! You and I reward it. We pay taxes. We obey the law. We will get what tax paying, law abiding citizens deserve. We will get fucked.
We will be impoverished. We will be addicts. We will be criminals. We will get all the state compassion we can take. And then some.
And 'Socialist utopia'? Is that meant to be an insult? Presumably you think a utopia would be capitalist, yes?
I don't think it was meant to be an insult, really. First of all, a utopia is an invention of Thomas More. It is a fiction, an unreachable ideal, a "nowhere". So, literally, he was taking a jab at the high ideals of McReynolds's socialism.
I found McReynolds's arguments vacuous:
Captialist modes of production, unless controlled by strong state intervention (or unless placed under social ownership within a democratic society) exploit the resources of the world without any concern except for profit.
To respond, I must first define the "capitalist mode of production". For this and the next example, I will imitate Bruce Schneier and introduce some characters:
Alice - Producer of goods and services.
Bob - Another producer of different good and services.
To begin the capitalist mode of production, Alice and Bob first must survey the market. Specifically, they must both find a good or service which is needed. Once they each have found one, they labor to produce it. Bob makes gyros sandwiches, and Alice builds padded chairs.
Alice is hungry, and she would like to eat a gyros. Bob is tired, and he would like to sit down in a chair. Bob agrees to give Alice 10 gyros sandwiches in exchange for a chair. That's capitalism.
Now, I will put it in context, by illustrating the ideal socialist mode of production.
To begin, I must introduce another person:
Trent - Trusted arbitrator.
First, Trent notes the needs of the population: he watches the market. He sees a shortage of, you guessed it, gyros and chairs. He calls Bob, and assigns him a quota of 1000 gyros sandwiches, to be met by the end of the week. He calls Alice, and assigns her a quota of 100 chairs, to be met by the end of the week.
At week's end, the two have each met their quota, and Trent picks up their goods in his big truck. Alice is really hungry by now, so she calls Trent, and asks for a gyros. Trent comes by in his big truck and drops one off for her. Bob still needs a chair. He calls Trent, and he is delivered his new chair.
So far, both the socialist and capitalist examples have worked out pretty well. Capitalism requires Alice and Bob to find a need for a product on their own and meet that demand. Socialism eliminates that hassle.
Now, let's see how they both stand up to subversion. For this, I must indroduce yet another person:
Mallory - Malicious active attacker.
First, let's examine the strength of socialism. Mallory's obvious target is Trent, the central, trusted party. Mallory wants to get all the products and services, and he wants do to it without any labor on his part.
Trent is silently subverted, say, with an icepick to the head. Mallory takes his place, in disguise.
Mallory calls Alice and Bob and demands immediate work. He sets the quotas outrageously high, and demands 10,000 gyros and 1000 chairs. Alice and Bob protest! Mallory cuts their throats -- he can do so with impunity, because he has everyone's goods in his big truck, and that makes him powerful. Not to worry, they are soon replaced with like named proles, who slave to meet Mallory's demands under pain of death.
The week ends, and Mallory comes in his truck. He finds Alice at Bob's house. She is nearly dead, and is begging Bob for a gyros. Bob refused at first, after all, that would be capitalism! Eventually he gave in, and Mallory arrives to find Alice wolfing down one of Bob's gyros. He is enraged! He drags Bob away to the police station, and tortures him again and again until he confesses to his seditious, capitalist activity. Mallory holds a quick show trial, and Bob gets a bullet in the back of his neck. Not to worry, though -- there's always another to take his place!
With great trepidation, Alice and Bob call Mallory, begging for some food. Mallory gives them barely enough to survive, and he and his gang gorge themselves on the rest, always careful to keep Alice and Bob fearful for their lives.
Now, let's examine how capitalism might fail. Mallory has no clear target, and he is very confused. Mallory might make a product, say, a baseball bat, and asks Bob, who wants a bat, to give him a million gyros in exchange. Well, other people can make bats, too, and Bob does the sensible thing and refuses, much to Mallory's dismay. Malloty thinks -- what can I offer that nobody else can? He can't think of anything. In his frustration, he decides to steal all of Bob's stuff.
He walks up to Bob's house, and yells into the window. "I want all of your stuff! Give it to me, or I'll kill you!"
The barrel of Bob's shotgun flies out of the window, and Mallory's guts fly out of his body.
The difference between capitalism and socialism is really simple, if you think about it properly.
Socialism is centralized. If Trent is subverted, Alice and Bob don't realize it until too late. The success of socialism depends on the integrity of Trent.
Capitalism is decentralized, like the Internet, and like Freenet. If Mallory makes an offer that is not profitable for Bob, Bob refuses. Bob has no more trust for Mallory than any other man on the street. Bob takes his own precautions to guard himself and his property.
The above analysis is, of course, too simplistic. The most glaring omission is an emphasis on a decent culture, one in which everyone respects human rights. Under socialism, that sort of culture does not emerge. All transactions are, by law, conducted with Trent. There is no question of property rights, because they are dictated by Trent.
Capitalism, however, depends upon strong institutions of human rights -- the right to life, liberty, and property -- to function. If Alice cannot trust Mallory to respect her property, then Alice will buy from Mallory's competitors. The minority of Mallorys are ignored and left behind, because they cannot be trusted.
Socialism rewards those who are not trustworthy. Capitalism routes around them.
And I think that that is exactly what would happend, the natural minerals and resources would be removed and the land de-"pristined". But you are wrong about one thing. There will not be enough parks for ME.
Yeah. The market distributes resources based on total demand, not based on your idea of what's important. That's why it works!
You should move to Alaska. There are still lots of forests there. You could probably even buy one.
