Five years ago the Environmental Protection Agency mandated that oxygenated additives be added to gasoline. Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) was the compound of choice.
Typical government stupidity. MTBE is now leaking into the water table. It may be carcinogenic! Now the EPA is screaming about the very chemical it told gasoline companies to produce massively just five years ago.
You really need to chill out. (Or are you just plagarizing?)
The unquestioning mob mentality of the left is a negative thing, I agree. Novel ideas are only useful so long as they are subjected to as much or greater analysis and criticism as the old ideas they replace.
I find your correlation of Christian and orthodox Jewish ideas with modern political tradition troubling. The early Christians, after all, had no patience for Roman politics -- they were all sure the world would soon end, and then what would politics matter!
Rather, modern political tradition (respect for human rights, representative government) originated in England, where a plurality of individual land owners built a legal tradition from the ground up. We imported the legal tradition to America, and left behind the vestigal monarchy.
So long as the rights to life, liberty, and property are respected, we'll be okay. Are they?
Then, even more important is your state government. And then, even more so, the local gov't. Those of you who might scold me, remember these two things. Cities and towns can prevent businesses from moving in (and possibly even revoke corporate charters), and they can enact their own minimum wage laws (Santa Cruz, anyone?)
And I can move to another city, one that allows free competition, and buy cheaper, better products and services! (Right now, I would have to move to another country to escape the federal government's laws -- a far more difficult thing to do.)
No, the Libs just want to remove gov't restrictions on Big Business turning the screws on people. Sorry, I won't have that.
Yeah, right -- the Evil State and the Evil Corporations are going to destroy each other? Come on. They will work together! Corporations will petition the state for laws favoring their business by restricting others' rights, and the state will demand in return that the corporations enforce their will for them.
The answer is to bankrupt the government (the Libertarians want to do this). That removes the corporations' biggest ally! Corporations will have to respect others' rights, just like you and I!
Incorrect. If thinking in the long term does reap more profit eventually, corporations dedicated to long term ventures will get rich, and thus have more influence over the use of resources. Short term earnings are alluring, but successful corporations can and do neglect them. The necessity of short term earnings is a view held by small-time investors, not leaders of successful corporations.
By what logic does the government make long term decisions any better than corporations? If the people want something in the short term, and the government represents the people, then it will act for the short term, just like the market would, only the government is not nearly as responsive or efficient.
There is no pricing problem. Some parks will be more exclusive and costly. They will be profitable because each visitor can pays a lot of money, even though they get few visitors. On the other end of the spectrum, there will be parks that get hordes of visitors, because they charge so little. They, too, are profitable.
Capitalism is not perfect, I agree. It is often less efficient than we would like. Government, however, is always terribly inefficient, not to mention corrupt. Capitalism keeps things clean.
Why Ford would sell you a vehicle with defective tires?
Because it's profitable.
If you were smart, you would ask Ford to sign a contract guaranteeing the quality of the tires.
Why on earth Bridgestone would manufacture defective tires?
Because it's cheaper than manufacturing working tires.
If you were really bright, you would ask Bridgestone to sign a contract guaranteeing the quality of their tires. In reality, you'll find elaborate disclaimers of liability on virtually every product you buy. Why do we buy products which are not backed up with a guarantee of quality? We're stupid, that's why.
Why your insurance company would refuse to cover your medical bills for the the next sixty years?
Because you were stupid enough to sign a flawed contract for insurance that does not insure. You should have bought insurance which guarantees coverage for medical bills. (And that contract would be enforced by law.)
Why your employer would decide to LAY YOU OFF (possiblly due to your inability to hold your own dick--what little may be left of it--let alone walk to the restroom to use it).
Because you can't work as well as you used to, and you are now an unprofitable asset for the corporation. Maybe you should ask a charity for some money? There are still decent people in the world, you know.
why would a "rational" person waste his time on a piece of almost-roadkill
Because that person is a decent individual.
maybe you'll find time to revist the topic of what goverment is best at.
Government can enforce contracts. They can make Ford and Bridgestone pay you a million dollars because they guaranteed their tires would work (and they didn't), they can make your insurance company hold up its end of the bargain. (Obviously, it is not profitable for Ford and Bridgestone to pay a million dollars to everyone who buys their tires (and crashes), so they have an incentive to make quality tires. If, and that's a BIG if, their customers insist on a guarantee of quality!)
