> We live in a democracy, and a pledge of allegiance has no place in a democracy. > This is my country and I have a moral duty to help my countrymen destroy the flag and it's > government if it does not follow our wishes.
This is completely wrong. We live in a republic, not a democracy. ("To the *republic* for which it stands...") Our nation's founders despised democracy. Although I do not have any quotes handy, they repeatedly slammed it. The problem with democracy is it is a mob rule system: the majority forcing their will upon the minority. Even Plato recognized this problem thousands of years ago. Though they recognized that no system of government could ensure this, they wanted to maximize the chance that the rights of all people would be respected, even when the majority of the people want to step on the minority. (Though of course the definition of "people" for many did not count blacks as human beings, but of course this whole process was a compromise between several fighting factions, including slave owners and abolishionists like Thomas Paine.)
This is why, for example, voters in small states have have more power in the Senate than voters in large states, but they have less power than voters in large states in the House. It is not your duty to force government to do your wishes. Rather, it is your duty to ensure that government does not do the wishes of people who seek to exploit the government's legal monopoly on the use of force at the expense of others. Bear in mind that people have natural rights, and "to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men". They are not instituted to do your bidding or grant some individuals special privilege over others.
Although I personally would like to see the pledge restored to its original state, I do believe all this stuff about schools is the wrong question. Originally the pledge did not have "under God", but the Congress added it during the Cold War so as to distinguish us from the atheistic culture of the Communists. The lawsuit should therefore center around if that act of Congress established religion. Bear in mind that the 1st Amendment says only "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"; it (unfortunately) says nothing about states doing that. Thus this Cold War act of Congress is the 1st Amendment violation, not the acts of individual state laws that requires its recitation in school.
Then there is another angle as to why this question is the wrong one to ask, and that is if government should be involved in schools (or libraries, etc.). For example, the issue of what schools can and cannot teach, what books they carry, and if they can make students recite the pledge all go away when the school is privately owned. And then parents could send their kids to the school that requires the pledge if they like it, or go to another school if they don't like it. Issues like what books libraries can put on their shelves or COPA net censorship (another hot topic here on Slashdot) all go away when government is removed. Perhaps the 1st Amendment should also have said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Though federal involvement in education is already unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, which puts such powers into the hands of the states or the people...
Our energy grid machine is not deregulated, as the article claims. One thing I have found amusing during this energy fiasco is that some give solid arguments that this problem is probably due to deregulation, and some give solid arguments that it is probably due to regulation. Yet the current "deregulated" system is not truly deregulated nor truly regulated in the traditional sense of the words; it is a grey area somewhere in between what one normally thinks of as regulated and deregulated, perhaps what could be coined as "greyulated". It is my opinion that there are good arguments coming out of both sides because this nebulous state is actually worse than both a traditionally regulated system like we had before and systems more in line with true deregulation. Fixing the machine's problems would need to address this issue.
I will focus on the piece that often get overlooked: differentiating the current "greyulated" energy market from an actual truly deregulated market, and showing how it can be improved through true deregulation, which we have not had yet. I will also focus on how our capitalism is broken: the ways that government and business bend the rules of capitalism to protect the rich and powerful, and how that helps create problems like what we have experienced. Then the reader can compare this to his understanding of the merits and shortcomings of regulation to decide which is best.
So why are we in a "greyulated" energy market? It is quite simple. Using FirstEnergy as an example (yes, I live in the city that caused the blackout), they are required through regulation to open up their lines to competing energy suppliers. For example, next month I will be getting my electricity from Green Mountain Energy even though FirstEnergy does the actual delivery of the energy through its own lines. The energy suppliers and the energy delivery monopoly still have to operate under many regulations, I believe including price regulations that restrict the income that can be collected for investing into upgrading the delivery infrastructure. Thus there is regulated competition for the energy suppliers and a regulated monopoly for energy delivery. Obviously this is not truly deregulated, but the primary difference that distinguishes this from traditional regulation is that energy suppliers are allowed to compete with each other by forcing the delivery monopoly (through regulation) to open its lines to other companies, as opposed to having a regulated monopoly on both the delivery and supply. So it's regulation used to achieve regulated market competition rather than regulation to control everything. That is the key to its failure.
This brings us to the two main problems of this system. They both relate to competition. Capitalism works when there is competition from both producers and consumers. When there is no consumer competition (such as only a handful of consumers) then there is no issue; the producers pack up and start producing something else. When there is no competition within producers, particularly for something that is truly needed by consumers, then the classic problems of monopoly arise. The fact is that capitalism is a failure under monopoly. In this "greyulated" market, there is still a monopoly: a monopoly on energy delivery. This means that if, for example, FirstEnergy is found responsible for the blackout then we have no way of changing distributor.
Many criticize the capitalistic system for encouraging cost cutting, and blame that for the blackout. This is not the whole picture. For one, the failure occurred in the delivery system which is a monopoly that remains heavily regulated; the competition exists in the supply side of things, where things are still regulated, but less so than the delivery monopoly. Thus the area that remained the most heavily regulated after the transition from full regulation was the source of the blackout, not the portion that was only mildly deregulated.
But for the sake of argument, suppose we lived in an imaginary world where we could choose
There really was no pompous libertarian holier-than-thou stuff in it. Heck, he didn't even use the word "libertarian" or make any comments about people joining with his political ideology. His only real demand is that people who want to solve the spam problem make sure they are putting forth an effort to understand the problem, which sounds quite reasonable. His only criticism follows from that, slamming people who whine about things and do nothing to help themselves, expecting others to fix their lives. In fact, that's one thing libertarians ought to be admired for. At least they try their best to proactively fix things on their own rather than demanding someone else, like the government, do it for them. I think that is quite an admirable trait in a person.
