It's also freedom fron religion, and this is why: government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Therefore, if I choose to be an athiest, they cannot make me get religion under the 1st amendment.
I mean, don't we want less government control over our lives? And less government beuracracy? I'm voting for Bush mainly because I don't want Gore's inflated government.
So... have you not noticed that bush would also increase the size and power of the Federal government, just in different ways and more slowly than would Gore?
If you really want smaller government, there's only one party that will provide that: the Libertarians.
Posted by JonKatz on 01:30 PM November 1st, 2000
from the uncover-your-ears dept.
Jon's Hellmouth series stands as one of the most important things that have ever appeared on Slashdot
Gee, he could attempt to be a little less self-aggrandizing, or at least get Hemos to post the story.
The War on Drugs has been a consistently neglected topic in discussions surrounding this federal election. My question is, do you believe the War on Drugs has been an unqualified success, and if not, what would you change about it if elected president?
The war on drugs has been an unqualified success. We have an incarceration rate higher than that of Communist China and jail 10 times as many non-violent marijuana offenders as murderers, rapists and armed robbers combined. Plus, we got to militarize the police, which was a lot of fun! And will help quiet dissent. The new police forces have been highly effective during this election cycle.
2) Minority Religions...
by Electric Angst
What will you do to protect the rights of atheists and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
Nothing. I believe in putting the church back into the school, and teaching the 10 commandments in the classroom. Godless atheists are a relic of the failed Soviet era totalitarianism. Same goes for nutball religions like "shinto".
3) Why give a tax cut?
by funkman
With the surplus, everyone has been saying "Let's have a tax cut, Let's have a tax cut." In the meantime, Alan Greenspan and friends are trying to keep inflation and the speed of the growing economy in check so it doesn't burst. Which they are doing by raising interest rates periodically. (6 times this year)
A tax cut flies in the face of what Greenspan is trying to do. A tax cut will inject more money into the economy and do what Greenspan is preventing.
Why is a tax cut so big? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the deficit so when worse times roll along, a tax cut can be easily given by not paying as much on the debt?
To get votes and engage in social engineering; that's why I haven't proposed across-the-board tax cuts, but targeted ones instead. I don't actually believe in letting you control your life. And a public debt is a good thing; it keeps the bankers happy and allows the treasury to make money. Plus, it helps seniors, who vote, at the expense of young people, who don't vote and therefore don't matter.
4) electoral reform
by carleton
Some people, especially those that favor '3-rd' party candidates, have called for the ending of the electoral college system to be replaced by a simple purely popular vote, or at least allowing for splitting the electoral votes by each state. The best recent example was the Bush-Clinton election. Clinton received 43% of the popular vote (but a sufficient majority of the electoral vote), whereas Perot got at least 10% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. If memory serves, Vermont is the only state which does currently allow for its votes to be split; if someone wins 60% of the Vermont popular vote, they get 2 votes and the 40% candidate gets 1. This in contrast to California, where someone can get 51% of the popular vote, and therefore gets 53 (or whatever it is nowadays) electoral votes. What is your position on this issue?
I support making it difficult for so-called "third parties" to participate because it will loosen our control over America. I don't think that choice is a good thing; that there should be limits to freedom. This is why I support the Commission on Presidential Debates and the states' effort to increase the barriers to getting on the ballot. I also support campaign finance reform because it will help silence dissent. The electoral college system suits my purposes fine.
5) How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?
by Phil Gregory
In this age of the Internet, intellectual property has become a very important concept to many people. Many companies make their living on the artificial scarcity provided by intellectual property laws, selling information that they have either created or aggregated. Some others, mostly in the Free Software world, make their living seemingly in spite of these laws, selling their services based on information that is freely given.
Do you feel that out current system of intellectual property is a good one? Which parts of it (e.g. trademarks, patents, copyrights) do you feel are well suited to the world of the Internet and which do you think need to be changed (and, if changes are needed, what changes are needed)?
I think the system is fine, including software patents and other protections for our large contributors. The little guy never invents anything anyway. I think napster is great -- American Democracy is like napster, you know.
6) Encryption....
by SquadBoy
Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have to protect freedom both now and for future generations. For example to preserve information that future not so friendly governments may think we don't need to have and to make sure that things we want to have remain private remain private. Given this what would you do to help preserve our right to privacy through the use of strong encryption? Also in a related question what are your thoughts and what do you plan to do about the fact that we can not export many forms of strong encryption?
I support giving law enforcement all the tools they need to do their job. And if letting citizens use encryption doesn't conflict with that, then they can use it.
