The main problem with representative government is, to put it bluntly, people like yourself. People who don't understand how the system works, and who therefore see themselves as disenfranchised, are less likely to vote and vote wisely.
I've heard it all before, and I'm not buying it. Here's why: I don't want to vote to fill your position of power. I want to vote to *eliminate* your position of power. Under our current system, there's no way for me to do that.
Voting represents an endorsement of the current political system, which as far as I can tell, is set on course to grow more expensive, more inefficient, and more oppressive as time goes on. I want a government which is strictly limited to protecting the people against force. I don't want or need the republicans' forced conformity. I don't want or need the democrats' forced socialism. I don't want or need force, but force is the only choice given to me.
If you ask me, the fact that most of the people don't vote represents a problem with government, not a problem with the people. The fact is that most people just don't give a damn, and why should they? They realize that no matter who they vote for, they're still in the same boat.
We need to realize that government is in business to profit, just like any private corporation. Government, after all, is nothing but a collection of unique individuals -- each motivated by self-interest -- just like any other collection of individuals. The fact that we get to choose who gets the power (however limited that choice may be) does not change the fact that individuals are motivated by self-interest.
I am specifically referring to people who were wrongly convicted of murder and later found to be 100% innocent, for example via DNA evidence. This is not as uncommon as it sounds, and of course represents the ultimate crime which governement could ever commit: executing an innocent person.
My assertion is that, given that certain inmates put on death row were later found to be innocent (and this is not uncommon according to the statistics), it is quite probable that innocent people have already been executed, and it is quite probable that innocents will continue to be executed until the death penalty is abolished.
But to assume that the inmates taken off of death row are all innocent makes one huge ASS out of you.
If they are dumb enough to put 100 innocents in jail
I think they know damn well that innocent people would go to prison. Just like they know damn well that prohibition creates violent crime (an obviously worse problem than drug use), yet they still wage their "war on drugs" against the people. Just like they know damn well that innocent people die in the electric chair (look at the number of innocents taken off death row every year), yet they still favor the death penalty. Just like they know damn well that a foreign policy based on force creates more war than it prevents, yet they still jump at the chance to invoke military force. Just like they know damn well that corporate welfare destroys market competition, yet they still love to throw our money at their corporate allies.
No, our government leaders are not dumb. They are simply doing what serves their interest. As they saying goes: You can't rule a nation of innocents. The more criminals to arrest (or "problems to solve" in general), the more power they gain over the people.
The solution? Limited government. Reduce the size of government, and the level of abuse will reduce proportionately.
It's easier than ever to send pictures with Linux 9.0. Duh... no wonder it's #1.
Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
I'd like to see you assert that 9/11 would still have happened had the US government not been practicing foreign intervention by force over the past century or so. I'm not trying to say that all examples of military force are unjust; what I'm trying to say is that terrorism is a direct backlash of the use of military force.
Common sense tells us that foreign intervention breeds resentment and hatred. Common sense tells us that terrorism -- evil as it may be -- is a direct response to evil.
The United States is not going to implement a military draft, because there is no need for it, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Jan. 7.
I'd feel much better about it if their reason was because the draft is immoral and unconstitutional, not because they simply "don't need it" this time around.
A free people cannot be forced to fight in a war they don't support.
Re:"Bush's War" at ends with "The War On Terror"
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
Freedom does not throw citizens in jail without due process. Freedom does not take private property by force because another private owener would generate more tax revenue. Freedom does not spy on peaceful citizens as if they are criminals. Freedom does not take my earnings and distribute it to failing private businesses. Freedom does not throw citizens in jail where there is no initiation of force. I could go on all day, but I hope you get my point. US citizens may have more freedom than citizens of certain other countries, but the US is by no means a shining example of freedom.
Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time?
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
And people wonder why the US is the #1 target for terrorists.
Good points. And keep in mind, violent crime actually benefits government. It gives them justification for raising taxes, acquiring more power over the people, and limiting freedom. In other words, violent crime equates to profit for those in power.
As the saying goes, you can't rule a nation of innocents. Is anyone aware that the US has the highest ratio of inmates per population in the world? There's a reason for that -- and it's not because US citizens are inherently criminal by nature.
OpenBSD was created through voluntary association. People supported the OpenBSD project because they wanted to support it, not because they had to. Why have we gone and ruined a perfect example of what liberty can accomplish? Why force consumers to support a product instead of leaving the choice with the consumer? If OpenBSD is truly a superior product then it will continue to thrive without the "help" (coercion) of government. If OpenBSD loses support, it is not because of a lack of coercion!