There is a big difference in my mind between alcohol, which cause impairment and MIGHT lead to harm, and a guaranteed 45,000+ deaths per day. And I think that would be a reason for me to want the drug to be illegal.
You're obfuscating the difference. The use of alcohol statistically causes a certain number of deaths per day. If you're talking statistical chance of killing, there's no qualitative difference, and certainly no "mights". Just numbers.
Your community agrees on a level of acceptable carnage, and makes laws to enforce it. On this we agree.
In fact, I doubt many drunken people actively murder others PERIOD. Drunk driving is another story, and as I've said, that most certainly SHOULD be illegal, as the very act of it endangers others.
Yes, but if drinking impairs judgement, then drunks cannot fully judge the legality or safety of driving. Thus, drinking should be forbidden, because once a person is drunk, they are not capable of making the decision to refrain from driving.
Far more than 1 in 2000 drinkers drive home drunk. (I can't substantiate that, but it seems reasonable, considering the prevalence of drunk driving.)
If you drink in your house, what's to stop you from driving away drunk?
There's going to be some risk to society posed by a person with impaired judgement (whatever the cause -- drugs, innate stupidity, sex drive, etc.). People who, like the hypothetical mad gunner shooting bullets past your head, act dangerously with impunity. Any argument for prior restraint in these matters can be taken to the extreme, i.e., mandatory leg shackles for everyone, to prevent any sudden violent outbursts.
I think centuries of living under heavy federal law has made us stupid. You're right. Let each state decide on its own. A homogenous law of the land does not suit a heterogenous population.
The idea that there must be one universal set of laws probably grew out of personal immobility -- the idea that a like-thinking group of people might seperate themselves from the mass was laughed at, because people were tied to their land.
America no longer works that way. It's time the laws reflected that. States will be nothing more than corporations, competing for my business, trying to sell the merits of their unique product. That's elegant. I like it.
No...if you make the population apathetic, they won't *care* if the government is criminal. That's what apathy is about. The more odious agencies of our government chronically engage in criminal behavior and nobody has "killed" them.
But because half the people still vote the criminals in out of fear of the Other Guy, nobody has the balls to kick them out. If virtually nobody voted, putting a stop to them would be a morally simpler process.
You're right, though. Better to be actively involved than wait for conditions to be right for revolution. I'll never understand why all my stupid comments are moderated up! (Yes, I have better ones occasionally.):-)
But I still don't know why anyone would support the Greens. Have you read their platform? A government that could enforce all that would need to be twice the size it is now! And his position on the War on Drugs is contradictory. Note the "we endorse true-cost pricing" statement -- do they really intend to fix prices! If not, then why bother endorsing it. That's typical of the Green platform -- a lot of endorsements for good things, but no real policy. For example, they make a big case for a "living wage", but give no details on how exactly everyone will be guaranteed one by the government. They've got lots of feel-good positions, but few solutions. I suspect they would find two solutions very quickly: more taxes, and more laws. Neither would work.
Are you seriously suggesting that these citizens who can't even be bothered to push a lever every few years are going to rise up in the streets and "take back" their country?
Yeah. People have been pulling levers for a long time, and nothing seems to change. Because half the population still votes, however, the government can still claim to be legitimate. When the people stop believing it -- when nobody votes -- it will be easily replaced with something better.
Why do you think so many terrorist groups have our number? If we could get out of their affairs then they'd have no one to blame about their situations than themselves.
Nah. They would still blame us. It's simple jealosy. Our culture is more free than theirs, and that pisses them off.
Terrorists should be trembling with fear at the prospect of injuring of killing an American.
my vote against libertariansim all comes down to knowing that greedy people don't play nice...
Oh, they absolutely don't. Makes me wonder why you want a government! Haven't you heard -- the government can take your life, liberty, and property better than any corporation! (And they do.) Must be a magnet for really greedy people.
I would have a lot more respect for Libertarian philosophy if they would come at and define exactly what limits they are in favor of. But the web site is noticeably absent on any limits on personal behavior. This is why they will never achieve power, because it's all theory, and no practicality.
The Libertarians would not make or enforce any federal laws. That's why you can't find any particular limitations to personal freedom on their site. They won't limit it!
But wait. That's a good thing. You can choose to live in a state that allows everything, or you can choose to live in a state that prohibits everything. Prevention is the domain of local government.
These arguments about what constitutes a threat to public safety belong at the local level. Ideally, I could drive out to a city a few miles away, a city with permissive drug laws, and smoke a joint. That's freedom.
Should this drug be illegal? Yes. The act of taking it seriously endangers the lives of others. And I feel that most other Libertarians would agree with me.
By this logic, alcohol should be illegal. A comparable percentage of the people who drink a lot of alcohol will become uncontrollable and violent.
The drug should not be illegal! Taking it in public should be. The act of taking the drug is benign, but the act of taking the drug is public is not, and should be banned. Just like drinking and driving. The risk is agreed to be too high, just like our "Howitzer shooting right above your head" thought experiment. Howitzers should not be illegal, either. But that's just my opinion! You see, the great thing about the Libertarians is that the federal government would not make laws! You can choose the community with the laws you like!
(I brought up the really difficult question earlier: when driving on the highway, there is a real chance that your car will suddenly break, and that you will crash into a car full of kids. Should driving be illegal? The lives of others are seriously endangered! What I'm getting at is that there is risk in everything, and the definition of an unacceptable risk is something very controversial. The federal government has no place making that definition. That's a Libertarian view. One city could ban cars, because they are too dangerous in their opinion. Another city could allow them. You choose the one that fits you best. Or you start your own! Ain't freedom great?)