7) Rising Political Protests
by sterno
In the last year or so we have seen a tremendous escalation in the quantity and size of political protests against globalization and the rising power of corporate multi-nationals. Do you believe that these people have reason to be concerned? If you do believe that they have reason for concern, what steps would you take as president to deal with their concerns?
I don't think they have any reason to be concerned. The move towards global international control of their lives through a system of interlocking treaties and financial systems is a good one; they will be happier for it. Sovreignty for individuals is overrated, and a dangerous idea when you get down to it. We can't have people running around doing whatever they want!
8) Asteroid Defenses
by Ethelred Unraed
Would you renew funding of programs to research and develop global defense systems against asteroids or other such threats from space?
Well, not so much asteroids as rogue states, but yes. And if any rogue states gained control over any asteroids, we would blow them out of the sky to prevent their use against American interests.
9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity
by 11223
I'm very concerned with the future of the country, and about what our national mission seems to be. Looking back through American history, every period seems to have a defining popular mission - like the "manifest destiny" movement in the 19th century, the Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. During these times, there would be one struggle or idea that captivated the attention of the nation, sort of providing a national mission.
I'm a little confused as I look around today. What is our mission? To me, it seems to be "to watch TV and use the Internet." What would you say the defining national mission of today is? What should it be? Furthermore, how would you show this in your activities as a lawmaker? (For instance, if our national mission is the pursuit of science, then would you increase funding for scientific pursuits in the budget?)
Of course we need a mission. We also need enemies. Both unite the people behind their leaders. It's not enough to simply promote a civil, peaceful, prosperous and free society. The people have to be united in common causes because it quiets dissent and keeps people from complaining about their taxes. And, if we make enough enemies, we can never scale back our intelligence and "peacekeeping" infrastructures.
Won't build except for specific kernels
on
IBM Releases AFS
·
· Score: 2
On my 2.2.16 box:
ERROR: Cannot build for Linux kernel 2.2.5-15:/usr/src/linux-2.2.5-15 does not exist.
ERROR: Cannot build for Linux kernel 2.2.10:/usr/src/linux-2.2.10 does not exist.
ERROR: Cannot build for Linux kernel 2.2.12:/usr/src/linux-2.2.12/include/linux/version.h does not exist.
ERROR: Cannot build for Linux kernel 2.2.12-20:/usr/src/linux-2.2.12-20 does not exist.
ERROR: Cannot build for Linux kernel 2.2.13:/usr/src/linux-2.2.13 does not exist.
ERROR: Cannot build for Linux kernel 2.2.14:
No UTS_RELEASE string found in/usr/src/linux-2.2.14/include/linux/version.h.
ERROR: Should be able to build at least one of 2.2.5-15 2.2.10 2.2.12 2.2.12-20 2.2.13 2.2.14.
Valid headers not present for any Linux kernel.
But they don't recognize the notion of natural rights like we are supposed to with the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the right to bear arms.
But, the whole idea of moving out of the country is predicated on the US becoming a statist hellhole -- at which point the 2nd amendment is rubbish, anyway.
On the broader issue, I agree with you. But the USA is the only country with a Bill of Rights with the cajones ours has. I wish more countries had a Bill of Rights and Consitution like the one the U.S.A. has.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
-George Washington
"A free people ought... to be armed, To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."
-George Washington
Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms,"
-James Madison
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
-Samuel Adams
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."
-Thomas Jefferson
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants,"
-Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyrrany in government,"
-Thomas Jefferson
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun,"
-Patrick Henry
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."
-Richard Henry Lee
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed,"
-Alexander Hamilton
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime."
-Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson
"Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."
-Aristotle
"Amendment. II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
--The Consitution of the United States of America
As far as I can tell, this did not start out as a big conspiracy against the citizenry, but the results are equivalent.
This is always the case. I seriously doubt the people staffing the government have plans to deliver us into a police state. However, each little thing they do to increase the power of the government over citizens sends us there nonetheless. No conspiracy needed.
I had friends who were planning for the anti-World Bank demo in Washington, DC last April. The Secret Service broke into their apartment and stole research materials.
I will publish and evidence, details, etc. on my website.
Friedman argued for pegging interest rates based on arbitrary M2 levels throughout the economy, not for the Gold standard.
Greenspan used to argue for a Gold Standard. I would actually welcome Friedman's suggestion as progress in that it is a means for restraining the rate of money creation. However, any fiat- and debt-based money system is inherently unstable. Greenspan nearly always mentions that in his public speeches.
