If corporations are able to bribe government into passing unjust or oppressive laws (the DMCA for example), or convince government to dump billions of tax dollars into corporate handouts (the airline "bailout" for example), then the problem lies squarely in government, not the private sector. Government holds the key to oppression, not the private sector. More regulation of the market (i.e. more government) won't do a thing to stop these scams -- we need to focus on the root of the problem: government has too much power to begin with. Government has too many resources at its disposal. Government needs to be strictly limited in scope and function, and held strictly accountable to those limits.
The private sector is only doing what it feels it needs to do to gain the upper hand. In today's market, that means trying to get the "big player" (government) on your side. If government was seperated from the market, corporations would have to compete on merit alone, through voluntary association -- the way it should be.
we'll have the corporations dictating social policy (who lives and who dies), environmental policy (strip mine it all, let 'em breathe sulphur dioxide), and economic ethics (ya right, like that would ever work)
You're missing something very important. Corporations (or any private group) can only hold power over others if government grants that power to them. Corporations are not inherently any more or less powerful than you or me. Corporations are, after all, nothing but a collection of individuals. Only government can grant a corporation (or individual) the power to initiate force, because only government holds that power to begin with.
Before you point the finger at free trade and voluntary association, realize that our "free market" is hardly "free". Quite the contrary -- government is very deeply entangled in the market via regulation and taxing. It is this ridiculously complex web of law that makes it possible for corporations to gain power over others -- not free trade itself. You're barking up the wrong tree.
You are absolutly correct, and this is the primary reason I oppose all forms of "public" (government) education. Sounds like a great idea, until you realize that your "teacher" (government) has a much bigger agenda than acedemics.
I did, and the math tells me that the federal government has drastically increased in expense -- and hence power -- over the last quarter century. What the money was spent on is, as far as I am concerned, irrelevant. If the federal government were to drop all military spending today and use that money for social services, they would hold no more or less power over the people. You see, I am concerned primarily with freedom, and freedom is directly proportional to the size of government.
The non-military areas of the federal government theoretically provide benefits to the citizens through program spending and regulation of the economy and the environment.
Beneficial? By whose logic? My logic says that the market can do anything government can, more efficiently and for less cost (measured both in raw cash and -- more importantly -- liberty). Your logic (I assume) says that centralized power is the answer to education, health care, money management, and probably other private issues. Your logic is based on force: By forcing the people to band together, lead by a centralized power, certain problems will be overcome. My logic is based on voluntary association: By removing the element of force from society -- using government only to protect against force, not to initiate force -- the free people will prosper. Again, whose logic?
Second, the military "theoretically" provides benefits to the citizenship as well! All government spending "theoretically" provides benefits. And I guarantee, there are plenty of US citizens (myself not included) who do believe that a trillion-dollar military budget benefits them. What makes your wants any more important (or more correct) than theirs? The law, beyond the core functions of securing property rights and personal liberty, is nothing but a mix of special interests -- and this is exactly why I oppose nearly any expansion of government beyond the core functions.
why the big army?
Any expansion of government represents profit for those in power -- and there is your answer.
How can the federal government be losing power when the federal budget per capita nearly triples over 20 years? It doesn't matter how the tax money is spent. Any increase of tax revenue represents an expansion of government. In this case, it represents an expansion of federal government -- an expansion of centralized power.
The military is not some mysterious entity seperate from the rest of government. The military *is* government, just as any cause which recieves tax dollars is government. The military is simply another tool -- albeit the most powerful tool -- in the politician's toolbox.
I'd really like to see a simple plug-in that adds only one visible element to the standard interface, a smiley/frownie face, ala iCab [www.icab.de], that indicates whether the HTML of the page actually validates to the DTD declared in the document itself. Clicking on a frownie face would bring up a list of validation errors. This would be a great tool for site developers, making mistakes quickly visible.
Weaken the federal government as much as possible, while keeping the military as strong as possible. This is done by starving the government of funding (except for military spending, of course), and by doing away with any and all government regulations.
