Problem is, the vast majority of politicians WILL take bribes if they determine a benefit for themselves (increased revenue, re-election, or some other expansion of power).
Consider this: People who seek political power are typically not the kind of people who intend to mind their own business and interact with others through voluntary association. These are typically the kind of people who intend to meddle in other people's business and control others through force. (Force is, after all, the fundamental tool of any government, and government is defined as the organization which holds a monopoly on the "legal" initiation of force as a means to an end.)
The root of the problem is that excess power exists, and is there for the taking. As the saying goes, power will be abused, and absolute power will be abused absolutely. The only possible solution is to strictly limit the scope of government (as the founders intended, ironically).
One of the (many) unintended consequences of this will be that parents and authorities will have a higher perceived confidence level but a lower real confidence level.
In other words, as the scope of government expands, the level of personal responsibility is diminished. It doesn't benefit government to have people take responsibility for their own lives. The more dependent the people on government, the greater the benefit for those who control government.
When that happens (and it will), they'll "solve" that problem with more government. When the "solution" introduces yet another problem, they'll "solve" that one with even more government.
There is a reason why government has a tendency to expand, not reduce, its powers over time: because it benefits those in power.
People used to laugh at the MP3 craze, but I don't think it was because of lossy compression. Most people don't even understand the difference between lossy and lossless compression (*). People laughed at the MP3 craze because on dial-up, it was hard to take it seriously. It was fun to download one or two, but after that you realized it just wasn't practical. It was just a novelty, something you try once and move on.
(*) The difference isn't really about sound quality as some people would have you believe. Most people can't tell the difference between a high-quality MP3 and the original CD anyway, especially on computer speakers. But that's not the issue. Lossless compression is about having an exact duplicate of the master and the freedom to do whatever you want with it (like making MP3's from it, for use in your portable MP3 player). A lossless copy isn't just "as good as" the original; a lossless copy IS the original. When you uncompress a lossless file, the result is bit-for-bit identical to the original uncompressed file (just like zip). This is why lossless is preferred for archiving: it doesn't "age" (your music will never be rendered obsolete by new technology). You can convert between lossless formats without affecting the integrity of your data, just like converting from zip to gzip. If you purchase a lossy copy, on the other hand, you're stuck in that format forever. What happens when MP3 is superceded by new technology? You can't convert from one lossy format to another (you can try, but then your *really* talking about a loss of quality).
If you don't believe that land should be owned, then you can't believe in government. The very first assumption made by any government is that they own the land, and you are only paying for the priveledge of living there, and your land may be confiscated at any time for the benefit of government or their business partners (see eminent domain).
No, the only possible way to achieve zero ownership of land is anarcho-socialism (i.e. no government and no acknowledged "legal" initiation of force, and a voluntary agreement to abandon land ownership).
collecting profit on goods made or services performed by others
If the others voluntarily agree to produce those goods or perform those services, and there is no act of fraud or deception, then how can there possibly be a violation of human rights (a violation of the zero-aggression principle).
"Being an asshole" could be considered a form of harrassment, if the "asshole" is persistent and especially if the "asshole" ignores a request to discontinue the harrassment.
Harrassment is an act of force, not an act of free association. I thought I made clear that I am against acts of force.
The right to private property *is* a civil right (I prefer the term "natural right" or "human right"). However, I'd be the first to agree that the republicans (and politicians in general) are motivated by self-interest. Government is nothing but a collection of individuals, after all, and by the laws of human nature, individuals are motivated by self-interest.
Now, there's nothing wrong with being motivated by self-interest as long as you conduct your business on a voluntary basis, interacting through others on the principle of free association. What's wrong is conducting your business on the principle of force (as government does), in order to achieve your goals of self-interest.
What we need is to start prosecuting parents for the crimes of their children so that parents will start taking responsibility for their kids again.
The reason why parents are lazy is because they have been trained to run to government at the slightest hint of a problem, instead of trying to find the solution for themselves. This is a direct result of big government. The only way to reverse this effect is to reduce the size of government, in which case parents will HAVE to take responsibility for their own actions (or lack thereof).
Centralization has no bearing on free association. It is certainly possible to create a centralized service through voluntary association. It could be argued that all services are centralized.
I did not advocate forcing anything on anyone.
