While the airwaves belong to the public, the transmitting equipment used to broadcast on those airwaves belong to private companies. This is the state telling those private companies what they can broadcast.
The problem isn't so much the way the state decides who gets to use which frequencies at which time based on an auction model - the problem is with the state then dictating what those frequencies are used for. Once a company has successfully bid for the usage of a slice of the radio-waves for a certain period, it should be completely up to them what they broadcast.
If the state is already permitting the use of various frequencies for commercial companies, surely those companies should be able to use those frequencies as they see fit. Legislating that they must go from analog to digital at all is spitting in the face of the liberties of those companies. IMO the whole digital/analog thing should be up to the free market, NOT the state.
My point is that compulsion is wrong. Especially when done by the state, which is supposed to protect our freedoms, not dilute them.
The state exists to provide compulsion.
On that we disagree significantly. I think the state exists to ensure and protect our freedoms.
If there was no need for compulsion, nor desire to compel others, there would be no states. Even the "protection" of freedoms is only done by compulsion.
The only compulsion I expect of the state is the compulsion required to protect individuals' freedoms.
Should someone be able to think ill of you because they don't like your looks? How about speak ill of you? Call for your destruction?
Yes, yes and yes. It is only actions that can remove peoples' liberties. Thought and speech can not.
And in regards to companies, should they be able to refuse you service if they don't like your looks? How about not hire you? Not hire you and black list you?
Yes, yes and yes. Who a company hires and for what reason is their business. I would suggest that an open and free market would minimise that from happening - I wouldn't support a business with such practices, and a lot of other people wouldn't either. "Problems" like this should be fixed by the people, for the people through responsible action - not by the state through compulsion.
Everyone is libertarian and socialist at the same time. The government should have "some" power to do things.
IMO the only power the state should have is the power to act to protect the freedoms and liberties of the people it serves.
Few, if any, think that the government should have absolute power. The question is always where to draw the line. And for the libertarians that claim that people should be free to make their own rules, those rules are a form of government, even if not as formal as what we think of for government.
The significant difference between rules that we form as people and rules that the government forms is that rules that we form are voluntary while rules that the government forms are compulsory. Cmpulsion (of the kind that is not used to protect our primary freedoms) is a form of corruption IMO.
I wish you all the best with your application
I just need to get my physical and send it in. I waited for last for that because it should be easiest. Which wouldn't be the case in NZ because here almost all the doctors are public doctors and there aren't waiting lists (or if there are for your first choice, you go elsewhere).
Yes, doctors (we call the GPs) here are easy to access. Walk in off the street and you'll be seen within an hour tops, normally half an hour. It does cost about $50 though. Good luck with the application.
What's wrong with a simple employment contract that states what the working conditions (including hours) will be? Then all we need is normal contract law.
Are you saying that union membership is not mandatory because working is not mandatory?
You said that working was not mandatory, and then I extrapolated your statement. If you find that extrapolation to be inaccurate, then perhaps you should examine your earlier statement.
My point is that compulsion is wrong. Especially when done by the state, which is supposed to protect our freedoms, not dilute them.
That say that while you cannot be forced to join a union, you may be forced to pay fees to that union. Seems odd. And it reeks of compulsion, which is what I object to.
And how is that different from taxes?
It's not - but then I object to compulsory taxation too. I believe an enlightened and compassionate society would rely on voluntary funding of the state, which would be minimal (police, justice, armed forces, and nothing else).
You know the fees before taking the job, you don't have to "join" the union, but you will get some protection of a union (wages and benefits they get on your behalf, even if you aren't a member), so you pay for their protection.
Sounds like dealing with the mafia.
I live in New Zealand,
You'll never guess what I have in front of me. It's a 10 cm high stack of paper that I call "New Zealand Residency Application." I intend to move in October of this year. The taxes are much higher than here, and, of course, enforced under threat of violence. I'm not sure how you are ok with mandatory income taxes (especially when speaking from a country with above average taxes) and complain about unions. I'll have to look up unions. When I was doing job searches, I didn't run across anything dealing with unions. But then, when I search within the US, I usually don't see jobs that require union membership. They advertise internally.