Nonetheless, If you had bothered to read the point the author was trying to make, you would see that you are in agreement with him in a sense. He was stressing that people need to educate themselves on why spam can exist before one can even begin addressing the problem. Then from that he was taking a stab at doing just that while admitting he's not an expert on the details and petitioning people to offer up ideas. He also *attempts* at proposing solutions and asks people to help educate him to cooperatively improve his suggestions, which is what he means by taking personal responsibility to solve the problem. Sitting on your butt and demanding a politician take care of it while you eat potatoi chips and watch Surviver is NOT taking personal responsibility. I see that you, like the author, put forth suggestions for fixing it. Thus you are doing what the author asks by taking personal responsibility to help out. Thus you and the author, in attempting to point out possible approaches to the problem, are proactively addressing the problem yourself instead of sitting on your behind waiting for someone else to do it for you; your last paragraph exemplifies what the author wants to see more of (though ideally also followed through with action).
If you had bothered to read the point the author was trying to make, you would see three things, none of which are intended to give concrete solutions but rather provide a path for us to find a concrete solution. One, he was stressing that people need to educate themselves on why spam can exist before one can even begin addressing the problem. Two, he was taking a stab at doing just that while admitting he's not an expert on the details and petitioning people to offer up ideas. The graphics on Usenet was just that: an idea submitted for review by those who know better, not a demand. Perhaps it would be better to contact him and educate him to his error rather than being a pompous whiner. Third, politicians generally speaking are more focused on re-election that producing results, that they only produce results if it directly threatens re-election to do otherwise. Thus you are more likely to find success in fostering a community of people who do care and proactively address the problem themselves instead of sitting on their behinds waiting for someone else to do something for them. A Libertarian presidential candidate has a good quote to that last point:
"Whatever it is in life you want, go out and get it. Don't wait for the government to drop it into your lap, you make it happen. You seize the day. Carpe diem!"
-Gary Nolan.
I suffer no spam (or telemarketing) problem because I am not too lazy to take measures to protect myself. Thus I know from experience that individuals working for themselves can eliminate the problem for themselves. For those who want to sit on their behind and have someone else (like the government) fix their lives, I would put forth this very appropriate quote from a Libertarian Party presidential candidate:
"Whatever it is in life you want, go out and get it. Don't wait for the government to drop it into your lap, you make it happen. You seize the day. Carpe diem!"
-Gary Nolan.
And the people making a living off the TV shows are a minority as well. The cameramen, the silent extras, the sound crew, the makeup artists. And yes, the actors and directors count, too even if thay earn much more than other people. They are a minority and trying to stomp on their ability to feed their families is stomping on a minority. No one's forcing anyone, not even teenagers, to watch TV. I don't watch TV. If I can do it then so can you. Go read a classic novel like "Fellowship of the Ring". No product placements are in that!
Is the purpose of government to protect your rights, or is its purpose to mold and shape everyone else to fit someone's whim? Asking for a "crackdown" on product placement is as though one has a divine right to watch TV shows that present things the way you alone want them presented. We might as well ask government to crackdown on the ads between show segments so we can get from the major networks copies of the fine quality sitcom comedies and game shows we see on PBS. We need less "Fear Factor" and more "Antiques Road Show".
If you don't like it then go read a book. I highly recommend "1984", "Brave New World", and "Fountainhead". There's no product placement in those!
Government could not win if we had nearly 100% of the population not only voting but taking a strong interest in the political process, voting for what they believe in instead of "the lesser of two evils", etc. I believe you have it backwards. It's not that people don't vote because government wins no matter what. Perhaps there is a correlation, but I believe the casual relationship of the two is that government always wins because the stupid masses mostly never bother to vote and are too apathetic to make an informed vote when they actually do, etc.
The consolidation of media is because that's what people demand. There are often options. In my city, I rarely listen to corporate owned media shows, including non-profit corps like NPR (non-profit corps have agendas like any other corp). We have many good truly un-corporate radio news shows, though few people listen to them. Throw in the net for infinite foreign and indy news outlets and mix well. Why don't people flock to these shows or alternative net media outlets? Because they prefer tuning into Fox for their daily dose of conservative soma or the other major networks for their left wing soma.
Now the point I'm getting at is that this mentality is what fuels a drive to reckless voting systems. People in general just Don't Care. The public that keeps the corporate consolidation in business by demanding its brand of media is the same public that makes reckless voting come about. Think about this: if people stopped being hedonist "sheeple" like the masses portrayed in Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead" who read the Banner newspaper, and thus started listening to truly objective media, then the controlled media empire would come crashing down. Similarly, if the stupid masses that comprise the majority of America would cry foul against this voting fraud then it would be stopped. The problem is the stupid fat masses are more concerned about the price of a Happy Meal and the next episode of "Surviver" than who gets to be the next president.
In other words, freedom and liberty ultimately rests on the hands of the public. Our nation's founders warned us that they gave us liberty so long as we desire to keep it. Media, voting, etc. can not be controlled unless the public lets it be controlled through its complacency. Ben Franklin said that they gave us "a republic, if you can keep it." The people of America have decided not to keep it. Blame them. No one forced them to be fat and lazy.
> A country where everybody has 10 copies of their favorite CD is NOT wealthy.
You are getting inane and I am getting bored with you. So to sum up my discussion referring back to the original point this was supposed to be about before you distracted attention away from the issue at hand:
* Your definition of a zero-sum game is incorrect. * Capitalism is not a zero-sum game, neither by your definition nor game theory's definition. * Wealth can be created without someone losing.
(See my previous posts.)
Good day, and may the Mighty Penguin smile upon you.
Economics is based on value, not dollar bills. You are confusing economics with accounting, which only cares about dollar bills. Perceived personal value is what profits, wealth, and capital come from. Wealth IS subjective. $5,000,000 is meaningless as a measure of wealth unless I can place a personal value on that amount of dollar bills. I assure you that Bill Gates personally values it far less than I do. (See also: Law of Diminishing Returns.)
Someone who loves Backstreet Boys will pay a lot for their CDs. Someone who despises their bad music but instead prefers the fine band Slayer would never pay much for a Backstreet Boys CD but would pay a lot for Slayer's classic "Reign in Blood" CD. The value of each CD depends on who is judging it. And this does encompass money since they exchange money for these products. If I buy Slayer's "Undisputed Attitude" CD for $20 then it's because I value that CD more than I value the $20 bill I had in my wallet. Thus there is no such statement as, "This CD is worth $20". Rather, one could claim it is worth $20 for himself, or that on the supply and demand graph, the *average* value of all consumers giving money on the demand curve and the *average* value of the CD store producers giving the CD on the supply curve meet at the $20 mark.
