The only option we have to get our rights and property back is another revolution. The problem is that no one else but me cares.
No, there are one or two more of us who care and are willing to take action. But we haven't reached "critical mass" yet...
Keep believing in Freedom and Liberty and keep fighting... I sincerely believe that the day will come when true Freedom will be restored here. Hopeless idealist I may be, but I refuse to believe that Freedom is dead and buried for good.
"Fair market value" is a compromise between what the person who owns the property wants for it, and what the person who wants it is willing to give for it. Period.
If the asking price is 100 Trillion Googol dollars, then that's the price. The would be purchaser has to ask him/her self if they really want it that bad. To suggest any other mechanism is determing the value is unconcsionable.
Well, I guess it's "constitutional" -now.- I mean, now there are no exceptions. It's just seize land with some money to go with it. Used to be that you couldn't SEIZE PEOPLE'S HOMES to build your supermarkets and walmarts on. That doesn't make it right, though. Basically there is no more ownership for citizens - what we put our lives into means nothing in this system. America, land of the coporate, government owned, and the home of the slaves.
Remember guys, the Supreme Court does NOT have the final say on what is legal or not in the country. "We the People" do. The Supreme Court is just an institution, one small part of the Republic we have. But it is just as subject to corruption and decay as any other part. And when it fails to do it's job, it is just as succeptible to being replaced.
The catch is, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Government to "take private property for public use" in the first place. The authorities granted to the (Federal) government are explicitly enumerated, and the Constitution is quite clear that rights and powers not granted to the government are reserved for the states and the people.
And then the 14th Amendment extends the protections of the Constitution down from the Federal government to the state and local level.
So despite that snippet of wording from the 5th Amendment, a good case can be argued that eminment domain is completely unconstitutional, period.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
What I hope he does, is make a very public and open request for assistance from other Freedom loving Americans to help him defend his home. And I hope a shitload of armed citizens show up on his front lawn. If he asks for help, I for one, intend to go and stand with him.
Guess we'll have to amend the Fifth Amendment and take out the last sentence that says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It's debatable whether or not that snippet establishes the "right" of the government to exercise "eminent domain." If we take it as doing so, the Constitution is not self-consistent, since nothing else in the Constitution grants the (Federal) government that power. And the 14th Amendment makes the restrictions on the Federal government apply to state and local government as well.
So, since nothing in the Constitution says that the government *can* take property, and given what the 9th and 10th amendments say, it's very reasonable to propose that eminment domain is technically unconstitutional.
And even if it's not "technically" unconstitutional, it is still wrong in the sense that it's a violation of the "God given rights" of free men. Hence, any individual who has his property siezed under "eminent domain" is well within his/her rights to take up arms and defend their property against an act of unauthorized aggression.
Then, we'll never have a way to construct highways, build schools, have landfills, construct bridges, build townhalls, or put aside land for our natural wonders in National Parks.
What a load of bollocks. For probably 99.9% of people the statement that "everybody has a price" is true. If a developer or a government wants some land bad enough, let them negotiate for it on the free market, and pay the price the owner asks. If the owner is asking 10 gazillion dollars for 1 acre of land, hey... that's the price. Take it or leave it. If it's too pricy, route your road somewhere else.
We don't need eminent domain to have a functioning society. We just need to let the free market work.
"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or one."
The needs of the many may or may not outweigh (for however you want to quantify that) the needs of the few or the one... but that's irrelevant. The *rights* of the individual are inviolable (or at least should be) period. Let the individuals that make up "the many" figure out how to solve their own problems without infringing on the rights of others who are not party to their situation.
And for those in "the many" just realize that "the many" is simply an abstraction and not a real entity... and it's membership can change at anytime. So while you defend socialistic policies today because you benefit from them, realize that tomorrow you could be the one getting fucked in the name of "the many."