The Byzantine Empire had gold-based money. Its banks were for storing money and validating its weight. The bank employees had to undergo rigorous training, and the penalty for devaluing the money (shaving or other means applicable to metal-based money) was to have a hand chopped off. The Byzantine empire was stable for 800 years, and its money accepted the world ever even after its demise.
I've read about gold money, silver money, ancient and modern fiat money, even tobacco and cigarettes as money. It sems that societies that use commodity-based money are always more prosperous and stable than fiat-based ones, for the simple reason that eventually the government just prints all the money it wants. The U.S.A. has had a 90% devaluation over the past century since going off the gold standard. That money doesn't disappear; it's spent. Inflation seems a lot like a hidden tax, in that when the government creates money, it devalues money already in existance. When it spends it, it is spending a little bit of everyone's wealth without haveing to actually levy a tax. The Fed is the official bank of the Treasury, and buys whatever bonds the Treasury issues that other do not pick up. The Fed + Government Debt seems like a way to simply print money to pay the bills.
I've been discussing commodity vs debt-based money with a guy who has a PhD in Economics, and he's not ocnvinced me that fiat- and debt-based money isn't, in its essence, an elaborate scam. It seems like one... can you help explain why a debt-based fiat money system is both legitimate and good? And/or why it is better than a commodity-based money system?
Moderation Totals:Troll=1, Total=1. ...
You forgot to mention the international zionist conspiracy.
Okay; the post wasn't a troll, and isn't simply conspiracy theory, and to attempt to equate it to some kind of racist mentality is just wrong.. Pick up any economics textbook and read up on Fractional Reserve Banking. Here are some slides used in Economics classes at Ohio State. Try a class from Missouri. Or Colorado. Or Columbus State. Don't like those? Try the Britannica. Go the the Fed's website and read about how it works (prepare for reading a LOT). Read about expansion of the money supply in "Money Supply for Dummies ". Pick up a copy of William Greider's Secrets of the Temple -- his book was issued to MBA students at the MIT Sloan School of Business and describes the process which I outlined in my post. For another view, refer to the words of Representative Jack Metcalf.
You can even read the words of a Fed Chairman (William Poole, President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis):
Before 1933, the Federal Reserve did conduct monetary policy by adhering to an external standard-the gold standard. Now, the U.S. dollar is pure fiat money, whose purchasing power is determined by the Fed's decisions and their interactions with the U.S. and world economies.
America DOES have debt-based fiat money, and the elimination of debt eliminates money. It is that simple.
a highly inflationary tax cut,
Now that is an interesting state of affairs. Letting citizens keep their own money is inflationary. He have to take it away via taxes to "save the economy" from the ravages of inflation. Has anyone stopped to think that inflation exists because of hte federal reserve? Inflation is actually devaluation of the currency, and is a consequence of there being "too much money" available. Of course, the reason there is too much money available is because the fractional-reserve banking system, lead and controlled by the Federal Reserve, has created too much money. The Fed buys government debt and gives the treasury credits in its Fed accounts. This acts as "reserves" for lending and as backing for the issusance of currency. It is money created from nothing. Commercial banks borrow money at the Discount Window at the Fed -- again, a debt-for-credit swap. This creates more money out of nothing. Banks make more loans based on deposits and Discount Window loans, making more money from nothing.
The sad thing is, because the U.S. has had a debt-based monetary system since 1933 (and earlier, but only partially), we can never get out of debt because it would destroy the money supply. Before the advent of debt-based money, there was usually little debt on national, corporate or personal scales (wars excepted; they simply printed money to finance early wars). 70% of all business growth was self-financed (financed without borrowing from banks) in the 20s. The Fed put a stop to that by offering loans at below market rates with money created out of thin air.
To pay off the national debt, we will first have to switch back to a commodity-based money system, such as the original silver-backed money system. Commodity money systems don't let the government inflate the money supply at will. The other thing we'd have to do is reform banking. Banks should protect your money, offer useful services, and charge fees for doing so. If you want to invest your money, then do that. Currently, a bank invests 97% or more of your money when you deposit it. This is what causes bank runs; if more than 3% of depositors want to withdraw their money, the bank runs out, because it's given it away to other people. Essentially, when you deposit money at a bank, the bank issues to several people the right to withdraw it. It does this by telling you that you can get it back out, and then loaning the very same money to someone else, who immediately withdraws it to pay for their house or whatever. If the bank runs low on "liquid funds," it borrows from another bank. It may also borrow from the Fed's Discount Window. All the loaning out of the money promised to depositors creates more money on the fly. This process gets recycled several times. I borrow $100k to buy a house. I deposit it at my bank to pay for the construction. The bank then loans it back out to someone else. I write checks; the builder deposits them; his bank loans the money out. Repeat. Because of reserve-fraction regulations made by the Fed, this process has a terminus; but it creates nine dollars for every dollar put into the system (approximately). This is the deposit multipler.