I wish you all the best with your application - it is truly a great country down here and you won't regret coming here. It has no more or less social ills that other "1st world" countries. I happen to be one of the many who seek to make it a better place for everyone, and my favourite topic (as a libertarian) is state compulsion and what we can do to get rid of it.
Great, then unions never force anyone to join them, because you have the choice to not join. It can't be slavery if you can walk away any time you like.
Are you saying that union membership is not mandatory because working is not mandatory? That there are some employers (or industries) that will force you to join a union, but that's ok because you can always choose not to work there?
Either there are instances where union membership is mandatory or there are not. Which is it?
I thought it was clear. There are two "unions" (which are not unions, but could argued to be) that I wanted to explicitly list as being forced membership to work (you can't practice medicine or law without being a member of the government-enforced professional organization). Otherwise, there exists no mandatory union of any kind anywhere in the US. What part of that is confusing?
That say that while you cannot be forced to join a union, you may be forced to pay fees to that union. Seems odd. And it reeks of compulsion, which is what I object to.
I think that compulsion is evil (in this sense I'm referring to mandatory union membership).
But what about taxes? Aren't those compulsory? And you dodged the question of where you are. Are there unions there? Are there taxes?
I live in New Zealand, and yes, we have compulsory taxation here. There are also unions here (which as I have said before is a good thing, so long as they are voluntary). I also consider compulsory taxation to be an attack on our liberties.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
What about those that give up liberty for something other than safety? What about if the liberty isn't an Essential Liberty? You seem to be asserting all sorts of moral judgements about liberties, unions, and freedom by implying that the quote is relevant to unions. Where do you live, and what liberties do you give up to live there?
I have no problem with people giving up their liberties for something other than safety - that is their right. I object to my liberties being removed by majority vote. The only one that should be able to trade my liberties is myself, not anyone else. I consider a system that allows one man to dilute another man's primary freedoms as a fundamentally flawed system.
I'm forced to work for a living to get paid, and that's not what I want to do, I want someone to send me all I need for free. Since I'm not getting what I want, it's slavery.
Nope, your argument doesn't work.
You choose to work - no one is forcing you to except your own human needs for the wealth required for survival. But it's still your choice. You can choose to go and live in the woods if you like, but you choose instead to work.
They have no legislative teeth. If you are talking about indirect influence by asking representatives for something and having them listen, unions have less stand than the companies that employ union members, so again, they aren't the bad guy.
I suppose it depends where you live, but unions are often given legal rights over and above the rights of the individuals who join them. You said in a previous post "There are a number of "right to work" states where it is illegal to require union membership" - that implies that there are some states where union membership may be mandatory. I oppose anything compulsory like that.
Then don't join. Or are you complaining that to be a professional electrician, you must be licensed (in order to provide for safety) but you don't have to be a member of a union? The only "unions" that are required are the bar associations and the AMA. All other unions are voluntary. If you wanted to work building cars without being in a union, you could do what Toyota did, build a plant and start making cars without unions. It's simple and legal, and unions aren't required by anyone.
That's good to hear, but it seems that you contradict yourself. Either there are instances where union membership is mandatory or there are not. Which is it?
(It appears you assume I live in the US. I don't).
It's a US site that explicitly states it's a US site talking about US issues. If you aren't in the US, feel free to share with us how it works where you are. Perhaps "unions" means a differnt thing where you are. Here, they are nothing like the evil organization you describe them to be.
I don't think unions are evil - on the contrary, I think they are an essential part of an open and healthy market. I think that compulsion is evil (in this sense I'm referring to mandatory union membership).
However, since you throw around words like "slavery" for forced things, I would assume you to be one of the nuts that proclaims taxes to be slavery, too. Good luck with that, there exists no place that isn't held to taxes by some authority, unless you are planning to move to Antarctica or the moon.