This drug should be illegal to the full extent of the law. The reason is because taking it is the equivalent of firing random shots at someone. Just the act of taking the drug violates the rights of those around you because you have intentionally created a situation where you could lose your mind and start blowing people away.
By the logic of the "firing the Howitzer above my head is not acceptable" argument, the act of taking this drug in public is criminal. Taking it locked in your basement is not.
In reality, there's some consensus on how much risk is acceptable. There's a real chance that your car could suddenly break on the highway and carreen into a schoolbus full of kids. Yet driving is not illegal.
I'm not sure if a one-in-a-thousand chance should warrant illegality. I would think it would. A one in ten thousand chance probably wouldn't. It's a subjective judgement.
In any case, the illegal act is exposing the public (the non-consenting public - taking the drug at a party where it was known that people would be taking this drug would not be illegal, because of implied consent. the illegality starts when suspicion of intoxication would not be warranted) to the risk of this drug, which steals your reason, just like firing a gun near someone (without their consent!) is illegal, because it exposes them to a risk.
Although this raises the question, "Should being really angry in public be illegal?" By this logic, yes! Angry people can't control themselves as well as calm people.
I don't know. It's subjective. Ban the most flagrant offences (shooting guns in my vicinity, etc.) and tolerate the rest.
The point I'm making is that Libertarians see drugs as "all drugs should be legal" without any thought to whether some drugs SHOULD be illegal.
No drug should be illegal. In your example, the act of exposing the public to the risk of your likely maniacal behavior was illegal. The drug, in and of itself, is not illegal -- that's absurd. It's the classic "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" banality.
ust as with weapons. I agree personal weapons are good. However, personal nukes are bad. There are lines that need to be drawn in a lot of cases, and unfortunately too often Libertarians refuse to accept that.
My litmus test is "Can the nuke be detonated in a manner which does not infringe the rights of others?" The obvious reply is, "Well, I do not intend to detonate this nuke. It is for show." Or, "I intend to detonate this nuke in Antarctica." Either way, it seems reasonable to ask that the nuke be disabled. If you aren't an extremist!:-)
So powerful and rich corporations are gonna take care of the handicapped and homeless?
Yes, in a sense. Since the government isn't taking any money from you, there's no excuse "Well, I pay for charity through taxes!", so the average decent man will feel compelled to give to charity. Perhaps big, powerful charities. Or just to the homeless guy on the street corner.
They are going to school the population, and invest in sustainable and non-profit ventures?
This too. Parents will pay the money they save in taxes to private schools. Perhaps big, powerful schools. Or maybe little schools. Other decent people will also donate money. It's a good cause.
People will be free to invest their money in whatever ventures they like, not the ventures government likes. And government likes some evil ventures -- seen the Drug War lately? Would you pay for the Drug War? The Libertarians won't make you. Can you say that about Nader?
22. We oppose the illicit activities of the international drug trade and the illicit money laundering that often accompanies the drug cartels. We call for a revised view of the "drug problem" and an end to the "war on drugs," recognizing that after over a decade of strident law-and-order posturing, the problems with hard drugs have only worsened.
8. At the same time, we must develop law enforcement approaches that are firm and directly address VIOLENT CRIME, street crime, and trafficking in hard drugs. Violence that creates a climate of further violence must be stopped.
These contradictory statements are typical of Nader's platform. Number 8 equates "hard" drugs with violent crime, and mandates firm law enforcement against them. Number 22 calls for an end to the War on Drugs! To me, and end to the War on Drugs means legalizing all chemical substances. Not just the ones Nader likes.
Nader whines a lot about all sorts of rights -- "workers' rights", "citizen rights", "privacy rights", and countless more uses of the word. I don't care. I want the right to life, liberty, and property. Absolutely. Without any restrictions.
Does that make me a right wing capitalist? Or does the fact that I laugh at silly "if I were king" statements like
Greens support a major redesign of commerce. We endorse "true-cost pricing." We support production that eliminates waste. In natural systems, everything is a meal for something else.
Everything recycles, there is no "waste." We need to mimic natural systems in the way we manufacture and produce things. "Consumables" need to be designed to be thrown into a compost
heap and/or eaten, for example. "Durable goods" would be designed in closed-loop systems, ultimately to be disassembled and reassembled. "Toxics" would be safeguarded and could have
"markers" identifying them as belonging, in perpetuity, to their makers.
That wouldn't be economically feasible. If you think that that is a bad justification then I suggest you start your own insurance company and attempt to structure your business model around providing that type of service.
Well, it would be feasible -- it would just cost half your income. But people want their money now, not lifelong security from an injury that might never happen. I'm one of them.
And if Ford were half as smart as I, they would refuse.
It's in Toyota's interest to sell guaranteed, safe cars, because people can't buy a safe car from Ford, so they will buy it from Toyota. It is not in Toyota's interest to protect Ford. That's why cars get cheaper and more reliable every year -- competition.
What "enlightened" insurance company would offer such a stupid policy at an affordable price?
An insurance company, by definition, offers that "stupid policy". Otherwise, it would not be insurance. The idea is simple -- a thousand people put a $20 bill into a bank account every month, and one person falls down the stairs every month and spends $2000 on medical bills. The price of insurance is set by the frequency of accidents and their severity.
Do you want to have to rely on "the kindness of strangers?"
What is the alternative? Gods in the image of governments, immune to the corruption of power, who steal equitably and give to those in need? It's a fantasy. How can a representative government be more moral than the people it represents? If the majority of people were miserly goons, government would represent the interests of miserly goons. If the majority of people are kind, and would not hesitate to give to those in need, then why must the government do it for them? Government is wanton power. It's that simple.
See those people dying in the middle-east, Indonesia, Bosnia, Africa (pick your favorite "enlightened" government)
Woah there -- I didn't say anything about government being enlightened. If the people don't have a healthy respect for human rights (life, liberty, property) then there's no way their government can.
