Both of the southpark creators are exceedingly libertarian. Odd that the name never comes up, even though that is exactly what the article is describing. Milton Freedman is one of the better known proponents of libertarian ideals. Ayn Rand is often cited as another one, but perhaps because she was writing in the 50s having escaped Soviet Russia, her work is less liked and more strident. Online Slate's economist Steven Landsburg writes fairly interesting articles that usually have a libertarian bent (not always some are just economics issues) in a largely down to earth manner.
Keep in mind most of the "profit" in crack dealing is actually an unrecognised cost that you will die early/lose a considerably amount/lose several productive years of your life. It's just that most people (especially crack dealers) don't really understand the full costs of their business.
Illegal is a pretty big leap, the store certainly breeched a contract. Unless the seller was an employee of the store who stole it I'd be surprised if this violated a law. Typically the partie that violated the contract would be required to make the other party whole, specific performance (getting the game back) is fairly rare consideration.
Because of the relative size of the two groups, I'd be very surprised if there was much difference between the two groups supporters education levels. The reason you got modded down as a troll is that there was a hoax graphic floating around the net that suggested that every blue state was smarter than every red state (or something close to it). Would be interesting to see that graphic faded to show margins of difference.
The following chart illistrates the last 7 presidental elections pretty effectivly.
No president since Bush v. Dukakis has gottent a majority of popular votes cast. There have been relativly popular third parties in three of the elections. Reform voters were much more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, and once Buchanan broke that party they switched back. If you adjust for turnout and population I think Reagan's 84 landslide was pretty close to current levels, but that's a whole different story. As a percentage of the total popular votes cast W got more than any US Presidential candidate in the last three elections.
If anything I'd say Kerry will be running back to the Northeast (where he will still be respected). I think he is ensuring a shot for Edwards in 08, who seemed to me to be a much more challenging candidate for the Republicans to beat this year as well. While I opposed Kerry in the election (couldn't stomach the Bush trade policy and voted Libertarian), good on him for conceeding and maintaining a ton of respectability.
From slat's electoral map if Ohio and Florida both go Bush, he'll pretty much win this sucker. I'm watching for the first of NM, IA, FL, OH, MN, PA, and NH to close (the time it is taking for NH to be declared makes me lean toward a W for Bush. All I really want is for the decision to be leaning enough one way or the other by tomorrow morning that we can put this election behind us for 4 years, no matter who wins.
No worries, we're not writing for anything real here I think of everything posted on a web board as conversation. It's the ideas that matter not the grammer/spelling/formatting. BTW, a BR tag will put carrage returns in an html formatted post. I can't wait to hear your comments, not that they will change my mind, but that they adjust the hue is the most interesting part. Hope you keep up tonight. How long do you suppose we will have to wait befroe a winner is declared?
It was actually environmental issues that caused me to become a libertarian. I grew up in a conservative family in a conservative area, went to school and studied a whole lot of economics, everything there clicked. Since the school is located in the rocky mountains, natural resources are a pretty common interest of students and professors alike.
Odd that the libertarian contingent has been pushing for market based polution bidding systems since the 80s and you critizise them for it. I'm a firm believer that the only way to achieve true multiple use management is private ownership. The issue I have with government ownership of lands is that the incentives behind activists (both businesses and conservationists) are to maximize their position for land usage. Businesses gain all the benefits of environmental destruction but face very little of the costs of their environmental damage, conservationists face very few opportunity costs of their conservation but most of the benefits.
Unfortunately this results in agreements that usually take one extreem or the other. If there is one thing I've learned in my rather short life it is that the key to life is balance. Private ownership would bring things back to a balance. As an example take the ANWR surely you can agree that the oil under the refuge is valuable and that the animals on top also have value. Let us presume that you financially support the Sierra Club and I financially support an oil company's management (through stock ownership). The two of us lobby government through our agents to achieve our desired end. If the oil company wins oil will be extracted to signficant detriment to the animals (because the oil company gets very little benefit) beyond what it is required to protect by law. If the Sierra Club wins there will be no drilling to the detriment of the oil company (and its owners and customers). If the preserve were privately owned (by a third party, oil company, or the Sierra Club) there would be an incentive to remove oil that would be minimally destructive to the ecosystem (certainly you agree that there is a portion of the oil that could be extracted without causing major impact to the ecosystem) which would benefit all of us more than either of the current solutions.