I was in total agreement until this. The federal government is *not* weakening by any means. Quite the contrary -- the federal government is growing in power and expense, and has been growing strong since the introduction of the federal income tax. It is centralized power -- not a lack of it -- that created the police state. It is centralized power -- not a lack of it -- that steals our freedom.
Bingo. The US has the highest ratio of inmates/population in the world. Why? Is there something inherently evil about US residents compared to other "free" countries around the world? Of course not.
The reason why the US locks up more civilians than anywhere in the world is drug prohibition. Last I checked, over half of all US citizens currently held in detention are non-violent "criminals" arrested for victimless crimes (posession of marijuana for instance). Guess who's paying for all this? It ain't the government. It's you and me, the US citizen. Our penalty is measured in loss of liberty (including privacy), violent crime (from the resulting black market), and corruption (at all levels of government) as well as tax dollars.
Not liking the sound of this? I don't either. This is why we need to keep government in check. We need strict limits on the scope and expense of government. We need to drastically reduce the amount of revenue they take in, and drastically reduce the level of power they posess. We need limited government, or we can forget about liberty and justice for all.
It also creates a new reason for government to spend tax money, and hence, a new justification for government to take tax money. It represents a new justification for government. It doesn't matter if it's a "one-time deal". Any spending of tax money -- no matter what the rationale -- represents an expansion of government. Despite the "no strings attached" sales pitch, we are looking at a deal which not only benefits the OpenBSD team, but one which benefits those in power (the source of the handout). Expansion of government equates to more responsibility (i.e. profit) for those in control.
If you ever find yourself wondering what in the hell your representatives in government are thinking as they throw millions of tax dollars at useless "pork barrel" projects -- well, now you know the answer.
Yup. This is my stance on most issues in fact. I don't want government to promote it (using the people's money), and I don't want government to prohibit it (again, using the people's money) -- I want government to stay the hell out of the way and let the individual decide what's best for themselves.
I believe the burden would be on them to prove that your stance is "impossible" or "non-existent". If I understand it correctly, you've stated your stance, but instead of trying to debate your stance, they simply deny the existence of it?
What I am trying to express is that I don't want to be lumped in with all the druggies
You won't, after explaining your stance on the issue. It is quite possible -- and rational -- to be "anti-drug" (meaning you don't endorse drug use) yet "anti-prohibition" (meaning you don't endorse drug prohibition) at the same time. Only an irrational person could deny it. By the same token, it is quite possible to be against the US government's decision to invade Iraq -- and not "join the enemy" -- at the same time. To deny the existence of this stance is to deny reality.
I struggle with the pro-drug perception (I should say anti-drug-regulation views) of the Libertarian Party
Say that again: anti-prohibition (not pro-drug). It's important to understand.
Why are the Libertarians against prohibition? It's really quite simple: Drug prohibition causes violent crime (from the resulting black market), corruption in law enforcement, wastes ridiculous amounts of tax money, and above all, removes the element of personal liberty -- and hence personal responsibility -- from the individual and puts it on "society".
In a nutshell, drug prohibition causes much, much worse problems than the problems it was intended to solve. See the "issues" section of lp.org for more info.
You are absolutely correct. Terrorism is a direct result of foreign intervention by force. But those in power will never admit it. Foreign intervention requires expansion of government (more revenue, more power over the people) -- and expansion of government, for those in power, is a promotion. What lawmaker in their right mind doesn't want a promotion?
I'm sorry, but you, as a unique individual, don't have the slightest right to decide what's best for other unique individuals. Nor does any other individual or group, including government. By definition, only an individual can decide what's right and what's wrong for an individual.
To charge a unique, thinking individual with "making the wrong market decision" is not only arrogant, but incredibly ignorant.
Go read an economics textbook.
Whose textbook? Try mises.org if you still don't understand my perspective.
Are the schools there teaching children not to question anything, stop thinking...