My position is summed up in this quote of Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Mandatory union membership is a corrupt practice. Forcing someone to do something against their will is akin to slavery. I believe unions have a lot of value in an open and free market place, but I do not believe they should have any more rights or freedoms than their individual members - I do not think they should have any legislative teeth. I abhor the concept of being forced to join an organisation like a union by the state.
(It appears you assume I live in the US. I don't).
And now that the system is not nearly as top heavy as it used to be, the time to lessen government involvement is here. It may have been the answer a hundred years ago, but it's time to move back to a system based on liberty and away from a system based on compulsion.
In a truly free market there would be pressure on the CEOs and board members to act in a way that appears fair. That would happen through pressure from customers in an open and free environment.
If regulation by government is the solution, then you've asked the wrong question. I believe in as little government involvement as possible (ideally, no involvement at all other that enforcing contract law).
But back to the original point: hours worked. If an employee doesn't want to work 20 hours unpaid overtime a week, then why would they agree to do so in their employment contract? It makes no sense to say "I agree to these onerous terms, but I don't like them!".
What has how many hours you work for your employer got to do with the government, and why must there be laws regarding it? What and how you agree to work for your employer should be based on the uncoerced, consensual contract you have with them. Beyond enforcing that contract, it's none of the governments business.
I was thinking along the lines of making minor mods to glibc, gcc and ext3 source. OO.o is a piece of cake to compile ("emerge openoffice" is all it takes). Same with firefox.
My point is that if such a spying device became prevalent, then it's technically possible to circumvent it. Will they cater for all operating systems, all executable formats, all filesystem types (no matter how obscure)? I doubt it. I'd say that as soon as they see a PC running Linux they'd be shit-out-of-luck.
It'll be pretty easy to get around. Run a source based operating system (like Gentoo) and ever so slightly modify the executable file format and file system allocation table format. Then only binaries you compile on that computer will work on it, and they won't be able to read your disks unless booted into your OS (which won't run their skying app anyway).
If you can get access to the meter hands, then you could put a red blob of ink at the end of the hands, and a blue blob in the centre. This would make determining the angle of each of the meters much easier.
To do this you could use simple image processing tools to guillotine the image up into the respective meters. Then find out the pixel location of the blue and red blobs by filtering out just those colours. From these two x/y pixel locations you could use simple trigonometry to calculate the angle.
If you cannot put a blob of ink on the hands, then you could process the image at the pixel level to find out the top most, left most, right most and bottom most pixel position that has black (i.e. the colour of the meter hand) on it. This would give you the approximate hand position, and hence the angle. It wouldn't be very accurate if the hand were either perfectly horizontal or perfectly vertical.
The government should never charge for any service via any methods other than taxation and voluntary donation. The government should not provide any service other than those that ensure and protect peoples' freedoms. Search and rescue is not such a service.
If the government cannot afford to provide a service without sending a bill, they should not offer the service at all. What is tax if not a bill?
Only private organizations should be allowed to bill people. So long as people have the freedom to use (or not) the services of those organisations, I agree with you.
Wasting taxpayer money is never good. Just because it only costs 6 figures is not a good reason to do it. The more this happens, the more money is wasted - money that should be given back to its rightful owners - the taxpayers.
There is nothing good about the government squandering money it confiscates from taxpayers. The only ethical thing to do with such a surplus is to give it back. Liberty demands it.
Somebody has to be billed because search and rescue isn't free. So you either bill the people responsible (the missing man in this case) or the taxpayer. I know which sounds more just to me - and billing the taxpayer for this is not, in any way, ethical.
I don't think there is any ethical justification is removing some of our freedoms in order to ensure other freedoms. Freedom doesn't work like that - it's not a zero sum game.
Tangentially, I think your compassionate community idea really doesn't work when the entire community is destroyed in the disaster. Some disasters are just too big to be handled locally. I suppose that depends on your notion of "community". I see as as being bigger that a town, a city a state or even a country. And if the global community is destroyed then we're all pretty much screwed anyway.
My complaint with the current system is that we have given away too many of our freedoms. For a free society government should be minimal, and should exist purely to ensure our freedoms. And nothing else.
