Any instance of human interaction must be classified as one of either aggression (force) or voluntary association. This is not philosophy -- this is the reality of human nature. You are trying to introduce a new, third mode of human interaction which just doesn't exist.
Selling drugs, and buying drugs, is clearly an act of voluntary association, whether or not you "approve" of the practice. If you still won't accept this, you will have to pinpoint specifically where force is invoked as a means to an end.
Nobody is claiming that drugs don't cause health problems, even death. What I claim is that (1) selling or using drugs is an act of non-aggression, and (2) an act of non-aggression cannot logically be "more evil" than an act of aggression.
Of course, the drug laws you support are the same ones that give rise to black markets and the violent crime that comes with them. Haven't you ever read about alcohol prohibition? Al Capone? The murder rate skyrocketed when alcohol was banned. When prohibition was finally repealed, the murder rate came right back down to the previous level.
Ayn Rand was technically not a libertarian, although many of their core beliefs are similar.
The founders believed in strictly limited, decentralized government, which is the paradigm of libertarianism. If the founders were alive and active in politics today, they would be libertarians if not independent. Both the democrats and republicans, on the other hand, believe in a government much larger, much more powerful, and much more centralized than the founders envisioned.
economics wasn't really developed enough
The laws of economics don't change. What's changed is that the US government now posesses (1) a much larger and richer economy to plunder wealth from, (2) the means to do it.
At no point has my quality of life or personal safety ever been threatened by spam. Incarceration should be an option of last resort.
Libertarians have been saying that for years. The punishment should be restitution, not incarceration. Victims should be fully compensated for the crimes of the aggressor, by the aggressor, not the taxpayer.
Of course, what does government have to gain by downsizing the criminal justice system?
Drug dealers regularly serve more time than rapists and drunk drivers, even murderers.
But before that, what makes you think that selling drugs is a "crime" on the level of rape or even drunk driving? Rape and drunk driving are acts of aggression on actual victims. What backwards world are you living in that drug dealing is considered an act of aggression, let alone on the level or rape?
the same foreign policy that has dogged the US since Bush's first inauguration
The US government has been wreaking havoc around the world for the past century. The current administration is certainly not the first to invoke military force for political gain, killing innocent civilians in the process.
You are implying that his statement was correct. But in fact, it was exactly incorrect. By waging the "war on terror" -- and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process -- the US government has created a new foundation for even more hatred and resent.
Refused a multi-million dollar donation from the prince of Saudi Arabia to help the victims of 9/11, which came with a suggestion (not a condition) to adopt a more modest foreign policy, because he wanted to send the message that he won't even think about "blaming the US for terrorism", honest donation be damned.
In other words, he's loyal to the policies of the US government, and wouldn't dare think for himself. He's the perfect candidate!
In the US, the original "liberals" were actually libertarians. (The founders were the original liberals.) Today, the term "liberal" means authoritarian socialist, and the term "conservative" means authoritarian fascist.
Probably the complete opposite of what is considered "conservative"
Communist or "conservative", they are both authoritarian, and both prefer big centralized government. And let's not forget that most "conservatives" today are more than willing to endorse socialism. They may differ on certain policies, but I definitely wouldn't say they are "complete opposites".
Here's another way to look at it. Your country commissioner does not have, and will never have, the power to run the country into an economic depression. The federal government most certainly does (and in fact, they have).
Here's the obvious question. Should anyone hold such an incredible amount of power?
Your state governor does not have the power to change policies that affect the entire country at the same time. Federal politicians do have this power.
For example, it was reported on Slashdot that the FCC has forbidden states from interfering with VOIP. While this may seem like a victory on the surface, you can bet that the FCC has planned all sorts of regulations and possibly taxes of their own. Here's the obvious question: What if the FCC is wrong? The policy will be applied to the entire nation. With centralized government, there is only one solution, and that solution will be forced upon the entire country. The underlying paradigm of centralized government is that people are "cattle" waiting to be herded by one absolute set of rules. Difference cannot be tolerated under centralized government.
Now, what if the states were left to decide their own policies? Some would do the right thing, and some would do the wrong thing. But the ones that do the wrong thing can't force their solution on the entire nation -- therefore they can't cause nearly as much trouble as a centralized government agency.
The rationale for decentralized government is simple. The more power government has at its disposal, the higher the level of abuse, and the bigger the problems government will cause. Government can only cause so much trouble with limited power and revenue. For example, the US federal government caused relatively few problems around the world before the federal income tax (which, incidentally, was supposed to be temporary). Today, the US federal government has troops stationed in over 150 countries around the world, and has been at war with some country, somewhere in the world, for every single year over the past century. Why? Because they can. Power will be abused, and absolute power will be abused absolutely.