Now that OpenBSD has been subsidised by the US government, what can we expect? Strings attached. Government money is always accompanied by government control. I, for one, will never endorse a software product which the US government has assumed control over.
Prohibition is the sole reason why "drug violence" exists. Think about it. Do people kill each other over market share for beer, tobacco, or coffee? Of course not. Those products are bought and sold in a legitimate market -- a market where the buyers and sellers are responsible for their own actions. In the black market (under prohibition), the buyers and sellers are criminals. They are not obligated to play by the rules.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but your own government is 100% responsible for all "drug-related" violence. Perhaps you should read up on the US government's attempt to prohibit alcohol early last century -- which, surprisingly enough, failed miserably and created organized crime in one shot.
Lets say for the sake of argument, I get 1 hundred thousand dollars from the government to start my business.
Stop right there. What makes your business worth more than any other startup? What makes your business so important to me that I need to be forced to support it? Why do I have no say in this matter? Why should I, as a taxpayer and consumer, be penalized because government chooses to invest my tax dollars into your startup? What happens when your business fails -- do I get my "investment" back? What happens if I'm not even a consumer in this particular market -- am I excluded from this scheme?
Your argument rests on the assumptions:
1. Increasing revenue for government is always a good thing for the taxpayers, and thus, any increased revenue for government will benefit the taxpayers.
2. Market competition has no benefit to the consumer, and thus when market competition is destroyed by government (via corporate welfare for example), the consumer experiences no loss.
I think you will have a tough time proving those two assumptions.
There are small game shops thriving in the marketplace.
Not for long, if our lawmakers continue to implement these corporate welfare scams. The primary effect of corporate welfare is to destroy open competition in the market and secure the market share of existing competitors, regardless of whether or not they are endorsed by the consumer. Instead of being driven by the needs of the consumer, the market will be skewed in favor of special interests.
When open competition is threatened, the first busiensses to go will be the startups. For a new player in the market, it is absolutly vital to have equal opportunity to enter the market. Handouts and corporate welfare do not create equal opportunity; they destroy it.
Good evaluation. Reward the market loser, and penalize everyone else by forcing them to support the market loser. A ridiculous scam if I've ever seen one, obviously designed to benefit special interests at the expense of the taxpayer. Is it surprising? Not in the least. The bigger the government, the more we're going to see these kind of scams put into action.
Bingo. Government handouts (i.e. corporate welfare) introduce coercion into the market. Handouts represent coercion because instead of choosing for ourselves which companies to patronize, we are being forced to support the interests of those in power. The end result is a market which evolves according to the "needs" of those in power, not the needs of the consumer. And that is not free trade.
Bottom line: In a free, competitive market, where trade is based on the principle of voluntary association and free choice -- not coercion -- corporate welfare does not and cannot exist.
So you agree, that it's an open market, and that the prices are absolutely controlled by buyers and sellers. And then state that actually they are controlled entirely by the government.
Of course supply and demand still affects the market. But prohibition turns everything upside down and backwards. Prohibition can force the price of goods up to astronomical amounts.
It's absolutely a free market.
It's nowhere close to a free market. A free market does not penalize buyers and sellers for engaging in voluntary trade.
A government is not supposed to be in 'business' to make money.
I agree. But the fact is that all governments are in business to profit -- by definition. Again, government is nothing but a collection of unique, thinking individuals motivated by self-interest, just like any other collection of unique, thinking individuals. What makes you think the individuals running the government are somehow exempt from the laws of human nature?
Here's an example for you. Every few years, congress votes themselves a raise of approximately $5000 a year. The citizens do not set the salary for congress -- congress they set their own salary. If the individuals in congress were not in it to profit, why do they vote themselves a hefty raise every few years? If you weren't aware, the average congress person is raking in upwards of $200,000 a year. As you might suspect, that's only the tip of the iceberg. Government is just as fond of using "company money" for personal expenses, i.e perks, as private industry (if not more fond of it, since they money they spend on perks isn't theirs in the first place!)
The winners are getting a better payout, for taking LARGER risks. Not smaller.
That's exactly what I said. The stronger the prohibition, the higher the risk of entering the market, and the higher the potential profit. But the profit can be fed back into the business, where they invest in avoiding the prohibitionists. It's a cycle.
If the profits went up, without an increase in risk, then more sellers would jump into the market, and drive the prices back down.