All that's required is a little bit of thought on your part. Is that too much to ask?
if we're all out for ourselves, and dishonesty and sociopathy are the coin of the realm, then why should we, as social creatures of the same cloth, believe anything you say regarding the basic rights you're proclaiming as fundamental?
Is government good? If you say no, you're a libertarian. Libertarianism does not imply solpisism.
Property rights are a fundamental part of liberty. My right to monopolize my property does not mean that I will. I also have the right to give food to a starving man.
Do not try to argue that:
Property rights are asocial.
Thus any society that recognizes property rights is necessarily egotistical to the extreme.
It's a straw man. Property rights do not preclude consensual communistic behavior. Rather, they check the power of people who want to have everything.
They say that "the buyer would own something so beautiful and pristine, that they would have no incentive to damage/ruin/commercialize it".
This is logical. You're concerned that the demand for oil or timber is high, so the owners of the land would want to sell its resources, right?
If the demand for beautiful, pristine parks is greater than the demand for oil and timber, the owner of the land will keep it beautiful and pristine. If the demand for oil and timber is greater than the demand for beautiful parks, then the owner of the land will sell his timber and oil. It self-regulates! There will be enough pristine parks, and there will be enough oil and timber. If too much land is raped for oil and timber, then the market for pristine parks will be very lucrative, and people will plant trees and restore the natural state of their land.
On the contrary, your brilliant analysis is the reason why one should think before accepting noble sounding environmentalist decrees. (The obvious reply to my post would be, "But nature is innately good, and oil is innately bad, so human interests are not to be listened to!". I would ask you to substantiate why nature is transcendentally superior to man's other interests. The discussion then degrades to pure emotion.)
Yeah, I'll start buying airplane engines from ma & pa shops. Or relational database packages. Or my AIDS medicine.
That's how big corporations start! Ma and Pa decide to take out the chemistry set and try to make some AIDS medication. Other people say, "Hey, there are a lot of people who would pay for AIDS medication -- I should help them out, for a share of the profits!" Soon you have a serious effort.
Government frequently plays a beneficial role in regulating the market. Deal with it. I prefer that to having Exxon-Mobil-Chevron-Texaco-BP-Amoco having carte blanche to do as they will. Fuck that.
How can a people too sheepish to keep a few corporations in line ever hope to keep their government in line? Straw man.
Basically, if a new government were formed upon the basis of libretarianism, it would ultimately fail when mass propaganda, err, media were introduced. Stupid people do not deserve and a libretarian govt, and vice versa.
When the federal government is abolished, it will restore competition between states. Don't like Illinois? Too many stupid laws made by stupid people? Move to a state with libertarian laws! Better yet, start your own state, with the government of your choice! (Isn't freedom great?)
Actually, I'm curious if a libertarian federal government would defend us, if everyone who reads Slashdot moved to Antarctica and created a new state. I think they would have to, as we're still American citizens.
To me, minimizing government and putting power in the hands of powerfull companies puts the Libertarians onthe right
I hate when people confuse the issues of liberty and economics. The concomitant of liberty is not the abolition of property. People who would like to abolish property are either naive, stupid, or completely evil.
There is nothing that prohibits socialism to emerge within a society which recognizes property rights.
And please -- the Libertarians couldn't put power in the hands of big corporations if they tried. The second they are elected, they intend to fire everyone and sell everything! They won't have any power to give. Good. That's the idea.
I think nothing would change, and the Monarchy would tighten its grip on the American people.
That's no argument for Nader. Here's my argument:
Nader says corporations are evil. He will use a big government to regulate them.
Government is a corporation which may use deadly force to impose its will.
Therefore: Nader wants to lead a big corporation that can use deadly force to impose its will.
Therefore: Nader is evil.
Reductio ad absurdum.
Nader's platform is not only whining, it is mindless whining. It is stupid, romanticicized, Robin Hood steal from the rich and give to the poor bullshit.
Because my neighbor does not have the right to mount a howitzer on his house, and he does not have the right to a personal nuke.
He has a right to mount a Howitzer on his house. That makes good sense. Almost half a million people are in prison for non-violent drug offenses. What if they had defended their rights? What if every police officer making a drug bust had to leave knowing full well that there was a good chance he would not return alive? A person has the right to own weapons which could reasonably be used in the defense of his person or property. That includes tanks, mortars, and aircraft.
