Please don't spread FUD. Of course the Libertarians believe that a corporation "can do wrong", and this happens precisely when that corporation breaks the rules of voluntary association by initiating force. Please refer to the intro below if you don't understand this concept (which I'm assuming you don't).
If you get pulled over and searched and you have a lot of cash without a receipt, the police will take your cash until you can document it.
You can chalk that one up to drug prohibition. Keep in mind, the policies implemented by private business are (and should be) completely independent from the policies implemented by government, unless we are talking about government-mandated regulation. There is no reason why FedEx (or any private business) shouldn't be able to implement a credit-only policy (or cash-only for that matter). If the market doesn't approve of the practice, then the market won't support that policy. There is plenty of reason, however, why government shouldn't be able to outlaw cash transactions. Government has the unique ability to restrict your freedom; private business does not.
(Quoted again) The international and unregulated nature of the internet has, up until now, enabled communication that was completely untappable.
(Ergo, in order to provide security for the people, government needs the ability to monitor law-abiding citizens.)
The underlying assumptions to this argument are that (a) government would be unable to perform its primary function, which is to protect the people from the initiation of force, without the continuous monitoring of peaceful, law-abiding citizens, (b) the freedom destroyed by this legislation is worth less to the average citizen than the security gained by implementing the program, and finally, (c) the legislation *will* actually increase the security of the average citizen.
Naturally, anyone who favors this sort of oppression can and will offer definitive proof for assumptions (a), (b), and (c).
Gambling, in most states, is a criminalized business endeavor for everyone but government. (I'm talking about the lottery.) Somehow, when gambling is conducted by private business, it represents a threat to society so great that it requires prohibition, yet when gambling is conducted by government, it represents a legitimate fund-raising scheme. I can only assume this is because government officials are more trustworthy than individuals operating in the private sector. Would anyone care to prove this?
Sure, all these needs could be fulfilled by voluntary industry standards, if it weren't for those pesky human beings, fallible and greedy creatures that they are.
There is a glaring hole in this argument. Government is an organization comprised of unique, thinking individuals who are primarily motivated by self interest, just like any organization in the private sector. Human beings in business are pesky, fallible and greedy, you say? Well, human beings in government are absolutely no different. What makes you think you can trust the individuals in government any more than the individuals in Wal-Mart? Especially considering that government has the unique authority to conduct their business by force?
For the apologists of prohibition, however, conformity has more value than freedom. Never mind the incredibly destructive effects of prohibition, measured primarily in freedom and violent crime; in the mind of the prohibitionist, conformity represents the pinnicle of social advancement.
Capitalism can only succeed if we have a mix between private corporations and some socialist programs.
Note that you're complaining about a broken system which currently represents exactly what you want: a mix between socialism and free market economics. So what's the problem? We've put the wrong people in charge? Not spending tax dollars wisely? Unfortunately these are not solvable problems, precisely because people are unique individuals with unique wants and needs. Government can only force a one-size-fits-all solution on the people, which benefits some, but only at the cost of others.
Also note that socialism is directly destructive to free market services: every tax dollar taken from the people represents one dollar removed from the free market. (In the market, that dollar would have been dedicated to choice instead of forced support for government services.) The performance of the free market is bound to the ability of people to freely choose if, when, where, and how to spend their money. When this ability is degraded, the performance of the market is degraded proportionately.
Exactly, and moreover the boy bands would pay for the space program through voluntary trade, in contrast to your tax dollars which are collected by force. The more the space program is funded through voluntary trade, the more the space program is representative of the market (the people) rather than government.
All election campaigns should be funded from tax-payers money.
In other words, the solution for a corrupt political system is to force the individual citizen to support the system? This is not what the founders had in mind when they created our country. The answer is to enforce strict limits on the size and scope of government. If government wasn't so deeply entangled in private business in the first place (a problem with government, not private business), then private business would have no need to appeal to government to achieve the "competitive advantage". Simple as that: Reduce the size of government, and we reduce the incentive for corruption.
Are they going to setup a department just to keep checking up on the kids.us domains?
Of course they will. The objective here (like any non-core function of government) is (a) to spend tax money and (b) to acquire more power. What good would a new government program be if there wasn't something in it for the ruling class? As always, expansion of government equates to more "responsibility" (wealth and/or power) for those in the ruling class.