This is all basic economics 101. (Well, actually it's 201 at my college...)
In game theory, a zero-sum game is one in which a person's gain EQUALS another person's loss. It is named such on the fact that the sum of the total "point" changes for all players involved equals 0. That sounds pretty fixed to me. Don't believe me? Look it up on the net or a game theory text book.
But even if you are right in your definition, that it means one person's gain is always another's loss, capitalism is still not zero-sum. If I give you something in exchange for something else then I value what you had as much or more than what you had, and you value what I had as much or more than what you had. Thus in terms of the value each of us places on things, we both gain and no one loses. (And don't confuse money with value and wealth; they are totally different concepts.) Otherwise we'd not have traded. (Assuming no government forced or altered the trade through regulation or taxation.)
If it's zero-sum then we'd be living in caves. Each year we have more people added to the population. If wealth is zero-sum then we must be spreading it thinner and thinner every year to accomodate the additional population that needs a chunk of wealth to subsist. The fact that people now live better than people 100 years ago, and that the population is *larger* than 100 years ago, shows that some wealth was created somewhere without taking it from others. Ergo, it's not zero-sum.
Did you even attempt to do anything to stem those calls, or do nothing other than complain to yourself? Did use caller ID, or ask not to be called, or sign up for a telemarketer association's do not call list, or actually attempt to choose privacy options with the companies you do business with, or NOT send in your phone number to a "freebie give-away"? Or better yet, ever consider not answering the phone when you don't want to answer it?
None of this is all that hard. All I do is check off proper privacy options when I do business, NOT sign up for freebie offers (they are just marketing scams), and NOT answer the phone when I don't feel like anwsering it. A very minimal effort. Total telemarketing I get? One every week or so, usually caught by the answering machine.
It's not that hard. You don't need legislatures to take care of it if you are willing to put forth a minimal effort.
Of course one could argue that an unsolicited call is a violation of property rights. "I didn't give you permission to send a phone signal into my household. You're trespassing!" Perhaps that is an argument even a libertarian could accept. Though since that argument is certainly a grey one, let's look at it this way: is legislation really needed?
Handling telemarketing is quite easy. One can use caller ID. Then you only answer the phone when you want to talk to the other person. Though not the norm, I personally know about when I can expect phone calls, and I know the hours when telemarketers don't call; I'm pretty accurate in only answering calls I want without caller ID by keeping this in mind. So with either approach, you can easily not answer telemarketers. I've found that not answering their calls makes the amount of calls come down drastically. I probably get only 1 telemarketing call every week or two that gets to talk to my answering machine.
Furthermore, many telemarketers get people's number because people are too lazy to read privacy statements and mark off what is needed to tell a company not to contact you or share your information. For example, when my mortgage got sold to another bank, I actually read the "junk mail" the new bank sent me to find an easy way to let them know that I do not want any telemarketing from them. Most people probably would have just tossed it out without reading it.
And finally, there is a telemarketer's alliance you can contact to have your number removed from all its member companies, and if you bother to tell a telemarketer on the phone not to call you again then they are legally obligated not to call you. (Some people have gotten rich suing those who disobeyed, so there's a good revenue oppurtunity if it fails!)
So in summary, it seems to me that there are plenty of options for stopping telemarketing. I believe the thrust of this demand for legislation is due to people's laziness/stupidity in taking advantage of these options to take care of themselves. Now granted, some will rhetorically ask why they must do this? That only holds water if you believe that you have some sort of divine right to use phones in an omnipotent manner to your liking. Using these methods to take care of yourself is no different than paying money for a Tivo and taking the effort to push a button to skip comercials on the cable networks you already pay to see.
I think it all boils down to the "inertness of mankind", demanding that other people take care of them because they are too lazy to take the minimal effort needed to stop the telemarketing problem. It seems an example of what Bastiat pointed out in "The Law", as per my sig.
Actually, this is contrary to seperation of powers. The executive's primary purpose, to which the president belongs, is to enforce law, not create law. The legislative's primary purpose, to which Congress belongs, is to create law. So when a body like the FCC creates new laws and it answers to the executive branch then you have moved law making from the law makers and given it to the law enforcers, thus decreasing power seperation by turning the law makers into "law vetoers". The chief executive can override Congress' veto with his own veto, thus saying "You are not allowed to stop me and my branch from CREATING a new law even though the Constitution says only the legislature should create law."
A more appropriate approach to preserving seperation of powers would be for the FCC to propose regulations, going through the nitty-gritty details of analysis and so forth like they do now, and then put it before Congress for approval. If Congress did its duty then it'd defer to the FCC except in the most aggregious abuses, recognizing the FCC's generally greater expertise on the complex matter. And if Congress didn't do its duty, it would at least stop unaccountable and unelected officials (the FCC) from usurping Constitutional powers. You can unelect bad members of Congress. You can not unelect the FCC members.
#1 is listed as "The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance". This and many of the other items on this list were discussed extensively on various the extreme left-wing and extreme Libertarian conspiracy theory radio shows here on Cleveland's WRUW. On the other hand, my cat got stuck in a tree and the fire department had to rescue Fluffy. This only made a blurb at the end of the local channel 3's 11:00 news one night, getting even less attention than all 25 items on this list. So I'd like to submit a correction to this list and suggest "Fluffy Gets Stuck in Tree" be listed as the top under-reported item. Plus it has more credibility than many of the stories that did make the list...
I find that most "media watchdog" groups are left biased. Not that conservative-biased would be good; rather they should strive for objectivity. I am not too familiar with this specific group, but take for example FAIR. About the only media outlet that does not get scorned is the hard-left socialist Pacifica, which receives nothing but mountains of praise. Even left-leaning NPR is not left enough for them so regularly gets panned as "bad reporting". They are quick to criticize reporting that unfairly biases for Israel, rightfully so, but they make no effort to criticize reporting that unfairly biases for Palestine. They slam ABC for promoting right-wing John Stossel, saying he never presents an opposing view, but they remain silent when reporters give only one side of the Mumia Abul Jamal ordeal (the "free Mumia!" side).