Now, the nuke is rather hard to justify. Will he use it in defense if the entire city suddenly tries to kill him? Yeah, right -- that's obviously absurd. No nukes.
Because you don't have the right to fire shots at me -- until you hit me.
Surely you don't believe that the mere absence of a federal government will turn everyone into crazed, gun-shooting maniacs?
Because the police and fire departments should not be privatized.
The Libertarians would abolish Federal police forces. You should have the freedom to choose the state with the government and laws you like the most. An individual state could privatize the police and fire departments. If you don't like it, you can move. That's a way out. Better than moving to Mexico -- the only choice you have under a powerful federal government!
Because the time for a strong national defense is before it's needed.
Where have the Libertarians stated that we do not need a strong national defense? Browne is in favor of a "Star Wars" missile defense system! (Actually, unlike the pure FUD of Reagan's system (FUD which worked very nicely to scare the Soviets, BTW), a current missile defense network might actually work.) In fact, the Libertarians think that national defense should be the greatest concern of the federal government.
Because the gold standard is a stupid, long dead idea.
Economics are not my strong point. Do you feel that the market cannot self-regulate, and that the gold standard will destabilize it? Is an economy-czar necessary to maintain stability? How much influence must he wield?
Protesting something means going out and being active about it, not opting-out.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Don't believe me? What happens if only one person were to go and vote? All those other people lose their voice in the matter, and that one person gets to decide all by themselves. And if it happens again the next time, who are the candidates going to care about? The one person who determines who gets the job, or the rest of the population that has shown they're not going to be bothered to vote? Of course, that one person.
If only one person voted, the government would be a de facto monarchy. The government persists so long as it is thought to be legitimate. A monarchy is widely thought to be illegitimate. Thus a monarchy does not persist.
To topple the government, first make the population apathetic. Next, expose the criminal nature of the government. The people will treat it like any common criminal, a criminal they don't care about in the slightest, and would like to get rid of. They will kill it.
Next time you're with a group of friends, and they're deciding where to go eat/what to do, try just not participating in the process, see if it does anything useful. It won't.
Your friends cannot, in a society which respects human rights, use deadly force to compel you to eat where they please. The government can and does. Bad analogy -- why would you befriend people who would force you to eat where they want you to? What kind of friends are those? What could you possibly gain through such an association? Good question.
And Browne would wrap it all up, put it on a platter, and hand it over to microsoft.
I'm curious how a virtually bankrupt federal government (no income tax) could afford to hand the Internet to anyone, much less on a silver platter.
The Libertarian Party is not voted for because it is good at government. It is not voted for because it can make the trains run on time. Nor does it have any idea how a train works. In fact, its ideas don't even matter -- a bankrupt government can't do anything!
That's the criterion for electing the Libertarians.
His tag line reminds me of Soviet party loyalty. The same party loyalty that Stalin thrived on.
Unfortunately, your translation also reminds me of things Soviet. An economy is the concomitant of society and differentiation of labor. We depend on each other, and we share our goods and services. That's an economy.
From what I've heard, Nader's party thinks the economy is some instrument of repression, or a way for government and corporations to enslave everyone. Repeal civilization - vote for Nader!
do you agree with Bush when he says that government exists to protect and encourage business (a position, I point out, that even Adam Smith would find a horrifying prospect), or Gore when he thinks that government exists to protect and encourage the populace?
History has shown that government exists to protect and encourage itself. Just like Microsoft. Bill Gates can't kill me for using Linux! Can you say the same about Big Brother? Well, there's the difference. A vote for government is a vote for the most terrible monopoly of all.
There should be some common denominator in our society, and that needs to be dictated by someone, or we would have anarchy!
What's a common denominator in that context? You modulo me equals zero? Huh?
Yeah, the choices others make do affect me. What's the alternative? We can have a cadre of rulers make all our choices for us! They can steal everything, and give back the scraps in an equal manner! You can trust everyone a little, or you can trust the state completely. The latter has proven to be a stupid course of action.
The choice here is how much that someone is willing to dictate.
No. The choice here is how much we are willing to be dictated to!
You decide who would like to have more control over your life.
I would like to have control over my life! I would like my children to have control over theirs. The common denominator isn't worth it, whatever it is.
Assuming you still live in the US, well, I'm sorry to say that you're already endorsing the system.
