It was unilateral (no UN or NATO approval) until well after the US was committed. Everyone waited around to see if the US was going to send troops in before they committed any.
A lot of the world hates the US for the power it has, want to have an alternative collective superpower, but they don't seem to want the responsibilities that go with that.
Basically, its easy to criticise and second guess when you aren't burdened with the same responsibilities.
"One simple question for any Republican hawks in the audience: Would you have supported a stabilization mission to Afghanistan -- and/or an invasion of Iraq -- in the 1990s by President Clinton?...
If you say yes, you're a fucking liar."
Really, so all those republicans that supported clintons actions in kosovo (and his 1998 bombing campain in Iraq), which didnt get UN support until the US decided to do it unilaterally, are just a figment of my imagination huh?
"We call them the rich because they already have lots of money, money that they are not USING. "
You might want to examine your premise. The income tax taxes income, not wealth, there is a difference.
And how do you "not use" money. Most wealthy people don't hide money under their mattresses. Investing is an important part of our economy. The reason we are in a recession is not because consumers stopped spending, it is because business stopped their record investment spree.
I'm not even going to touch on the value judgements that you are making. As that is a much more philosophical and separate argument
Two points
1. If capitalism is only an effect of liberty, how can they come into conflict?
2. How can you equate the minimum wage with liberty. I don't see how that qualifies as a liberty, unless you believe that liberty = social justice. In which case you are not really a libertarian. You would be further left.
That war, however, was a UN action, not a US one, and only the UN Security Council could re-escalate, without the Iraqis provoking. "
Technically speaking you are incorrect, the only role the UN had in the 1991 war was passing a resolution approving the use of force. The UN doesnt really make the decision to go to war, it meerly approves or dissaproves (sanctions) such actions. It doesnt have a standing army to send, the teeth of the UN essentially is the military of member countries, even the multinational peacekeepers, who have a multinational command structure, are mostly borrowed NATO troops. Just cause the UN says something is law doesnt make it so, if you accept the idea of national sovereignty. Countries can mutually agree through treaties to follow certain rules. But ultimately, you cannot force a country to remain party to an organization or treaty, unless you intent to enforce it through military action. Unless you are willing to hand over the sovereignty of your legal system to the rest of the world, making the UN the supreme legal authority is a bad idea. It's a forum for cooperation, but it has never worked (fairly and effectively) as a law enforcing body simply because it was never set up in that manner. Which is good, I wouldn't trust any organization with that kind of authority. I wouldnt want to give the US the kind of authority you are assigning to the UN.
actually, just to nitpick, the 1991 Gulf war never really ended. Iraq signed a cease fire agreement. And the 1991 coalition agreed to end the war, provided that Iraq agreed to the terms of surrender. Which, of course, it repeatedly violated over the last twelve years. Much, in fact, like the rearming of the Rhine valley before WWII. Was the US attacked by Iraq, no. But technically, I think they can justify it from my statements above.
And while we are on this topic, who exactly enforces international law and how are they supposed to do it? I'm curious what course of action you suggest for dealing with these situations, since you are obviously opposed to the war.
"Our Senate is appointed, not elected, so campaign funding on that front isn't really viable. Although out-and-out bribery could still be a possibility."
And the US Senate used to be appointed, by state legislatures, until someone got the bright idea to make that a direct election too. Pretty much screwing up the intent of the constitutional framers. But that's just my opinion.
Actually, technically speaking, the right should be called liberal, in the tradition of the enlightenment (Hayek fans you now exactly what im talking about). When people say "liberal" today, they really mean socialist, when you get right down to it. But socialism is associated with the USSR and Nazi Germany in the US and is therefore considered a dirty word in the US. Thus, the "left" uses the word "liberal" or now progressive, which is now more fashionable since the right has mostly managed to demonize the word liberal as well. Take issue with the way the US sets up its system if you wish, but a blanket statement about what we ought to have isnt exactly a convincing argument.
"The majority of our anti-starvation supplies are provided by freaking-huge-genetic-pharmacological-industrial-c omplex companies."