In truth, I have yet to see any media "watchdog" that did not appear to have some sort of agenda to push. Though they can provide some value, one just needs to be aware that they are only "watching" half of the picture and turning a blind eye to the other half. Though in their favour, since the main news stories these days come from the conservatives, being that they are in power right now, it makes sense that more conservative-related stories would be underreported since there are more conservative-related stories happening. If the Democrats had power then there ought to be more left-oriented stories going under-reported, like Republicans often whined happened regarding Clinton's business dealings and Democratic fund raising when the Democrats were in power. (Though you would unfortunately probably not see these many of these supposed media watchdogs like FAIR and company make any effort to expose those stories.)
Sorry for the double-reply, but I forgot to go into this as well. I believe that a mistrial cannot happen if a jury gives a "not guilty" because that would probably be double jeopardy. I believe a retrial only happens on hung-juries, which may or may not be due to some members engaging in jury nullification. (Could also just be honest differing opinions on vague evidence.)
Secondly, courts do not define rights. The Constitution does, particularly the often ignored 9th and 10th Amendments. Numerous statements by Constitution's creators state that the purpose of ensuring jury trials was to allow the people to judge both the crime and the law. Thouhg it can cut the wrong way such as bigots letting race crimes go off the hook, that can happen in any judicial system, like a racist prosecutor not bringing it to trial. The point here is that we have these things, including the right of innocence until proven guilty, the right of no double jeopardy, the privledge of prosecutors to not pursue conviction, the privledge of a judge to overturn "guilty" verdicts but not "not guilty" (I think they can do that...), the right of jury nullification, etc. to err on the side of not sending some one to jail unjustly even if it means we let some criminals run free.
(On a side note for those purists out there, some would argue that our rights come from our nature as human beings, transcending law coming, and that the Constitution's job is to reflect them while not actually being the source of our rights. That we reject the feudalistic notion that our rights are granted to us by government as a gift. But that's a debate for another day, heh heh...)
William Penn was treated harshly because there was no established right before the Revolution. This is what inspired the founders to extend this right. Or perhaps it should be stated in terms that the government can not question a ruling by the jury. With that in mind, if we eliminate the right of jury nullifciation then judges may force a jury to rule a certain way. Thus juries have no meaning. So without this right there is no purpose to having a jury; judges would be the ones to make all verdicts. Here is a good list of quotes on the matter. Here is notable one, being from one who sat on the Supreme Court:
John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794:4., said: "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
This would be a good time for the People invoke jury nullification, assuming any of these go to trial. (Note that the Bill of Rights grants any RIAA victim a right to jury for lawsuits worth over $20 if they decide to take this to trial.)
So what is jury nullification? It is the principle that jury's may find a defendent "not guilty" if the law is unjust. This harkens back to British colonial days and is the primary reason we have juries in the Bill of Rights: both the defendent AND the law are judged. It is the Peoples' last check against unjust law when the three branches of government fail.
A prominent case of this was when William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, was charged with assembling Quakers for worship when only the Church of England was permitted to assemble. (Again, pre-Revolution colonial days.) Though the jury found that he did indeed do just that, they gave a "not guilty" verdict on the grounds that the law was unjust. The judge held the jury without food and water for a couple of days and imposed fines, demanding that they give a "guilty" verdict, but they refused to budge. Events like this are what inspired our nation's founders to recognize the right of juries over the judge and the law. Jury nullifications also played an important role in overturning Prohibition. Juries often ruled against the law even when finding that the law had been broken, thus making Prohibition unenforceable, and I believe some regions of the nation still regularly have non-violent marijuana prosecutions lost due to jury nullification.
Jury's are unfortunately not informed of this right when they go to trial. I believe during the slave days the government realized that it was near impossible to get a conviction for violating the Fugitive Slave Act since people in the northern state juries, which was the only place the law really had any use, would rule "not guilty" on the grounds that the law was unjust. And so the government sadly decided to stop telling juries of their right to jury nullification.
So how does this apply to the RIAA? Well if enough 12 year olds, or any one else for that matter, being sued millions of dollars for downloading music take it to court then the People (ie-the juries) could toss out the cases as being unjust. Given enough of these rulings, the law could be forced to change to reflect what the People consider just or the RIAA could be forced to change tactics. Though this will remain unlikely if we do not go back to informing juries of their rights. (Plus stacking the jury by having the prosecution quiz them instead of making it truly random also undermines things...) So write to your state and federal legislative representatives today and demand that they pass laws requiring judges to inform juries of their "jury nullification" rights!
Since we are on the topic of EULAs that no one ever reads, here is an amusing exerpt from Microsoft's Windows 2000 EULA:
Java technology is not fault tolerant and is not designed, manufactured, or intended for use or resale as on-line control equipment in hazardous environments requiring fail-safe performance, such as in the operation of nuclear facilities, aircraft navigation or communication systems, air traffic control, direct life support machines, or weapons systems, in which the failure of Java technology could lead directly to death, personal injury, or severe physical or environmental damage.
So in other words, "The use of Java may kill you, and Microsoft is not liable if you die from Java or if you nuke a city by installing it on a nuclear power plant..."
This is a rather short-sighted claim. Just because the people in charge call it "capitalism" does not mean it is such. The USA PATRIOT Act is not very patriotic even though those in power say it is. Insoc's Ministry of Truth ("1984") was not at all about truth despite what the Inner Party said. Mercantilism is definined as a system where government controls the economy for the purpose of increasing wealth. Capitalism is defined as privately owned transactions free from government intervention. Just because Bush's or Clinton's "Ministry of Truth" says otherwise does not make it so, unless you write in Newspeak.
What the current administration is seeking is not free markets. A free trade agreement is about 1 sentence long. Here's a sample:
"Your country's people may freely take goods and services not subsidized trough taxes and bring them into our nation to sell to anyone at any price they are willing to pay, and our people may do the same in your nation."