Yes, in fact, they are -- in government ("public") schools. Socialized education is a product of centralized power. Looking over history, one of the inevitable consequences of centralized power is propaganda. Socialized education is, unfortunately, a perfect outlet for government propaganda.
There is a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me" (I forget the author) which deals with exactly this subject. You would be surprised to know how far governement will go to rewrite history.
The check you received in the mail was no tax cut -- that was a tax rebate. They simply gave you back some of the money they took from you in the first place. A tax cut is an actual reduction of the tax rate, and represents a reduction in the size of government. The rebate does no such thing.
Moreover, the value of a tax rebate is questionable. How many millions of tax dollars were wasted just processing the rebate and sending out the checks? I think it's safe to say the tax rebate was a scam.
First of all, "they" do not exist at this time. There is no existing free market system in the world as far as I know. Here in the US, for example, the average citizen loses over 40% of their yearly earnings to taxes (between federal, state, and local governments combined). This is hardly representative of free market economics, which requires that each individual citizen have the ability to make their own choices on where and when to spend thier money (or not spend the money). When nearly 1 out of every 2 dollars you earn is taken by government, you're giving up nearly half your spending power -- and hence, nearly half your influence on the market.
If every individual citizen could veto his or her share of the spending on every particular item, the government would lose the power it holds by acting as a massive singular entity
And if this actually did happen, what other conclusion could one come to but that less government is exactly what the people want? (I'm dead serious. What other conclusion could one come to when people are free to choose for themselves what's best for themselves? To deny it would be to say that the people *don't* know what's best for themselves.) If the people actually could choose where their tax money goes, and how much of it goes where, I guarantee we'd see a drastic reduction in the scope and power of government.
The term "free market" here is misleading. Free market economics (i.e. capitalism) is the philosophy of voluntary association: Nobody forces anyone to sell anything (or not sell anything), and nobody forces anyone to buy anything (or not buy anything) -- it is the complete absence of force in the market. Under a free market system, every transaction is done on a voluntary basis. Government contracts, on the other hand, represent the exact opposite of free market economics. Government contracting does not represent voluntary association but coercion: The consumer (you and I) do not choose for ourselves whether or not to patronize these businesses. We choose between paying our taxes, leaving the country, or going to jail. This is not market decision but a threat, and hence, the defense contractor does is not a true competitor in the free market. Their market share is not acquired through persuasion, voluntary association, and fair competition. Their market share is aquired through force. Therefore, to label a government contractor "free market" is completely wrong and backwards, and serves only to blur the distinction between free market economics and socialism.
you never know when it might turn out to be useful
For those in power, it already has been useful. Any expansion of government -- that is, anything which costs the people money or grants more power to government -- represents profit for those in control. If you are the chief of the DEA, would you support new restrictions on when your firm can raid the houses of suspects? Of course not. Increased funding for research on illegal drug use? No doubt! If you are the head of the "homeland security" program, do you support legislation giving you powers to monitor innocent civilians as if they are criminals? Of course -- it makes your job easier, and it makes you look better. Restrictions on free speech as it relates to "homeland security"? Bring it on. Due process and fair handling of criminal suspects? That only gets in the way.
We need to realize that positions of power attract not those who wish to live in peace and mind their own business, but those who wish to control others and profit off this control. Is it any wonder that the US government grows more expensive and more oppressive nearly every year?
The founders had it right when they put strict limits on the scope of government. Limited government is the only road to liberty and true justice.
That would be the popular myth of "government by the people, for the people". I say it's wishful thinking. Government is nothing but a collection of unique individuals -- each motivated by self-interest -- just like any private organization. The fact that we get to choose who gets to make the decisions doesn't change the fact that the decisions are made by unique individuals (not by "everyone together" as the myth goes), and certainly doesn't change the fact that individuals are motivated by self-interest.
The sum of 100 instances of self-interest is still measured in self-interest. Personally, I don't advocate giving virtually unlimited power to our leaders as we currently do. I advocate strict limits on the scope of government (quite unlike the virtually limitless powers they hold today), and I advocate holding them strictly accountable for everything they do (quite unlike the runaway pork barrel spending of today, which logically, would not and could not possibly happen if government was indeed "by the people, for the people").