Bunk. It has nothing to do with superiority, it has to do with freedom. The "Libertarian mindset" to the extent that you can discuss such an abstraction, is that it's better to be free, above all else. Libertarians would generally prefer to live in poverty, with the freedom to live their lives on their own terms, and succeed or fail on their own merits, than live in a world where they are bound by artificial rules and forced to live a life chosen by someone else.
If the government was removed and big business allowed to fuck over people as they want,
As opposed to allowing the government to fuck over people as they want? I fail to see what point you're trying to make here.
The incestuous relationship between big business and government is another problem that a Libertarian society would help protect against. Government regulations tend to promote the development of the Big Evil Megacorp type companies in the first place. Without government holding them back, small businesses and small family farms could flourish, as could true "free trade" among individuals. Yes, there is more to "free trade" than NAFTA.
A better question would be "how are taxes legal?" Theft is when someone take something from you by use of fraud or force or some coercive threat. In the case of taxes, the government takes a portion of your income, under threat of imprisonment (or death if you decide to defend yourself).
The government has no intrinsic rights and it has no dominion over me (or anybody else) as a sovereign individual. My property, the fruits of my labor, are mine to decide what to do with. If someone threatens me and takes that property, they are a thief. That they call themselves "government" and claim to represent "the majority" and wear fancy uniforms, changes nothing.
Also, if we removed taxes and government funding, how would people stay secure from theft (thinking especially disabled people and the poor)?
First let me correct a mis-perception that you have. No one is secure from theft now, because of the government. Governments and police do NOT prevent crime. Well, they may have a mild deterrent effect, but they don't actually prevent anything or protect anybody. The police forces are mostly reactive, responding after a crime has already taken place, and don't typically accomplish a whole lot, especially in the case of simple theft.
Also, I'm not saying that we have to remove taxes and government. I just want involuntary taxation under threat of death or imprisonment, removed. As far as I'm concerned, if a group of people, from as small as 2 or 3, up to all 280 some million people in the US, want to form an organization, call it "government" and make voluntary contributions to support it's goals, that is fine and dandy. As long as I have the option to opt out and as long as their "government" doesn't presume any dominion over me, I have no problem with it.
As for the answer to your question, going on the assumption that we did in fact eliminate *all* taxes and government:
They would defend themselves, with assistance from their friends, families and neighbors. The same way people have been defending themselves since there were people. The poor and disabled would clearly be even more dependent on the good will of others, of course, but that is the nature of things. Perhaps they would form neighborhood watch groups or citizens patrol groups to help protect each other.
Now would this eliminate all crime? No, I'm sure it wouldn't. But what we're doing now hasn't eliminated all crime either. And sad as it may be, life simply isn't guaranteed to be fair. Some people would still get hurt. Nobody is happy about that, but that's life. And in the end, we're all dead anyway.
No you are not a libertarian nor is the american libertarian party or its members and supporters. They believe that the freedom of capital and property rights is supreme over the rights of individuals. They are anti-libertarian being effectively against the liberty of the individual
Ummm, yeah, you obviously have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Libertarians absolutely believe in the sovereign rights of the individual.
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
And part of what it means to be sovereign is to, in essense, "own" yourself. There is no contradiction between supporting freedom of capital, and property rights, and supporting the rights of individuals.
They are just angry failed small businessmen that don't like paying taxes.
I suppose you have a source for this assertion and can back it up with some hard facts? No? I didn't think so...
"Information wants to be free" - That is not property.
The whole "information wants to be free" mantra has almost nothing to do with the American LP. Many Libertarians are actually divided over the idea of "intellectual property" and ideas such as patents and copyrights. For you to make this statement in this context only illustrates, again, that you really are uniformed and clueless.
The fake american "libertarians" want us to be the slaves of property.
Utter bollocks. That statement doesn't even mean anything. Sounds like a "sound bite" you heard on a street corner and decided to parrot.
I'm generally against the idea of the government spending money obtained through illegal, coercive measures (read: taxes) on much of anything. That said, scientific research is probably one of the best uses they can make of the money they steal from us... so as long as they're going to continue stealing our money, I think resources like this should be kept freely available to the public. After all, we **already paid for it.**
I don't buy that... What if a 3rd joespoolcleaning comes along?