Anything with tens of thousands of pages of regulations and restrictions, like the WTO/GATT, is not free trade. It's managed trade. Basically the current (and previous since Clinton made GATT) administration's idea of "free trade" is moving managed control from the federal level to some global pseudo-government entity, like the WTO. Either way it is restricted, controlled trade. This is not only anti-socialism (the socialists being the primary WTO protesters) but it is also anti-capitalism, since capitalism is about trade of labour amung willing individuals (with property being the end-product of labour) without outside forces controlling their labour transaction. And when trade is controlled by government entities it is pretty much a given that it will be used to the advantage of those in power rather than to promote actual free trade.
So you have a good point in seeing policies that fly in the face of "loyalty to global 'free markets'". Even the WTO flies in the face of such, being an organization that *controls* trade. The bigger picture truly is that the administration has no loyalty to global free markets. It has loyalty to market systems that it can weasle the most power from, like any other administration unfortunately would, including Clinton's from which the WTO was born.
Slashdot Mirror
> We live in a democracy, and a pledge of allegiance has no place in a democracy.
> This is my country and I have a moral duty to help my countrymen destroy the flag and it's
> government if it does not follow our wishes.
This is completely wrong. We live in a republic, not a democracy. ("To the *republic* for which it stands...") Our nation's founders despised democracy. Although I do not have any quotes handy, they repeatedly slammed it. The problem with democracy is it is a mob rule system: the majority forcing their will upon the minority. Even Plato recognized this problem thousands of years ago. Though they recognized that no system of government could ensure this, they wanted to maximize the chance that the rights of all people would be respected, even when the majority of the people want to step on the minority. (Though of course the definition of "people" for many did not count blacks as human beings, but of course this whole process was a compromise between several fighting factions, including slave owners and abolishionists like Thomas Paine.)
This is why, for example, voters in small states have have more power in the Senate than voters in large states, but they have less power than voters in large states in the House. It is not your duty to force government to do your wishes. Rather, it is your duty to ensure that government does not do the wishes of people who seek to exploit the government's legal monopoly on the use of force at the expense of others. Bear in mind that people have natural rights, and "to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men". They are not instituted to do your bidding or grant some individuals special privilege over others.
Although I personally would like to see the pledge restored to its original state, I do believe all this stuff about schools is the wrong question. Originally the pledge did not have "under God", but the Congress added it during the Cold War so as to distinguish us from the atheistic culture of the Communists. The lawsuit should therefore center around if that act of Congress established religion. Bear in mind that the 1st Amendment says only "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"; it (unfortunately) says nothing about states doing that. Thus this Cold War act of Congress is the 1st Amendment violation, not the acts of individual state laws that requires its recitation in school.
Then there is another angle as to why this question is the wrong one to ask, and that is if government should be involved in schools (or libraries, etc.). For example, the issue of what schools can and cannot teach, what books they carry, and if they can make students recite the pledge all go away when the school is privately owned. And then parents could send their kids to the school that requires the pledge if they like it, or go to another school if they don't like it. Issues like what books libraries can put on their shelves or COPA net censorship (another hot topic here on Slashdot) all go away when government is removed. Perhaps the 1st Amendment should also have said "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of education, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Though federal involvement in education is already unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment, which puts such powers into the hands of the states or the people...
Our energy grid machine is not deregulated, as the article claims. One thing I have found amusing during this energy fiasco is that some give solid arguments that this problem is probably due to deregulation, and some give solid arguments that it is probably due to regulation. Yet the current "deregulated" system is not truly deregulated nor truly regulated in the traditional sense of the words; it is a grey area somewhere in between what one normally thinks of as regulated and deregulated, perhaps what could be coined as "greyulated". It is my opinion that there are good arguments coming out of both sides because this nebulous state is actually worse than both a traditionally regulated system like we had before and systems more in line with true deregulation. Fixing the machine's problems would need to address this issue.
I will focus on the piece that often get overlooked: differentiating the current "greyulated" energy market from an actual truly deregulated market, and showing how it can be improved through true deregulation, which we have not had yet. I will also focus on how our capitalism is broken: the ways that government and business bend the rules of capitalism to protect the rich and powerful, and how that helps create problems like what we have experienced. Then the reader can compare this to his understanding of the merits and shortcomings of regulation to decide which is best.
So why are we in a "greyulated" energy market? It is quite simple. Using FirstEnergy as an example (yes, I live in the city that caused the blackout), they are required through regulation to open up their lines to competing energy suppliers. For example, next month I will be getting my electricity from Green Mountain Energy even though FirstEnergy does the actual delivery of the energy through its own lines. The energy suppliers and the energy delivery monopoly still have to operate under many regulations, I believe including price regulations that restrict the income that can be collected for investing into upgrading the delivery infrastructure. Thus there is regulated competition for the energy suppliers and a regulated monopoly for energy delivery. Obviously this is not truly deregulated, but the primary difference that distinguishes this from traditional regulation is that energy suppliers are allowed to compete with each other by forcing the delivery monopoly (through regulation) to open its lines to other companies, as opposed to having a regulated monopoly on both the delivery and supply. So it's regulation used to achieve regulated market competition rather than regulation to control everything. That is the key to its failure.
This brings us to the two main problems of this system. They both relate to competition. Capitalism works when there is competition from both producers and consumers. When there is no consumer competition (such as only a handful of consumers) then there is no issue; the producers pack up and start producing something else. When there is no competition within producers, particularly for something that is truly needed by consumers, then the classic problems of monopoly arise. The fact is that capitalism is a failure under monopoly. In this "greyulated" market, there is still a monopoly: a monopoly on energy delivery. This means that if, for example, FirstEnergy is found responsible for the blackout then we have no way of changing distributor.
Many criticize the capitalistic system for encouraging cost cutting, and blame that for the blackout. This is not the whole picture. For one, the failure occurred in the delivery system which is a monopoly that remains heavily regulated; the competition exists in the supply side of things, where things are still regulated, but less so than the delivery monopoly. Thus the area that remained the most heavily regulated after the transition from full regulation was the source of the blackout, not the portion that was only mildly deregulated.