Sure, but when you're spending other people's money, you've got nothing to lose. It's not the end product that matters to those in power -- it's the ability to take and spend the people's money at will. It's the ability to make those decisions. Power is addictive like a drug.
Were any of these actions "right?" Hell no. Were they good for the US? Certainly.
You need to differentiate between the US government and the US citizens. Don't fall into the trap of believing they are one and the same. Every individual is unique, and every individual thinks independendly of every other individual.
But the truth of the matter is that the US is going to war to protect its own interests. There is nothing wrong with that.
Again, the US is going to war to protect the US government's own interests, not the interests of the people. If you ask me, there is something seriously wrong with that.
Slashdot Mirror
If corporations are able to bribe government into passing unjust or oppressive laws (the DMCA for example), or convince government to dump billions of tax dollars into corporate handouts (the airline "bailout" for example), then the problem lies squarely in government, not the private sector. Government holds the key to oppression, not the private sector. More regulation of the market (i.e. more government) won't do a thing to stop these scams -- we need to focus on the root of the problem: government has too much power to begin with. Government has too many resources at its disposal. Government needs to be strictly limited in scope and function, and held strictly accountable to those limits.
The private sector is only doing what it feels it needs to do to gain the upper hand. In today's market, that means trying to get the "big player" (government) on your side. If government was seperated from the market, corporations would have to compete on merit alone, through voluntary association -- the way it should be.
You're missing something very important. Corporations (or any private group) can only hold power over others if government grants that power to them. Corporations are not inherently any more or less powerful than you or me. Corporations are, after all, nothing but a collection of individuals. Only government can grant a corporation (or individual) the power to initiate force, because only government holds that power to begin with.
Before you point the finger at free trade and voluntary association, realize that our "free market" is hardly "free". Quite the contrary -- government is very deeply entangled in the market via regulation and taxing. It is this ridiculously complex web of law that makes it possible for corporations to gain power over others -- not free trade itself. You're barking up the wrong tree.
You are absolutly correct, and this is the primary reason I oppose all forms of "public" (government) education. Sounds like a great idea, until you realize that your "teacher" (government) has a much bigger agenda than acedemics.
I did, and the math tells me that the federal government has drastically increased in expense -- and hence power -- over the last quarter century. What the money was spent on is, as far as I am concerned, irrelevant. If the federal government were to drop all military spending today and use that money for social services, they would hold no more or less power over the people. You see, I am concerned primarily with freedom, and freedom is directly proportional to the size of government.
The non-military areas of the federal government theoretically provide benefits to the citizens through program spending and regulation of the economy and the environment.
Beneficial? By whose logic? My logic says that the market can do anything government can, more efficiently and for less cost (measured both in raw cash and -- more importantly -- liberty). Your logic (I assume) says that centralized power is the answer to education, health care, money management, and probably other private issues. Your logic is based on force: By forcing the people to band together, lead by a centralized power, certain problems will be overcome. My logic is based on voluntary association: By removing the element of force from society -- using government only to protect against force, not to initiate force -- the free people will prosper. Again, whose logic?
Second, the military "theoretically" provides benefits to the citizenship as well! All government spending "theoretically" provides benefits. And I guarantee, there are plenty of US citizens (myself not included) who do believe that a trillion-dollar military budget benefits them. What makes your wants any more important (or more correct) than theirs? The law, beyond the core functions of securing property rights and personal liberty, is nothing but a mix of special interests -- and this is exactly why I oppose nearly any expansion of government beyond the core functions.
why the big army?
Any expansion of government represents profit for those in power -- and there is your answer.
The military is not some mysterious entity seperate from the rest of government. The military *is* government, just as any cause which recieves tax dollars is government. The military is simply another tool -- albeit the most powerful tool -- in the politician's toolbox.
That's brilliant. I agree completely.