No, that's wrong. It simply means you believe you have a right to your land, and that you believe your land is your land, not the government's, and you don't feel any duty to lease it from them! To run away would be a real endorsement. The fact that I want to live peacefully in my home, without any state compassion, is not an endorsement in any way.
If you proclaimed yourself King of my land, I would not run away. I would hoist the black flag and cut throats (guess whose?). Why is the state any different?
You use the services provided by the government you choose to (not) elect (water, sewage, electricity, perhaps you drive, maybe use an interstate every once in awhile, maybe you receive mail, fly somewhere, or make a phone call, go to a grocery store, buy food, not have appliances and random objects blow up, or spew radiation at you, or poison your water supply).
You are the king of FUD. What's the difference between the government and a corporation? I'll tell you: the government can kidnap and kill you if you don't pay! What does this mean?
You recieve a threat in the mail. It reads, "You will pay us a fourth of your income, or we will kidnap you, and take even more of your property. Besides, it's for your own good. Trust us." You care about your family, so you do as they ask and pay up.
A year passes. You drank water, flushed away your sewage, used electricity, drove your car (even on the interstate), recieved mail, flew to Florida and back, made many phone calls, bought lots of groceries, and neither appliances nor random objects blew up, nor was any radiation spewed, nor was your water supply poisoned.
Now the criminals write again. "Look how great your life was! Look how many things you were able to do!" the letter reads. You pause for a moment and wonder -- What does all that have to do with them? You read more. "You see, if you hadn't paid us last year, none of that would have happened. Your life would be hell! The universe would cease to function. Anarchy and chaos would prevail. Radiation would spew from random objects! Your TV would blow up! So you see, we're really not criminals. We're on your side! Oh, by the way, we need a little more of your cash this year than last year. You know how inflation is."
Maniacs! You scream. How stupid do they think I am?
(Really, the government keeps random objects from spewing radiation at me? Go on, sacrifice your kids to the sun god. After all, it would really be a shame if the sun stopped rising!)
The right to open my mouth, as long as I am not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
You have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (of course, the theater has the right to throw you out the door, too).
Long-term, non-voting will cause concern and reform.
Not concern, really. If nobody votes, it lifts the government's veil of legitimacy. Good.
I'm a paying customer of the USA, and I have the right to complain on that basis alone.
That is an insult to business everywhere. You are not a customer of the USA, you are its subject. Mickeysoft cannot kill you and sell your property if you do not buy Windoze. Big Brother can and does with impunity.
You should be more careful with your use of the term "rights". Rights are a lofty philosophical ideal. They are granted by God or nature, depending on how religious you are. You have the right to complain because God gave you the right to complain. That's the definition of a right, as far as the Constitution goes. But even the general dictionary definition is quite nebulous.
People far more stupid than you often imply that a right is granted to a man by his state -- one of my pet peeves. A fine achievement in brainwashing, too.
Re:There is NO maximum wage!!!!
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 1
Damn. I actually bother to read follow-ups to my posts, and I get bromidic JFK quotes?
You know what? Kennedys die! Just like you and I! That rhymes - sing it to your kids! I feel like killing them off once and for all, just so I don't have to watch another stupid news special!
Americans love their stupid Kennedys like Brits love their stupid queen.
You should be happy that the record companies are even there, so you can have music to listen to.
Correction: "I'm happy musicians are even there, so I can have music to listen to."
Perhaps even: "I'm happy record companies are even there, because otherwise I would only be able to hear music at concerts." (well, or I could sing it myself, or hire someone to)
But more likely: "I'm not happy record companies are even there. Ever since we devised easy, cheap ways to distribute perfect copies of music, there's been no excuse for paying a record company to sell me a copy. Yeah, it's time we cut out the middleman!"
How would you like congress telling you you had to let people publish your Slashdot comments in a book just because the person publishing the book had already read them on Slashdot?
That is legal, AFAIK (IANAL, however). For example, if Pat Buchanan makes a speech delineating his evil plan to exterminate everyone under 60, and I hear it, I have the right to repeat it to anyone I please, and even publish it. Why is it any different if I tape his speech? And if you maintain that my duplication of any part of his speech is illegal, because his speech is his property, and duplication of any part of it would be theft, then what might the consequences be for society?
Slashdot Mirror
Five years ago the Environmental Protection Agency mandated that oxygenated additives be added to gasoline. Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) was the compound of choice.
Typical government stupidity. MTBE is now leaking into the water table. It may be carcinogenic! Now the EPA is screaming about the very chemical it told gasoline companies to produce massively just five years ago.