Capitalism, because of its distributed nature, requires strong regard for human rights. We cannot trade goods if you think you should be able to steal them from me. We create a legal system dedicated to upholding the rights and contractual obligations of both parties.
Socialism, however, requires no respect for human rights to function. The state takes what it wants and gives what it wants. You do what it wants, or you die. No human rights.
Africa is notorious for it's socialist rulers and human rights violations. The people do not expect human rights, and they do not get them. We give foriegn aid to their rulers. Their rulers give it to... nobody. Some socialist utopia.
Your first two examples highlight the evil any powerful entity can do, in the absence of a tradition of human rights and the means to enforce them. The rulers of those people obviously like first-world money more than their own subjects.
Number three is tricky. It's a case of consumers too naive to not trust a corporation (or any entity bigger than one guy). That's comparable to selling products to kids, only the consequences were more severe.
The exact nature of ozone depletion is still hotly contested in scientific circles. DuPont probably said something evasive like "we don't have any theory that could explain such a phenomenon", not "it absolutely does not occur" (that would be political suicide).
Bullets that kill people really effectively are not inherently immoral. If you wanted to kill an army of Nazis coming for your family, you would buy those bullets. You would also buy those bullets if your wanted to kill a lot of innocent people, however. And then you have to assess why anyone would want less effective bullets in the first place! I mean, if you decide to kill someone, for whatever reason, you want the bullet most likely to kill them. I support the right to sell, buy, and own deadly weapons (and the great responsibility that entails), just in case any Nazis show up at the door in the middle of the night.
The market is no panacea, you're right. But it's sure better than a monopoly. China and the (former) Soviet Union were not capitalist, yet they still screwed scores of millions of people, both their own citizens and others. IMHO, we're better off with the free market, and its concomitant, a culture respecting human rights -- life, liberty, and property. Socialist states don't need human rights. Capitalist ones do (otherwise you could not have free trade). Every step towards socialism we take is a step away from human rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, everyone must vote for Ralph Nader!!!
Silly troll - everyone does vote for Ralph Nader! (The evil capitalists hide the votes in their top hats.)
I'm not a guru on Freenet but the FBI can track data as it moves between any two IP addresses. It doesn't matter if the data file is encrypted, it can be tracked unless every machine-to-machine exchange is uniquely ambiguated.
End-to-end encryption is implemented. All significant (>32KB) data is inserted under its SHA hash. Forgery is impossible. Pointers to data may be inserted encrypted and signed with the publisher's public key.
Link-by-link PKI will emerge shortly. Traffic analysis is nevertheless possible. More complex node behaviors have been proposed (transferring filler data, regular intervals for transfers, etc.) but may prove too costly for widespread deployment. An ultra-secure variant of Freenet is a plausible endeavor.
Wheelchair salesmen wield chainsaws in search of new customers.
but only for his votes!
From each candidate what he can, to each candidate the vote he needs!
Presidential candidates of the world unite!
Your ideas about socialism are wrong. I have never heard a socialist promote a society like the one you describe.
Of course not. Those men all believed that democratic socialism could rectify scores of social ills. They were all wrong-- socialism amplified them. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie work their hardest, within the confines of a just property law, to prevent the proletariat from competing. To arrive at socialism, throw out the law.
Socialism: a political theory advocating state ownership of industry, or an economic system based on state ownership of capital.
Do you disagree over the definition? If so, please correct it.
I don't see how socialism (as per that definition) could be implemented without a trusted arbitrator. Do you?
By what measure should the success of a program like D.A.R.E. be judged?
If the sole objective is to prevent drug use, then the most logical strategy is to warn of the unavoidable, devastating consequences of drug use. Enact strict penalties for drug use (already done) and emphasize them. That's the Big Brother Knows Best strategy -- we're right, and if you fuck up, we're gonna get you!
On the other hand, a program like D.A.R.E. might have the goal of inculcating into the student a respect for the inevitable consequences of any action (a basic idea). For example, students might be taught the risks of drug use, and how to weigh them against the benefits. This is the Free Society strategy, where a person is trusted to make his own choices about his life.
In its current incarnation, D.A.R.E. falls between these two ideals. They do emphasize the harm that the government will do to a person convicted of drug crimes, but they also preach autonomous decision-making and risk-assessment skills. In other words, we trust you to make the Right Choice, but we've got a gun aimed at your head just in case.
Interestingly, a government at either end of the spectrum would be relatively small and efficient, while a government in the middle (like ours) is by necessity brobdingnagian. On one hand, Big Brother can mandate personal, head-mounted video cameras to be worn by every citizen. They can be efficiently monitored, and if anyone's behavior was not acceptable, that person could be swiftly dealt with. On the other hand, a libertarian government would entrust its citizens to make their own choices-- therefore a legal system would be necessary to resolve disputes. Either way, the government is actually quite small and efficient, due to the simplicity of its mission.
The American government (as a whole, state and federal) does not enslave its people, nor does it allow them freedom to make their own choices. This duplicity of intent renders it inefficient and costly. And what could be better for the government? They have found the key to our collective bank vault. It is ambiguity.
What better way to bankrupt a corporation than to be unsure of the product that must be produced!
In the long term, we will colonize the stars. In the long term, we will develop technology that will eliminate our silly pollution like a modern bulldozer could level a primitive hut. Besides, even if the average man is an indecent environment-destroying asshole, don't you become equally indecent by trying to impose upon them your values about the environment? (BTW, how would you feel if we transformed the Earth into a wonderful utopia? If it meant that nature, as you know it, would become extinct?)
