You have no right to do anything you want with your land if it adversely affects me. You cannot pollute the stream running across your
land - it also crosses your neighbor's land and enters the wildlife refuge down the way. It is needed by your neighbors and the wildlife
(which YOU need to stay alive on planet earth)./
Yes, I agree with you. I thnk you're catching on to this libertarian thing:)
Libertarian.org is the best place to start for an introduction to libertarianism... which is not exactly the same thing as the 'technolibertarianism' the Ms. Borsook describes, as far as I can tell. Here is a a snippet from the opening page of libertarian.org:
WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM?
Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.
While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.
Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force.
This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.
In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.
At this point, a few questions might come to mind. For example, why do libertarians believe so strongly in individual rights? What about other social values, such as equality and security? Or you may be wondering about the historical origins of the libertarian philosophy and movement -- where does libertarianism come from? Who are its leading thinkers? And how do libertarians apply their principles to contemporary public policy issues?
Libertarian.Org is here to help answer all those questions, so read on.
The idea that libertarians care any less about people than leftists is complete and utter bullshit.
Leftists believe that you can lift people out of poverty by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, a.k.a. redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately, that just ends up making *everyone* poorer, and always creates a corrupt 'ruling class'.
Indeed, the present problem with corporate welfare and official corruption is a *direct result* of the big government policies introduced by the left, the very people who are shouting the loudest about this today.
Countries with free market economies are more prosperous for everyone, rich and poor. Contrary to popular belief, capitalist economies do not have a large income gap between rich and poor. Rather, they reduce the income gap - pro of here.
There will always be people who, for whatever reason, have fallen on hard times and need a helping hand. We absolutely need to be there for those people. Neighbors, churches, community service clubs, volunteer organizations, private charities, the United Way, we *all* need to pull together to provide a safety net for these people. This is absolutely something that has to happen at the local level - in our own communities, not in Washington DC.
Government welfare programs have failed miserably. Where do you see the most poverty and despair? In government projects, of course. The fact is that people and organizations in our local communities are the most effective at helping people. These are the groups that know the people, that know the community, and that have *earned our trust and financial support*, unlike the wasteful bureaucrats in Washington, who squander our money and help noone.
Indeed, the Green party platform is pure Communism.
Nader's speeches on taking over management of corporations make me nauseous. What happens when the new government management starts screwing up? Who steps in to 'take over' the mismanaged company then? I guess we're just supposed to 'trust the people in power' to do the right thing. I think I've heard that one somewhere before...
Everytime we manage to throw out inept and/or corrupt politicians, we just elect a whole new set.
I encourage everyone to vote their conscience, regardless of who they support.
A vote for a serious third party candidate is never a wasted vote, and it does much more than just 'send a message'.
In the case of the Libertarian Party... obviously Harry Browne is not going to be elected president this year. The important thing, though, is that every vote he gets this year makes it easier for the party next time around.
In states where the vote totals meet a certain level, the LP will automatically have ballot access in the next election. Right now the party relies on volunteer and paid petitioners, which is a giant diversion of money and personnel resources. Also, higher vote totals mean more media coverage next time around.
Despite an almost complete absence of national media coverage, Browne is nipping at the heels of Pat Buchanan, and is on track to receive between 1 and 1.5 million votes, which will help pave the way for the 2004 LP presidential candidate.
Anyway, regardless of which candidate you support, I would urge you to vote for who you believe in. If you vote for a major party candidate that you don't necessarily like, you are just sending them a mandate that you support what they're doing, and you want it to continue.
Third parties aren't built overnight. They have to start somewhere and grow over time. Every vote helps.
I have serious problems with people who immediately consider all government expenditure a "waste of taxpaper resources." That's why I don't vote libertarian.
There are two main camps of libertarians. One is more prone to that reaction than the other. That group is more accurately referred to as the Anarcho-Capitalists, sometimes also known as individualist anarchists. They see no use whatsoever for a central government. Although they are commonly lumped in with libertarians, it is a distinct and separate philosophy which is more radical and often received unfavorably.
The term 'libertarian' properly and accurately belongs to the second group. Libertarians support government to the extent that it exists to protect our rights, provide police protection of our lives and property, and defend our shores. I consider myself in this group.
My point is that not all libertarians are rabidly anti-government on any and every issue.
I'm still not sure what to think of anti-spam laws, personally. I'm hoping some sort of technical solution will arise, as so often happens on the Internet. I have to say that spam hasn't been a problem for me at all since I learned not to post my address in newsgroups or submit it to dubious sites. I have about 12 different email addresses forwarding to one mailbox, and I get less than one piece of spam a week.
Here are links to some economic data which you and others may find very interesting:
1) The Economic Freedom of the World 2000 annual report, which rates the world's economies according to how free they are. (spoiler: the U.S. is 4th, and a laundry list of African nations make up the bottom of the list)
And how exactly can a consumer complain or boycott companies which are virtual monopolies on necessities? You just can't. You have to eat, you have to have some sort of clothes, you pretty much need electricity and hot water.