There are exactly 2 modes of human interaction: voluntary association, and forceful association. Every possible human interaction must fall into exactly one of these two categories. (It doesn't make sense to "volunteer to be forced", as the social contract theory goes. The concepts are mutually exclusive as defined by human nature. Government cannot redefine human nature.)
With that, all interactions between government and the individual are defined by force. That is the essence of government and what differentiates it from the "private sector". Democracy does not change a thing about how government interacts with the individual. It simply changes how the "right" to initiate force (political power) is decided and distributed. The end result of democracy is simply that the majority gets to force their will on the rest.
So yes, you most certainly did advocate forced participation.
Also, why do you keep making references to "libertarian dreams"? Let's stay on topic.
And what gives you the authority to speak for everyone else? This isn't an attack, just interested in hearing your answer. Have you consulted each and every individual you plan to force into participation?
On a different note, if "we" are so concerned with a particular service, then wouldn't we have already supported it through voluntary means (free association)? As it stands, WikiPedia is a great example of what can be accomplished through free association, and it's getting better every day.
If claiming my natural right to voluntary association is irrational, then I am guilty as charged.
My problem is not with knowledge or the notion of acquiring knowledge, so don't bother raising that strawman. My problem is that you want to employ force as a means to an end.
You've just supplied a perfect example of what government really is, beyond the core function of protecting the people against force: a way to legitimize robbing Peter for Paul's sake, and taking a cut for yourself. A way to raise special interests above the fundamental rights of the individual. A way to justify the initiation of force for the benefit of a few.
I like WikiPedia too, but I will never accept the notion that people should be forced to fund it. There's nothing wrong with wanting WikiPedia to do well, but realize that if you advocate government funding, you are putting your special interest above the fundamental rights of everyone else.
Absolutely not. Despite his famous lip service to limited government and free market economics, the scope and powers of the federal government actually increased under Reagan's direction.
I'm a libertarian leftist
That's interesting, but I would suggest it's a bit of an oxymoron. "Leftism" implies socialism. Socialism requires infringements on individual liberty (an initiation of force), namely the right to private property, and that doesn't exactly mesh with the principles of libertarianism.
I am anarcho-capitalist in principle, that's why I cannot accept the proposition that democracy, and interest in the political process, will bring about liberty and justice. Frankly, I see it just the opposite. Beyond the core function of protecting the people against force, government is essentially a way to justify the initiation of force for the benefit of special interests. A way to legitimize robbing Peter for Paul's sake, and taking a cut for yourself. But your points are taken.
But maybe letting the owners of ridiculous patents stuff the courts with enforcement cases is an appropriate way to prod Congress to action.
Interesting, but I can't help but think, that is exactly what government wants: more demand for their services. This is a classic example of government creating problems (unfair patent law), which they will "solve" with even MORE government.
The problem is that the Patent Office takes the attitude of, "The courts will rule on it if it's a bad patent"
Also, on a more general note -- the more patent activity this year (the more "problems" that need solving), the more revenue the patent office will "need" next year. When you're the head of a bureaucracy funded through force, your "success" is measured not by the usefulness of your service (the approval of your clients), but rather by the level of authority and funding you are granted by the higher-ups (the feds).
In other words, it's not in the patent office's best interest to operate fairly and efficiently, just as it's not in government's best interest to limit it's powers over the people. Sure, government could have followed the plan set forth by the founders (strictly limited government), but then, what's in it for them?
The cops are certainly not underfunded. They are overworked. The bulk of law enforcement efforts (in the US) goes straight to drug prohibition. The police are forced to worry about victimless crimes like using and selling drugs, instead of real crimes like theft, fraud, murder, rape which actually pose a threat to you and me.
We need to end drug prohibition and the violent black market it spawned, put our efforts towards solving real crimes (those which actually represent an initiation of force and a violation of property rights), and last but not least, let's give the cops a raise with all those billions we'll be saving.
No, but you do have the ability to choose, by your own free will, whether or not to associate with Google at all. And, other individuals or groups have the ability to compete with Google (provided no government interference).
You don't have the ability to choose, by your own free will, whether or not to associate with government.
That is the simple difference between government and private enterprise: government operates on the principle of force, while private enterprise operates on the principle of voluntary association (otherwise it would be criminal).