Some track record government has.
You really need to chill out. (Or are you just plagarizing?)
The unquestioning mob mentality of the left is a negative thing, I agree. Novel ideas are only useful so long as they are subjected to as much or greater analysis and criticism as the old ideas they replace.
I find your correlation of Christian and orthodox Jewish ideas with modern political tradition troubling. The early Christians, after all, had no patience for Roman politics -- they were all sure the world would soon end, and then what would politics matter!
Rather, modern political tradition (respect for human rights, representative government) originated in England, where a plurality of individual land owners built a legal tradition from the ground up. We imported the legal tradition to America, and left behind the vestigal monarchy.
So long as the rights to life, liberty, and property are respected, we'll be okay. Are they?
Then, even more important is your state government. And then, even more so, the local gov't. Those of you who might scold me, remember these two things. Cities and towns can prevent businesses from moving in (and possibly even revoke corporate charters), and they can enact their own minimum wage laws (Santa Cruz, anyone?)
And I can move to another city, one that allows free competition, and buy cheaper, better products and services! (Right now, I would have to move to another country to escape the federal government's laws -- a far more difficult thing to do.)
You just summarized the Libertarian position.
No, the Libs just want to remove gov't restrictions on Big Business turning the screws on people. Sorry, I won't have that.
Yeah, right -- the Evil State and the Evil Corporations are going to destroy each other? Come on. They will work together! Corporations will petition the state for laws favoring their business by restricting others' rights, and the state will demand in return that the corporations enforce their will for them.
The answer is to bankrupt the government (the Libertarians want to do this). That removes the corporations' biggest ally! Corporations will have to respect others' rights, just like you and I!
Incorrect. If thinking in the long term does reap more profit eventually, corporations dedicated to long term ventures will get rich, and thus have more influence over the use of resources. Short term earnings are alluring, but successful corporations can and do neglect them. The necessity of short term earnings is a view held by small-time investors, not leaders of successful corporations.
By what logic does the government make long term decisions any better than corporations? If the people want something in the short term, and the government represents the people, then it will act for the short term, just like the market would, only the government is not nearly as responsive or efficient.
There is no pricing problem. Some parks will be more exclusive and costly. They will be profitable because each visitor can pays a lot of money, even though they get few visitors. On the other end of the spectrum, there will be parks that get hordes of visitors, because they charge so little. They, too, are profitable.
Capitalism is not perfect, I agree. It is often less efficient than we would like. Government, however, is always terribly inefficient, not to mention corrupt. Capitalism keeps things clean.
Why Ford would sell you a vehicle with defective tires?
Because it's profitable.
If you were smart, you would ask Ford to sign a contract guaranteeing the quality of the tires.
Why on earth Bridgestone would manufacture defective tires?
Because it's cheaper than manufacturing working tires.
If you were really bright, you would ask Bridgestone to sign a contract guaranteeing the quality of their tires. In reality, you'll find elaborate disclaimers of liability on virtually every product you buy. Why do we buy products which are not backed up with a guarantee of quality? We're stupid, that's why.
Why your insurance company would refuse to cover your medical bills for the the next sixty years?
Because you were stupid enough to sign a flawed contract for insurance that does not insure. You should have bought insurance which guarantees coverage for medical bills. (And that contract would be enforced by law.)
Why your employer would decide to LAY YOU OFF (possiblly due to your inability to hold your own dick--what little may be left of it--let alone walk to the restroom to use it).
Because you can't work as well as you used to, and you are now an unprofitable asset for the corporation. Maybe you should ask a charity for some money? There are still decent people in the world, you know.
why would a "rational" person waste his time on a piece of almost-roadkill
Because that person is a decent individual.
maybe you'll find time to revist the topic of what goverment is best at.
Government can enforce contracts. They can make Ford and Bridgestone pay you a million dollars because they guaranteed their tires would work (and they didn't), they can make your insurance company hold up its end of the bargain. (Obviously, it is not profitable for Ford and Bridgestone to pay a million dollars to everyone who buys their tires (and crashes), so they have an incentive to make quality tires. If, and that's a BIG if, their customers insist on a guarantee of quality!)
All that's required is a little bit of thought on your part. Is that too much to ask?
if we're all out for ourselves, and dishonesty and sociopathy are the coin of the realm, then why should we, as social creatures of the same cloth, believe anything you say regarding the basic rights you're proclaiming as fundamental?