Finally, you mention suits to prevent polution. There is a major problem with that solution that every smart libertarian understands, transaction costs. If they were 0, you could govern in that manner. Transaction costs being the time required to negotiate or file and excecute a suit. The government is a good way of solving problems that carry high transaction cost and spread benefits over many, many people. I don't think you will find anyone but the anarcho-libertarians who will argue with that. As technology improves transaction costs decline, and unfortunately the level of government that exists is IMHO still attempting to solve problems that could be solved by other means. Not every problem should be removed from government's mandate at this point, but many that are still under the government's mandate should be.
Sure there are a lot of idealistic libertarians (and socialists and people of every political bent) and those people are necessary to dream up the ideas that will filter into mainstream compromises that will eventually change how the government works. I'm voting libertarian this year to send a message to both major parties that they have strayed too far from that ideal (just as the major parties were pretty quick to get a fiscal responsibility clue post the Perot campagin). Will it change anything tomorrow? I doubt it, but will it begin a course that could change the country in a decade? Probably.
How much difference do you suppose there is between Arnold's genes and yours? Your brain reacts in a manner similar to other organs in your body, use it and it gets more efficient and effective, don't use it and it slowly wastes away. Crap I noticed that over the past two years, I hadn't done arithmatic in several years and I was rusty started doing mental math again and I can again look at problems and solve them easily.
Ah but a major product of the US government (debt) is a primary contributor to our capital account inflow balance, and the government is pretty directly involved in the dollar through that channel. If foreigners (especially the Asian central banks but aalso wealthy foreigners throughout the world) lose their appitite for US government (and to a lesser extent corporate) debt, the dollar will begin to crater to beat consumers into reducing the current account deficit.
Me too, I'm a local and have been investing largely outside the US for a little over a year. I'm very nervous that both of the front runners will not be good for the dollar over the next four years.
One thing I don't think many Europeans realize is that the first reaction many Americans will have in response to exposure to a European (or any foreign country's) opinion on something they view as an American choice will be to do the opposite.
I've had a 2600, NES, and XBox, and while I certainly have to clean the NES cartriges occasionally (or just tweak how they are placed) I don't recall in more than 10 years of use ever doing anything to the Atari to get them to fire up. As another poster said I ran through plenty of joysticks, but games and the deck were fine for a considerable length of time. (I did grow up in a desert which may have explained the long life of my components). The rumor was that the PS2 was not very tolerant of vertical placement, dunno if it's true but that seemed to be a common
I blame the line item veto (the real reason the budget declined during the Clinton years), which was removed following the impeachment trial. It was passed following the Perot candidacy (and strong showing and became a part of the Republican congressional takeover platform, AFAIK). With a line item veto pork could be removed from a bill by the President and a 2/3s vote was required to override it. For those who haven't looked into the sausage factory that is Congress a large bill (annual highway, farm, defense, appropriations, tax, or similar) usually gets a series of amendments added to it that provide for things like a Norwegian-American interpretive center to be built in a congressional district that elected a representative or senator whose support is needed to pass the bill. Since the total bill might be for spending of several billion dollars the expenditure of a few million to secure a marginal vote is good for both parties (those who support the bill for other reasons and the senator whose support was bought). With a line item veto the president could strike the section of the bill that provided for the cultural center, highway, school etc without striking the whole bill and sending it back for another round. Now we shouldn't kid ourselves Presidents were likely to use this to hurt opponents, but overall it cut a whole bunch of wasteful spending. Without that there is no one with an incentive to reduce government spending who is in a position to do so.
What is the deal with all the recent fake rolex spams, did someone set up a 802.11 node on Canal St or something? Note, if you did set up said node on Canal st please take it down you are filling my inbox.
Stern was gone when Karmizan was replaced as COO at Viacom, the two had been longtime friends and allies for years, it was just a matter of timing and the right offer.
My understanding of the rules are that you pay tax on income earned if you are a US citizen, but you can take a credit or deduction for foreign taxes paid. I guess I'll have to learn by April, as I bought some foreign stocks this year outside of a mutual fund. This wasn't the big Bush tax break (passed last year that reduced taxes on dividends, boosted education and child care credits, and generally hosed single people in favor of families). There were a few changes to individual tax law in the recently passed bill (still sitting on the Pres' desk AFAIK) it was mostly changes to corporate tax law.
Oh and groups should be laws or groups of law in my prior post. /that'll learn me for trying to post something long after the second glass of wine.