Now that is an interesting state of affairs. Letting citizens keep their own money is inflationary. He have to take it away via taxes to "save the economy" from the ravages of inflation. Has anyone stopped to think that inflation exists because of hte federal reserve? Inflation is actually devaluation of the currency, and is a consequence of there being "too much money" available. Of course, the reason there is too much money available is because the fractional-reserve banking system, lead and controlled by the Federal Reserve, has created too much money. The Fed buys government debt and gives the treasury credits in its Fed accounts. This acts as "reserves" for lending and as backing for the issusance of currency. It is money created from nothing. Commercial banks borrow money at the Discount Window at the Fed -- again, a debt-for-credit swap. This creates more money out of nothing. Banks make more loans based on deposits and Discount Window loans, making more money from nothing.
The sad thing is, because the U.S. has had a debt-based monetary system since 1933 (and earlier, but only partially), we can never get out of debt because it would destroy the money supply. Before the advent of debt-based money, there was usually little debt on national, corporate or personal scales (wars excepted; they simply printed money to finance early wars). 70% of all business growth was self-financed (financed without borrowing from banks) in the 20s. The Fed put a stop to that by offering loans at below market rates with money created out of thin air.
To pay off the national debt, we will first have to switch back to a commodity-based money system, such as the original silver-backed money system. Commodity money systems don't let the government inflate the money supply at will. The other thing we'd have to do is reform banking. Banks should protect your money, offer useful services, and charge fees for doing so. If you want to invest your money, then do that. Currently, a bank invests 97% or more of your money when you deposit it. This is what causes bank runs; if more than 3% of depositors want to withdraw their money, the bank runs out, because it's given it away to other people. Essentially, when you deposit money at a bank, the bank issues to several people the right to withdraw it. It does this by telling you that you can get it back out, and then loaning the very same money to someone else, who immediately withdraws it to pay for their house or whatever. If the bank runs low on "liquid funds," it borrows from another bank. It may also borrow from the Fed's Discount Window. All the loaning out of the money promised to depositors creates more money on the fly. This process gets recycled several times. I borrow $100k to buy a house. I deposit it at my bank to pay for the construction. The bank then loans it back out to someone else. I write checks; the builder deposits them; his bank loans the money out. Repeat. Because of reserve-fraction regulations made by the Fed, this process has a terminus; but it creates nine dollars for every dollar put into the system.
The whole idea that not confiscating your money (i.e., lowering taxes) is inflationary is repugnant, and a sign of a fraudlent and crooked banking system.
What's wrong with this country is not "Liberal" or "Conservative" philosophy, but entrenched power locked in place for our representatives by multinational corporate power through media management and campaign contributions. The whole system is completely corrupt.
The entrenched two-party system that offers false alternatives between "liberal" and "conservative" is what's hurting this country. The republicrats rig the elections to shut out any other voices. They raise the requirements of ballot access when the Libertarians or Greens get on it; they shut non-Republicrats out of debates big and small.
What is "conservative?" By definition, and practice, it's the liberalism of the past. Or as Bob Dole said, "we have to stop this system where the democrats propose a bill, we vote it down and then phase it in over three years." The real choice is between freedom and non-freedom (slavery; corporate control; collectivism; big brother -- call it what you like). The problem with the two main parties as they they are always for non-freedom. Whatever they do tends to increase the power of government over our lives. Or it deputizes coporations to take on government duties (like tax collection). Vote for a party that things less government means more freedom, not one that thinks more government controlis more freedom.
It's not the economy, stupid; it's not for the children; it's freedom! Vote for freedom!
2) The Bill of Rights is in serious need of revision.
Whoa there buddy! The BoR is the most forthright protection of basic human liberties ever writen down.
Does anybody even pay any attention to the ninth and tenth amendments? Of course not. Legally, they are too vague and the government can't tell when it is violating them.
In that case, the government should err on the side of not violating them, rather than ignore them. And the government knows full when when it is violating them most of the time. I don't think we should roll over and say, "Oh well, the government won't respect our rights as soverign citizens of our various states, so let's just chuck out that part of the consitution." I don't see how that will make it better.
As a result, they are ignored just as vague terms in a contract may be safely ignored by the parties.
How sad that is.
What about the third amendment? Quartering soldiers in peacetime? Does anyone really think this applicable to the 21st century?
It's doubtful, but someone may have missed the previous 6,000 cuecat stories.