Naturally, a centralized government has many times more potential for abuse than decentralized government. That's not to say that local and state governments can't be abused, just that there is an upper limit on abuse.
All rebates are scams. Why would a retailer spend the extra overhead on running a rebate program when they could finalize the sale in minutes? Why not just sell the product at the sale price in the first place and eliminate the extra overhead?
There's only one logical answer: Because the retailer never intended to sell the product at the sale price in the first place.
Check out secondspin.com for a huge selection of cheap, quality used CD's. I buy around 5-10 used CD's at a time (no I am not affiliated with them) and simply FLAC them into my archive, then store the originals away. My limit is $9, and even in the $5-$8 price range I find all sorts of rare CD's that you won't find in the music store. I don't care if they're perfect condition because I only want to FLAC them, but even so, a lot of them are nearly perfect condition. None are what I'd consider bad condition. And, as you say, buying used CD's doesn't put a cent into the RIAA's pocket.
Eternal vigilence is the only real way to keep the politics bottom-up.
That, and strictly limited government. The founders had the right idea, but for all the emphasis they put on limiting the powers of government, it wasn't enough.
The bottom line is that power will be abused, no matter who has it. There is no way around it. The best we can do, therefore, is to limit the amount of power available for abuse.
In a nutshell, the less power available to those who control government, the less trouble they will cause. Simple, yet absolutely critical.
What's more, US-led spraying campaigns have caused mass disease, famine, and even death in the communities unfortunate enough to be targeted. Of course, that's the last thing the US government wants you to know.
These spray campaigns have destroyed small farmers' food crops, contaminated water, and made children sick. While Colombian farming villages suffer severe consequences from the spraying, the campaigns produce little to no effect on the drug trade...
at least health care is benign and directly benefits the taxpayers
...after your "representatives" make a fortune on the administration costs and use their newfound powers to manipulate what's left of the free market for personal gain.
Of course, I still can't get past the presumption that force can accomplish anything more efficiently than voluntary association.
What exactly is the difference between getting "ripped off" by somebody (or some corporation), i.e. sustaining an initiation of force, vs. being subject to the arbitrary laws of government, i.e. sustaining an initiation of force?
The corporations which refuse to be entangled with government any further than required by law are not criminal, until they demonstrate their willingness to initiate of force (theft, fraud, murder, etc) as a means to an end.
Slashdot Mirror
Any instance of human interaction must be classified as one of either aggression (force) or voluntary association. This is not philosophy -- this is the reality of human nature. You are trying to introduce a new, third mode of human interaction which just doesn't exist.
Selling drugs, and buying drugs, is clearly an act of voluntary association, whether or not you "approve" of the practice. If you still won't accept this, you will have to pinpoint specifically where force is invoked as a means to an end.
Don't you mean "before those of the US government"?
Nobody is claiming that drugs don't cause health problems, even death. What I claim is that (1) selling or using drugs is an act of non-aggression, and (2) an act of non-aggression cannot logically be "more evil" than an act of aggression.
Of course, the drug laws you support are the same ones that give rise to black markets and the violent crime that comes with them. Haven't you ever read about alcohol prohibition? Al Capone? The murder rate skyrocketed when alcohol was banned. When prohibition was finally repealed, the murder rate came right back down to the previous level.
Thanks for supporting violent crime.
The founders believed in strictly limited, decentralized government, which is the paradigm of libertarianism. If the founders were alive and active in politics today, they would be libertarians if not independent. Both the democrats and republicans, on the other hand, believe in a government much larger, much more powerful, and much more centralized than the founders envisioned.
economics wasn't really developed enough
The laws of economics don't change. What's changed is that the US government now posesses (1) a much larger and richer economy to plunder wealth from, (2) the means to do it.
Libertarians have been saying that for years. The punishment should be restitution, not incarceration. Victims should be fully compensated for the crimes of the aggressor, by the aggressor, not the taxpayer.
Of course, what does government have to gain by downsizing the criminal justice system?
Drug dealers regularly serve more time than rapists and drunk drivers, even murderers.
But before that, what makes you think that selling drugs is a "crime" on the level of rape or even drunk driving? Rape and drunk driving are acts of aggression on actual victims. What backwards world are you living in that drug dealing is considered an act of aggression, let alone on the level or rape?
Great, so you want everybody to pay for the bad decisions of a "majority".