Anarchy is not the only alternative. My preference would be a government which is strictly limited to protecting citizens against coercion. Under such a government, citizens which coerce other citizens are still criminals and will be dealt with accordingly.
Let me remind everybody that we're talking about a more general issue when we speak of diminishing civil rights: the size (scope and expense) of government. As a rule of thumb: the larger the government, the less freedom. Hence the elimination of due process in the US.
Socialism is one of the keys to power in government. It would have been much more difficult to get the war on [drug users] going (for example) without the momentum provided by socialist programs (that's including national "defense"). Reduce the cost of government (measured in tax dollars) and we reduce the cost of government (measured in liberty).
Why do people speak of terrorism as if it's an inevitable, unpredictable problem that can only be solved with more government (more force)? The truth is exactly the opposite. Terrorism is a retaliation to force. Limit the ability of government to initiate force, and you greatly reduce the odds of being attacked by terrorists. If anyone is looking for the answer to why the US is hated by certain groups around the world, look no further than the US government's history on initiating force.
It saddens me that some people would sooner trust coercion (government) than liberty. As for me, I'll always trust the individual who is equal in power to myself over the individual who holds the power to initiate force.
The core philosophy of capitalism is *not* freedom: it is property.
Aha, but property *is* freedom: the freedom to own and control property (including your own body), and the freedom to trade property with others on a voluntary basis. This is why capitalism requires limited (or non-existent) government: the level of freedom and property rights is proportional to the size of government. Taxing is the process of acquiring property by force, and this represents involuntary association, which is hostile to the philosophy of capitalism, i.e. voluntary association. The purest form of capitalism is therefore anarchy, or the total non-existence of the state.
The person without food does not voluntarily go hungry.
This is a common misconception. Capitalism does not guarantee equal outcome, only equal opportunity. Under capitalism, all individuals are equal in terms of liberty -- and hence, in terms of opportunity. Socialism is the political philosophy which was supposed to achieve equal outcome, at the expense of equal opportunity. The two concepts are essentially philosophical opposites.
The concepts of freedom and property are not only compatible, they are one and the same. You cannot achieve one without the other. Be aware that property rights do not imply property, but only the equal opportunity to acquire and control property.
What nonsense? Voluntary association is the essence of capitalism. It is nothing less than the core philosophy of capitalism. The first prerequisite of capitalism is that individuals are free to interact (trade) on a voluntary basis.
Only to the extent that the distribution of property is voluntarily agreed to. Once you invoke force to preserve allocations of property, the voluntary part goes out the window.
I agree 100%. Strong property rights are an essential element of capitalism.
Yes. The notion of government "rejecting capitalism" implies exactly two requirements: (1) to increase the power and expense of government, and (2) to reduce the freedom of the people. Neither one of these requirements has been met with this new proposal, as far as I can see. The individual who made that quote simply does not understand the concepts of capitalism and socialism.
Capitalism is freedom -- specifically, the freedom to engage in voluntary association. Socialism is the exact opposite of this. Socialism is essentially a prohibition of capitalism, because it requires that your freedom of voluntary association be eliminated (or reduced) by the force of government.
I know this may sound a little whacked, but the best way to improve mankinds chances of survival is interplanetary colonization.
That doesn't sound whacked to me. It's called redundancy, and it's an important concept that has many applications. The idea is to spread your eggs over more than one basket, so if one basket takes a fall, you won't break all your eggs at one time. For instance, wealthy individuals would be wise to keep their assets spread over a number of different countries, banks, and stocks. System administrators would be wise to use redundant power supplies, UPS, and surge protection on their servers. High-school grads would be wise to enroll in college just in case they don't make it as a rock star. Drivers would be wise to keep a spare tire in the trunk. Etc, etc, etc.
Exactly. If they want source code, they can make an offer to Microsoft. Asking (or forcing) Microsoft to provide source code for special interests, without any sort of incentive, is just plain dumb.
Incidentally, why isn't anyone questioning the motives of the Taiwanese government here? If I was a citizen of Taiwan, I'd be a lot more concerned with government keeping secrets than Microsoft keeping secrets. After all, it's government that holds the key to oppression, not Microsoft.
right clicking on links where they loaded in tabs in the background
Better yet, use the middle mouse button (just a single click) to perform the same function. If you don't have a third button, hold down Ctrl while you click the link. Works great for Slashdot.