.us?.info?.net?.org? Or joesextremepoolcleaning.com, I guess.
Also the suffix.com has been so embedded in the public consciousness that even if somebody reads joespoolcleaning.biz they will mistype it as.com half the time anyway.
Not sure I buy that one. Yes,.com has been nearly ubiquitous for a long time... but.biz domains are becoming more common, and I've started seeing them on advertising material, etc. I expect that the acceptance of.biz will increase over time.
Easier to come up with joesextremepoolcleaning.com or something else different.
You may be right. Especially in the pool cleaning scenario. There is still the issue of cybersquatters though. In which case nobody who owns the.com version is going to be in a position to sue you for using your chosen name, but just in a separate TLD. I've actually ran into this situation myself, and chose to register my domain as a.biz for this exact reason. If the business is successful, maybe later I'll deal with trying to get the.com version.
There is absolutely no reason for.biz,.info, etc. Those were stupid ideas which were probably just to get more money for the registrars. Who knows how ICANN makes these decisions...
Sure there's a good reason for.biz. What if you want to start a business, but the domain you want (in the.com TLD) is taken by either cybersquatters, or another legitimate business (who does not have a worldwide trademark on the name of the business itself). Since there is.biz, you can just use that tld instead of using an entirely different name.
Example: Somewhere on the west coast, a 3 man company called "Joes Pool Cleaning" has registered joespoolcleaning.com. A year later a company on the east coast starts up, named "Joes Pool Cleaning" and finds that joespoolcleaning.com is taken. So they register and use joespoolcleaning.biz and everyone lives happily ever after.
Granted this is a somewhat contrived scenario, and you could argue that it only applies when the two companies are both A. small enough and B. geographically disparate enough, to not care about each other's presence and the name collision. But I'm pretty sure that does happen. And then there is the issue of domain cybersquatters having the name you really want. It's probably cheaper to just register in.biz than buy the.com from squatters.
Most people dismiss the Libertarian party specifically because they're all "radical nutjobs" and such. Instead, they need to build credibility by keeping the "armed revolution" kooks in the background and putting relative moderates on the soapboxes.
To the extent that I harbor any belief that the Republic can be saved through peaceful means, I agree with you 100%. I'll freely admit that I am far from being the best spokesperson for Libetarian ideals, exactly because I don't care about how other people perceive me, I don't care if I'm considered a kook or not, and I'll say what I feel.
Unfortunately, the traits I just described are characteristic of *most* Libertarians, in my experience. We, as a group, don't tend to breed the smooth, polished, politically sophisticated types who are good at getting elected. I wish I had an answer for that problem, but I do not.:-(
Sadly, I don't even think that revolution will work, since there are too few people concerned with Freedom and Liberty, but instead concerned with "Everyone Loves Raymond" and "Survivor".
Another thing to consider... I believe there are actually more people who *do* care than we realize. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, but I figure there are plenty of people who think like we do, but who aren't willing to say so in a public forum. Me, I'm an insane mofo who just doesn't give a fuck, so I have no problem declaring, in public, that we need an armed revolution aimed at overthrowing the existing US government and restoring the Republic.
If I'm arrested and jailed for this, then I just become a marty for the cause anyway. And it would actually be interesting to see somebody arrested and tried for making such statements. I'd be curious to see if a modern day jury would be willing to replicate the actions of the Zenger jury all those years ago and "do the right thing" regardless of what the law says.
Sadly, I don't even think that revolution will work, since there are too few people concerned with Freedom and Liberty, but instead concerned with "Everyone Loves Raymond" and "Survivor".
That's the other thing I'm afraid of. However, I find history encouraging in that regard. Most residents of the Colonies were not in favor of Rebellion against Great Britian, either. But just enough were so, and enough were incited to take action when the British controlled forces started towards Lexington to sieze weapons and arrest men like Samuel Adams and John Hancock.