Telephone systems are an area in which haveing a large network in coverage and areas is a huge factor in monopoly (if phone systems don't interoperate everyone would prefer to be on the one with the most customers). AOL-TimeWarner shouldn't be concerning as management has pissed away any advantages that could have accrued from the merger. That merger was mostly.comers buying something real (50% or was it 60% of TimeWarner) for their paper assets before the great musical chair game ended.
I doubt the FCC/Justice department will allow another merger in cellular in which the acquired company has more than 10 million subs.
It's not as much of a tax break as it sounds. Most countries tax income earned domestically. So take Diagio (the parent of Guiness) they tax the income it earns in the UK. The US taxes the income of Anheiser-Busch globally with a tax credit for foreign taxes paid, with a major loophole (if you reinvest the proceeds in the foreign country you can deferr the taxes). The loophole is designed to allow companies to earn tons of money in foreign countries, but they have to spend it in the foreign country--hence the pro-outsourcing tilt of the group. Both sides should know that it mostly equalized our tax law with foreign competitors (which US companies scream bloody murder about) as opposed to really supporting outsourcing.
As an example take a Toyota factory in Ohio the US would tax the domesitic subsidiary of Toyota for the profits from the cars built in the factory and Japan would not. If Ford were to do the same thing in Osaka, however, the US would tax income both from cars exported to Japan and cars built in Japan. This puts Ford at a bit of a disadvantage to Toyota, and lots of companies lobbied hard for the tax break to equalize them. Now you know a bit more about the "outsourcing tax break."
He gets my vote, regardless of wasted or not. Now I live in Montana, and am sure that the difference between the two leaders will be signficantly more than 1 (or 1000 or 100000) votes but even if I could somehow have forknowledge that my vote would cost my second choice (Bush-by a narrow margin according to voter choice's survey) Montana's 3 electoral votes I would still vote for him in the hope that it would drive both parties that much closer to the LP ideals. Crap I voted libertarian for the Senate candidate who died hisself blue over too much silver nitride (preY2K scare) so I will certainly be voting for a smart, well-spoken guy who might qualify for FEC funding (even if the party refuses on principle).
Slashdot Mirror
Both of the southpark creators are exceedingly libertarian. Odd that the name never comes up, even though that is exactly what the article is describing. Milton Freedman is one of the better known proponents of libertarian ideals. Ayn Rand is often cited as another one, but perhaps because she was writing in the 50s having escaped Soviet Russia, her work is less liked and more strident. Online Slate's economist Steven Landsburg writes fairly interesting articles that usually have a libertarian bent (not always some are just economics issues) in a largely down to earth manner.
Keep in mind most of the "profit" in crack dealing is actually an unrecognised cost that you will die early/lose a considerably amount/lose several productive years of your life. It's just that most people (especially crack dealers) don't really understand the full costs of their business.
Sounds like a Fred Meyer, those are stores that I miss. Too bad Kroger bought them and doesn't build any more.
Illegal is a pretty big leap, the store certainly breeched a contract. Unless the seller was an employee of the store who stole it I'd be surprised if this violated a law. Typically the partie that violated the contract would be required to make the other party whole, specific performance (getting the game back) is fairly rare consideration.
You could invest it in my fridge. I'll pay you quarterly dividend of yougurt lumps.
Because of the relative size of the two groups, I'd be very surprised if there was much difference between the two groups supporters education levels. The reason you got modded down as a troll is that there was a hoax graphic floating around the net that suggested that every blue state was smarter than every red state (or something close to it). Would be interesting to see that graphic faded to show margins of difference.
We use a ton of energy because it's cheaper than people.
The following chart illistrates the last 7 presidental elections pretty effectivly.
No president since Bush v. Dukakis has gottent a majority of popular votes cast. There have been relativly popular third parties in three of the elections. Reform voters were much more likely to vote Republican than Democrat, and once Buchanan broke that party they switched back. If you adjust for turnout and population I think Reagan's 84 landslide was pretty close to current levels, but that's a whole different story. As a percentage of the total popular votes cast W got more than any US Presidential candidate in the last three elections.
If anything I'd say Kerry will be running back to the Northeast (where he will still be respected). I think he is ensuring a shot for Edwards in 08, who seemed to me to be a much more challenging candidate for the Republicans to beat this year as well. While I opposed Kerry in the election (couldn't stomach the Bush trade policy and voted Libertarian), good on him for conceeding and maintaining a ton of respectability.