And where do you thing the giant ag processing companies get the actual crops from? Dispite the dramatic increase in farm size, and the decline in the number of farmers (as more technology is used to farm larger acerages with fewer farmers) Most farms even most of the "corporate farms" are family owned small businesses. Many states have "anti-corporate" farm laws that prohibit large companies from owning the farms themselves. So although the large Ag companies have significant pricing power over the farmer, farming is still one of the closest industries we have to pure competition.
"The key is to deligate only enough power for the government to make sure everybody is playing by the rules."
Though there are things like non-rival and non-excludable goods or services, which (may) merit government intervention depending on how bad the effect is.
The idea that you can somehow mandate competion in a space where you have a natural monopoly is silly. You are better off either regulating the monopoly and wating for a technological revolution to sleep it away, or making it a public sector service (personally, i vote for the latter, even as a die hard market fanboy). Anything that requires massive lastmile and right of way issues really ought to be in the public sector, since they can use eminent domain to get that infrastructure in place, whereas things like cross country fiber have a big enough market that competion in the sector is feasible. (like long haul communication services)
It also doesn't count mothers who would like to be employed, or even need to be employed, but are classed as "full-time homemakers" just because they happen to be female with children. The double-digit unemployment rates in Europe, by contrast, do count these people as unemployed, because their definition of "unemployed" is not "receiving unemployment beneifts" (as it is in the US) but rather the far more honest definition of "not working."
Actually, in the US, anyone who registers as seeking work, whether or not they qualify for benefits, is considered unemployed. It is true, of course, that many people who do not qualify for benefits, may simply choose to stop looking for a while, so even thought they still want a job, they would be considered "discouraged workers" and not counted as unemployed. The governement simply counts those who are actively trying to get a job. Neither counting everyone without a job, nor excluding eveyrone that isnt receiving unemployment would be a very honest measure either.
umm
how exactly does a tax cut create an "artifical demand"??
"Reganomics" consists of two differnt ideas: supply-side (eg, deregulation, laffer curve), keynesian tax cutting motivations (increase demand, pump priming, etc).
The keynesian aspect is not much debated (government fights extreme peaks and troughs in economy through fiscal and monetary poliices)
The idea that everyone fights about is the arguement that taxcuts pay for themselves. Since tax revenue = rate x GDP, the argument was/is that by cutting taxes you increase both investment and consumption, thereby boosting GDP, thus the lower rate is offset (to varying degrees) by higher total income. The higher the initial rate, the greater the incentive of a given percent reduction. (This also means that extremely high tax rates are hugely counterproductive in terms of trying to raise money.) Thus the argument for a low rate and a large "base" to tax (instead of concentrating taxes on a very small set of things and making them extremely high)
"ALL support for Linux is good, even if the source isn't included."
Yeah, until you need to upgrade and they only support an old kernel version. Binary only linux drivers tend to break, and if the company doesnt want to support its "old" products on new versions of linux, you are screwed.
I have a radeon AIW btw, seems to be working just fine in linux. I even have DRI working.
Your explaination of opportunity cost is ok, but your assumption that it is not possible for someone to gain without diminishing the well being of someone else is not corect. You assume no increases in productivity (no economic growth, new technology etc), which is what primarily drives higher wages, not the "exploitation" of the poor. The simple fact is that poor countries, for a multitute of different reasons, have, on average, less productive workers (usually because they have lower "capital", in the broad sense of the word). Not 50 years ago, Japan was considered "3rd world". Now look at it, and S Korea is in the middle of the same sort of transition. Would you not say that humanity, on the whole, is much better off than it was 200 years ago?
"I guess it also really irks you that you can't set up a toll booth at the entrance to a public park, eh?"
Thats a bad analogy. Any BSD code that MS borrowed would still be free and unencumbered. Do I need to repeat that? I don't think it is always inappropriate to use the GPL in government funded work, but I don't think that the BSD license is something to be avoided. Afterall, no matter what proprietary changes are made to the public code, that initial code is still free to everyone. The only downside to releasing under a BSD license is that you tend to create unmergable forks (unlike in the GPL where the incentive it to copy it all b ack. That is the real advantage of the GFL
why is changing from lifo to fifo unethical??
I think this is why the previous poster said that everyone has a different idea of exactly what is ethical. We mostly agree on a couple things, but not everything.