I think that everyone here knows that no company has a monopoly, virtual or otherwise, on either food or clothing.
I will give you that electricity and water are monopolized in most areas, either because the government owns the utility, or because the state PSCs grant an exclusive artificial monopoly to one company.
But I think in many cases there is no choice, or the choices are just equally bad (so, how exactly are you going to *choose* the company with saner gasoline prices? you can't, they're all fixed the same).
Even if every petrol company in the world did get together and raise their prices to the same level, it would simply spur innovation in alternative energy sources. That's exactly what happened in the 1970's OPEC oil crisis. The whole country started getting into alternative energy sources. There were ads everywhere for solar panels, wind-powered generators, etc. That's also when automakers started paying attention to fuel-efficiency.
I'm actually not a fan of huge corporations. I am annoyed by the homogenization of culture that comes with them, and their lack of attention to local communities.
As I see it, the problem is that corporations are buying and manipulating our elected representatives, who are giving them special favors like land seized through eminent domain, tax breaks, free utilities & roads, etc. This 'corporate welfare' tilts the market in favor of the large corporations, and against the local small business owners. It distorts the market.
The way I see it, the solution is not to regulate business to death, but to take away from the politicians the power to give those special favors. The fewer handouts they have to give, the less corruption there will be.
I dunno. I think we agree that changes are needed - we just don't quite agree on what those changes should be.
Of course its fair for a mugging victim to file a complaint.
Two key differences between your scenario and the application of antitrust law to Microsoft:
1) In antitrust cases, the less successful competitor is never the plaintiff. Competitors like Sun, Netscape, and Discover simply press the issue with DOJ until they put their overzealous antitrust department on the case. The competitors assist the prosecution (quite often behind closed doors) but the government (DOJ, EU) is always the plaintiff.
2) In your mugging example, an act of force or fraud was committed. Antitrust law requires neither - it provides only murky definitions of 'fair competition' and 'monopoly' which are open to a very wide range of interpretations.
If Microsoft were to do something like renenge on a contract or commit corporate espionage, I would fully support government action against them.
That's not the case, however. They are in trouble a) in the U.S. for building a browser into their OS (which the KDE and GNOME projects are also doing) and b) in Europe for selling a very popular desktop OS that happens to work best in conjunction with their server OS.
In both of these cases, Microsoft commits neither force nor fraud in getting people to buy its operating systems. All transactions and contracts between Microsoft and consumers / business partners are entirely voluntary acts, a.k.a. acts of free will.
Microsoft is quite vulnerable in the marketplace right now. Linux, KDE2, MacOS X, and GNOME 2.0 are going to war with Windows, and it is going to be a bloodbath. If we let the free market take its most efficient, natural course we will end up with a much better choice of operating systems.
1. 99.9999% of the time, it is not applied to ensure 'fairness in the marketplace', but rather as a strategic weapon by less successful competitors. This is flat out immoral, and it's so obvious I'm surprised more Slashdotters can't see right through it.
This is the same situation that occurred when Tonya Harding had Nancy Kerrigan roughed up with a pipe before the winter Olympics.
Examples: *Netscape* started the action against MS in the US, *Sun* started the action against MS in Europe, *Tribal Voice* is pushing the FTC and FCC to act against AOL, *Discover* started the antitrust action against Visa/MC, and the list goes on and on, *ALL THE WAY BACK TO PRECIOUS STANDARD OIL*, which was brought down in the same way, at the behest of its competitors
2. Antitrust law is vague and open-ended, revolving around nebulous concepts like 'unfair competition' and 'bundling' instead of more quantifiable, tangible criteria.
If a company prices its products:
Too low - it can be charged with 'predatory pricing'
Too high - it can be charged with 'price gouging' or 'intent to monopolize'
Similar to its competitors - it can be charged with 'price fixing' or 'collusion'
Example 1: "The European Commission said it had sent a 'statement of objections' to the US software giant 'for allegedly abusing its dominant position in the market for personal
computer operating systems software by leveraging this power into the market for server software" (from the BBC story) Buncha psychobabble.
Example 2: Microsoft went into the DOJ trial simply being charged with integrating a browser into their OS, and very quickly the trial delved into a whole host of other unrelated issues.
I understand that most people here hate Microsoft. I don't particularly care for them myself.
The slate of recent competitor-brought antitrust action, however, is far more anti-competitive and destructive to the marketplace than any of Microsoft's real or alleged crimes. To encourage these dirty tactics to continue is to sink to a level lower than that of Microsoft.
If Linux is going to win, it should happen because of the hard work and dedication of the thousands of people and companies who are contributing to it. It should not happen because we tilted the marketplace in our favor by using the force of government to get the main competitor out of the way.
The question in my mind is whether Carnivore will ultimately be used only for scanning for 'illegal' things.
We all know the government spied on leaders of the Vietnam war protest and civil rights movements. Their activities weren't illegal, just unpopular with the establishment.