Of course. But back to my original point, the black market does not operate on the same pricing mechinism as the legitimate free market. The buyers and sellers do not control the prices. Government controls the prices with the relative strength of prohibition. The stronger the prohibition, the higher the potential profit.
Yes. Also note that power is what allows government to take our money in the first place. The more power they have, the more they can take.
But drug prohibition also represents raw profit. We have to view government as the business it really is -- driven by individuals motivated by self-interest, just like any private business. Government is nothing but a collection of unique, self-motivated individuals after all. When you expand your business into a new market (i.e. drug prohibition), you stand to gain. Of course, government differs in the fact that it can't lose on investments like a private business.
Let's review the simple business model of government: (1) You take money from some people, (2) you distribute it to other people, and (3) you keep a profit for yourself. Logically, variable (3) is dependent on (1) and (2). As (1) and (2) scale up, (3) goes up proportionately.
Where you get the notion that their chances of avoiding the law get better, is beyond me.
Remember that drug dealers are in business. The more capital they pull in, the more they can feed back into that business. Drug kingpins in particular stand to benefit greatly from increased capital. If you weren't aware, kingpins invest very heavily in "R&D" -- because they know it will benefit them in the long run.
Avoiding prohibition is a complicated and high-tech business. The stronger the prohibition, the more revenue they stand to generate, the more revenue they can invest in avoiding the law, and hence the greater their chances of avoiding the law.
What's really ironic about drug raids is that the "street value" they quote is a function of prohibition, not market economics. Government sets the price of illegal drugs, not drug dealers! The higher the level of prohibition, the higher the price of black market items. The more tax money they throw at the "problem", the more money the drug dealers can make. And the more money the drug dealers make, the better their chances of avoiding the law. It's a win-win situation for government, which profits not only in revenue but power over the people, and it's a win-win situation for drug dealers who are clever enough to avoid the law. The only losers here are the tax payers, who pay not only in tax dollars but liberty (including but not limited to ownership of your own body) and security (which decreases proportional to the violent crime stimulated by the black market).
Am I concluding that prohibition is designed specifically to benefit government at the expense of the people? You bet I am.
I agree. Besides serving as an excuse to spend our money, this represents an attack on free competition in the market. When government chooses to "support" one private firm over another, what they are really doing is stealing that purchasing power from you and me. The effect is to neutralize competition in the free market.
The root of the issue here is that government is involved in education in the first place. But we'll save that one for another day.
If companies couldn't get a patent for something it would be much harder for them to profit and thus they wouldn't develop items/technology as quickly or at all.
I've never bought this argument. What you are really saying is that innovation is brought about through force (government intervention) instead of through voluntary interaction and free trade. In fact the opposite is true. Innovation is a product of individualism, not some arbitrary set of laws concocted by a tiny subset of the population. Individualism is our ally, not our enemy.
Slashdot Mirror
I've heard it all before, and I'm not buying it. Here's why: I don't want to vote to fill your position of power. I want to vote to *eliminate* your position of power. Under our current system, there's no way for me to do that.
Voting represents an endorsement of the current political system, which as far as I can tell, is set on course to grow more expensive, more inefficient, and more oppressive as time goes on. I want a government which is strictly limited to protecting the people against force. I don't want or need the republicans' forced conformity. I don't want or need the democrats' forced socialism. I don't want or need force, but force is the only choice given to me.
If you ask me, the fact that most of the people don't vote represents a problem with government, not a problem with the people. The fact is that most people just don't give a damn, and why should they? They realize that no matter who they vote for, they're still in the same boat.
We need to realize that government is in business to profit, just like any private corporation. Government, after all, is nothing but a collection of unique individuals -- each motivated by self-interest -- just like any other collection of individuals. The fact that we get to choose who gets the power (however limited that choice may be) does not change the fact that individuals are motivated by self-interest.
I am specifically referring to people who were wrongly convicted of murder and later found to be 100% innocent, for example via DNA evidence. This is not as uncommon as it sounds, and of course represents the ultimate crime which governement could ever commit: executing an innocent person.
But to assume that the inmates taken off of death row are all innocent makes one huge ASS out of you.
Unfortunately for you, that wasn't my assumption.
I think they know damn well that innocent people would go to prison. Just like they know damn well that prohibition creates violent crime (an obviously worse problem than drug use), yet they still wage their "war on drugs" against the people. Just like they know damn well that innocent people die in the electric chair (look at the number of innocents taken off death row every year), yet they still favor the death penalty. Just like they know damn well that a foreign policy based on force creates more war than it prevents, yet they still jump at the chance to invoke military force. Just like they know damn well that corporate welfare destroys market competition, yet they still love to throw our money at their corporate allies.