Keep in mind, the root of the problem is still government. Microsoft (or any private corporation) are not the ones who determine which laws pass and which ones do not. They cannot force a politician to pass any law; they can only attempt to bribe the politician with money. Whether or not the politician accepts the bribe is a decision made by the politician, not Microsoft. Government holds the ultimate power, and therefore the root of the problem lies in government. If we really want to address this practice, the only way to do it is to address the policies of government.
With that said, the only sure-fire way to reduce the practice of private corporations bribing politicians is to limit the powers of government. The smaller the government, the less incentive private corporations have to try to take advantage of it.
France and Germany are both democratic countries that have decided (along with most of Europe) that racist speech is not acceptable in society.
A "country" does not decide anything. A "country" (or more generally, a "society") is nothing but a collection of unique individuals, each with unique viewpoints on any given issue. Government is also nothing but a collection of unique individuals. When you say that a "country" has decided to pass a law, what you really mean is that an elite group of individuals (belonging to the class "government"), who were selected to rule over the rest, have decided to force a standard on the people. Once elected to office, these individuals have absolutely no obligation to represent the common people's interests, or even to keep the campaign promises they use as bait to achieve power.
Democracy is not the magic bullet some people would have you believe. Democracy could very well result in fascism or communism. Do you really think that the majority of US citizens approve of (for example) using their tax dollars to poison the crops of poor Columbian farmers, causing sickness and death to entire communities, in an attempt to reduce the supply of cocoa plants used to manufacture cocaine? Do you really think the majority of US citizens approves of government using their tax dollars to keep troops stationed in 144 countries around the world? These decisions were certainly not made by the individual members of society; they were made by the individuals belonging to the group called government.
Ah, the popular socialist perspective: Some services, namely the ones that we have only known to be provided by government in our lifetimes, could *only* be provided by government. But like all socialists, you have ignored some important issues. Government holds a forced monopoly on some of the services you mention, namely highway development and space exploration. The private sector can't currently compete in these markets without becoming criminals. How can you even begin to compare the performance of government vs. the private sector in a certain market, when government holds a forced monopoly on the market?
As for education, you point out that most of the population can't afford private education. But you have ignored the fact that because of government interference in education, private education has been relegated to a niche market with very low demand among the lower class. There are not enough resources for a healthy competition to emerge in the education market, which concievably would result in quality, low-cost educational institutions that most parents could afford. You have also ignored the fact that the overall cost of government puts a *huge* dent in the average citizen's spending power, and hence the ability of the free market to adapt to the needs of the people. For every dollar taken from the people by government, there is one less dollar invested in the free market. In other words, the performace of the free market, which is ultimately dependent on its available resources, is directly proportional to the cost of government.
Slashdot Mirror
Intro to Libertarian philosophy
You can chalk that one up to drug prohibition. Keep in mind, the policies implemented by private business are (and should be) completely independent from the policies implemented by government, unless we are talking about government-mandated regulation. There is no reason why FedEx (or any private business) shouldn't be able to implement a credit-only policy (or cash-only for that matter). If the market doesn't approve of the practice, then the market won't support that policy. There is plenty of reason, however, why government shouldn't be able to outlaw cash transactions. Government has the unique ability to restrict your freedom; private business does not.
(Quoted again) The international and unregulated nature of the internet has, up until now, enabled communication that was completely untappable.
(Ergo, in order to provide security for the people, government needs the ability to monitor law-abiding citizens.)
The underlying assumptions to this argument are that (a) government would be unable to perform its primary function, which is to protect the people from the initiation of force, without the continuous monitoring of peaceful, law-abiding citizens, (b) the freedom destroyed by this legislation is worth less to the average citizen than the security gained by implementing the program, and finally, (c) the legislation *will* actually increase the security of the average citizen.
Naturally, anyone who favors this sort of oppression can and will offer definitive proof for assumptions (a), (b), and (c).
Gambling, in most states, is a criminalized business endeavor for everyone but government. (I'm talking about the lottery.) Somehow, when gambling is conducted by private business, it represents a threat to society so great that it requires prohibition, yet when gambling is conducted by government, it represents a legitimate fund-raising scheme. I can only assume this is because government officials are more trustworthy than individuals operating in the private sector. Would anyone care to prove this?