Is government good? If you say no, you're a libertarian. Libertarianism does not imply solpisism.
Property rights are a fundamental part of liberty. My right to monopolize my property does not mean that I will. I also have the right to give food to a starving man.
Do not try to argue that:
It's a straw man. Property rights do not preclude consensual communistic behavior. Rather, they check the power of people who want to have everything.
They say that "the buyer would own something so beautiful and pristine, that they would have no incentive to damage/ruin/commercialize it".
This is logical. You're concerned that the demand for oil or timber is high, so the owners of the land would want to sell its resources, right?
If the demand for beautiful, pristine parks is greater than the demand for oil and timber, the owner of the land will keep it beautiful and pristine. If the demand for oil and timber is greater than the demand for beautiful parks, then the owner of the land will sell his timber and oil. It self-regulates! There will be enough pristine parks, and there will be enough oil and timber. If too much land is raped for oil and timber, then the market for pristine parks will be very lucrative, and people will plant trees and restore the natural state of their land.
On the contrary, your brilliant analysis is the reason why one should think before accepting noble sounding environmentalist decrees. (The obvious reply to my post would be, "But nature is innately good, and oil is innately bad, so human interests are not to be listened to!". I would ask you to substantiate why nature is transcendentally superior to man's other interests. The discussion then degrades to pure emotion.)
Yeah, I'll start buying airplane engines from ma & pa shops. Or relational database packages. Or my AIDS medicine.
That's how big corporations start! Ma and Pa decide to take out the chemistry set and try to make some AIDS medication. Other people say, "Hey, there are a lot of people who would pay for AIDS medication -- I should help them out, for a share of the profits!" Soon you have a serious effort.
Government frequently plays a beneficial role in regulating the market. Deal with it. I prefer that to having Exxon-Mobil-Chevron-Texaco-BP-Amoco having carte blanche to do as they will. Fuck that.
How can a people too sheepish to keep a few corporations in line ever hope to keep their government in line? Straw man.
Basically, if a new government were formed upon the basis of libretarianism, it would ultimately fail when mass propaganda, err, media were introduced. Stupid people do not deserve and a libretarian govt, and vice versa.
When the federal government is abolished, it will restore competition between states. Don't like Illinois? Too many stupid laws made by stupid people? Move to a state with libertarian laws! Better yet, start your own state, with the government of your choice! (Isn't freedom great?)
Actually, I'm curious if a libertarian federal government would defend us, if everyone who reads Slashdot moved to Antarctica and created a new state. I think they would have to, as we're still American citizens.
To me, minimizing government and putting power in the hands of powerfull companies puts the Libertarians onthe right
I hate when people confuse the issues of liberty and economics. The concomitant of liberty is not the abolition of property. People who would like to abolish property are either naive, stupid, or completely evil.
There is nothing that prohibits socialism to emerge within a society which recognizes property rights.
And please -- the Libertarians couldn't put power in the hands of big corporations if they tried. The second they are elected, they intend to fire everyone and sell everything! They won't have any power to give. Good. That's the idea.
I think nothing would change, and the Monarchy would tighten its grip on the American people.
That's no argument for Nader. Here's my argument:
Reductio ad absurdum.
Nader's platform is not only whining, it is mindless whining. It is stupid, romanticicized, Robin Hood steal from the rich and give to the poor bullshit.
Because my neighbor does not have the right to mount a howitzer on his house, and he does not have the right to a personal nuke.
He has a right to mount a Howitzer on his house. That makes good sense. Almost half a million people are in prison for non-violent drug offenses. What if they had defended their rights? What if every police officer making a drug bust had to leave knowing full well that there was a good chance he would not return alive? A person has the right to own weapons which could reasonably be used in the defense of his person or property. That includes tanks, mortars, and aircraft.
Now, the nuke is rather hard to justify. Will he use it in defense if the entire city suddenly tries to kill him? Yeah, right -- that's obviously absurd. No nukes.
Because you don't have the right to fire shots at me -- until you hit me.
Surely you don't believe that the mere absence of a federal government will turn everyone into crazed, gun-shooting maniacs?
Because the police and fire departments should not be privatized.
The Libertarians would abolish Federal police forces. You should have the freedom to choose the state with the government and laws you like the most. An individual state could privatize the police and fire departments. If you don't like it, you can move. That's a way out. Better than moving to Mexico -- the only choice you have under a powerful federal government!