No, our government leaders are not dumb. They are simply doing what serves their interest. As they saying goes: You can't rule a nation of innocents. The more criminals to arrest (or "problems to solve" in general), the more power they gain over the people.
The solution? Limited government. Reduce the size of government, and the level of abuse will reduce proportionately.
It's easier than ever to send pictures with Linux 9.0. Duh... no wonder it's #1.
I'd like to see you assert that 9/11 would still have happened had the US government not been practicing foreign intervention by force over the past century or so. I'm not trying to say that all examples of military force are unjust; what I'm trying to say is that terrorism is a direct backlash of the use of military force.
Common sense tells us that foreign intervention breeds resentment and hatred. Common sense tells us that terrorism -- evil as it may be -- is a direct response to evil.
I'd feel much better about it if their reason was because the draft is immoral and unconstitutional, not because they simply "don't need it" this time around.
A free people cannot be forced to fight in a war they don't support.
Freedom does not throw citizens in jail without due process. Freedom does not take private property by force because another private owener would generate more tax revenue. Freedom does not spy on peaceful citizens as if they are criminals. Freedom does not take my earnings and distribute it to failing private businesses. Freedom does not throw citizens in jail where there is no initiation of force. I could go on all day, but I hope you get my point. US citizens may have more freedom than citizens of certain other countries, but the US is by no means a shining example of freedom.
And people wonder why the US is the #1 target for terrorists.
Good points. And keep in mind, violent crime actually benefits government. It gives them justification for raising taxes, acquiring more power over the people, and limiting freedom. In other words, violent crime equates to profit for those in power.
As the saying goes, you can't rule a nation of innocents. Is anyone aware that the US has the highest ratio of inmates per population in the world? There's a reason for that -- and it's not because US citizens are inherently criminal by nature.
OpenBSD was created through voluntary association. People supported the OpenBSD project because they wanted to support it, not because they had to. Why have we gone and ruined a perfect example of what liberty can accomplish? Why force consumers to support a product instead of leaving the choice with the consumer? If OpenBSD is truly a superior product then it will continue to thrive without the "help" (coercion) of government. If OpenBSD loses support, it is not because of a lack of coercion!
Now that OpenBSD has been subsidised by the US government, what can we expect? Strings attached. Government money is always accompanied by government control. I, for one, will never endorse a software product which the US government has assumed control over.
Prohibition is the sole reason why "drug violence" exists. Think about it. Do people kill each other over market share for beer, tobacco, or coffee? Of course not. Those products are bought and sold in a legitimate market -- a market where the buyers and sellers are responsible for their own actions. In the black market (under prohibition), the buyers and sellers are criminals. They are not obligated to play by the rules.
Sorry to bust your bubble, but your own government is 100% responsible for all "drug-related" violence. Perhaps you should read up on the US government's attempt to prohibit alcohol early last century -- which, surprisingly enough, failed miserably and created organized crime in one shot.
Stop right there. What makes your business worth more than any other startup? What makes your business so important to me that I need to be forced to support it? Why do I have no say in this matter? Why should I, as a taxpayer and consumer, be penalized because government chooses to invest my tax dollars into your startup? What happens when your business fails -- do I get my "investment" back? What happens if I'm not even a consumer in this particular market -- am I excluded from this scheme?
Your argument rests on the assumptions:
1. Increasing revenue for government is always a good thing for the taxpayers, and thus, any increased revenue for government will benefit the taxpayers.
2. Market competition has no benefit to the consumer, and thus when market competition is destroyed by government (via corporate welfare for example), the consumer experiences no loss.
I think you will have a tough time proving those two assumptions.
Not for long, if our lawmakers continue to implement these corporate welfare scams. The primary effect of corporate welfare is to destroy open competition in the market and secure the market share of existing competitors, regardless of whether or not they are endorsed by the consumer. Instead of being driven by the needs of the consumer, the market will be skewed in favor of special interests.
When open competition is threatened, the first busiensses to go will be the startups. For a new player in the market, it is absolutly vital to have equal opportunity to enter the market. Handouts and corporate welfare do not create equal opportunity; they destroy it.
Good evaluation. Reward the market loser, and penalize everyone else by forcing them to support the market loser. A ridiculous scam if I've ever seen one, obviously designed to benefit special interests at the expense of the taxpayer. Is it surprising? Not in the least. The bigger the government, the more we're going to see these kind of scams put into action.