So, if something, some event, were to happen, in which our government does something heinous enough to incite a sizable part of the population to revolt, then it could happen.
Of course the counter-argument to that is, such incidents have already happened (see: Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge) and generated a minor firestorm of controversy in the media, followed by what could generally be described as a "collective yawn."
I guess all we can do is keep moving forward and see what happens. Not like there's much choice otherwise...
I think our only (political) hope is to organize a coalition between the Greens, Libertarians, ACLU, EFF, FSF, DownhillBattle, and anyone else who sees the danger coming (e.g. Slashdot geeks).
Good point, but I'm not sure how to make it happen. For example, most Libertarians that I know, are generally opposed to any notion of working with the Greens, as they consider them just another branch of the Socialist Party. And that notion probably comes from the fact that, historically the Greens have been (at least perceived as ) being somewhat aligned with the Democrats.
But yet there is, as I understand it, a fairly sizable anarchist camp among Greens. If that segment of the Green Party camp became dominant within their party, then there would be some real natural synergy between them and the Libertarians.
And of course it might help if more Libertarians were willing to compromise a little. Compromise is not a strong trait among Libertarians however, as we tend to feel that if we stray from our principles, even slightly, then we have become hypocrites and have no basis for our arguments.
Dunno... Mike Badnarik and David Cobb did do some things to try and help each other in the last election, so maybe that's a start. How to continue to build on that though?
For sure, socialists want big governments but they also care a lot about personal liberties. In fact, socialists want a big government so it can protect its citizens' liberties.
Maybe the socialists actually believe, or want to believe, that; but it's simply not true. One of my essential rights is the right to maintain my property and the fruits and rewards of my labor. Socialists do not recognize that principle and believe that it's OK for "society" to take from individuals and redistribute wealth and resources in the name of "fairness" and equality. But no matter what the justification, if my property is stolen from me, it's still stolen. Just naming the thief "government" and calling it "taxation" instead of "robbery" doesn't change anything.
Anyway, all of that aside, rampant socialism just does not work anyway. Look at the former USSR... "from each according to his means, to each according to his need" or whatever, makes a nice sound bite. But in practice this means that the government leader types were "more equal" than the common folks because they had... wait for it.... power. After all, somebody had to be "in charge" to make sure the wealth redistribution stuff was carried out.
But there's the rub... no matter how you justify it, no matter how you try to structure it, if you create an institution that grants certain people power or dominion over others, it will eventually become corrupt as people attempt to manipulate the system for their own benefit. Socialism sounds good on paper, but in practice it leads to totalitarianism just like fascism does.
Come on Libertarians and Greens. They will have to win the 2008 election if we ever hope for this country to be saved by this rampant corporatism and the move toward totalitarianism.
I'm afraid to say, I don't see that happening. There just aren't enough people who A. understand what's happening, and/or B. care enough to do something about it. I'll continue voting Libertarian in the hope that my previous statement was incorrect, but I have little hope left that this country can be saved by peaceful means.
I, for one, believe that this country is going to collapse into a totalitarian / fascist regime, and that an armed revolution will ultimately be the only way to restore the Republic as it once was. Not a pleasant thought, I'll admit, and I hope I'm wrong. But in the meantime, I suggest that anyone who really cares about values such as Freedom and Liberty begin stocking up on weapons, ammunition, and provisions.
That's funny, i walked out or ROTS shaking my head.
I walked out of ROTS wanting to go buy another round of tickets and go right back in to see it again. Unfortunately I had too much other stuff to do that day to do it.
I'll definitely be going back to see it again this weekend though.
Slashdot Mirror
The only option we have to get our rights and property back is another revolution. The problem is that no one else but me cares.
No, there are one or two more of us who care and are willing to take action. But we haven't reached "critical mass" yet...
Keep believing in Freedom and Liberty and keep fighting... I sincerely believe that the day will come when true Freedom will be restored here. Hopeless idealist I may be, but I refuse to believe that Freedom is dead and buried for good.