From slat's electoral map if Ohio and Florida both go Bush, he'll pretty much win this sucker. I'm watching for the first of NM, IA, FL, OH, MN, PA, and NH to close (the time it is taking for NH to be declared makes me lean toward a W for Bush. All I really want is for the decision to be leaning enough one way or the other by tomorrow morning that we can put this election behind us for 4 years, no matter who wins.
No worries, we're not writing for anything real here I think of everything posted on a web board as conversation. It's the ideas that matter not the grammer/spelling/formatting. BTW, a BR tag will put carrage returns in an html formatted post. I can't wait to hear your comments, not that they will change my mind, but that they adjust the hue is the most interesting part. Hope you keep up tonight. How long do you suppose we will have to wait befroe a winner is declared?
It was actually environmental issues that caused me to become a libertarian. I grew up in a conservative family in a conservative area, went to school and studied a whole lot of economics, everything there clicked. Since the school is located in the rocky mountains, natural resources are a pretty common interest of students and professors alike.
Odd that the libertarian contingent has been pushing for market based polution bidding systems since the 80s and you critizise them for it. I'm a firm believer that the only way to achieve true multiple use management is private ownership. The issue I have with government ownership of lands is that the incentives behind activists (both businesses and conservationists) are to maximize their position for land usage. Businesses gain all the benefits of environmental destruction but face very little of the costs of their environmental damage, conservationists face very few opportunity costs of their conservation but most of the benefits.
Unfortunately this results in agreements that usually take one extreem or the other. If there is one thing I've learned in my rather short life it is that the key to life is balance. Private ownership would bring things back to a balance. As an example take the ANWR surely you can agree that the oil under the refuge is valuable and that the animals on top also have value. Let us presume that you financially support the Sierra Club and I financially support an oil company's management (through stock ownership). The two of us lobby government through our agents to achieve our desired end. If the oil company wins oil will be extracted to signficant detriment to the animals (because the oil company gets very little benefit) beyond what it is required to protect by law. If the Sierra Club wins there will be no drilling to the detriment of the oil company (and its owners and customers). If the preserve were privately owned (by a third party, oil company, or the Sierra Club) there would be an incentive to remove oil that would be minimally destructive to the ecosystem (certainly you agree that there is a portion of the oil that could be extracted without causing major impact to the ecosystem) which would benefit all of us more than either of the current solutions.
Finally, you mention suits to prevent polution. There is a major problem with that solution that every smart libertarian understands, transaction costs. If they were 0, you could govern in that manner. Transaction costs being the time required to negotiate or file and excecute a suit. The government is a good way of solving problems that carry high transaction cost and spread benefits over many, many people. I don't think you will find anyone but the anarcho-libertarians who will argue with that. As technology improves transaction costs decline, and unfortunately the level of government that exists is IMHO still attempting to solve problems that could be solved by other means. Not every problem should be removed from government's mandate at this point, but many that are still under the government's mandate should be.
Sure there are a lot of idealistic libertarians (and socialists and people of every political bent) and those people are necessary to dream up the ideas that will filter into mainstream compromises that will eventually change how the government works. I'm voting libertarian this year to send a message to both major parties that they have strayed too far from that ideal (just as the major parties were pretty quick to get a fiscal responsibility clue post the Perot campagin). Will it change anything tomorrow? I doubt it, but will it begin a course that could change the country in a decade? Probably.
How much difference do you suppose there is between Arnold's genes and yours? Your brain reacts in a manner similar to other organs in your body, use it and it gets more efficient and effective, don't use it and it slowly wastes away. Crap I noticed that over the past two years, I hadn't done arithmatic in several years and I was rusty started doing mental math again and I can again look at problems and solve them easily.
Ah but a major product of the US government (debt) is a primary contributor to our capital account inflow balance, and the government is pretty directly involved in the dollar through that channel. If foreigners (especially the Asian central banks but aalso wealthy foreigners throughout the world) lose their appitite for US government (and to a lesser extent corporate) debt, the dollar will begin to crater to beat consumers into reducing the current account deficit.
Me too, I'm a local and have been investing largely outside the US for a little over a year. I'm very nervous that both of the front runners will not be good for the dollar over the next four years.
One of the most insightful posts I've read here in the 6 years I've been reading /., thanks.
One thing I don't think many Europeans realize is that the first reaction many Americans will have in response to exposure to a European (or any foreign country's) opinion on something they view as an American choice will be to do the opposite.