I was in total agreement until this. The federal government is *not* weakening by any means. Quite the contrary -- the federal government is growing in power and expense, and has been growing strong since the introduction of the federal income tax. It is centralized power -- not a lack of it -- that created the police state. It is centralized power -- not a lack of it -- that steals our freedom.
Bingo. The US has the highest ratio of inmates/population in the world. Why? Is there something inherently evil about US residents compared to other "free" countries around the world? Of course not.
The reason why the US locks up more civilians than anywhere in the world is drug prohibition. Last I checked, over half of all US citizens currently held in detention are non-violent "criminals" arrested for victimless crimes (posession of marijuana for instance). Guess who's paying for all this? It ain't the government. It's you and me, the US citizen. Our penalty is measured in loss of liberty (including privacy), violent crime (from the resulting black market), and corruption (at all levels of government) as well as tax dollars.
Not liking the sound of this? I don't either. This is why we need to keep government in check. We need strict limits on the scope and expense of government. We need to drastically reduce the amount of revenue they take in, and drastically reduce the level of power they posess. We need limited government, or we can forget about liberty and justice for all.
It also creates a new reason for government to spend tax money, and hence, a new justification for government to take tax money. It represents a new justification for government. It doesn't matter if it's a "one-time deal". Any spending of tax money -- no matter what the rationale -- represents an expansion of government. Despite the "no strings attached" sales pitch, we are looking at a deal which not only benefits the OpenBSD team, but one which benefits those in power (the source of the handout). Expansion of government equates to more responsibility (i.e. profit) for those in control.
If you ever find yourself wondering what in the hell your representatives in government are thinking as they throw millions of tax dollars at useless "pork barrel" projects -- well, now you know the answer.
Yup. This is my stance on most issues in fact. I don't want government to promote it (using the people's money), and I don't want government to prohibit it (again, using the people's money) -- I want government to stay the hell out of the way and let the individual decide what's best for themselves.
I believe the burden would be on them to prove that your stance is "impossible" or "non-existent". If I understand it correctly, you've stated your stance, but instead of trying to debate your stance, they simply deny the existence of it?
You won't, after explaining your stance on the issue. It is quite possible -- and rational -- to be "anti-drug" (meaning you don't endorse drug use) yet "anti-prohibition" (meaning you don't endorse drug prohibition) at the same time. Only an irrational person could deny it. By the same token, it is quite possible to be against the US government's decision to invade Iraq -- and not "join the enemy" -- at the same time. To deny the existence of this stance is to deny reality.
Say that again: anti-prohibition (not pro-drug). It's important to understand.
Why are the Libertarians against prohibition? It's really quite simple: Drug prohibition causes violent crime (from the resulting black market), corruption in law enforcement, wastes ridiculous amounts of tax money, and above all, removes the element of personal liberty -- and hence personal responsibility -- from the individual and puts it on "society".
In a nutshell, drug prohibition causes much, much worse problems than the problems it was intended to solve. See the "issues" section of lp.org for more info.
You are absolutely correct. Terrorism is a direct result of foreign intervention by force. But those in power will never admit it. Foreign intervention requires expansion of government (more revenue, more power over the people) -- and expansion of government, for those in power, is a promotion. What lawmaker in their right mind doesn't want a promotion?
I'm sorry, but you, as a unique individual, don't have the slightest right to decide what's best for other unique individuals. Nor does any other individual or group, including government. By definition, only an individual can decide what's right and what's wrong for an individual.
To charge a unique, thinking individual with "making the wrong market decision" is not only arrogant, but incredibly ignorant.
Go read an economics textbook.
Whose textbook? Try mises.org if you still don't understand my perspective.
Yes, in fact, they are -- in government ("public") schools. Socialized education is a product of centralized power. Looking over history, one of the inevitable consequences of centralized power is propaganda. Socialized education is, unfortunately, a perfect outlet for government propaganda.
There is a book called "Lies My Teacher Told Me" (I forget the author) which deals with exactly this subject. You would be surprised to know how far governement will go to rewrite history.