But for the sake of argument, suppose we lived in an imaginary world where we could choose
There really was no pompous libertarian holier-than-thou stuff in it. Heck, he didn't even use the word "libertarian" or make any comments about people joining with his political ideology. His only real demand is that people who want to solve the spam problem make sure they are putting forth an effort to understand the problem, which sounds quite reasonable. His only criticism follows from that, slamming people who whine about things and do nothing to help themselves, expecting others to fix their lives. In fact, that's one thing libertarians ought to be admired for. At least they try their best to proactively fix things on their own rather than demanding someone else, like the government, do it for them. I think that is quite an admirable trait in a person.
Nonetheless, If you had bothered to read the point the author was trying to make, you would see that you are in agreement with him in a sense. He was stressing that people need to educate themselves on why spam can exist before one can even begin addressing the problem. Then from that he was taking a stab at doing just that while admitting he's not an expert on the details and petitioning people to offer up ideas. He also *attempts* at proposing solutions and asks people to help educate him to cooperatively improve his suggestions, which is what he means by taking personal responsibility to solve the problem. Sitting on your butt and demanding a politician take care of it while you eat potatoi chips and watch Surviver is NOT taking personal responsibility. I see that you, like the author, put forth suggestions for fixing it. Thus you are doing what the author asks by taking personal responsibility to help out. Thus you and the author, in attempting to point out possible approaches to the problem, are proactively addressing the problem yourself instead of sitting on your behind waiting for someone else to do it for you; your last paragraph exemplifies what the author wants to see more of (though ideally also followed through with action).
If you had bothered to read the point the author was trying to make, you would see three things, none of which are intended to give concrete solutions but rather provide a path for us to find a concrete solution. One, he was stressing that people need to educate themselves on why spam can exist before one can even begin addressing the problem. Two, he was taking a stab at doing just that while admitting he's not an expert on the details and petitioning people to offer up ideas. The graphics on Usenet was just that: an idea submitted for review by those who know better, not a demand. Perhaps it would be better to contact him and educate him to his error rather than being a pompous whiner. Third, politicians generally speaking are more focused on re-election that producing results, that they only produce results if it directly threatens re-election to do otherwise. Thus you are more likely to find success in fostering a community of people who do care and proactively address the problem themselves instead of sitting on their behinds waiting for someone else to do something for them. A Libertarian presidential candidate has a good quote to that last point:
"Whatever it is in life you want, go out and get it. Don't wait for the government to drop it into your lap, you make it happen. You seize the day. Carpe diem!"
-Gary Nolan.
I suffer no spam (or telemarketing) problem because I am not too lazy to take measures to protect myself. Thus I know from experience that individuals working for themselves can eliminate the problem for themselves. For those who want to sit on their behind and have someone else (like the government) fix their lives, I would put forth this very appropriate quote from a Libertarian Party presidential candidate:
"Whatever it is in life you want, go out and get it. Don't wait for the government to drop it into your lap, you make it happen. You seize the day. Carpe diem!"
-Gary Nolan.
And the people making a living off the TV shows are a minority as well. The cameramen, the silent extras, the sound crew, the makeup artists. And yes, the actors and directors count, too even if thay earn much more than other people. They are a minority and trying to stomp on their ability to feed their families is stomping on a minority. No one's forcing anyone, not even teenagers, to watch TV. I don't watch TV. If I can do it then so can you. Go read a classic novel like "Fellowship of the Ring". No product placements are in that!
Is the purpose of government to protect your rights, or is its purpose to mold and shape everyone else to fit someone's whim? Asking for a "crackdown" on product placement is as though one has a divine right to watch TV shows that present things the way you alone want them presented. We might as well ask government to crackdown on the ads between show segments so we can get from the major networks copies of the fine quality sitcom comedies and game shows we see on PBS. We need less "Fear Factor" and more "Antiques Road Show".
If you don't like it then go read a book. I highly recommend "1984", "Brave New World", and "Fountainhead". There's no product placement in those!
Government could not win if we had nearly 100% of the population not only voting but taking a strong interest in the political process, voting for what they believe in instead of "the lesser of two evils", etc. I believe you have it backwards. It's not that people don't vote because government wins no matter what. Perhaps there is a correlation, but I believe the casual relationship of the two is that government always wins because the stupid masses mostly never bother to vote and are too apathetic to make an informed vote when they actually do, etc.
The consolidation of media is because that's what people demand. There are often options. In my city, I rarely listen to corporate owned media shows, including non-profit corps like NPR (non-profit corps have agendas like any other corp). We have many good truly un-corporate radio news shows, though few people listen to them. Throw in the net for infinite foreign and indy news outlets and mix well. Why don't people flock to these shows or alternative net media outlets? Because they prefer tuning into Fox for their daily dose of conservative soma or the other major networks for their left wing soma.
Now the point I'm getting at is that this mentality is what fuels a drive to reckless voting systems. People in general just Don't Care. The public that keeps the corporate consolidation in business by demanding its brand of media is the same public that makes reckless voting come about. Think about this: if people stopped being hedonist "sheeple" like the masses portrayed in Ayn Rand's "Fountainhead" who read the Banner newspaper, and thus started listening to truly objective media, then the controlled media empire would come crashing down. Similarly, if the stupid masses that comprise the majority of America would cry foul against this voting fraud then it would be stopped. The problem is the stupid fat masses are more concerned about the price of a Happy Meal and the next episode of "Surviver" than who gets to be the next president.
In other words, freedom and liberty ultimately rests on the hands of the public. Our nation's founders warned us that they gave us liberty so long as we desire to keep it. Media, voting, etc. can not be controlled unless the public lets it be controlled through its complacency. Ben Franklin said that they gave us "a republic, if you can keep it." The people of America have decided not to keep it. Blame them. No one forced them to be fat and lazy.
> A country where everybody has 10 copies of their favorite CD is NOT wealthy.
You are getting inane and I am getting bored with you. So to sum up my discussion referring back to the original point this was supposed to be about before you distracted attention away from the issue at hand:
* Your definition of a zero-sum game is incorrect.
* Capitalism is not a zero-sum game, neither by your definition nor game theory's definition.
* Wealth can be created without someone losing.
(See my previous posts.)
Good day, and may the Mighty Penguin smile upon you.