There is a glaring hole in this argument. Government is an organization comprised of unique, thinking individuals who are primarily motivated by self interest, just like any organization in the private sector. Human beings in business are pesky, fallible and greedy, you say? Well, human beings in government are absolutely no different. What makes you think you can trust the individuals in government any more than the individuals in Wal-Mart? Especially considering that government has the unique authority to conduct their business by force?
For the apologists of prohibition, however, conformity has more value than freedom. Never mind the incredibly destructive effects of prohibition, measured primarily in freedom and violent crime; in the mind of the prohibitionist, conformity represents the pinnicle of social advancement.
Note that you're complaining about a broken system which currently represents exactly what you want: a mix between socialism and free market economics. So what's the problem? We've put the wrong people in charge? Not spending tax dollars wisely? Unfortunately these are not solvable problems, precisely because people are unique individuals with unique wants and needs. Government can only force a one-size-fits-all solution on the people, which benefits some, but only at the cost of others.
Also note that socialism is directly destructive to free market services: every tax dollar taken from the people represents one dollar removed from the free market. (In the market, that dollar would have been dedicated to choice instead of forced support for government services.) The performance of the free market is bound to the ability of people to freely choose if, when, where, and how to spend their money. When this ability is degraded, the performance of the market is degraded proportionately.
Exactly, and moreover the boy bands would pay for the space program through voluntary trade, in contrast to your tax dollars which are collected by force. The more the space program is funded through voluntary trade, the more the space program is representative of the market (the people) rather than government.
The reason there isn't much competition is because the market is small. Competition is the result of demand, not the cause of it.
In other words, the solution for a corrupt political system is to force the individual citizen to support the system? This is not what the founders had in mind when they created our country. The answer is to enforce strict limits on the size and scope of government. If government wasn't so deeply entangled in private business in the first place (a problem with government, not private business), then private business would have no need to appeal to government to achieve the "competitive advantage". Simple as that: Reduce the size of government, and we reduce the incentive for corruption.
Of course they will. The objective here (like any non-core function of government) is (a) to spend tax money and (b) to acquire more power. What good would a new government program be if there wasn't something in it for the ruling class? As always, expansion of government equates to more "responsibility" (wealth and/or power) for those in the ruling class.
Anarchy is not the only alternative. My preference would be a government which is strictly limited to protecting citizens against coercion. Under such a government, citizens which coerce other citizens are still criminals and will be dealt with accordingly.
Socialism is one of the keys to power in government. It would have been much more difficult to get the war on [drug users] going (for example) without the momentum provided by socialist programs (that's including national "defense"). Reduce the cost of government (measured in tax dollars) and we reduce the cost of government (measured in liberty).
Why do people speak of terrorism as if it's an inevitable, unpredictable problem that can only be solved with more government (more force)? The truth is exactly the opposite. Terrorism is a retaliation to force. Limit the ability of government to initiate force, and you greatly reduce the odds of being attacked by terrorists. If anyone is looking for the answer to why the US is hated by certain groups around the world, look no further than the US government's history on initiating force.
It saddens me that some people would sooner trust coercion (government) than liberty. As for me, I'll always trust the individual who is equal in power to myself over the individual who holds the power to initiate force.
Aha, but property *is* freedom: the freedom to own and control property (including your own body), and the freedom to trade property with others on a voluntary basis. This is why capitalism requires limited (or non-existent) government: the level of freedom and property rights is proportional to the size of government. Taxing is the process of acquiring property by force, and this represents involuntary association, which is hostile to the philosophy of capitalism, i.e. voluntary association. The purest form of capitalism is therefore anarchy, or the total non-existence of the state.
The person without food does not voluntarily go hungry.
This is a common misconception. Capitalism does not guarantee equal outcome, only equal opportunity. Under capitalism, all individuals are equal in terms of liberty -- and hence, in terms of opportunity. Socialism is the political philosophy which was supposed to achieve equal outcome, at the expense of equal opportunity. The two concepts are essentially philosophical opposites.
The concepts of freedom and property are not only compatible, they are one and the same. You cannot achieve one without the other. Be aware that property rights do not imply property, but only the equal opportunity to acquire and control property.
What nonsense? Voluntary association is the essence of capitalism. It is nothing less than the core philosophy of capitalism. The first prerequisite of capitalism is that individuals are free to interact (trade) on a voluntary basis.