How "private" can a business really be when their revenue is derived through force (i.e. government)?
The only meaningful way to differentiate between private enterprise and government is whether force will be invoked as a means to an end. A free market -- and the firms which compete there -- can only be defined by voluntary association. (Any private firm which invokes force as a means to an end has committed a crime.)
For all intents and purposes (especially economic), any firm which derives profit from government contracts is really an arm of government.
Aaaarrrghhhh! It's *browsing*, not "surfing". Sorry to single you out, but being an actual surfer, this is a pet peeve of mine. If you knew how idiotic the analogy really is you'd be embarassed to use it.
Surfing is 99% paddling and sitting around waiting for a wave. You catch a wave, ride it (typically for less than 15 seconds), and then paddle back out and sit while you wait for the next one. You *don't* surf from wave to wave, "linking" one ride to the next. That sure would be nice, but that's not reality.
So PLEASE, let the term "web surfing" die. Trust me, it's even more idiotic than "information superhighway" was.
Free markets benefit the consumer, not the producer.
This makes no sense. Free markets benefit BOTH the consumer AND the producer, by the principle of mutual benefit which all voluntary trade is founded on. If that market had no benefit to the producer, there would be no market!
The producers produce, precisely because they have determined it will benefit them to do so. The consumers consume, precisely because they have determined it will benefit them to do so. The end transaction (voluntary trade) is engaged precisely because each party determines a benefit for themselves.
When you go to the store and buy a gallon of milk, you do so because you would rather have a gallon of milk than $3. You have determined that the milk holds more value to you, at that time, than $3. The store sells you the milk because they would rather have $3 than the gallon of milk. They have determined that $3 holds more value to them, at that time, than the milk. The outcome is mutual benefit.
This is how (and why) wealth is created: after the transaction, each party is left with MORE, not less, wealth than they started with.
Capitalism implies the lack of government (force) in the market, not the presence of it. When government is entangled in the market, tilting the scales in favor of special interests, it's not capitalism! There may be elements of capitalism present, but it is just plain wrong to label any society where government is heavily entangled in the market as "capitalist". Government is force. Force is the exact opposite of voluntary association, which is the core principle of capitalism.
Contrary to popular belief, capitalism does not require profit; it requires only voluntary association. Profit, or the creation of wealth, is a desirable outcome of capitalism, not the core concept. The core concept is simply freedom -- the freedom to operate on the principle of voluntary association and mutual benefit (trade).
Actually, I usually just put it on random and let it go. Everything from rock to techno to classical. It truly kicks ass having over 2000 songs on random play (and this is on my home stereo, not my cheapo computer speakers). Anyone want to buy a 5-disc changer?;)
Slashdot Mirror
Problem is, the vast majority of politicians WILL take bribes if they determine a benefit for themselves (increased revenue, re-election, or some other expansion of power).
Consider this: People who seek political power are typically not the kind of people who intend to mind their own business and interact with others through voluntary association. These are typically the kind of people who intend to meddle in other people's business and control others through force. (Force is, after all, the fundamental tool of any government, and government is defined as the organization which holds a monopoly on the "legal" initiation of force as a means to an end.)
The root of the problem is that excess power exists, and is there for the taking. As the saying goes, power will be abused, and absolute power will be abused absolutely. The only possible solution is to strictly limit the scope of government (as the founders intended, ironically).
In other words, as the scope of government expands, the level of personal responsibility is diminished. It doesn't benefit government to have people take responsibility for their own lives. The more dependent the people on government, the greater the benefit for those who control government.
When that happens (and it will), they'll "solve" that problem with more government. When the "solution" introduces yet another problem, they'll "solve" that one with even more government.
There is a reason why government has a tendency to expand, not reduce, its powers over time: because it benefits those in power.
People used to laugh at the MP3 craze, but I don't think it was because of lossy compression. Most people don't even understand the difference between lossy and lossless compression (*). People laughed at the MP3 craze because on dial-up, it was hard to take it seriously. It was fun to download one or two, but after that you realized it just wasn't practical. It was just a novelty, something you try once and move on.