If you're seeking more information, I have a lot of links to news stories, info on the hardware (including disabling and reprogramming the serial number), and software for Linux, Windows and the Mac at http://www.flyingbuttmonkeys.com/foocat/
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you can still use the cuecats as colon-cancer detectors.
;)
________________________________________
It's also freedom fron religion, and this is why: government shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Therefore, if I choose to be an athiest, they cannot make me get religion under the 1st amendment.
________________________________________
If you guys look at his background, he's got more in common with this crowd than all the other candidates combined.
Hmmmm... you're right! He is a crackpot and a troll!
;)
________________________________________
I mean, don't we want less government control over our lives? And less government beuracracy? I'm voting for Bush mainly because I don't want Gore's inflated government.
So... have you not noticed that bush would also increase the size and power of the Federal government, just in different ways and more slowly than would Gore?
If you really want smaller government, there's only one party that will provide that: the Libertarians.
________________________________________
But it's true.
________________________________________
Posted by JonKatz on 01:30 PM November 1st, 2000
from the uncover-your-ears dept.
Jon's Hellmouth series stands as one of the most important things that have ever appeared on Slashdot
Gee, he could attempt to be a little less self-aggrandizing, or at least get Hemos to post the story.
________________________________________
1) War on Drugs
by Tim Doran
The War on Drugs has been a consistently neglected topic in discussions surrounding this federal election. My question is, do you believe the War on Drugs has been an unqualified success, and if not, what would you change about it if elected president?
The war on drugs has been an unqualified success. We have an incarceration rate higher than that of Communist China and jail 10 times as many non-violent marijuana offenders as murderers, rapists and armed robbers combined. Plus, we got to militarize the police, which was a lot of fun! And will help quiet dissent. The new police forces have been highly effective during this election cycle.
2) Minority Religions...
by Electric Angst
What will you do to protect the rights of atheists and those who hold minority faiths, such as Wicca, Santaria, Shinto, et al?
Nothing. I believe in putting the church back into the school, and teaching the 10 commandments in the classroom. Godless atheists are a relic of the failed Soviet era totalitarianism. Same goes for nutball religions like "shinto".
3) Why give a tax cut?
by funkman
With the surplus, everyone has been saying "Let's have a tax cut, Let's have a tax cut." In the meantime, Alan Greenspan and friends are trying to keep inflation and the speed of the growing economy in check so it doesn't burst. Which they are doing by raising interest rates periodically. (6 times this year)
A tax cut flies in the face of what Greenspan is trying to do. A tax cut will inject more money into the economy and do what Greenspan is preventing.
Why is a tax cut so big? Wouldn't the money be better spent on the deficit so when worse times roll along, a tax cut can be easily given by not paying as much on the debt?
To get votes and engage in social engineering; that's why I haven't proposed across-the-board tax cuts, but targeted ones instead. I don't actually believe in letting you control your life. And a public debt is a good thing; it keeps the bankers happy and allows the treasury to make money. Plus, it helps seniors, who vote, at the expense of young people, who don't vote and therefore don't matter.
4) electoral reform
by carleton
Some people, especially those that favor '3-rd' party candidates, have called for the ending of the electoral college system to be replaced by a simple purely popular vote, or at least allowing for splitting the electoral votes by each state. The best recent example was the Bush-Clinton election. Clinton received 43% of the popular vote (but a sufficient majority of the electoral vote), whereas Perot got at least 10% of the popular vote but zero electoral votes. If memory serves, Vermont is the only state which does currently allow for its votes to be split; if someone wins 60% of the Vermont popular vote, they get 2 votes and the 40% candidate gets 1. This in contrast to California, where someone can get 51% of the popular vote, and therefore gets 53 (or whatever it is nowadays) electoral votes. What is your position on this issue?
I support making it difficult for so-called "third parties" to participate because it will loosen our control over America. I don't think that choice is a good thing; that there should be limits to freedom. This is why I support the Commission on Presidential Debates and the states' effort to increase the barriers to getting on the ballot. I also support campaign finance reform because it will help silence dissent. The electoral college system suits my purposes fine.
5) How Do You Feel About Intellectual Property?
by Phil Gregory
In this age of the Internet, intellectual property has become a very important concept to many people. Many companies make their living on the artificial scarcity provided by intellectual property laws, selling information that they have either created or aggregated. Some others, mostly in the Free Software world, make their living seemingly in spite of these laws, selling their services based on information that is freely given.
Do you feel that out current system of intellectual property is a good one? Which parts of it (e.g. trademarks, patents, copyrights) do you feel are well suited to the world of the Internet and which do you think need to be changed (and, if changes are needed, what changes are needed)?