Because the time for a strong national defense is before it's needed.
Where have the Libertarians stated that we do not need a strong national defense? Browne is in favor of a "Star Wars" missile defense system! (Actually, unlike the pure FUD of Reagan's system (FUD which worked very nicely to scare the Soviets, BTW), a current missile defense network might actually work.) In fact, the Libertarians think that national defense should be the greatest concern of the federal government.
Because the gold standard is a stupid, long dead idea.
Economics are not my strong point. Do you feel that the market cannot self-regulate, and that the gold standard will destabilize it? Is an economy-czar necessary to maintain stability? How much influence must he wield?
Protesting something means going out and being active about it, not opting-out.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
Don't believe me? What happens if only one person were to go and vote? All those other people lose their voice in the matter, and that one person gets to decide all by themselves. And if it happens again the next time, who are the candidates going to care about? The one person who determines who gets the job, or the rest of the population that has shown they're not going to be bothered to vote? Of course, that one person.
If only one person voted, the government would be a de facto monarchy. The government persists so long as it is thought to be legitimate. A monarchy is widely thought to be illegitimate. Thus a monarchy does not persist.
To topple the government, first make the population apathetic. Next, expose the criminal nature of the government. The people will treat it like any common criminal, a criminal they don't care about in the slightest, and would like to get rid of. They will kill it.
Next time you're with a group of friends, and they're deciding where to go eat/what to do, try just not participating in the process, see if it does anything useful. It won't.
Your friends cannot, in a society which respects human rights, use deadly force to compel you to eat where they please. The government can and does. Bad analogy -- why would you befriend people who would force you to eat where they want you to? What kind of friends are those? What could you possibly gain through such an association? Good question.
And Browne would wrap it all up, put it on a platter, and hand it over to microsoft.
I'm curious how a virtually bankrupt federal government (no income tax) could afford to hand the Internet to anyone, much less on a silver platter.
The Libertarian Party is not voted for because it is good at government. It is not voted for because it can make the trains run on time. Nor does it have any idea how a train works. In fact, its ideas don't even matter -- a bankrupt government can't do anything!
That's the criterion for electing the Libertarians.
His tag line reminds me of Soviet party loyalty. The same party loyalty that Stalin thrived on.
Unfortunately, your translation also reminds me of things Soviet. An economy is the concomitant of society and differentiation of labor. We depend on each other, and we share our goods and services. That's an economy.
From what I've heard, Nader's party thinks the economy is some instrument of repression, or a way for government and corporations to enslave everyone. Repeal civilization - vote for Nader!
No. Govenrnment has no more of a right to this body of land than you and I. Stop spewing FUD.
Of course, this is a separate question from whether or not life begins at birth or conception....
I feel that frequent heterosexual intercourse should be mandatory.
"Your duty to the Party!"
(Honestly, people too stupid to use contraceptives should be encouraged to seek abortions, IMHO.)
do you agree with Bush when he says that government exists to protect and encourage business (a position, I point out, that even Adam Smith would find a horrifying prospect), or Gore when he thinks that government exists to protect and encourage the populace?
History has shown that government exists to protect and encourage itself. Just like Microsoft. Bill Gates can't kill me for using Linux! Can you say the same about Big Brother? Well, there's the difference. A vote for government is a vote for the most terrible monopoly of all.
My ancestors (and, most likely, yours as well) DIED so we can vote. Nothing makes me angrier than people pissing on that!
Correction: your ancestors died so you could be free from the tyranny of the English king. Voting was merely the means of perpetuating that freedom.
Almost a half million people are in prison as we speak because of the Drug War. Where are their votes?
Your ancestors petitioned the King. They begged him to let them be free. They cast their votes. Yet his tyranny still reigned.
Trade your vote for a rifle and take your freedom back.
There should be some common denominator in our society, and that needs to be dictated by someone, or we would have anarchy!
What's a common denominator in that context? You modulo me equals zero? Huh?
Yeah, the choices others make do affect me. What's the alternative? We can have a cadre of rulers make all our choices for us! They can steal everything, and give back the scraps in an equal manner! You can trust everyone a little, or you can trust the state completely. The latter has proven to be a stupid course of action.
The choice here is how much that someone is willing to dictate.
No. The choice here is how much we are willing to be dictated to!
You decide who would like to have more control over your life.