Those links are a mockery of my question. Nader does not advocate ending the War on Drugs. No -- he wants to use "creative solutions" to end drug use. (Somewhere in there is an exemption for marijuana. What is it, exactly? Is there a catch? Can I grow and sell it, or may I only possess it?) I have the right to freely buy and use all drugs. With that right comes responsibility. By the way: what makes pot any more deserving of legality than, say, ecstasy (methylenedioxyamphetamine)?
In his article on racism, Nader refers to "redlining" by the electric company. This, from what I can tell, involves the electric company not providing service to people who do not pay their bills. Am I wrong?
Why don't the rights to life, liberty, and property mean anything if one works at McDonalds? If I worked at McDonalds, I would still want them. For example, I would not want the government infringing my right to liberty by imprisoning me for taking LSD. I would not want you to take any of my stuff, and infringe my right to property. And I would definitely not want you to infringe my right to life! I would want to keep my entire paycheck, not just 75% of it. I would want the freedom to invest for my retirement the way I wanted to, not the way government wants (with the state of SS being what it is, I doubt it would pay for even my meager McDonalds retirement).
And why must I own the media and the means of production to enjoy my rights? I don't care about the media. I want my rights!
Zero Pollution Motors is a fiction. Tell me, how do you manufacture and run a van without causing any pollution?
Would I have to give the government my gold jewelry? Gold is non-renewable. Well, actually, it's not. We can synthesize gold in particle accellerators! If, in 50 years, we can replenish all the resources of the Earth, will the Green party drop these demands?
And, if oil is non-renewable, and nobody may pump it and use it, then what good is it? Is oil inherently good to have lying around? Do you marvel at rivers of oil on the Discovery Channel? Yeah, right. So what's the point? Pump all the Earth's oil. Then find other energy sources. Right?
Also, how can I mow my lawn? Will the police take my gas powered lawnmower and make me use a push-mower? How about heating my house? Can I still burn natural gas, or use electricity, which is made from non-renewable resources (since the Green party will close all the nuclear reactors, which make power cleanly and efficiently!)? How will I keep my house warm? I'll freeze! Your cops will make me freeze!
And what does "we support true-cost pricing" mean? What the hell is true-cost pricing? The "true-cost" of something is dictated by what I'll pay for it! The "true-cost" of a million barrels of oil, to you, is MEANINGLESS, because you would not buy them! And what does support mean? Will they fix prices, or won't they?
Also, they claim that under their plan, there will be no waste. Well, waste is a pejorative! A barrel of toxic chemicals might be waste to you, but I might highly prize it as, say, the ingrediant to a life-saving drug! Who decides what is and is not waste? What if I will haul away your waste and burn it to make electricity? Then what is waste?
And what's this crap about "we need to mimic natural systems in the way we manufacture and produce things"? Natural systems are brutal, unforgiving hells! In a natural system, I might walk to your house, strangle you and your family, and walk off with your property! Will the Green party make me behave like an animal? (I say this because humanity is, in fact, a wholly natural system -- but I think they define nature as not including me.)
I don't think anyone will disagree that the future will be as free or freer than the present, as the world gets rich and war fades away.
Why won't the future be an Orwellian nightmare? Perhaps humanity is doomed, by its very nature, to be enslaved and crushed. Maybe we will return to the dark ages -- or worse -- for a millennium or three. Maybe society will degrade into a mass of sheepishness, like the talk show Oprah, which consists of one "expert" making assertions and the entire audience in passionate agreement (there is no expert who is not granted complete and unthinking agreement). Oprah could lead her entire audience to a torturous death.
It scares me how sure you are. I'm not. I fear that fighting and dying for freedom will not be nearly enough. Freedom must be lived. Every day.
My opinion? Better to deal with a few top hats than lose your head.
I think socialism is a wonderful ideal, I really do. I can see why men like Orwell and Einstein could be enraptured by it.
They loved it because they saw no need, in this age of great technology, for anyone to starve in the streets. They felt that capitalism degraded the altruism and purity of men, and that there was no need to threaten terrible death on the working classes.
The tragedy is this: our compassion has created an army of bureaucrats whose income depends on the very things they have been called upon to extirpate! Poverty, crime, drugs -- all transformed into institutions of the state!
There is poverty! Why, give the government some more money.
There is crime! Why, give the government some more money.
There are drugs! Why, give the government some more money.
What makes Big Brother real happy? What pays his bills? Poverty, crime, and drugs!
Consider the War on Drugs. Old Uncle Sam needed a little extra cash, so he invented a new form of crime: the victimless crime! Ha! You know what? He makes seventeen BILLION bucks a year off it. Think about it -- the government steals our natural rights, and we reward it with BILLIONS of dollars! You and I reward it. We pay taxes. We obey the law. We will get what tax paying, law abiding citizens deserve. We will get fucked.
We will be impoverished. We will be addicts. We will be criminals. We will get all the state compassion we can take. And then some.
And 'Socialist utopia'? Is that meant to be an insult? Presumably you think a utopia would be capitalist, yes?
I don't think it was meant to be an insult, really. First of all, a utopia is an invention of Thomas More. It is a fiction, an unreachable ideal, a "nowhere". So, literally, he was taking a jab at the high ideals of McReynolds's socialism.
I found McReynolds's arguments vacuous:
To respond, I must first define the "capitalist mode of production". For this and the next example, I will imitate Bruce Schneier and introduce some characters:
To begin the capitalist mode of production, Alice and Bob first must survey the market. Specifically, they must both find a good or service which is needed. Once they each have found one, they labor to produce it. Bob makes gyros sandwiches, and Alice builds padded chairs.