I think the system is fine, including software patents and other protections for our large contributors. The little guy never invents anything anyway. I think napster is great -- American Democracy is like napster, you know.
6) Encryption....
by SquadBoy
Many tech people think that strong encryption is one of the best ways we have to protect freedom both now and for future generations. For example to preserve information that future not so friendly governments may think we don't need to have and to make sure that things we want to have remain private remain private. Given this what would you do to help preserve our right to privacy through the use of strong encryption? Also in a related question what are your thoughts and what do you plan to do about the fact that we can not export many forms of strong encryption?
I support giving law enforcement all the tools they need to do their job. And if letting citizens use encryption doesn't conflict with that, then they can use it.
7) Rising Political Protests
by sterno
In the last year or so we have seen a tremendous escalation in the quantity and size of political protests against globalization and the rising power of corporate multi-nationals. Do you believe that these people have reason to be concerned? If you do believe that they have reason for concern, what steps would you take as president to deal with their concerns?
I don't think they have any reason to be concerned. The move towards global international control of their lives through a system of interlocking treaties and financial systems is a good one; they will be happier for it. Sovreignty for individuals is overrated, and a dangerous idea when you get down to it. We can't have people running around doing whatever they want!
8) Asteroid Defenses
by Ethelred Unraed
Would you renew funding of programs to research and develop global defense systems against asteroids or other such threats from space?
Well, not so much asteroids as rogue states, but yes. And if any rogue states gained control over any asteroids, we would blow them out of the sky to prevent their use against American interests.
9) The Future of the Country, and of Humanity
by 11223
I'm very concerned with the future of the country, and about what our national mission seems to be. Looking back through American history, every period seems to have a defining popular mission - like the "manifest destiny" movement in the 19th century, the Depression, World War II, and the Cold War. During these times, there would be one struggle or idea that captivated the attention of the nation, sort of providing a national mission.
I'm a little confused as I look around today. What is our mission? To me, it seems to be "to watch TV and use the Internet." What would you say the defining national mission of today is? What should it be? Furthermore, how would you show this in your activities as a lawmaker? (For instance, if our national mission is the pursuit of science, then would you increase funding for scientific pursuits in the budget?)
Of course we need a mission. We also need enemies. Both unite the people behind their leaders. It's not enough to simply promote a civil, peaceful, prosperous and free society. The people have to be united in common causes because it quiets dissent and keeps people from complaining about their taxes. And, if we make enough enemies, we can never scale back our intelligence and "peacekeeping" infrastructures.
________________________________________
Documentation link without the clickwrap
________________________________________
On my 2.2.16 box:
/usr/src/linux-2.2.5-15 does not exist.
/usr/src/linux-2.2.10 does not exist.
/usr/src/linux-2.2.12/include/linux/version.h does not exist.
/usr/src/linux-2.2.12-20 does not exist.
/usr/src/linux-2.2.13 does not exist.
/usr/src/linux-2.2.14/include/linux/version.h.
ERROR: Cannot build for Linux kernel 2.2.5-15:
ERROR: Cannot build for Linux kernel 2.2.10:
ERROR: Cannot build for Linux kernel 2.2.12:
ERROR: Cannot build for Linux kernel 2.2.12-20:
ERROR: Cannot build for Linux kernel 2.2.13:
ERROR: Cannot build for Linux kernel 2.2.14:
No UTS_RELEASE string found in
ERROR: Should be able to build at least one of 2.2.5-15 2.2.10 2.2.12 2.2.12-20 2.2.13 2.2.14.
Valid headers not present for any Linux kernel.
________________________________________
But they don't recognize the notion of natural rights like we are supposed to with the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the right to bear arms.
But, the whole idea of moving out of the country is predicated on the US becoming a statist hellhole -- at which point the 2nd amendment is rubbish, anyway.
On the broader issue, I agree with you. But the USA is the only country with a Bill of Rights with the cajones ours has. I wish more countries had a Bill of Rights and Consitution like the one the U.S.A. has.
________________________________________
A few quotes...
... to be armed, To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace. A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined."
... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants,"
..."
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
-George Washington
"A free people ought
-George Washington
Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed -- unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust their people with arms,"
-James Madison
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
-Samuel Adams
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press."
-Thomas Jefferson
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms
-Thomas Jefferson
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyrrany in government,"
-Thomas Jefferson
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun,"
-Patrick Henry
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms
-Richard Henry Lee
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed,"
-Alexander Hamilton
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime."
-Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson
"Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."
-Aristotle
"Amendment. II. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
--The Consitution of the United States of America
________________________________________
Where would you go?