"Fair market value" is a compromise between what the person who owns the property wants for it, and what the person who wants it is willing to give for it. Period.
If the asking price is 100 Trillion Googol dollars, then that's the price. The would be purchaser has to ask him/her self if they really want it that bad. To suggest any other mechanism is determing the value is unconcsionable.
Well, I guess it's "constitutional" -now.- I mean, now there are no exceptions. It's just seize land with some money to go with it. Used to be that you couldn't SEIZE PEOPLE'S HOMES to build your supermarkets and walmarts on. That doesn't make it right, though. Basically there is no more ownership for citizens - what we put our lives into means nothing in this system. America, land of the coporate, government owned, and the home of the slaves.
Remember guys, the Supreme Court does NOT have the final say on what is legal or not in the country. "We the People" do. The Supreme Court is just an institution, one small part of the Republic we have. But it is just as subject to corruption and decay as any other part. And when it fails to do it's job, it is just as succeptible to being replaced.
The catch is, nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Government to "take private property for public use" in the first place. The authorities granted to the (Federal) government are explicitly enumerated, and the Constitution is quite clear that rights and powers not granted to the government are reserved for the states and the people.
And then the 14th Amendment extends the protections of the Constitution down from the Federal government to the state and local level.
So despite that snippet of wording from the 5th Amendment, a good case can be argued that eminment domain is completely unconstitutional, period.
People will take up arms and stand their ground. At least I hope they will. After a few people are shot and killed over this things will change..
o /scotus_seizing_property
One of the property owners involved in the New London case seemed to be hinting at doing so.
From
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_c
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would keep fighting the bulldozers in his working-class neighborhood. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
What I hope he does, is make a very public and open request for assistance from other Freedom loving Americans to help him defend his home. And I hope a shitload of armed citizens show up on his front lawn. If he asks for help, I for one, intend to go and stand with him.
Guess we'll have to amend the Fifth Amendment and take out the last sentence that says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
It's debatable whether or not that snippet establishes the "right" of the government to exercise "eminent domain." If we take it as doing so, the Constitution is not self-consistent, since nothing else in the Constitution grants the (Federal) government that power. And the 14th Amendment makes the restrictions on the Federal government apply to state and local government as well.
So, since nothing in the Constitution says that the government *can* take property, and given what the 9th and 10th amendments say, it's very reasonable to propose that eminment domain is technically unconstitutional.
And even if it's not "technically" unconstitutional, it is still wrong in the sense that it's a violation of the "God given rights" of free men. Hence, any individual who has his property siezed under "eminent domain" is well within his/her rights to take up arms and defend their property against an act of unauthorized aggression.
Then, we'll never have a way to construct highways, build schools, have landfills, construct bridges, build townhalls, or put aside land for our natural wonders in National Parks.
What a load of bollocks. For probably 99.9% of people the statement that "everybody has a price" is true. If a developer or a government wants some land bad enough, let them negotiate for it on the free market, and pay the price the owner asks. If the owner is asking 10 gazillion dollars for 1 acre of land, hey... that's the price. Take it or leave it. If it's too pricy, route your road somewhere else.
We don't need eminent domain to have a functioning society. We just need to let the free market work.
"The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or one."
The needs of the many may or may not outweigh (for however you want to quantify that) the needs of the few or the one... but that's irrelevant. The *rights* of the individual are inviolable (or at least should be) period. Let the individuals that make up "the many" figure out how to solve their own problems without infringing on the rights of others who are not party to their situation.
And for those in "the many" just realize that "the many" is simply an abstraction and not a real entity... and it's membership can change at anytime. So while you defend socialistic policies today because you benefit from them, realize that tomorrow you could be the one getting fucked in the name of "the many."
Give me the government any day over either of those alternatives, thanks.
From my perspective, you can have all the government you want, as long as it's voluntarily funded and on an "opt in" basis.