Bingo. Government handouts (i.e. corporate welfare) introduce coercion into the market. Handouts represent coercion because instead of choosing for ourselves which companies to patronize, we are being forced to support the interests of those in power. The end result is a market which evolves according to the "needs" of those in power, not the needs of the consumer. And that is not free trade.
Bottom line: In a free, competitive market, where trade is based on the principle of voluntary association and free choice -- not coercion -- corporate welfare does not and cannot exist.
Of course supply and demand still affects the market. But prohibition turns everything upside down and backwards. Prohibition can force the price of goods up to astronomical amounts.
It's absolutely a free market.
It's nowhere close to a free market. A free market does not penalize buyers and sellers for engaging in voluntary trade.
I agree. But the fact is that all governments are in business to profit -- by definition. Again, government is nothing but a collection of unique, thinking individuals motivated by self-interest, just like any other collection of unique, thinking individuals. What makes you think the individuals running the government are somehow exempt from the laws of human nature?
Here's an example for you. Every few years, congress votes themselves a raise of approximately $5000 a year. The citizens do not set the salary for congress -- congress they set their own salary. If the individuals in congress were not in it to profit, why do they vote themselves a hefty raise every few years? If you weren't aware, the average congress person is raking in upwards of $200,000 a year. As you might suspect, that's only the tip of the iceberg. Government is just as fond of using "company money" for personal expenses, i.e perks, as private industry (if not more fond of it, since they money they spend on perks isn't theirs in the first place!)
That's exactly what I said. The stronger the prohibition, the higher the risk of entering the market, and the higher the potential profit. But the profit can be fed back into the business, where they invest in avoiding the prohibitionists. It's a cycle.
If the profits went up, without an increase in risk, then more sellers would jump into the market, and drive the prices back down.
Of course. But back to my original point, the black market does not operate on the same pricing mechinism as the legitimate free market. The buyers and sellers do not control the prices. Government controls the prices with the relative strength of prohibition. The stronger the prohibition, the higher the potential profit.
Yes. Also note that power is what allows government to take our money in the first place. The more power they have, the more they can take. But drug prohibition also represents raw profit. We have to view government as the business it really is -- driven by individuals motivated by self-interest, just like any private business. Government is nothing but a collection of unique, self-motivated individuals after all. When you expand your business into a new market (i.e. drug prohibition), you stand to gain. Of course, government differs in the fact that it can't lose on investments like a private business.
Let's review the simple business model of government: (1) You take money from some people, (2) you distribute it to other people, and (3) you keep a profit for yourself. Logically, variable (3) is dependent on (1) and (2). As (1) and (2) scale up, (3) goes up proportionately.
Remember that drug dealers are in business. The more capital they pull in, the more they can feed back into that business. Drug kingpins in particular stand to benefit greatly from increased capital. If you weren't aware, kingpins invest very heavily in "R&D" -- because they know it will benefit them in the long run.
Avoiding prohibition is a complicated and high-tech business. The stronger the prohibition, the more revenue they stand to generate, the more revenue they can invest in avoiding the law, and hence the greater their chances of avoiding the law.
What's really ironic about drug raids is that the "street value" they quote is a function of prohibition, not market economics. Government sets the price of illegal drugs, not drug dealers! The higher the level of prohibition, the higher the price of black market items. The more tax money they throw at the "problem", the more money the drug dealers can make. And the more money the drug dealers make, the better their chances of avoiding the law. It's a win-win situation for government, which profits not only in revenue but power over the people, and it's a win-win situation for drug dealers who are clever enough to avoid the law. The only losers here are the tax payers, who pay not only in tax dollars but liberty (including but not limited to ownership of your own body) and security (which decreases proportional to the violent crime stimulated by the black market).
Am I concluding that prohibition is designed specifically to benefit government at the expense of the people? You bet I am.
I agree. Besides serving as an excuse to spend our money, this represents an attack on free competition in the market. When government chooses to "support" one private firm over another, what they are really doing is stealing that purchasing power from you and me. The effect is to neutralize competition in the free market.
The root of the issue here is that government is involved in education in the first place. But we'll save that one for another day.
I've never bought this argument. What you are really saying is that innovation is brought about through force (government intervention) instead of through voluntary interaction and free trade. In fact the opposite is true. Innovation is a product of individualism, not some arbitrary set of laws concocted by a tiny subset of the population. Individualism is our ally, not our enemy.