You must be one of those people who actually believe that the people and the government are one and the same.
The US government has been wreaking havoc around the world for the past century. The current administration is certainly not the first to invoke military force for political gain, killing innocent civilians in the process.
You are implying that his statement was correct. But in fact, it was exactly incorrect. By waging the "war on terror" -- and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process -- the US government has created a new foundation for even more hatred and resent.
- Refused a multi-million dollar donation from the prince of Saudi Arabia to help the victims of 9/11, which came with a suggestion (not a condition) to adopt a more modest foreign policy, because he wanted to send the message that he won't even think about "blaming the US for terrorism", honest donation be damned.
In other words, he's loyal to the policies of the US government, and wouldn't dare think for himself. He's the perfect candidate!In the US, the original "liberals" were actually libertarians. (The founders were the original liberals.) Today, the term "liberal" means authoritarian socialist, and the term "conservative" means authoritarian fascist.
Communist or "conservative", they are both authoritarian, and both prefer big centralized government. And let's not forget that most "conservatives" today are more than willing to endorse socialism. They may differ on certain policies, but I definitely wouldn't say they are "complete opposites".
Here's another way to look at it. Your country commissioner does not have, and will never have, the power to run the country into an economic depression. The federal government most certainly does (and in fact, they have).
Here's the obvious question. Should anyone hold such an incredible amount of power?
Your state governor does not have the power to change policies that affect the entire country at the same time. Federal politicians do have this power.
For example, it was reported on Slashdot that the FCC has forbidden states from interfering with VOIP. While this may seem like a victory on the surface, you can bet that the FCC has planned all sorts of regulations and possibly taxes of their own. Here's the obvious question: What if the FCC is wrong? The policy will be applied to the entire nation. With centralized government, there is only one solution, and that solution will be forced upon the entire country. The underlying paradigm of centralized government is that people are "cattle" waiting to be herded by one absolute set of rules. Difference cannot be tolerated under centralized government.
Now, what if the states were left to decide their own policies? Some would do the right thing, and some would do the wrong thing. But the ones that do the wrong thing can't force their solution on the entire nation -- therefore they can't cause nearly as much trouble as a centralized government agency.
Naturally, a centralized government has many times more potential for abuse than decentralized government. That's not to say that local and state governments can't be abused, just that there is an upper limit on abuse.
Bigger government. We all want bigger government, right? If government isn't the solution to your problems, what is?
All rebates are scams. Why would a retailer spend the extra overhead on running a rebate program when they could finalize the sale in minutes? Why not just sell the product at the sale price in the first place and eliminate the extra overhead?
There's only one logical answer: Because the retailer never intended to sell the product at the sale price in the first place.
But if you really want to follow the money, most of it goes to administration, the defense contractor, and investors of either.
Check out secondspin.com for a huge selection of cheap, quality used CD's. I buy around 5-10 used CD's at a time (no I am not affiliated with them) and simply FLAC them into my archive, then store the originals away. My limit is $9, and even in the $5-$8 price range I find all sorts of rare CD's that you won't find in the music store. I don't care if they're perfect condition because I only want to FLAC them, but even so, a lot of them are nearly perfect condition. None are what I'd consider bad condition. And, as you say, buying used CD's doesn't put a cent into the RIAA's pocket.
That, and strictly limited government. The founders had the right idea, but for all the emphasis they put on limiting the powers of government, it wasn't enough.
The bottom line is that power will be abused, no matter who has it. There is no way around it. The best we can do, therefore, is to limit the amount of power available for abuse.
In a nutshell, the less power available to those who control government, the less trouble they will cause. Simple, yet absolutely critical.
Ha, that's too funny. You're going to initiate force against a people who don't believe in the initiation of force.
Now, tell me who's evil again?
Quoted from this article:
These spray campaigns have destroyed small farmers' food crops, contaminated water, and made children sick. While Colombian farming villages suffer severe consequences from the spraying, the campaigns produce little to no effect on the drug trade...
...after your "representatives" make a fortune on the administration costs and use their newfound powers to manipulate what's left of the free market for personal gain.
Of course, I still can't get past the presumption that force can accomplish anything more efficiently than voluntary association.
What exactly is the difference between getting "ripped off" by somebody (or some corporation), i.e. sustaining an initiation of force, vs. being subject to the arbitrary laws of government, i.e. sustaining an initiation of force?
The criminal ones are, absolutely.
The corporations which refuse to be entangled with government any further than required by law are not criminal, until they demonstrate their willingness to initiate of force (theft, fraud, murder, etc) as a means to an end.