I agree 100%. Strong property rights are an essential element of capitalism.
Yes. The notion of government "rejecting capitalism" implies exactly two requirements: (1) to increase the power and expense of government, and (2) to reduce the freedom of the people. Neither one of these requirements has been met with this new proposal, as far as I can see. The individual who made that quote simply does not understand the concepts of capitalism and socialism.
Capitalism is freedom -- specifically, the freedom to engage in voluntary association. Socialism is the exact opposite of this. Socialism is essentially a prohibition of capitalism, because it requires that your freedom of voluntary association be eliminated (or reduced) by the force of government.
That doesn't sound whacked to me. It's called redundancy, and it's an important concept that has many applications. The idea is to spread your eggs over more than one basket, so if one basket takes a fall, you won't break all your eggs at one time. For instance, wealthy individuals would be wise to keep their assets spread over a number of different countries, banks, and stocks. System administrators would be wise to use redundant power supplies, UPS, and surge protection on their servers. High-school grads would be wise to enroll in college just in case they don't make it as a rock star. Drivers would be wise to keep a spare tire in the trunk. Etc, etc, etc.
Exactly. If they want source code, they can make an offer to Microsoft. Asking (or forcing) Microsoft to provide source code for special interests, without any sort of incentive, is just plain dumb.
Incidentally, why isn't anyone questioning the motives of the Taiwanese government here? If I was a citizen of Taiwan, I'd be a lot more concerned with government keeping secrets than Microsoft keeping secrets. After all, it's government that holds the key to oppression, not Microsoft.
Better yet, use the middle mouse button (just a single click) to perform the same function. If you don't have a third button, hold down Ctrl while you click the link. Works great for Slashdot.
Keep in mind, the root of the problem is still government. Microsoft (or any private corporation) are not the ones who determine which laws pass and which ones do not. They cannot force a politician to pass any law; they can only attempt to bribe the politician with money. Whether or not the politician accepts the bribe is a decision made by the politician, not Microsoft. Government holds the ultimate power, and therefore the root of the problem lies in government. If we really want to address this practice, the only way to do it is to address the policies of government.
With that said, the only sure-fire way to reduce the practice of private corporations bribing politicians is to limit the powers of government. The smaller the government, the less incentive private corporations have to try to take advantage of it.
A "country" does not decide anything. A "country" (or more generally, a "society") is nothing but a collection of unique individuals, each with unique viewpoints on any given issue. Government is also nothing but a collection of unique individuals. When you say that a "country" has decided to pass a law, what you really mean is that an elite group of individuals (belonging to the class "government"), who were selected to rule over the rest, have decided to force a standard on the people. Once elected to office, these individuals have absolutely no obligation to represent the common people's interests, or even to keep the campaign promises they use as bait to achieve power.
Democracy is not the magic bullet some people would have you believe. Democracy could very well result in fascism or communism. Do you really think that the majority of US citizens approve of (for example) using their tax dollars to poison the crops of poor Columbian farmers, causing sickness and death to entire communities, in an attempt to reduce the supply of cocoa plants used to manufacture cocaine? Do you really think the majority of US citizens approves of government using their tax dollars to keep troops stationed in 144 countries around the world? These decisions were certainly not made by the individual members of society; they were made by the individuals belonging to the group called government.
Ah, the popular socialist perspective: Some services, namely the ones that we have only known to be provided by government in our lifetimes, could *only* be provided by government. But like all socialists, you have ignored some important issues. Government holds a forced monopoly on some of the services you mention, namely highway development and space exploration. The private sector can't currently compete in these markets without becoming criminals. How can you even begin to compare the performance of government vs. the private sector in a certain market, when government holds a forced monopoly on the market?
As for education, you point out that most of the population can't afford private education. But you have ignored the fact that because of government interference in education, private education has been relegated to a niche market with very low demand among the lower class. There are not enough resources for a healthy competition to emerge in the education market, which concievably would result in quality, low-cost educational institutions that most parents could afford. You have also ignored the fact that the overall cost of government puts a *huge* dent in the average citizen's spending power, and hence the ability of the free market to adapt to the needs of the people. For every dollar taken from the people by government, there is one less dollar invested in the free market. In other words, the performace of the free market, which is ultimately dependent on its available resources, is directly proportional to the cost of government.