Belize. Enlish-speaking, tropical, better human rights record than the U.S. and no extradition treaty.
________________________________________
As far as I can tell, this did not start out as a big conspiracy against the citizenry, but the results are equivalent.
This is always the case. I seriously doubt the people staffing the government have plans to deliver us into a police state. However, each little thing they do to increase the power of the government over citizens sends us there nonetheless. No conspiracy needed.
________________________________________
I had friends who were planning for the anti-World Bank demo in Washington, DC last April. The Secret Service broke into their apartment and stole research materials.
I will publish and evidence, details, etc. on my website.
________________________________________
Friedman argued for pegging interest rates based on arbitrary M2 levels throughout the economy, not for the Gold standard.
Greenspan used to argue for a Gold Standard. I would actually welcome Friedman's suggestion as progress in that it is a means for restraining the rate of money creation. However, any fiat- and debt-based money system is inherently unstable. Greenspan nearly always mentions that in his public speeches.
The Byzantine Empire had gold-based money. Its banks were for storing money and validating its weight. The bank employees had to undergo rigorous training, and the penalty for devaluing the money (shaving or other means applicable to metal-based money) was to have a hand chopped off. The Byzantine empire was stable for 800 years, and its money accepted the world ever even after its demise.
I've read about gold money, silver money, ancient and modern fiat money, even tobacco and cigarettes as money. It sems that societies that use commodity-based money are always more prosperous and stable than fiat-based ones, for the simple reason that eventually the government just prints all the money it wants. The U.S.A. has had a 90% devaluation over the past century since going off the gold standard. That money doesn't disappear; it's spent. Inflation seems a lot like a hidden tax, in that when the government creates money, it devalues money already in existance. When it spends it, it is spending a little bit of everyone's wealth without haveing to actually levy a tax. The Fed is the official bank of the Treasury, and buys whatever bonds the Treasury issues that other do not pick up. The Fed + Government Debt seems like a way to simply print money to pay the bills.
I've been discussing commodity vs debt-based money with a guy who has a PhD in Economics, and he's not ocnvinced me that fiat- and debt-based money isn't, in its essence, an elaborate scam. It seems like one... can you help explain why a debt-based fiat money system is both legitimate and good? And/or why it is better than a commodity-based money system?
Thanks!
________________________________________
http://wipo.really.fuckingsucks.net/
... and of course, so I stay on topic,
http://guiness.really.fuckingsucks.net
________________________________________
http://wipo.really.fuckingsucks.net/http://guiness .really.fuckingsucks.net&l t;/a>
________________________________________
...
You forgot to mention the international zionist conspiracy.
Okay; the post wasn't a troll, and isn't simply conspiracy theory, and to attempt to equate it to some kind of racist mentality is just wrong.. Pick up any economics textbook and read up on Fractional Reserve Banking. Here are some slides used in Economics classes at Ohio State. Try a class from Missouri. Or Colorado. Or Columbus State. Don't like those? Try the Britannica. Go the the Fed's website and read about how it works (prepare for reading a LOT). Read about expansion of the money supply in "Money Supply for Dummies ". Pick up a copy of William Greider's Secrets of the Temple -- his book was issued to MBA students at the MIT Sloan School of Business and describes the process which I outlined in my post. For another view, refer to the words of Representative Jack Metcalf.
You can even read the words of a Fed Chairman (William Poole, President, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis):
Before 1933, the Federal Reserve did conduct monetary policy by adhering to an external standard-the gold standard. Now, the U.S. dollar is pure fiat money, whose purchasing power is determined by the Fed's decisions and their interactions with the U.S. and world economies.
America DOES have debt-based fiat money, and the elimination of debt eliminates money. It is that simple.
Not a troll. Just the facts.
________________________________________
You just need to buy a computer made by G. Gordon Liddy Systems, inc. You know, one of those 9-mm "autoloader" point-and-click devices.
;)
________________________________________
a highly inflationary tax cut,
Now that is an interesting state of affairs. Letting citizens keep their own money is inflationary. He have to take it away via taxes to "save the economy" from the ravages of inflation. Has anyone stopped to think that inflation exists because of hte federal reserve? Inflation is actually devaluation of the currency, and is a consequence of there being "too much money" available. Of course, the reason there is too much money available is because the fractional-reserve banking system, lead and controlled by the Federal Reserve, has created too much money. The Fed buys government debt and gives the treasury credits in its Fed accounts. This acts as "reserves" for lending and as backing for the issusance of currency. It is money created from nothing. Commercial banks borrow money at the Discount Window at the Fed -- again, a debt-for-credit swap. This creates more money out of nothing. Banks make more loans based on deposits and Discount Window loans, making more money from nothing.