The check you received in the mail was no tax cut -- that was a tax rebate. They simply gave you back some of the money they took from you in the first place. A tax cut is an actual reduction of the tax rate, and represents a reduction in the size of government. The rebate does no such thing.
Moreover, the value of a tax rebate is questionable. How many millions of tax dollars were wasted just processing the rebate and sending out the checks? I think it's safe to say the tax rebate was a scam.
First of all, "they" do not exist at this time. There is no existing free market system in the world as far as I know. Here in the US, for example, the average citizen loses over 40% of their yearly earnings to taxes (between federal, state, and local governments combined). This is hardly representative of free market economics, which requires that each individual citizen have the ability to make their own choices on where and when to spend thier money (or not spend the money). When nearly 1 out of every 2 dollars you earn is taken by government, you're giving up nearly half your spending power -- and hence, nearly half your influence on the market.
And if this actually did happen, what other conclusion could one come to but that less government is exactly what the people want? (I'm dead serious. What other conclusion could one come to when people are free to choose for themselves what's best for themselves? To deny it would be to say that the people *don't* know what's best for themselves.) If the people actually could choose where their tax money goes, and how much of it goes where, I guarantee we'd see a drastic reduction in the scope and power of government.
The term "free market" here is misleading. Free market economics (i.e. capitalism) is the philosophy of voluntary association: Nobody forces anyone to sell anything (or not sell anything), and nobody forces anyone to buy anything (or not buy anything) -- it is the complete absence of force in the market. Under a free market system, every transaction is done on a voluntary basis. Government contracts, on the other hand, represent the exact opposite of free market economics. Government contracting does not represent voluntary association but coercion: The consumer (you and I) do not choose for ourselves whether or not to patronize these businesses. We choose between paying our taxes, leaving the country, or going to jail. This is not market decision but a threat, and hence, the defense contractor does is not a true competitor in the free market. Their market share is not acquired through persuasion, voluntary association, and fair competition. Their market share is aquired through force. Therefore, to label a government contractor "free market" is completely wrong and backwards, and serves only to blur the distinction between free market economics and socialism.
For those in power, it already has been useful. Any expansion of government -- that is, anything which costs the people money or grants more power to government -- represents profit for those in control. If you are the chief of the DEA, would you support new restrictions on when your firm can raid the houses of suspects? Of course not. Increased funding for research on illegal drug use? No doubt! If you are the head of the "homeland security" program, do you support legislation giving you powers to monitor innocent civilians as if they are criminals? Of course -- it makes your job easier, and it makes you look better. Restrictions on free speech as it relates to "homeland security"? Bring it on. Due process and fair handling of criminal suspects? That only gets in the way.
We need to realize that positions of power attract not those who wish to live in peace and mind their own business, but those who wish to control others and profit off this control. Is it any wonder that the US government grows more expensive and more oppressive nearly every year?
The founders had it right when they put strict limits on the scope of government. Limited government is the only road to liberty and true justice.
The sum of 100 instances of self-interest is still measured in self-interest. Personally, I don't advocate giving virtually unlimited power to our leaders as we currently do. I advocate strict limits on the scope of government (quite unlike the virtually limitless powers they hold today), and I advocate holding them strictly accountable for everything they do (quite unlike the runaway pork barrel spending of today, which logically, would not and could not possibly happen if government was indeed "by the people, for the people").
Not by forcing the people to fund it whether they want to or not.
Sure, but when you're spending other people's money, you've got nothing to lose. It's not the end product that matters to those in power -- it's the ability to take and spend the people's money at will. It's the ability to make those decisions. Power is addictive like a drug.
You need to differentiate between the US government and the US citizens. Don't fall into the trap of believing they are one and the same. Every individual is unique, and every individual thinks independendly of every other individual.
But the truth of the matter is that the US is going to war to protect its own interests. There is nothing wrong with that.
Again, the US is going to war to protect the US government's own interests, not the interests of the people. If you ask me, there is something seriously wrong with that.