Bunk. It has nothing to do with superiority, it has to do with freedom. The "Libertarian mindset" to the extent that you can discuss such an abstraction, is that it's better to be free, above all else. Libertarians would generally prefer to live in poverty, with the freedom to live their lives on their own terms, and succeed or fail on their own merits, than live in a world where they are bound by artificial rules and forced to live a life chosen by someone else.
If the government was removed and big business allowed to fuck over people as they want,
As opposed to allowing the government to fuck over people as they want? I fail to see what point you're trying to make here.
The incestuous relationship between big business and government is another problem that a Libertarian society would help protect against. Government regulations tend to promote the development of the Big Evil Megacorp type companies in the first place. Without government holding them back, small businesses and small family farms could flourish, as could true "free trade" among individuals. Yes, there is more to "free trade" than NAFTA.
How are taxes illegal?
A better question would be "how are taxes legal?" Theft is when someone take something from you by use of fraud or force or some coercive threat. In the case of taxes, the government takes a portion of your income, under threat of imprisonment (or death if you decide to defend yourself).
The government has no intrinsic rights and it has no dominion over me (or anybody else) as a sovereign individual. My property, the fruits of my labor, are mine to decide what to do with. If someone threatens me and takes that property, they are a thief. That they call themselves "government" and claim to represent "the majority" and wear fancy uniforms, changes nothing.
Also, if we removed taxes and government funding, how would people stay secure from theft (thinking especially disabled people and the poor)?
First let me correct a mis-perception that you have. No one is secure from theft now, because of the government. Governments and police do NOT prevent crime. Well, they may have a mild deterrent effect, but they don't actually prevent anything or protect anybody. The police forces are mostly reactive, responding after a crime has already taken place, and don't typically accomplish a whole lot, especially in the case of simple theft.
Also, I'm not saying that we have to remove taxes and government. I just want involuntary taxation under threat of death or imprisonment, removed. As far as I'm concerned, if a group of people, from as small as 2 or 3, up to all 280 some million people in the US, want to form an organization, call it "government" and make voluntary contributions to support it's goals, that is fine and dandy. As long as I have the option to opt out and as long as their "government" doesn't presume any dominion over me, I have no problem with it.
As for the answer to your question, going on the assumption that we did in fact eliminate *all* taxes and government:
They would defend themselves, with assistance from their friends, families and neighbors. The same way people have been defending themselves since there were people. The poor and disabled would clearly be even more dependent on the good will of others, of course, but that is the nature of things. Perhaps they would form neighborhood watch groups or citizens patrol groups to help protect each other.
Now would this eliminate all crime? No, I'm sure it wouldn't. But what we're doing now hasn't eliminated all crime either. And sad as it may be, life simply isn't guaranteed to be fair. Some people would still get hurt. Nobody is happy about that, but that's life. And in the end, we're all dead anyway.
Ummm, yeah, you obviously have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Libertarians absolutely believe in the sovereign rights of the individual.
From the LP Platform:
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives, and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
And part of what it means to be sovereign is to, in essense, "own" yourself. There is no contradiction between supporting freedom of capital, and property rights, and supporting the rights of individuals.
They are just angry failed small businessmen that don't like paying taxes.
I suppose you have a source for this assertion and can back it up with some hard facts? No? I didn't think so...
"Information wants to be free" - That is not property.
The whole "information wants to be free" mantra has almost nothing to do with the American LP. Many Libertarians are actually divided over the idea of "intellectual property" and ideas such as patents and copyrights. For you to make this statement in this context only illustrates, again, that you really are uniformed and clueless.
The fake american "libertarians" want us to be the slaves of property.
Utter bollocks. That statement doesn't even mean anything. Sounds like a "sound bite" you heard on a street corner and decided to parrot.
I'm generally against the idea of the government spending money obtained through illegal, coercive measures (read: taxes) on much of anything. That said, scientific research is probably one of the best uses they can make of the money they steal from us... so as long as they're going to continue stealing our money, I think resources like this should be kept freely available to the public. After all, we **already paid for it.**
Also the suffix .com has been so embedded in the public consciousness that even if somebody reads joespoolcleaning.biz they will mistype it as .com half the time anyway.