(*) The difference isn't really about sound quality as some people would have you believe. Most people can't tell the difference between a high-quality MP3 and the original CD anyway, especially on computer speakers. But that's not the issue. Lossless compression is about having an exact duplicate of the master and the freedom to do whatever you want with it (like making MP3's from it, for use in your portable MP3 player). A lossless copy isn't just "as good as" the original; a lossless copy IS the original. When you uncompress a lossless file, the result is bit-for-bit identical to the original uncompressed file (just like zip). This is why lossless is preferred for archiving: it doesn't "age" (your music will never be rendered obsolete by new technology). You can convert between lossless formats without affecting the integrity of your data, just like converting from zip to gzip. If you purchase a lossy copy, on the other hand, you're stuck in that format forever. What happens when MP3 is superceded by new technology? You can't convert from one lossy format to another (you can try, but then your *really* talking about a loss of quality).
If you don't believe that land should be owned, then you can't believe in government. The very first assumption made by any government is that they own the land, and you are only paying for the priveledge of living there, and your land may be confiscated at any time for the benefit of government or their business partners (see eminent domain).
No, the only possible way to achieve zero ownership of land is anarcho-socialism (i.e. no government and no acknowledged "legal" initiation of force, and a voluntary agreement to abandon land ownership).
collecting profit on goods made or services performed by others
If the others voluntarily agree to produce those goods or perform those services, and there is no act of fraud or deception, then how can there possibly be a violation of human rights (a violation of the zero-aggression principle).
"Being an asshole" could be considered a form of harrassment, if the "asshole" is persistent and especially if the "asshole" ignores a request to discontinue the harrassment.
Harrassment is an act of force, not an act of free association. I thought I made clear that I am against acts of force.
So what is your problem?
Now, there's nothing wrong with being motivated by self-interest as long as you conduct your business on a voluntary basis, interacting through others on the principle of free association. What's wrong is conducting your business on the principle of force (as government does), in order to achieve your goals of self-interest.
The reason why parents are lazy is because they have been trained to run to government at the slightest hint of a problem, instead of trying to find the solution for themselves. This is a direct result of big government. The only way to reverse this effect is to reduce the size of government, in which case parents will HAVE to take responsibility for their own actions (or lack thereof).
I did not advocate forcing anything on anyone.
There are exactly 2 modes of human interaction: voluntary association, and forceful association. Every possible human interaction must fall into exactly one of these two categories. (It doesn't make sense to "volunteer to be forced", as the social contract theory goes. The concepts are mutually exclusive as defined by human nature. Government cannot redefine human nature.)
With that, all interactions between government and the individual are defined by force. That is the essence of government and what differentiates it from the "private sector". Democracy does not change a thing about how government interacts with the individual. It simply changes how the "right" to initiate force (political power) is decided and distributed. The end result of democracy is simply that the majority gets to force their will on the rest.
So yes, you most certainly did advocate forced participation.
Also, why do you keep making references to "libertarian dreams"? Let's stay on topic.
And what gives you the authority to speak for everyone else? This isn't an attack, just interested in hearing your answer. Have you consulted each and every individual you plan to force into participation?
On a different note, if "we" are so concerned with a particular service, then wouldn't we have already supported it through voluntary means (free association)? As it stands, WikiPedia is a great example of what can be accomplished through free association, and it's getting better every day.
If claiming my natural right to voluntary association is irrational, then I am guilty as charged.
My problem is not with knowledge or the notion of acquiring knowledge, so don't bother raising that strawman. My problem is that you want to employ force as a means to an end.
You've just supplied a perfect example of what government really is, beyond the core function of protecting the people against force: a way to legitimize robbing Peter for Paul's sake, and taking a cut for yourself. A way to raise special interests above the fundamental rights of the individual. A way to justify the initiation of force for the benefit of a few.
I like WikiPedia too, but I will never accept the notion that people should be forced to fund it. There's nothing wrong with wanting WikiPedia to do well, but realize that if you advocate government funding, you are putting your special interest above the fundamental rights of everyone else.
Absolutely not. Despite his famous lip service to limited government and free market economics, the scope and powers of the federal government actually increased under Reagan's direction.
I'm a libertarian leftist
That's interesting, but I would suggest it's a bit of an oxymoron. "Leftism" implies socialism. Socialism requires infringements on individual liberty (an initiation of force), namely the right to private property, and that doesn't exactly mesh with the principles of libertarianism.