Alice is hungry, and she would like to eat a gyros. Bob is tired, and he would like to sit down in a chair. Bob agrees to give Alice 10 gyros sandwiches in exchange for a chair. That's capitalism.
Now, I will put it in context, by illustrating the ideal socialist mode of production.
To begin, I must introduce another person:
First, Trent notes the needs of the population: he watches the market. He sees a shortage of, you guessed it, gyros and chairs. He calls Bob, and assigns him a quota of 1000 gyros sandwiches, to be met by the end of the week. He calls Alice, and assigns her a quota of 100 chairs, to be met by the end of the week.
At week's end, the two have each met their quota, and Trent picks up their goods in his big truck. Alice is really hungry by now, so she calls Trent, and asks for a gyros. Trent comes by in his big truck and drops one off for her. Bob still needs a chair. He calls Trent, and he is delivered his new chair.
So far, both the socialist and capitalist examples have worked out pretty well. Capitalism requires Alice and Bob to find a need for a product on their own and meet that demand. Socialism eliminates that hassle.
Now, let's see how they both stand up to subversion. For this, I must indroduce yet another person:
First, let's examine the strength of socialism. Mallory's obvious target is Trent, the central, trusted party. Mallory wants to get all the products and services, and he wants do to it without any labor on his part.
Trent is silently subverted, say, with an icepick to the head. Mallory takes his place, in disguise.
Mallory calls Alice and Bob and demands immediate work. He sets the quotas outrageously high, and demands 10,000 gyros and 1000 chairs. Alice and Bob protest! Mallory cuts their throats -- he can do so with impunity, because he has everyone's goods in his big truck, and that makes him powerful. Not to worry, they are soon replaced with like named proles, who slave to meet Mallory's demands under pain of death.
The week ends, and Mallory comes in his truck. He finds Alice at Bob's house. She is nearly dead, and is begging Bob for a gyros. Bob refused at first, after all, that would be capitalism! Eventually he gave in, and Mallory arrives to find Alice wolfing down one of Bob's gyros. He is enraged! He drags Bob away to the police station, and tortures him again and again until he confesses to his seditious, capitalist activity. Mallory holds a quick show trial, and Bob gets a bullet in the back of his neck. Not to worry, though -- there's always another to take his place!
With great trepidation, Alice and Bob call Mallory, begging for some food. Mallory gives them barely enough to survive, and he and his gang gorge themselves on the rest, always careful to keep Alice and Bob fearful for their lives.
Now, let's examine how capitalism might fail. Mallory has no clear target, and he is very confused. Mallory might make a product, say, a baseball bat, and asks Bob, who wants a bat, to give him a million gyros in exchange. Well, other people can make bats, too, and Bob does the sensible thing and refuses, much to Mallory's dismay. Malloty thinks -- what can I offer that nobody else can? He can't think of anything. In his frustration, he decides to steal all of Bob's stuff.
He walks up to Bob's house, and yells into the window. "I want all of your stuff! Give it to me, or I'll kill you!"
The barrel of Bob's shotgun flies out of the window, and Mallory's guts fly out of his body.
The difference between capitalism and socialism is really simple, if you think about it properly.
Socialism is centralized. If Trent is subverted, Alice and Bob don't realize it until too late. The success of socialism depends on the integrity of Trent.
Capitalism is decentralized, like the Internet, and like Freenet. If Mallory makes an offer that is not profitable for Bob, Bob refuses. Bob has no more trust for Mallory than any other man on the street. Bob takes his own precautions to guard himself and his property.
The above analysis is, of course, too simplistic. The most glaring omission is an emphasis on a decent culture, one in which everyone respects human rights. Under socialism, that sort of culture does not emerge. All transactions are, by law, conducted with Trent. There is no question of property rights, because they are dictated by Trent.
Capitalism, however, depends upon strong institutions of human rights -- the right to life, liberty, and property -- to function. If Alice cannot trust Mallory to respect her property, then Alice will buy from Mallory's competitors. The minority of Mallorys are ignored and left behind, because they cannot be trusted.
Socialism rewards those who are not trustworthy. Capitalism routes around them.
And I think that that is exactly what would happend, the natural minerals and resources would be removed and the land de-"pristined". But you are wrong about one thing. There will not be enough parks for ME.
Yeah. The market distributes resources based on total demand, not based on your idea of what's important. That's why it works!
You should move to Alaska. There are still lots of forests there. You could probably even buy one.
There is a big difference in my mind between alcohol, which cause impairment and MIGHT lead to harm, and a guaranteed 45,000+ deaths per day. And I think that would be a reason for me to want the drug to be illegal.
You're obfuscating the difference. The use of alcohol statistically causes a certain number of deaths per day. If you're talking statistical chance of killing, there's no qualitative difference, and certainly no "mights". Just numbers.
Your community agrees on a level of acceptable carnage, and makes laws to enforce it. On this we agree.
In fact, I doubt many drunken people actively murder others PERIOD. Drunk driving is another story, and as I've said, that most certainly SHOULD be illegal, as the very act of it endangers others.
Yes, but if drinking impairs judgement, then drunks cannot fully judge the legality or safety of driving. Thus, drinking should be forbidden, because once a person is drunk, they are not capable of making the decision to refrain from driving.
Far more than 1 in 2000 drinkers drive home drunk. (I can't substantiate that, but it seems reasonable, considering the prevalence of drunk driving.)
If you drink in your house, what's to stop you from driving away drunk?
There's going to be some risk to society posed by a person with impaired judgement (whatever the cause -- drugs, innate stupidity, sex drive, etc.). People who, like the hypothetical mad gunner shooting bullets past your head, act dangerously with impunity. Any argument for prior restraint in these matters can be taken to the extreme, i.e., mandatory leg shackles for everyone, to prevent any sudden violent outbursts.
