Sure, but I'm looking for a principle here, not your personal preference. If you say it's okay to demand people pay for a telescope you want, what's to stop you demanding people pay for your health insurance? Or to renovate your house? Or to build your house in the first place?
Interesting. Why stop there, with healthcare and roading? Why not have other people pay for your gaming console? Your car? Your bottle of single malt Scotch?
Why not just privatise NASA altogether, and stop wasting billions of dollars of taxpayers money? The X-Prize has shown that the future of space travel is clearly private - IMO, this venture shows that NASA realises it too, and is trying to delay the inevitable.
> The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of > nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy > developers and farmers
Well, that's not significantly more anti-human than passing laws preventing development of natural resources, is it? It's just more honest.
... it's the sound of another nail being driven in the values of the Founding Fathers. Hell, the FCC (like all the Nanny State agencies) is so far outside the original scope of the Federal Government it's not funny.
... this means that some Americans will be forced to pay for broadband access by other Americans. Gee, nothing new there - both the Republicans and the Democrats have been milking the taxpayer for election bribes for decades.
Believe me, our Government doesn't need this kind of thing to look foolish. Take a look at http://scoop.co.nz/ any day of the week and you'll see what I mean...
There *has* to be an avid penguin-head working for SCO in a senior position, secretly but steadily working towards the utter destruction of that company. I can't think of any other reason for a decisions as asinine as this one.
Benevolent hand my arse. The public education system we have today was invented in Prussia as a system of indoctrination, and adopted by the Communist movement for the same purpose. Don't believe me? Go read the Communist Manifesto...
I'm not suggesting that the current U.S. model be the one taught - although it is still the most liberal in the world, it's far from the best thing possible. See:
But remember, Democracy on its own is just as bad as any other form of tyranny - it's legalised mob rule. The only free system of politics is democracy *within the context of a binding Constitution*, that puts human rights beyond the vote. That way, people can't vote to, say, force people to join the military in times of war, censor free speech, or force some people to pay for the services used by others.
> I think the lesson third world countries need to learn is that once you have a liberal democracy, > writing on a piece of paper does not guarentee you rights, even if that piece of paper should be > the most sacred in the land...
Seconded. What people forgot, IMO, is that the Constitution is designed to protect the people from those who would erode their rights with the best of intentions, not just the psychotic despots.
Yep. From memory there is only a gap of a couple of % difference in economic growth between the U.S.A. and Mexico over the past century, and look where they are now. Now, imagine the U.S.A. having grown a few percent faster than it did...
And not only the poor. The FDA, for example, kills tens of thousands of people every year by preventing companies from marketing drugs without its approval - those people die from conditions that could have been cured or treated by drugs currently 'awaiting approval'.
I recall one poor chap from India, standing in line outside an embassy trying to emigrate to the U.S.A. A reporter asked him "why do you want to move to the U.S.A.?" Looking at her as though she was on drugs, he replied "I want to live in a country where the poor people are fat."
What makes you think that the USA is a good model of a Constitutionally-limited Republic?
Granted, it's the best at the moment, but a few little things like federal income tax, welfarism, draft, insane copyright laws, FDA, FCC, FAA, trade protectionism, legally-enforced two-party system etc. etc. leave a lot to be desired.
Of course, you'd hope that third-world countries would learn from America's mistakes when writing their own Constitutions...
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, but I'm looking for a principle here, not your personal preference. If you say it's okay to demand people pay for a telescope you want, what's to stop you demanding people pay for your health insurance? Or to renovate your house? Or to build your house in the first place?
Interesting. Why stop there, with healthcare and roading? Why not have other people pay for your gaming console? Your car? Your bottle of single malt Scotch?
> There's no private market for space telescopes.
... you want space telescopes, & think other people should be made to pay for them?
Which means
Why not just privatise NASA altogether, and stop wasting billions of dollars of taxpayers money? The X-Prize has shown that the future of space travel is clearly private - IMO, this venture shows that NASA realises it too, and is trying to delay the inevitable.
> The article includes some controversial statements recommending disposal of
> nuclear waste in tropical forests to keep forest land away from greedy
> developers and farmers
Well, that's not significantly more anti-human than passing laws preventing development of natural resources, is it? It's just more honest.
Depends ... what's in it for you?
Every action is either moral or immoral.
So, the number of people supporting an action determine the moral standing of that action? Nice.
... it's the sound of another nail being driven in the values of the Founding Fathers. Hell, the FCC (like all the Nanny State agencies) is so far outside the original scope of the Federal Government it's not funny.
... this means that some Americans will be forced to pay for broadband access by other Americans. Gee, nothing new there - both the Republicans and the Democrats have been milking the taxpayer for election bribes for decades.
f
http://www.coxandforkum.com/archives/BushToo-X.gi
Jeez. Remind me again - what does America stand for? Not liberty it would seem, nor rights, nor the creation of wealth. :-(
> 'Some of the people want to query about democracy, but most of them just want to
> know about their pop stars.'
That sounds just like New Zealand.
Believe me, our Government doesn't need this kind of thing to look foolish. Take a look at http://scoop.co.nz/ any day of the week and you'll see what I mean ...
There *has* to be an avid penguin-head working for SCO in a senior position, secretly but steadily working towards the utter destruction of that company. I can't think of any other reason for a decisions as asinine as this one.
Benevolent hand my arse. The public education system we have today was invented in Prussia as a system of indoctrination, and adopted by the Communist movement for the same purpose. Don't believe me? Go read the Communist Manifesto ...
Hell, my first job was sorting freight at a Courier company for the princely wage of NZ$5.00 an hour ...
I'm not suggesting that the current U.S. model be the one taught - although it is still the most liberal in the world, it's far from the best thing possible. See:
... for details on what I think *should* be taught.
http://mises.org/liberal.asp
But remember, Democracy on its own is just as bad as any other form of tyranny - it's legalised mob rule. The only free system of politics is democracy *within the context of a binding Constitution*, that puts human rights beyond the vote. That way, people can't vote to, say, force people to join the military in times of war, censor free speech, or force some people to pay for the services used by others.
:-(
In theory
> I think the lesson third world countries need to learn is that once you have a liberal democracy,
> writing on a piece of paper does not guarentee you rights, even if that piece of paper should be
> the most sacred in the land...
Seconded. What people forgot, IMO, is that the Constitution is designed to protect the people from those who would erode their rights with the best of intentions, not just the psychotic despots.
Yep. From memory there is only a gap of a couple of % difference in economic growth between the U.S.A. and Mexico over the past century, and look where they are now. Now, imagine the U.S.A. having grown a few percent faster than it did ...
And not only the poor. The FDA, for example, kills tens of thousands of people every year by preventing companies from marketing drugs without its approval - those people die from conditions that could have been cured or treated by drugs currently 'awaiting approval'.
I recall one poor chap from India, standing in line outside an embassy trying to emigrate to the U.S.A. A reporter asked him "why do you want to move to the U.S.A.?" Looking at her as though she was on drugs, he replied "I want to live in a country where the poor people are fat."
What makes you think that the USA is a good model of a Constitutionally-limited Republic?
...
Granted, it's the best at the moment, but a few little things like federal income tax, welfarism, draft, insane copyright laws, FDA, FCC, FAA, trade protectionism, legally-enforced two-party system etc. etc. leave a lot to be desired.
Of course, you'd hope that third-world countries would learn from America's mistakes when writing their own Constitutions
Go read this, then refute the points he makes:
http://www.mises.org/liberal.asp
Solid argument there ;-) Care to elaborate?