But they do pay taxes, its just that companies pay on profits, not income. This is done for a logical reason, as "companies" arent really paying the taxes in the first place. It's the customers or shareholders that ultimately pay them, since all companies are owned by people. Companies, afterall are simply a legal construct that allow people to collectively invest productive resources. Thus taxing a company is really just a feel-good but ultimately wasteful exercise. Simply tax the income at the full rate when the investors cash in.
Slashdot Mirror
It was unilateral (no UN or NATO approval) until well after the US was committed. Everyone waited around to see if the US was going to send troops in before they committed any. A lot of the world hates the US for the power it has, want to have an alternative collective superpower, but they don't seem to want the responsibilities that go with that. Basically, its easy to criticise and second guess when you aren't burdened with the same responsibilities.
Really, so all those republicans that supported clintons actions in kosovo (and his 1998 bombing campain in Iraq), which didnt get UN support until the US decided to do it unilaterally, are just a figment of my imagination huh?
You might want to examine your premise. The income tax taxes income, not wealth, there is a difference. And how do you "not use" money. Most wealthy people don't hide money under their mattresses. Investing is an important part of our economy. The reason we are in a recession is not because consumers stopped spending, it is because business stopped their record investment spree. I'm not even going to touch on the value judgements that you are making. As that is a much more philosophical and separate argument
Replace capitalism with "social democracy" and the resulting sentence would be just as true!
Two points 1. If capitalism is only an effect of liberty, how can they come into conflict? 2. How can you equate the minimum wage with liberty. I don't see how that qualifies as a liberty, unless you believe that liberty = social justice. In which case you are not really a libertarian. You would be further left.
Technically speaking you are incorrect, the only role the UN had in the 1991 war was passing a resolution approving the use of force. The UN doesnt really make the decision to go to war, it meerly approves or dissaproves (sanctions) such actions. It doesnt have a standing army to send, the teeth of the UN essentially is the military of member countries, even the multinational peacekeepers, who have a multinational command structure, are mostly borrowed NATO troops. Just cause the UN says something is law doesnt make it so, if you accept the idea of national sovereignty. Countries can mutually agree through treaties to follow certain rules. But ultimately, you cannot force a country to remain party to an organization or treaty, unless you intent to enforce it through military action. Unless you are willing to hand over the sovereignty of your legal system to the rest of the world, making the UN the supreme legal authority is a bad idea. It's a forum for cooperation, but it has never worked (fairly and effectively) as a law enforcing body simply because it was never set up in that manner. Which is good, I wouldn't trust any organization with that kind of authority. I wouldnt want to give the US the kind of authority you are assigning to the UN.
umm, there are lots of setting options for the .mc file at sendmail.org
actually, just to nitpick, the 1991 Gulf war never really ended. Iraq signed a cease fire agreement. And the 1991 coalition agreed to end the war, provided that Iraq agreed to the terms of surrender. Which, of course, it repeatedly violated over the last twelve years. Much, in fact, like the rearming of the Rhine valley before WWII. Was the US attacked by Iraq, no. But technically, I think they can justify it from my statements above. And while we are on this topic, who exactly enforces international law and how are they supposed to do it? I'm curious what course of action you suggest for dealing with these situations, since you are obviously opposed to the war.
"Our Senate is appointed, not elected, so campaign funding on that front isn't really viable. Although out-and-out bribery could still be a possibility."
And the US Senate used to be appointed, by state legislatures, until someone got the bright idea to make that a direct election too. Pretty much screwing up the intent of the constitutional framers. But that's just my opinion.
Actually, technically speaking, the right should be called liberal, in the tradition of the enlightenment (Hayek fans you now exactly what im talking about). When people say "liberal" today, they really mean socialist, when you get right down to it. But socialism is associated with the USSR and Nazi Germany in the US and is therefore considered a dirty word in the US. Thus, the "left" uses the word "liberal" or now progressive, which is now more fashionable since the right has mostly managed to demonize the word liberal as well.
Take issue with the way the US sets up its system if you wish, but a blanket statement about what we ought to have isnt exactly a convincing argument.
And where do you thing the giant ag processing companies get the actual crops from? Dispite the dramatic increase in farm size, and the decline in the number of farmers (as more technology is used to farm larger acerages with fewer farmers) Most farms even most of the "corporate farms" are family owned small businesses. Many states have "anti-corporate" farm laws that prohibit large companies from owning the farms themselves. So although the large Ag companies have significant pricing power over the farmer, farming is still one of the closest industries we have to pure competition.