Economics is based on value, not dollar bills. You are confusing economics with accounting, which only cares about dollar bills. Perceived personal value is what profits, wealth, and capital come from. Wealth IS subjective. $5,000,000 is meaningless as a measure of wealth unless I can place a personal value on that amount of dollar bills. I assure you that Bill Gates personally values it far less than I do. (See also: Law of Diminishing Returns.)
Someone who loves Backstreet Boys will pay a lot for their CDs. Someone who despises their bad music but instead prefers the fine band Slayer would never pay much for a Backstreet Boys CD but would pay a lot for Slayer's classic "Reign in Blood" CD. The value of each CD depends on who is judging it. And this does encompass money since they exchange money for these products. If I buy Slayer's "Undisputed Attitude" CD for $20 then it's because I value that CD more than I value the $20 bill I had in my wallet. Thus there is no such statement as, "This CD is worth $20". Rather, one could claim it is worth $20 for himself, or that on the supply and demand graph, the *average* value of all consumers giving money on the demand curve and the *average* value of the CD store producers giving the CD on the supply curve meet at the $20 mark.
This is all basic economics 101. (Well, actually it's 201 at my college...)
In game theory, a zero-sum game is one in which a person's gain EQUALS another person's loss. It is named such on the fact that the sum of the total "point" changes for all players involved equals 0. That sounds pretty fixed to me. Don't believe me? Look it up on the net or a game theory text book.
But even if you are right in your definition, that it means one person's gain is always another's loss, capitalism is still not zero-sum. If I give you something in exchange for something else then I value what you had as much or more than what you had, and you value what I had as much or more than what you had. Thus in terms of the value each of us places on things, we both gain and no one loses. (And don't confuse money with value and wealth; they are totally different concepts.) Otherwise we'd not have traded. (Assuming no government forced or altered the trade through regulation or taxation.)
If it's zero-sum then we'd be living in caves. Each year we have more people added to the population. If wealth is zero-sum then we must be spreading it thinner and thinner every year to accomodate the additional population that needs a chunk of wealth to subsist. The fact that people now live better than people 100 years ago, and that the population is *larger* than 100 years ago, shows that some wealth was created somewhere without taking it from others. Ergo, it's not zero-sum.
QED.
Did you even attempt to do anything to stem those calls, or do nothing other than complain to yourself? Did use caller ID, or ask not to be called, or sign up for a telemarketer association's do not call list, or actually attempt to choose privacy options with the companies you do business with, or NOT send in your phone number to a "freebie give-away"? Or better yet, ever consider not answering the phone when you don't want to answer it?
None of this is all that hard. All I do is check off proper privacy options when I do business, NOT sign up for freebie offers (they are just marketing scams), and NOT answer the phone when I don't feel like anwsering it. A very minimal effort. Total telemarketing I get? One every week or so, usually caught by the answering machine.
It's not that hard. You don't need legislatures to take care of it if you are willing to put forth a minimal effort.
Of course one could argue that an unsolicited call is a violation of property rights. "I didn't give you permission to send a phone signal into my household. You're trespassing!" Perhaps that is an argument even a libertarian could accept. Though since that argument is certainly a grey one, let's look at it this way: is legislation really needed?
Handling telemarketing is quite easy. One can use caller ID. Then you only answer the phone when you want to talk to the other person. Though not the norm, I personally know about when I can expect phone calls, and I know the hours when telemarketers don't call; I'm pretty accurate in only answering calls I want without caller ID by keeping this in mind. So with either approach, you can easily not answer telemarketers. I've found that not answering their calls makes the amount of calls come down drastically. I probably get only 1 telemarketing call every week or two that gets to talk to my answering machine.
Furthermore, many telemarketers get people's number because people are too lazy to read privacy statements and mark off what is needed to tell a company not to contact you or share your information. For example, when my mortgage got sold to another bank, I actually read the "junk mail" the new bank sent me to find an easy way to let them know that I do not want any telemarketing from them. Most people probably would have just tossed it out without reading it.
And finally, there is a telemarketer's alliance you can contact to have your number removed from all its member companies, and if you bother to tell a telemarketer on the phone not to call you again then they are legally obligated not to call you. (Some people have gotten rich suing those who disobeyed, so there's a good revenue oppurtunity if it fails!)
So in summary, it seems to me that there are plenty of options for stopping telemarketing. I believe the thrust of this demand for legislation is due to people's laziness/stupidity in taking advantage of these options to take care of themselves. Now granted, some will rhetorically ask why they must do this? That only holds water if you believe that you have some sort of divine right to use phones in an omnipotent manner to your liking. Using these methods to take care of yourself is no different than paying money for a Tivo and taking the effort to push a button to skip comercials on the cable networks you already pay to see.
I think it all boils down to the "inertness of mankind", demanding that other people take care of them because they are too lazy to take the minimal effort needed to stop the telemarketing problem. It seems an example of what Bastiat pointed out in "The Law", as per my sig.
Actually, this is contrary to seperation of powers. The executive's primary purpose, to which the president belongs, is to enforce law, not create law. The legislative's primary purpose, to which Congress belongs, is to create law. So when a body like the FCC creates new laws and it answers to the executive branch then you have moved law making from the law makers and given it to the law enforcers, thus decreasing power seperation by turning the law makers into "law vetoers". The chief executive can override Congress' veto with his own veto, thus saying "You are not allowed to stop me and my branch from CREATING a new law even though the Constitution says only the legislature should create law."
A more appropriate approach to preserving seperation of powers would be for the FCC to propose regulations, going through the nitty-gritty details of analysis and so forth like they do now, and then put it before Congress for approval. If Congress did its duty then it'd defer to the FCC except in the most aggregious abuses, recognizing the FCC's generally greater expertise on the complex matter. And if Congress didn't do its duty, it would at least stop unaccountable and unelected officials (the FCC) from usurping Constitutional powers. You can unelect bad members of Congress. You can not unelect the FCC members.
#1 is listed as "The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance". This and many of the other items on this list were discussed extensively on various the extreme left-wing and extreme Libertarian conspiracy theory radio shows here on Cleveland's WRUW. On the other hand, my cat got stuck in a tree and the fire department had to rescue Fluffy. This only made a blurb at the end of the local channel 3's 11:00 news one night, getting even less attention than all 25 items on this list. So I'd like to submit a correction to this list and suggest "Fluffy Gets Stuck in Tree" be listed as the top under-reported item. Plus it has more credibility than many of the stories that did make the list...