Not sure I buy that one. Yes, .com has been nearly ubiquitous for a long time... but .biz domains are becoming more common, and I've started seeing them on advertising material, etc. I expect that the acceptance of .biz will increase over time.
Easier to come up with joesextremepoolcleaning.com or something else different.
You may be right. Especially in the pool cleaning scenario. There is still the issue of cybersquatters though. In which case nobody who owns the .com version is going to be in a position to sue you for using your chosen name, but just in a separate TLD. I've actually ran into this situation myself, and chose to register my domain as a .biz for this exact reason. If the business is successful, maybe later I'll deal with trying to get the .com version.
There is absolutely no reason for .biz, .info, etc. Those were stupid ideas which were probably just to get more money for the registrars. Who knows how ICANN makes these decisions...
.biz. What if you want to start a business, but the domain you want (in the .com TLD) is taken by either cybersquatters, or another legitimate business (who does not have a worldwide trademark on the name of the business itself). Since there is .biz, you can just use that tld instead of using an entirely different name.
.biz than buy the .com from squatters.
Sure there's a good reason for
Example: Somewhere on the west coast, a 3 man company called "Joes Pool Cleaning" has registered joespoolcleaning.com. A year later a company on the east coast starts up, named "Joes Pool Cleaning" and finds that joespoolcleaning.com is taken. So they register and use joespoolcleaning.biz and everyone lives happily ever after.
Granted this is a somewhat contrived scenario, and you could argue that it only applies when the two companies are both A. small enough and B. geographically disparate enough, to not care about each other's presence and the name collision. But I'm pretty sure that does happen. And then there is the issue of domain cybersquatters having the name you really want. It's probably cheaper to just register in
Does'nt this seem *too* close to a dictatorship
Hell yeah, it does.
not that the US is one, b
Give it a little more time... These things don't happen overnight.
Douglas Adams' take was anyone who wants power would be dangerous to allow to have it.
And he was absolutely correct.
Most people dismiss the Libertarian party specifically because they're all "radical nutjobs" and such. Instead, they need to build credibility by keeping the "armed revolution" kooks in the background and putting relative moderates on the soapboxes.
:-(
To the extent that I harbor any belief that the Republic can be saved through peaceful means, I agree with you 100%. I'll freely admit that I am far from being the best spokesperson for Libetarian ideals, exactly because I don't care about how other people perceive me, I don't care if I'm considered a kook or not, and I'll say what I feel.
Unfortunately, the traits I just described are characteristic of *most* Libertarians, in my experience. We, as a group, don't tend to breed the smooth, polished, politically sophisticated types who are good at getting elected. I wish I had an answer for that problem, but I do not.
Sadly, I don't even think that revolution will work, since there are too few people concerned with Freedom and Liberty, but instead concerned with "Everyone Loves Raymond" and "Survivor".
Another thing to consider... I believe there are actually more people who *do* care than we realize. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part, but I figure there are plenty of people who think like we do, but who aren't willing to say so in a public forum. Me, I'm an insane mofo who just doesn't give a fuck, so I have no problem declaring, in public, that we need an armed revolution aimed at overthrowing the existing US government and restoring the Republic.
If I'm arrested and jailed for this, then I just become a marty for the cause anyway. And it would actually be interesting to see somebody arrested and tried for making such statements. I'd be curious to see if a modern day jury would be willing to replicate the actions of the Zenger jury all those years ago and "do the right thing" regardless of what the law says.
Sadly, I don't even think that revolution will work, since there are too few people concerned with Freedom and Liberty, but instead concerned with "Everyone Loves Raymond" and "Survivor".
That's the other thing I'm afraid of. However, I find history encouraging in that regard. Most residents of the Colonies were not in favor of Rebellion against Great Britian, either. But just enough were so, and enough were incited to take action when the British controlled forces started towards Lexington to sieze weapons and arrest men like Samuel Adams and John Hancock.