I am anarcho-capitalist in principle, that's why I cannot accept the proposition that democracy, and interest in the political process, will bring about liberty and justice. Frankly, I see it just the opposite. Beyond the core function of protecting the people against force, government is essentially a way to justify the initiation of force for the benefit of special interests. A way to legitimize robbing Peter for Paul's sake, and taking a cut for yourself. But your points are taken.
Interesting, but I can't help but think, that is exactly what government wants: more demand for their services. This is a classic example of government creating problems (unfair patent law), which they will "solve" with even MORE government.
Also, on a more general note -- the more patent activity this year (the more "problems" that need solving), the more revenue the patent office will "need" next year. When you're the head of a bureaucracy funded through force, your "success" is measured not by the usefulness of your service (the approval of your clients), but rather by the level of authority and funding you are granted by the higher-ups (the feds).
In other words, it's not in the patent office's best interest to operate fairly and efficiently, just as it's not in government's best interest to limit it's powers over the people. Sure, government could have followed the plan set forth by the founders (strictly limited government), but then, what's in it for them?
The cops are certainly not underfunded. They are overworked. The bulk of law enforcement efforts (in the US) goes straight to drug prohibition. The police are forced to worry about victimless crimes like using and selling drugs, instead of real crimes like theft, fraud, murder, rape which actually pose a threat to you and me.
We need to end drug prohibition and the violent black market it spawned, put our efforts towards solving real crimes (those which actually represent an initiation of force and a violation of property rights), and last but not least, let's give the cops a raise with all those billions we'll be saving.
No, but you do have the ability to choose, by your own free will, whether or not to associate with Google at all. And, other individuals or groups have the ability to compete with Google (provided no government interference).
You don't have the ability to choose, by your own free will, whether or not to associate with government.
That is the simple difference between government and private enterprise: government operates on the principle of force, while private enterprise operates on the principle of voluntary association (otherwise it would be criminal).
How "private" can a business really be when their revenue is derived through force (i.e. government)?
The only meaningful way to differentiate between private enterprise and government is whether force will be invoked as a means to an end. A free market -- and the firms which compete there -- can only be defined by voluntary association. (Any private firm which invokes force as a means to an end has committed a crime.)
For all intents and purposes (especially economic), any firm which derives profit from government contracts is really an arm of government.
Huh? The only innovation they're stifling is their own.
So what are your thoughts on "information superhighway"?
Aaaarrrghhhh! It's *browsing*, not "surfing". Sorry to single you out, but being an actual surfer, this is a pet peeve of mine. If you knew how idiotic the analogy really is you'd be embarassed to use it.
Surfing is 99% paddling and sitting around waiting for a wave. You catch a wave, ride it (typically for less than 15 seconds), and then paddle back out and sit while you wait for the next one. You *don't* surf from wave to wave, "linking" one ride to the next. That sure would be nice, but that's not reality.
So PLEASE, let the term "web surfing" die. Trust me, it's even more idiotic than "information superhighway" was.
This makes no sense. Free markets benefit BOTH the consumer AND the producer, by the principle of mutual benefit which all voluntary trade is founded on. If that market had no benefit to the producer, there would be no market!
The producers produce, precisely because they have determined it will benefit them to do so. The consumers consume, precisely because they have determined it will benefit them to do so. The end transaction (voluntary trade) is engaged precisely because each party determines a benefit for themselves.
When you go to the store and buy a gallon of milk, you do so because you would rather have a gallon of milk than $3. You have determined that the milk holds more value to you, at that time, than $3. The store sells you the milk because they would rather have $3 than the gallon of milk. They have determined that $3 holds more value to them, at that time, than the milk. The outcome is mutual benefit.
This is how (and why) wealth is created: after the transaction, each party is left with MORE, not less, wealth than they started with.
So you could say there are infinitely many odd couples.
Contrary to popular belief, capitalism does not require profit; it requires only voluntary association. Profit, or the creation of wealth, is a desirable outcome of capitalism, not the core concept. The core concept is simply freedom -- the freedom to operate on the principle of voluntary association and mutual benefit (trade).
Actually, I usually just put it on random and let it go. Everything from rock to techno to classical. It truly kicks ass having over 2000 songs on random play (and this is on my home stereo, not my cheapo computer speakers). Anyone want to buy a 5-disc changer? ;)