Slashdot Mirror
In general I don't agree with state regulation. I'd rather that the market self regulates - that's the way to a freer, smaller government system.
While the airwaves belong to the public, the transmitting equipment used to broadcast on those airwaves belong to private companies. This is the state telling those private companies what they can broadcast.
The problem isn't so much the way the state decides who gets to use which frequencies at which time based on an auction model - the problem is with the state then dictating what those frequencies are used for. Once a company has successfully bid for the usage of a slice of the radio-waves for a certain period, it should be completely up to them what they broadcast.
If the state is already permitting the use of various frequencies for commercial companies, surely those companies should be able to use those frequencies as they see fit. Legislating that they must go from analog to digital at all is spitting in the face of the liberties of those companies. IMO the whole digital/analog thing should be up to the free market, NOT the state.
Why is the state even involved in this. How is this any of their business? It's a sad shame to see just how far socialism has crept into the system.
My point is that compulsion is wrong. Especially when done by the state, which is supposed to protect our freedoms, not dilute them.
The state exists to provide compulsion.
On that we disagree significantly. I think the state exists to ensure and protect our freedoms.
If there was no need for compulsion, nor desire to compel others, there would be no states. Even the "protection" of freedoms is only done by compulsion.
The only compulsion I expect of the state is the compulsion required to protect individuals' freedoms.
Should someone be able to think ill of you because they don't like your looks? How about speak ill of you? Call for your destruction?
Yes, yes and yes. It is only actions that can remove peoples' liberties. Thought and speech can not.
And in regards to companies, should they be able to refuse you service if they don't like your looks? How about not hire you? Not hire you and black list you?
Yes, yes and yes. Who a company hires and for what reason is their business. I would suggest that an open and free market would minimise that from happening - I wouldn't support a business with such practices, and a lot of other people wouldn't either. "Problems" like this should be fixed by the people, for the people through responsible action - not by the state through compulsion.
Everyone is libertarian and socialist at the same time. The government should have "some" power to do things.
IMO the only power the state should have is the power to act to protect the freedoms and liberties of the people it serves.
Few, if any, think that the government should have absolute power. The question is always where to draw the line. And for the libertarians that claim that people should be free to make their own rules, those rules are a form of government, even if not as formal as what we think of for government.
The significant difference between rules that we form as people and rules that the government forms is that rules that we form are voluntary while rules that the government forms are compulsory. Cmpulsion (of the kind that is not used to protect our primary freedoms) is a form of corruption IMO.
I wish you all the best with your application
I just need to get my physical and send it in. I waited for last for that because it should be easiest. Which wouldn't be the case in NZ because here almost all the doctors are public doctors and there aren't waiting lists (or if there are for your first choice, you go elsewhere).
Yes, doctors (we call the GPs) here are easy to access. Walk in off the street and you'll be seen within an hour tops, normally half an hour. It does cost about $50 though. Good luck with the application.
If you do not work, once you get sick you will die.
Of course - how else can it be? Doctors don't work for nothing. Are you saying that it's ok to force other people to pay for your health care?
What's wrong with a simple employment contract that states what the working conditions (including hours) will be? Then all we need is normal contract law.
Are you saying that union membership is not mandatory because working is not mandatory?
You said that working was not mandatory, and then I extrapolated your statement. If you find that extrapolation to be inaccurate, then perhaps you should examine your earlier statement.
My point is that compulsion is wrong. Especially when done by the state, which is supposed to protect our freedoms, not dilute them.
That say that while you cannot be forced to join a union, you may be forced to pay fees to that union. Seems odd. And it reeks of compulsion, which is what I object to.
And how is that different from taxes?
It's not - but then I object to compulsory taxation too. I believe an enlightened and compassionate society would rely on voluntary funding of the state, which would be minimal (police, justice, armed forces, and nothing else).
You know the fees before taking the job, you don't have to "join" the union, but you will get some protection of a union (wages and benefits they get on your behalf, even if you aren't a member), so you pay for their protection.
Sounds like dealing with the mafia.