So, if something, some event, were to happen, in which our government does something heinous enough to incite a sizable part of the population to revolt, then it could happen.
Of course the counter-argument to that is, such incidents have already happened (see: Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge) and generated a minor firestorm of controversy in the media, followed by what could generally be described as a "collective yawn."
I guess all we can do is keep moving forward and see what happens. Not like there's much choice otherwise...
I think our only (political) hope is to organize a coalition between the Greens, Libertarians, ACLU, EFF, FSF, DownhillBattle, and anyone else who sees the danger coming (e.g. Slashdot geeks).
Good point, but I'm not sure how to make it happen. For example, most Libertarians that I know, are generally opposed to any notion of working with the Greens, as they consider them just another branch of the Socialist Party. And that notion probably comes from the fact that, historically the Greens have been (at least perceived as ) being somewhat aligned with the Democrats.
But yet there is, as I understand it, a fairly sizable anarchist camp among Greens. If that segment of the Green Party camp became dominant within their party, then there would be some real natural synergy between them and the Libertarians.
And of course it might help if more Libertarians were willing to compromise a little. Compromise is not a strong trait among Libertarians however, as we tend to feel that if we stray from our principles, even slightly, then we have become hypocrites and have no basis for our arguments.
Dunno... Mike Badnarik and David Cobb did do some things to try and help each other in the last election, so maybe that's a start. How to continue to build on that though?
For sure, socialists want big governments but they also care a lot about personal liberties. In fact, socialists want a big government so it can protect its citizens' liberties.
Maybe the socialists actually believe, or want to believe, that; but it's simply not true. One of my essential rights is the right to maintain my property and the fruits and rewards of my labor. Socialists do not recognize that principle and believe that it's OK for "society" to take from individuals and redistribute wealth and resources in the name of "fairness" and equality. But no matter what the justification, if my property is stolen from me, it's still stolen. Just naming the thief "government" and calling it "taxation" instead of "robbery" doesn't change anything.
Anyway, all of that aside, rampant socialism just does not work anyway. Look at the former USSR... "from each according to his means, to each according to his need" or whatever, makes a nice sound bite. But in practice this means that the government leader types were "more equal" than the common folks because they had... wait for it.... power. After all, somebody had to be "in charge" to make sure the wealth redistribution stuff was carried out.
But there's the rub... no matter how you justify it, no matter how you try to structure it, if you create an institution that grants certain people power or dominion over others, it will eventually become corrupt as people attempt to manipulate the system for their own benefit. Socialism sounds good on paper, but in practice it leads to totalitarianism just like fascism does.
Come on Libertarians and Greens. They will have to win the 2008 election if we ever hope for this country to be saved by this rampant corporatism and the move toward totalitarianism.
I'm afraid to say, I don't see that happening. There just aren't enough people who A. understand what's happening, and/or B. care enough to do something about it. I'll continue voting Libertarian in the hope that my previous statement was incorrect, but I have little hope left that this country can be saved by peaceful means.
I, for one, believe that this country is going to collapse into a totalitarian / fascist regime, and that an armed revolution will ultimately be the only way to restore the Republic as it once was. Not a pleasant thought, I'll admit, and I hope I'm wrong. But in the meantime, I suggest that anyone who really cares about values such as Freedom and Liberty begin stocking up on weapons, ammunition, and provisions.
So don't start it on its face. Hold it perpendicular to a surface and then flip it.
So then it'll just land on edge, and you'll be able to read minds for the day, until it gets knocked over..
btw, if you buy Krispy Kremes then that is also a 'donut offence' as they are not allowed.
Then what's the point of buying donuts in the first place?
That's funny, i walked out or ROTS shaking my head.
I walked out of ROTS wanting to go buy another round of tickets and go right back in to see it again. Unfortunately I had too much other stuff to do that day to do it.
I'll definitely be going back to see it again this weekend though.