Though there are things like non-rival and non-excludable goods or services, which (may) merit government intervention depending on how bad the effect is.
The idea that you can somehow mandate competion in a space where you have a natural monopoly is silly. You are better off either regulating the monopoly and wating for a technological revolution to sleep it away, or making it a public sector service (personally, i vote for the latter, even as a die hard market fanboy). Anything that requires massive lastmile and right of way issues really ought to be in the public sector, since they can use eminent domain to get that infrastructure in place, whereas things like cross country fiber have a big enough market that competion in the sector is feasible. (like long haul communication services)
Actually, in the US, anyone who registers as seeking work, whether or not they qualify for benefits, is considered unemployed. It is true, of course, that many people who do not qualify for benefits, may simply choose to stop looking for a while, so even thought they still want a job, they would be considered "discouraged workers" and not counted as unemployed. The governement simply counts those who are actively trying to get a job. Neither counting everyone without a job, nor excluding eveyrone that isnt receiving unemployment would be a very honest measure either.
man i wish i had some mod points here
Now wonder we get along so well then!
pedantic huh... He must be an economist.
umm how exactly does a tax cut create an "artifical demand"?? "Reganomics" consists of two differnt ideas: supply-side (eg, deregulation, laffer curve), keynesian tax cutting motivations (increase demand, pump priming, etc). The keynesian aspect is not much debated (government fights extreme peaks and troughs in economy through fiscal and monetary poliices) The idea that everyone fights about is the arguement that taxcuts pay for themselves. Since tax revenue = rate x GDP, the argument was/is that by cutting taxes you increase both investment and consumption, thereby boosting GDP, thus the lower rate is offset (to varying degrees) by higher total income. The higher the initial rate, the greater the incentive of a given percent reduction. (This also means that extremely high tax rates are hugely counterproductive in terms of trying to raise money.) Thus the argument for a low rate and a large "base" to tax (instead of concentrating taxes on a very small set of things and making them extremely high)
shouldnt the 4.2 drivers still work on 4.3?
"ALL support for Linux is good, even if the source isn't included." Yeah, until you need to upgrade and they only support an old kernel version. Binary only linux drivers tend to break, and if the company doesnt want to support its "old" products on new versions of linux, you are screwed. I have a radeon AIW btw, seems to be working just fine in linux. I even have DRI working.
Your explaination of opportunity cost is ok, but your assumption that it is not possible for someone to gain without diminishing the well being of someone else is not corect. You assume no increases in productivity (no economic growth, new technology etc), which is what primarily drives higher wages, not the "exploitation" of the poor. The simple fact is that poor countries, for a multitute of different reasons, have, on average, less productive workers (usually because they have lower "capital", in the broad sense of the word). Not 50 years ago, Japan was considered "3rd world". Now look at it, and S Korea is in the middle of the same sort of transition. Would you not say that humanity, on the whole, is much better off than it was 200 years ago?
"I guess it also really irks you that you can't set up a toll booth at the entrance to a public park, eh?" Thats a bad analogy. Any BSD code that MS borrowed would still be free and unencumbered. Do I need to repeat that? I don't think it is always inappropriate to use the GPL in government funded work, but I don't think that the BSD license is something to be avoided. Afterall, no matter what proprietary changes are made to the public code, that initial code is still free to everyone. The only downside to releasing under a BSD license is that you tend to create unmergable forks (unlike in the GPL where the incentive it to copy it all b ack. That is the real advantage of the GFL
why is changing from lifo to fifo unethical?? I think this is why the previous poster said that everyone has a different idea of exactly what is ethical. We mostly agree on a couple things, but not everything.
"You get how many, 6? 10? 15? " Heck, we only get the big 5. (CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS, and ABC)
But they do pay taxes, its just that companies pay on profits, not income. This is done for a logical reason, as "companies" arent really paying the taxes in the first place. It's the customers or shareholders that ultimately pay them, since all companies are owned by people. Companies, afterall are simply a legal construct that allow people to collectively invest productive resources. Thus taxing a company is really just a feel-good but ultimately wasteful exercise. Simply tax the income at the full rate when the investors cash in.