I live in New Zealand,
You'll never guess what I have in front of me. It's a 10 cm high stack of paper that I call "New Zealand Residency Application." I intend to move in October of this year. The taxes are much higher than here, and, of course, enforced under threat of violence. I'm not sure how you are ok with mandatory income taxes (especially when speaking from a country with above average taxes) and complain about unions. I'll have to look up unions. When I was doing job searches, I didn't run across anything dealing with unions. But then, when I search within the US, I usually don't see jobs that require union membership. They advertise internally.
I wish you all the best with your application - it is truly a great country down here and you won't regret coming here. It has no more or less social ills that other "1st world" countries. I happen to be one of the many who seek to make it a better place for everyone, and my favourite topic (as a libertarian) is state compulsion and what we can do to get rid of it.
You choose to work
Great, then unions never force anyone to join them, because you have the choice to not join. It can't be slavery if you can walk away any time you like.
Are you saying that union membership is not mandatory because working is not mandatory? That there are some employers (or industries) that will force you to join a union, but that's ok because you can always choose not to work there?
Either there are instances where union membership is mandatory or there are not. Which is it?
I thought it was clear. There are two "unions" (which are not unions, but could argued to be) that I wanted to explicitly list as being forced membership to work (you can't practice medicine or law without being a member of the government-enforced professional organization). Otherwise, there exists no mandatory union of any kind anywhere in the US. What part of that is confusing?
What's confusing is pages like this:
http://www.nrtw.org/a/a_1_p.htm
That say that while you cannot be forced to join a union, you may be forced to pay fees to that union. Seems odd. And it reeks of compulsion, which is what I object to.
I think that compulsion is evil (in this sense I'm referring to mandatory union membership).
But what about taxes? Aren't those compulsory? And you dodged the question of where you are. Are there unions there? Are there taxes?
I live in New Zealand, and yes, we have compulsory taxation here. There are also unions here (which as I have said before is a good thing, so long as they are voluntary). I also consider compulsory taxation to be an attack on our liberties.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
What about those that give up liberty for something other than safety? What about if the liberty isn't an Essential Liberty? You seem to be asserting all sorts of moral judgements about liberties, unions, and freedom by implying that the quote is relevant to unions. Where do you live, and what liberties do you give up to live there?
I have no problem with people giving up their liberties for something other than safety - that is their right. I object to my liberties being removed by majority vote. The only one that should be able to trade my liberties is myself, not anyone else. I consider a system that allows one man to dilute another man's primary freedoms as a fundamentally flawed system.
I'm forced to work for a living to get paid, and that's not what I want to do, I want someone to send me all I need for free. Since I'm not getting what I want, it's slavery.
Nope, your argument doesn't work.
You choose to work - no one is forcing you to except your own human needs for the wealth required for survival. But it's still your choice. You can choose to go and live in the woods if you like, but you choose instead to work.
They have no legislative teeth. If you are talking about indirect influence by asking representatives for something and having them listen, unions have less stand than the companies that employ union members, so again, they aren't the bad guy.
I suppose it depends where you live, but unions are often given legal rights over and above the rights of the individuals who join them. You said in a previous post "There are a number of "right to work" states where it is illegal to require union membership" - that implies that there are some states where union membership may be mandatory. I oppose anything compulsory like that.
Then don't join. Or are you complaining that to be a professional electrician, you must be licensed (in order to provide for safety) but you don't have to be a member of a union? The only "unions" that are required are the bar associations and the AMA. All other unions are voluntary. If you wanted to work building cars without being in a union, you could do what Toyota did, build a plant and start making cars without unions. It's simple and legal, and unions aren't required by anyone.
That's good to hear, but it seems that you contradict yourself. Either there are instances where union membership is mandatory or there are not. Which is it?
(It appears you assume I live in the US. I don't).
It's a US site that explicitly states it's a US site talking about US issues. If you aren't in the US, feel free to share with us how it works where you are. Perhaps "unions" means a differnt thing where you are. Here, they are nothing like the evil organization you describe them to be.
I don't think unions are evil - on the contrary, I think they are an essential part of an open and healthy market. I think that compulsion is evil (in this sense I'm referring to mandatory union membership).