The sad thing is, because the U.S. has had a debt-based monetary system since 1933 (and earlier, but only partially), we can never get out of debt because it would destroy the money supply. Before the advent of debt-based money, there was usually little debt on national, corporate or personal scales (wars excepted; they simply printed money to finance early wars). 70% of all business growth was self-financed (financed without borrowing from banks) in the 20s. The Fed put a stop to that by offering loans at below market rates with money created out of thin air.
To pay off the national debt, we will first have to switch back to a commodity-based money system, such as the original silver-backed money system. Commodity money systems don't let the government inflate the money supply at will. The other thing we'd have to do is reform banking. Banks should protect your money, offer useful services, and charge fees for doing so. If you want to invest your money, then do that. Currently, a bank invests 97% or more of your money when you deposit it. This is what causes bank runs; if more than 3% of depositors want to withdraw their money, the bank runs out, because it's given it away to other people. Essentially, when you deposit money at a bank, the bank issues to several people the right to withdraw it. It does this by telling you that you can get it back out, and then loaning the very same money to someone else, who immediately withdraws it to pay for their house or whatever. If the bank runs low on "liquid funds," it borrows from another bank. It may also borrow from the Fed's Discount Window. All the loaning out of the money promised to depositors creates more money on the fly. This process gets recycled several times. I borrow $100k to buy a house. I deposit it at my bank to pay for the construction. The bank then loans it back out to someone else. I write checks; the builder deposits them; his bank loans the money out. Repeat. Because of reserve-fraction regulations made by the Fed, this process has a terminus; but it creates nine dollars for every dollar put into the system.
The whole idea that not confiscating your money (i.e., lowering taxes) is inflationary is repugnant, and a sign of a fraudlent and crooked banking system.
________________________________________
What's wrong with this country is not "Liberal" or "Conservative" philosophy, but entrenched power locked in place for our representatives by multinational corporate power through media management and campaign contributions. The whole system is completely corrupt.
The entrenched two-party system that offers false alternatives between "liberal" and "conservative" is what's hurting this country. The republicrats rig the elections to shut out any other voices. They raise the requirements of ballot access when the Libertarians or Greens get on it; they shut non-Republicrats out of debates big and small.
What is "conservative?" By definition, and practice, it's the liberalism of the past. Or as Bob Dole said, "we have to stop this system where the democrats propose a bill, we vote it down and then phase it in over three years." The real choice is between freedom and non-freedom (slavery; corporate control; collectivism; big brother -- call it what you like). The problem with the two main parties as they they are always for non-freedom. Whatever they do tends to increase the power of government over our lives. Or it deputizes coporations to take on government duties (like tax collection). Vote for a party that things less government means more freedom, not one that thinks more government control is more freedom.
It's not the economy, stupid; it's not for the children; it's freedom! Vote for freedom!
________________________________________
That said, vote Nader.
Or Bush, if you really feel he'll be less inclined to regulate free speech on teh web, which has been mentioned on
Or Gore if you don't want to "throw away" your vote by voting for Nader.
Or don't vote, but know that you cast a vote by not voting.
Or, Vote Libertarian if you care about liberty and freedom, and getting government back into the role of being the government, not a nanny and adjunct of corporate America.
________________________________________
2) The Bill of Rights is in serious need of revision.
Whoa there buddy! The BoR is the most forthright protection of basic human liberties ever writen down.
Does anybody even pay any attention to the ninth and tenth amendments? Of course not. Legally, they are too vague and the government can't tell when it is violating them.
In that case, the government should err on the side of not violating them, rather than ignore them. And the government knows full when when it is violating them most of the time. I don't think we should roll over and say, "Oh well, the government won't respect our rights as soverign citizens of our various states, so let's just chuck out that part of the consitution." I don't see how that will make it better.
As a result, they are ignored just as vague terms in a contract may be safely ignored by the parties.
How sad that is.
What about the third amendment? Quartering soldiers in peacetime? Does anyone really think this applicable to the 21st century?
Yes.
Remember history guys!
________________________________________
Vote Libertarian. Stop all of the public-private partnerships. Get government back into the role of regulation and supervision, not profit-sharing.
________________________________________
It's doubtful, but someone may have missed the previous 6,000 cuecat stories.
If you're seeking more information, I have a lot of links to news stories, info on the hardware (including disabling and reprogramming the serial number), and software for Linux, Windows and the Mac at http://www.flyingbuttmonkeys.com/foocat/
________________________________________