I would like to have control over my life! I would like my children to have control over theirs. The common denominator isn't worth it, whatever it is.
Assuming you still live in the US, well, I'm sorry to say that you're already endorsing the system.
No, that's wrong. It simply means you believe you have a right to your land, and that you believe your land is your land, not the government's, and you don't feel any duty to lease it from them! To run away would be a real endorsement. The fact that I want to live peacefully in my home, without any state compassion, is not an endorsement in any way.
If you proclaimed yourself King of my land, I would not run away. I would hoist the black flag and cut throats (guess whose?). Why is the state any different?
You use the services provided by the government you choose to (not) elect (water, sewage, electricity, perhaps you drive, maybe use an interstate every once in awhile, maybe you receive mail, fly somewhere, or make a phone call, go to a grocery store, buy food, not have appliances and random objects blow up, or spew radiation at you, or poison your water supply).
You are the king of FUD. What's the difference between the government and a corporation? I'll tell you: the government can kidnap and kill you if you don't pay! What does this mean?
You recieve a threat in the mail. It reads, "You will pay us a fourth of your income, or we will kidnap you, and take even more of your property. Besides, it's for your own good. Trust us." You care about your family, so you do as they ask and pay up.
A year passes. You drank water, flushed away your sewage, used electricity, drove your car (even on the interstate), recieved mail, flew to Florida and back, made many phone calls, bought lots of groceries, and neither appliances nor random objects blew up, nor was any radiation spewed, nor was your water supply poisoned.
Now the criminals write again. "Look how great your life was! Look how many things you were able to do!" the letter reads. You pause for a moment and wonder -- What does all that have to do with them? You read more. "You see, if you hadn't paid us last year, none of that would have happened. Your life would be hell! The universe would cease to function. Anarchy and chaos would prevail. Radiation would spew from random objects! Your TV would blow up! So you see, we're really not criminals. We're on your side! Oh, by the way, we need a little more of your cash this year than last year. You know how inflation is."
Maniacs! You scream. How stupid do they think I am?
(Really, the government keeps random objects from spewing radiation at me? Go on, sacrifice your kids to the sun god. After all, it would really be a shame if the sun stopped rising!)
The right to open my mouth, as long as I am not shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
You have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (of course, the theater has the right to throw you out the door, too).
Long-term, non-voting will cause concern and reform.
Not concern, really. If nobody votes, it lifts the government's veil of legitimacy. Good.
I'm a paying customer of the USA, and I have the right to complain on that basis alone.
That is an insult to business everywhere. You are not a customer of the USA, you are its subject. Mickeysoft cannot kill you and sell your property if you do not buy Windoze. Big Brother can and does with impunity.
You should be more careful with your use of the term "rights". Rights are a lofty philosophical ideal. They are granted by God or nature, depending on how religious you are. You have the right to complain because God gave you the right to complain. That's the definition of a right, as far as the Constitution goes. But even the general dictionary definition is quite nebulous.
People far more stupid than you often imply that a right is granted to a man by his state -- one of my pet peeves. A fine achievement in brainwashing, too.
Damn. I actually bother to read follow-ups to my posts, and I get bromidic JFK quotes?
You know what? Kennedys die! Just like you and I! That rhymes - sing it to your kids! I feel like killing them off once and for all, just so I don't have to watch another stupid news special!
Americans love their stupid Kennedys like Brits love their stupid queen.
You should be happy that the record companies are even there, so you can have music to listen to.
Correction: "I'm happy musicians are even there, so I can have music to listen to."
Perhaps even: "I'm happy record companies are even there, because otherwise I would only be able to hear music at concerts." (well, or I could sing it myself, or hire someone to)
But more likely: "I'm not happy record companies are even there. Ever since we devised easy, cheap ways to distribute perfect copies of music, there's been no excuse for paying a record company to sell me a copy. Yeah, it's time we cut out the middleman!"
How would you like congress telling you you had to let people publish your Slashdot comments in a book just because the person publishing the book had already read them on Slashdot?
That is legal, AFAIK (IANAL, however). For example, if Pat Buchanan makes a speech delineating his evil plan to exterminate everyone under 60, and I hear it, I have the right to repeat it to anyone I please, and even publish it. Why is it any different if I tape his speech? And if you maintain that my duplication of any part of his speech is illegal, because his speech is his property, and duplication of any part of it would be theft, then what might the consequences be for society?