I think centuries of living under heavy federal law has made us stupid. You're right. Let each state decide on its own. A homogenous law of the land does not suit a heterogenous population.
The idea that there must be one universal set of laws probably grew out of personal immobility -- the idea that a like-thinking group of people might seperate themselves from the mass was laughed at, because people were tied to their land.
America no longer works that way. It's time the laws reflected that. States will be nothing more than corporations, competing for my business, trying to sell the merits of their unique product. That's elegant. I like it.
No...if you make the population apathetic, they won't *care* if the government is criminal. That's what apathy is about. The more odious agencies of our government chronically engage in criminal behavior and nobody has "killed" them.
But because half the people still vote the criminals in out of fear of the Other Guy, nobody has the balls to kick them out. If virtually nobody voted, putting a stop to them would be a morally simpler process.
You're right, though. Better to be actively involved than wait for conditions to be right for revolution. I'll never understand why all my stupid comments are moderated up! (Yes, I have better ones occasionally.) :-)
But I still don't know why anyone would support the Greens. Have you read their platform? A government that could enforce all that would need to be twice the size it is now! And his position on the War on Drugs is contradictory. Note the "we endorse true-cost pricing" statement -- do they really intend to fix prices! If not, then why bother endorsing it. That's typical of the Green platform -- a lot of endorsements for good things, but no real policy. For example, they make a big case for a "living wage", but give no details on how exactly everyone will be guaranteed one by the government. They've got lots of feel-good positions, but few solutions. I suspect they would find two solutions very quickly: more taxes, and more laws. Neither would work.
Are you seriously suggesting that these citizens who can't even be bothered to push a lever every few years are going to rise up in the streets and "take back" their country?
Yeah. People have been pulling levers for a long time, and nothing seems to change. Because half the population still votes, however, the government can still claim to be legitimate. When the people stop believing it -- when nobody votes -- it will be easily replaced with something better.
If you don't want to grant people the right to have nukes then you must destroy or give away all nukes that federal gov't has in its possession.
Yes. This is a sane option. Destroy them all. Nuclear war is never legitimate. It's too indiscriminate.
Why do you think so many terrorist groups have our number? If we could get out of their affairs then they'd have no one to blame about their situations than themselves.
Nah. They would still blame us. It's simple jealosy. Our culture is more free than theirs, and that pisses them off.
Terrorists should be trembling with fear at the prospect of injuring of killing an American.
my vote against libertariansim all comes down to knowing that greedy people don't play nice...
Oh, they absolutely don't. Makes me wonder why you want a government! Haven't you heard -- the government can take your life, liberty, and property better than any corporation! (And they do.) Must be a magnet for really greedy people.
I would have a lot more respect for Libertarian philosophy if they would come at and define exactly what limits they are in favor of. But the web site is noticeably absent on any limits on personal behavior. This is why they will never achieve power, because it's all theory, and no practicality.
The Libertarians would not make or enforce any federal laws. That's why you can't find any particular limitations to personal freedom on their site. They won't limit it!
But wait. That's a good thing. You can choose to live in a state that allows everything, or you can choose to live in a state that prohibits everything. Prevention is the domain of local government.
These arguments about what constitutes a threat to public safety belong at the local level. Ideally, I could drive out to a city a few miles away, a city with permissive drug laws, and smoke a joint. That's freedom.
Should this drug be illegal? Yes. The act of taking it seriously endangers the lives of others. And I feel that most other Libertarians would agree with me.
By this logic, alcohol should be illegal. A comparable percentage of the people who drink a lot of alcohol will become uncontrollable and violent.
The drug should not be illegal! Taking it in public should be. The act of taking the drug is benign, but the act of taking the drug is public is not, and should be banned. Just like drinking and driving. The risk is agreed to be too high, just like our "Howitzer shooting right above your head" thought experiment. Howitzers should not be illegal, either. But that's just my opinion! You see, the great thing about the Libertarians is that the federal government would not make laws! You can choose the community with the laws you like!
(I brought up the really difficult question earlier: when driving on the highway, there is a real chance that your car will suddenly break, and that you will crash into a car full of kids. Should driving be illegal? The lives of others are seriously endangered! What I'm getting at is that there is risk in everything, and the definition of an unacceptable risk is something very controversial. The federal government has no place making that definition. That's a Libertarian view. One city could ban cars, because they are too dangerous in their opinion. Another city could allow them. You choose the one that fits you best. Or you start your own! Ain't freedom great?)
This drug should be illegal to the full extent of the law. The reason is because taking it is the equivalent of firing random shots at someone. Just the act of taking the drug violates the rights of those around you because you have intentionally created a situation where you could lose your mind and start blowing people away.
By the logic of the "firing the Howitzer above my head is not acceptable" argument, the act of taking this drug in public is criminal. Taking it locked in your basement is not.
In reality, there's some consensus on how much risk is acceptable. There's a real chance that your car could suddenly break on the highway and carreen into a schoolbus full of kids. Yet driving is not illegal.
I'm not sure if a one-in-a-thousand chance should warrant illegality. I would think it would. A one in ten thousand chance probably wouldn't. It's a subjective judgement.
In any case, the illegal act is exposing the public (the non-consenting public - taking the drug at a party where it was known that people would be taking this drug would not be illegal, because of implied consent. the illegality starts when suspicion of intoxication would not be warranted) to the risk of this drug, which steals your reason, just like firing a gun near someone (without their consent!) is illegal, because it exposes them to a risk.
Although this raises the question, "Should being really angry in public be illegal?" By this logic, yes! Angry people can't control themselves as well as calm people.
I don't know. It's subjective. Ban the most flagrant offences (shooting guns in my vicinity, etc.) and tolerate the rest.