In truth, I have yet to see any media "watchdog" that did not appear to have some sort of agenda to push. Though they can provide some value, one just needs to be aware that they are only "watching" half of the picture and turning a blind eye to the other half. Though in their favour, since the main news stories these days come from the conservatives, being that they are in power right now, it makes sense that more conservative-related stories would be underreported since there are more conservative-related stories happening. If the Democrats had power then there ought to be more left-oriented stories going under-reported, like Republicans often whined happened regarding Clinton's business dealings and Democratic fund raising when the Democrats were in power. (Though you would unfortunately probably not see these many of these supposed media watchdogs like FAIR and company make any effort to expose those stories.)
Sorry for the double-reply, but I forgot to go into this as well. I believe that a mistrial cannot happen if a jury gives a "not guilty" because that would probably be double jeopardy. I believe a retrial only happens on hung-juries, which may or may not be due to some members engaging in jury nullification. (Could also just be honest differing opinions on vague evidence.)
Secondly, courts do not define rights. The Constitution does, particularly the often ignored 9th and 10th Amendments. Numerous statements by Constitution's creators state that the purpose of ensuring jury trials was to allow the people to judge both the crime and the law. Thouhg it can cut the wrong way such as bigots letting race crimes go off the hook, that can happen in any judicial system, like a racist prosecutor not bringing it to trial. The point here is that we have these things, including the right of innocence until proven guilty, the right of no double jeopardy, the privledge of prosecutors to not pursue conviction, the privledge of a judge to overturn "guilty" verdicts but not "not guilty" (I think they can do that...), the right of jury nullification, etc. to err on the side of not sending some one to jail unjustly even if it means we let some criminals run free.
(On a side note for those purists out there, some would argue that our rights come from our nature as human beings, transcending law coming, and that the Constitution's job is to reflect them while not actually being the source of our rights. That we reject the feudalistic notion that our rights are granted to us by government as a gift. But that's a debate for another day, heh heh...)
John Jay, first Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, in Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794:4., said: "The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy."
This would be a good time for the People invoke jury nullification, assuming any of these go to trial. (Note that the Bill of Rights grants any RIAA victim a right to jury for lawsuits worth over $20 if they decide to take this to trial.)
So what is jury nullification? It is the principle that jury's may find a defendent "not guilty" if the law is unjust. This harkens back to British colonial days and is the primary reason we have juries in the Bill of Rights: both the defendent AND the law are judged. It is the Peoples' last check against unjust law when the three branches of government fail.
A prominent case of this was when William Penn, founder of Pennsylvania, was charged with assembling Quakers for worship when only the Church of England was permitted to assemble. (Again, pre-Revolution colonial days.) Though the jury found that he did indeed do just that, they gave a "not guilty" verdict on the grounds that the law was unjust. The judge held the jury without food and water for a couple of days and imposed fines, demanding that they give a "guilty" verdict, but they refused to budge. Events like this are what inspired our nation's founders to recognize the right of juries over the judge and the law. Jury nullifications also played an important role in overturning Prohibition. Juries often ruled against the law even when finding that the law had been broken, thus making Prohibition unenforceable, and I believe some regions of the nation still regularly have non-violent marijuana prosecutions lost due to jury nullification.
Jury's are unfortunately not informed of this right when they go to trial. I believe during the slave days the government realized that it was near impossible to get a conviction for violating the Fugitive Slave Act since people in the northern state juries, which was the only place the law really had any use, would rule "not guilty" on the grounds that the law was unjust. And so the government sadly decided to stop telling juries of their right to jury nullification.
So how does this apply to the RIAA? Well if enough 12 year olds, or any one else for that matter, being sued millions of dollars for downloading music take it to court then the People (ie-the juries) could toss out the cases as being unjust. Given enough of these rulings, the law could be forced to change to reflect what the People consider just or the RIAA could be forced to change tactics. Though this will remain unlikely if we do not go back to informing juries of their rights. (Plus stacking the jury by having the prosecution quiz them instead of making it truly random also undermines things...) So write to your state and federal legislative representatives today and demand that they pass laws requiring judges to inform juries of their "jury nullification" rights!
So in other words, "The use of Java may kill you, and Microsoft is not liable if you die from Java or if you nuke a city by installing it on a nuclear power plant..."
This is a rather short-sighted claim. Just because the people in charge call it "capitalism" does not mean it is such. The USA PATRIOT Act is not very patriotic even though those in power say it is. Insoc's Ministry of Truth ("1984") was not at all about truth despite what the Inner Party said. Mercantilism is definined as a system where government controls the economy for the purpose of increasing wealth. Capitalism is defined as privately owned transactions free from government intervention. Just because Bush's or Clinton's "Ministry of Truth" says otherwise does not make it so, unless you write in Newspeak.
Republican != Capitalist
Democrat != Capitalist
What the current administration is seeking is not free markets. A free trade agreement is about 1 sentence long. Here's a sample:
"Your country's people may freely take goods and services not subsidized trough taxes and bring them into our nation to sell to anyone at any price they are willing to pay, and our people may do the same in your nation."
Anything with tens of thousands of pages of regulations and restrictions, like the WTO/GATT, is not free trade. It's managed trade. Basically the current (and previous since Clinton made GATT) administration's idea of "free trade" is moving managed control from the federal level to some global pseudo-government entity, like the WTO. Either way it is restricted, controlled trade. This is not only anti-socialism (the socialists being the primary WTO protesters) but it is also anti-capitalism, since capitalism is about trade of labour amung willing individuals (with property being the end-product of labour) without outside forces controlling their labour transaction. And when trade is controlled by government entities it is pretty much a given that it will be used to the advantage of those in power rather than to promote actual free trade.
So you have a good point in seeing policies that fly in the face of "loyalty to global 'free markets'". Even the WTO flies in the face of such, being an organization that *controls* trade. The bigger picture truly is that the administration has no loyalty to global free markets. It has loyalty to market systems that it can weasle the most power from, like any other administration unfortunately would, including Clinton's from which the WTO was born.