However, since you throw around words like "slavery" for forced things, I would assume you to be one of the nuts that proclaims taxes to be slavery, too. Good luck with that, there exists no place that isn't held to taxes by some authority, unless you are planning to move to Antarctica or the moon.
My position is summed up in this quote of Benjamin Franklin:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Mandatory union membership is a corrupt practice. Forcing someone to do something against their will is akin to slavery. I believe unions have a lot of value in an open and free market place, but I do not believe they should have any more rights or freedoms than their individual members - I do not think they should have any legislative teeth. I abhor the concept of being forced to join an organisation like a union by the state.
(It appears you assume I live in the US. I don't).
And now that the system is not nearly as top heavy as it used to be, the time to lessen government involvement is here. It may have been the answer a hundred years ago, but it's time to move back to a system based on liberty and away from a system based on compulsion.
In a truly free market there would be pressure on the CEOs and board members to act in a way that appears fair. That would happen through pressure from customers in an open and free environment.
If regulation by government is the solution, then you've asked the wrong question. I believe in as little government involvement as possible (ideally, no involvement at all other that enforcing contract law).
But back to the original point: hours worked. If an employee doesn't want to work 20 hours unpaid overtime a week, then why would they agree to do so in their employment contract? It makes no sense to say "I agree to these onerous terms, but I don't like them!".
What has how many hours you work for your employer got to do with the government, and why must there be laws regarding it? What and how you agree to work for your employer should be based on the uncoerced, consensual contract you have with them. Beyond enforcing that contract, it's none of the governments business.
Yes, you are probably right. But then what luck would it have in reading an uncommon file system?
I was thinking along the lines of making minor mods to glibc, gcc and ext3 source. OO.o is a piece of cake to compile ("emerge openoffice" is all it takes). Same with firefox.
My point is that if such a spying device became prevalent, then it's technically possible to circumvent it. Will they cater for all operating systems, all executable formats, all filesystem types (no matter how obscure)? I doubt it. I'd say that as soon as they see a PC running Linux they'd be shit-out-of-luck.
It'll be pretty easy to get around. Run a source based operating system (like Gentoo) and ever so slightly modify the executable file format and file system allocation table format. Then only binaries you compile on that computer will work on it, and they won't be able to read your disks unless booted into your OS (which won't run their skying app anyway).
If you can get access to the meter hands, then you could put a red blob of ink at the end of the hands, and a blue blob in the centre. This would make determining the angle of each of the meters much easier.
To do this you could use simple image processing tools to guillotine the image up into the respective meters. Then find out the pixel location of the blue and red blobs by filtering out just those colours. From these two x/y pixel locations you could use simple trigonometry to calculate the angle.
If you cannot put a blob of ink on the hands, then you could process the image at the pixel level to find out the top most, left most, right most and bottom most pixel position that has black (i.e. the colour of the meter hand) on it. This would give you the approximate hand position, and hence the angle. It wouldn't be very accurate if the hand were either perfectly horizontal or perfectly vertical.
Wasting taxpayer money is never good. Just because it only costs 6 figures is not a good reason to do it. The more this happens, the more money is wasted - money that should be given back to its rightful owners - the taxpayers.
There is nothing good about the government squandering money it confiscates from taxpayers. The only ethical thing to do with such a surplus is to give it back. Liberty demands it.
Somebody has to be billed because search and rescue isn't free. So you either bill the people responsible (the missing man in this case) or the taxpayer. I know which sounds more just to me - and billing the taxpayer for this is not, in any way, ethical.
I don't think there is any ethical justification is removing some of our freedoms in order to ensure other freedoms. Freedom doesn't work like that - it's not a zero sum game.
disaster. Some disasters are just too big to be handled locally. I suppose that depends on your notion of "community". I see as as being bigger that a town, a city a state or even a country. And if the global community is destroyed then we're all pretty much screwed anyway.
My complaint with the current system is that we have given away too many of our freedoms. For a free society government should be minimal, and should exist purely to ensure our freedoms. And nothing else.