The point I'm making is that Libertarians see drugs as "all drugs should be legal" without any thought to whether some drugs SHOULD be illegal.
No drug should be illegal. In your example, the act of exposing the public to the risk of your likely maniacal behavior was illegal. The drug, in and of itself, is not illegal -- that's absurd. It's the classic "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" banality.
ust as with weapons. I agree personal weapons are good. However, personal nukes are bad. There are lines that need to be drawn in a lot of cases, and unfortunately too often Libertarians refuse to accept that.
My litmus test is "Can the nuke be detonated in a manner which does not infringe the rights of others?" The obvious reply is, "Well, I do not intend to detonate this nuke. It is for show." Or, "I intend to detonate this nuke in Antarctica." Either way, it seems reasonable to ask that the nuke be disabled. If you aren't an extremist! :-)
So powerful and rich corporations are gonna take care of the handicapped and homeless?
Yes, in a sense. Since the government isn't taking any money from you, there's no excuse "Well, I pay for charity through taxes!", so the average decent man will feel compelled to give to charity. Perhaps big, powerful charities. Or just to the homeless guy on the street corner.
They are going to school the population, and invest in sustainable and non-profit ventures?
This too. Parents will pay the money they save in taxes to private schools. Perhaps big, powerful schools. Or maybe little schools. Other decent people will also donate money. It's a good cause.
People will be free to invest their money in whatever ventures they like, not the ventures government likes. And government likes some evil ventures -- seen the Drug War lately? Would you pay for the Drug War? The Libertarians won't make you. Can you say that about Nader?
These contradictory statements are typical of Nader's platform. Number 8 equates "hard" drugs with violent crime, and mandates firm law enforcement against them. Number 22 calls for an end to the War on Drugs! To me, and end to the War on Drugs means legalizing all chemical substances. Not just the ones Nader likes.
Nader whines a lot about all sorts of rights -- "workers' rights", "citizen rights", "privacy rights", and countless more uses of the word. I don't care. I want the right to life, liberty, and property. Absolutely. Without any restrictions.
Does that make me a right wing capitalist? Or does the fact that I laugh at silly "if I were king" statements like
You're voting for that?
That wouldn't be economically feasible. If you think that that is a bad justification then I suggest you start your own insurance company and attempt to structure your business model around providing that type of service.
Well, it would be feasible -- it would just cost half your income. But people want their money now, not lifelong security from an injury that might never happen. I'm one of them.
And if Ford were half as smart as I, they would refuse.
It's in Toyota's interest to sell guaranteed, safe cars, because people can't buy a safe car from Ford, so they will buy it from Toyota. It is not in Toyota's interest to protect Ford. That's why cars get cheaper and more reliable every year -- competition.
What "enlightened" insurance company would offer such a stupid policy at an affordable price?
An insurance company, by definition, offers that "stupid policy". Otherwise, it would not be insurance. The idea is simple -- a thousand people put a $20 bill into a bank account every month, and one person falls down the stairs every month and spends $2000 on medical bills. The price of insurance is set by the frequency of accidents and their severity.
Do you want to have to rely on "the kindness of strangers?"
What is the alternative? Gods in the image of governments, immune to the corruption of power, who steal equitably and give to those in need? It's a fantasy. How can a representative government be more moral than the people it represents? If the majority of people were miserly goons, government would represent the interests of miserly goons. If the majority of people are kind, and would not hesitate to give to those in need, then why must the government do it for them? Government is wanton power. It's that simple.
See those people dying in the middle-east, Indonesia, Bosnia, Africa (pick your favorite "enlightened" government)
Woah there -- I didn't say anything about government being enlightened. If the people don't have a healthy respect for human rights (life, liberty, property) then there's no way their government can.
Capitalism, because of its distributed nature, requires strong regard for human rights. We cannot trade goods if you think you should be able to steal them from me. We create a legal system dedicated to upholding the rights and contractual obligations of both parties.
Socialism, however, requires no respect for human rights to function. The state takes what it wants and gives what it wants. You do what it wants, or you die. No human rights.
Africa is notorious for it's socialist rulers and human rights violations. The people do not expect human rights, and they do not get them. We give foriegn aid to their rulers. Their rulers give it to... nobody. Some socialist utopia.
Your first two examples highlight the evil any powerful entity can do, in the absence of a tradition of human rights and the means to enforce them. The rulers of those people obviously like first-world money more than their own subjects.
Number three is tricky. It's a case of consumers too naive to not trust a corporation (or any entity bigger than one guy). That's comparable to selling products to kids, only the consequences were more severe.
The exact nature of ozone depletion is still hotly contested in scientific circles. DuPont probably said something evasive like "we don't have any theory that could explain such a phenomenon", not "it absolutely does not occur" (that would be political suicide).
Bullets that kill people really effectively are not inherently immoral. If you wanted to kill an army of Nazis coming for your family, you would buy those bullets. You would also buy those bullets if your wanted to kill a lot of innocent people, however. And then you have to assess why anyone would want less effective bullets in the first place! I mean, if you decide to kill someone, for whatever reason, you want the bullet most likely to kill them. I support the right to sell, buy, and own deadly weapons (and the great responsibility that entails), just in case any Nazis show up at the door in the middle of the night.
The market is no panacea, you're right. But it's sure better than a monopoly. China and the (former) Soviet Union were not capitalist, yet they still screwed scores of millions of people, both their own citizens and others. IMHO, we're better off with the free market, and its concomitant, a culture respecting human rights -- life, liberty, and property. Socialist states don't need human rights. Capitalist ones do (otherwise you could not have free trade). Every step towards socialism we take is a step away from human rights.