I've had a 2600, NES, and XBox, and while I certainly have to clean the NES cartriges occasionally (or just tweak how they are placed) I don't recall in more than 10 years of use ever doing anything to the Atari to get them to fire up. As another poster said I ran through plenty of joysticks, but games and the deck were fine for a considerable length of time. (I did grow up in a desert which may have explained the long life of my components).
The rumor was that the PS2 was not very tolerant of vertical placement, dunno if it's true but that seemed to be a common
I blame the line item veto (the real reason the budget declined during the Clinton years), which was removed following the impeachment trial. It was passed following the Perot candidacy (and strong showing and became a part of the Republican congressional takeover platform, AFAIK). With a line item veto pork could be removed from a bill by the President and a 2/3s vote was required to override it. For those who haven't looked into the sausage factory that is Congress a large bill (annual highway, farm, defense, appropriations, tax, or similar) usually gets a series of amendments added to it that provide for things like a Norwegian-American interpretive center to be built in a congressional district that elected a representative or senator whose support is needed to pass the bill. Since the total bill might be for spending of several billion dollars the expenditure of a few million to secure a marginal vote is good for both parties (those who support the bill for other reasons and the senator whose support was bought). With a line item veto the president could strike the section of the bill that provided for the cultural center, highway, school etc without striking the whole bill and sending it back for another round. Now we shouldn't kid ourselves Presidents were likely to use this to hurt opponents, but overall it cut a whole bunch of wasteful spending. Without that there is no one with an incentive to reduce government spending who is in a position to do so.
What is the deal with all the recent fake rolex spams, did someone set up a 802.11 node on Canal St or something? Note, if you did set up said node on Canal st please take it down you are filling my inbox.
Stern was gone when Karmizan was replaced as COO at Viacom, the two had been longtime friends and allies for years, it was just a matter of timing and the right offer.
My understanding of the rules are that you pay tax on income earned if you are a US citizen, but you can take a credit or deduction for foreign taxes paid. I guess I'll have to learn by April, as I bought some foreign stocks this year outside of a mutual fund. This wasn't the big Bush tax break (passed last year that reduced taxes on dividends, boosted education and child care credits, and generally hosed single people in favor of families). There were a few changes to individual tax law in the recently passed bill (still sitting on the Pres' desk AFAIK) it was mostly changes to corporate tax law.
/that'll learn me for trying to post something long after the second glass of wine.
Oh and groups should be laws or groups of law in my prior post.
Telephone systems are an area in which haveing a large network in coverage and areas is a huge factor in monopoly (if phone systems don't interoperate everyone would prefer to be on the one with the most customers). AOL-TimeWarner shouldn't be concerning as management has pissed away any advantages that could have accrued from the merger. That merger was mostly .comers buying something real (50% or was it 60% of TimeWarner) for their paper assets before the great musical chair game ended.
I doubt the FCC/Justice department will allow another merger in cellular in which the acquired company has more than 10 million subs.
It's not as much of a tax break as it sounds. Most countries tax income earned domestically. So take Diagio (the parent of Guiness) they tax the income it earns in the UK. The US taxes the income of Anheiser-Busch globally with a tax credit for foreign taxes paid, with a major loophole (if you reinvest the proceeds in the foreign country you can deferr the taxes). The loophole is designed to allow companies to earn tons of money in foreign countries, but they have to spend it in the foreign country--hence the pro-outsourcing tilt of the group. Both sides should know that it mostly equalized our tax law with foreign competitors (which US companies scream bloody murder about) as opposed to really supporting outsourcing.
As an example take a Toyota factory in Ohio the US would tax the domesitic subsidiary of Toyota for the profits from the cars built in the factory and Japan would not. If Ford were to do the same thing in Osaka, however, the US would tax income both from cars exported to Japan and cars built in Japan. This puts Ford at a bit of a disadvantage to Toyota, and lots of companies lobbied hard for the tax break to equalize them. Now you know a bit more about the "outsourcing tax break."
He gets my vote, regardless of wasted or not. Now I live in Montana, and am sure that the difference between the two leaders will be signficantly more than 1 (or 1000 or 100000) votes but even if I could somehow have forknowledge that my vote would cost my second choice (Bush-by a narrow margin according to voter choice's survey) Montana's 3 electoral votes I would still vote for him in the hope that it would drive both parties that much closer to the LP ideals. Crap I voted libertarian for the Senate candidate who died hisself blue over too much silver nitride (preY2K scare) so I will certainly be voting for a smart, well-spoken guy who might qualify for FEC funding (even if the party refuses on principle).