I don't have any problem with the Carnivore-like technologies if it is only used a) with a search warrant and b) to aid investigations of illegal, not just unpopular, activities. Unfortunately, I don't trust the FBI to police themselves on this.
I would rather the FBI present a warrant to the ISP, who then sets up the monitoring. How hard could it be to set up a sendmail rule to forward all message headers for a given user to the FBI?
Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.
While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.
Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force.
This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.
In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.
Re:Real issue is the Role of the State
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 2
What is Libertarianism?
Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.
While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.
Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force.
This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.
In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.
(from http://www.libertarian.org/)
--
Re:watch out katz... you are right on target
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 1
Jason -
Before you discount the libertarian movement entirely, you may want to check out this organization:
Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty P.O.Box 65743 - Washington, DC 20035 URL: http://www.glil.org/
I know there are several other organizations that have been around a long time (I think one is called LGLC) but I can't find their contact information.
Corporations have the power of money. Government have the power of law (and money, to a lesser extent)
As I see it, governments have the power of money to a greater extent than corporations.
Governments can print more money anytime they need it (thus increasing the money supply and causing inflation in the long term)
Governments have the power to take up to 100% of your money in taxes (the average American now pays 47% of their income in various state/local/federal taxes, up from <10% in the 1800's and early 1900's)
Governments have the power to take up to 100% of corporations' income in taxes (at which point said corporations will just fold and cease to produce)
In order to stop a corporation from taking your money you just have to stop buying from them. You will go to jail if you try that with the government, no matter how right you may be. You would have to move out of the country, if you're lucky enough to have a government that allows that.
Of course, some corporations are buying political favors left and right. So, I guess these corporations have law on their side also.
No, I read this scathing review of the book a couple months ago and decided not to waste my time.
--
Re:Real issue is the Role of the State
on
Selfish Society
·
· Score: 2
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep, voting on what to have for lunch."
I first heard that about 10 years ago, and then a couple weeks ago here on/., but I forget who posted it.
That's why the U.S. was formed as a Constitutional republic and not a pure democracy - to keep the majority from infringing on the rights of the minority. Fat lot of good that's done though - the Constitution gives NO authority for the creation of almost all the three-letter federal agencies that exist, but did that stop them from being created?
Slashdot Mirror
You have no right to do anything you want with your land if it adversely affects me. You cannot pollute the stream running across your land - it also crosses your neighbor's land and enters the wildlife refuge down the way. It is needed by your neighbors and the wildlife (which YOU need to stay alive on planet earth)./
Yes, I agree with you. I thnk you're catching on to this libertarian thing :)
--
But at the same time, I like a few things about the Green Party and their complaints about corporate welfare.
Libertarians are just as opposed to corporate welfare as the Greens, perhaps even moreso. And we always have been.
--
So who thinks the government can run health care effectively? :P
I don't. Look at Britain's government-run healthcare system.
--
I would call that anarcho-capitalism today...
And I would describe contemporary libertarianism as 'minarchist'.
For what that's worth...
--
Libertarian.org is the best place to start for an introduction to libertarianism... which is not exactly the same thing as the 'technolibertarianism' the Ms. Borsook describes, as far as I can tell. Here is a a snippet from the opening page of libertarian.org:
WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM?
Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.
While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.
Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force.
This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.
In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.
At this point, a few questions might come to mind. For example, why do libertarians believe so strongly in individual rights? What about other social values, such as equality and security? Or you may be wondering about the historical origins of the libertarian philosophy and movement -- where does libertarianism come from? Who are its leading thinkers? And how do libertarians apply their principles to contemporary public policy issues?
Libertarian.Org is here to help answer all those questions, so read on.
Some other good links:
Libertarian Party
Harry Browne for President
Liberzine
Counterprotest.net
Libertyboard.org
--
So vote Libertarian and win a free country.
--
The idea that libertarians care any less about people than leftists is complete and utter bullshit.
Leftists believe that you can lift people out of poverty by taking from the rich and giving to the poor, a.k.a. redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately, that just ends up making *everyone* poorer, and always creates a corrupt 'ruling class'.
Indeed, the present problem with corporate welfare and official corruption is a *direct result* of the big government policies introduced by the left, the very people who are shouting the loudest about this today.
Countries with free market economies are more prosperous for everyone, rich and poor. Contrary to popular belief, capitalist economies do not have a large income gap between rich and poor. Rather, they reduce the income gap - pro of here.
There will always be people who, for whatever reason, have fallen on hard times and need a helping hand. We absolutely need to be there for those people. Neighbors, churches, community service clubs, volunteer organizations, private charities, the United Way, we *all* need to pull together to provide a safety net for these people. This is absolutely something that has to happen at the local level - in our own communities, not in Washington DC.
Government welfare programs have failed miserably. Where do you see the most poverty and despair? In government projects, of course. The fact is that people and organizations in our local communities are the most effective at helping people. These are the groups that know the people, that know the community, and that have *earned our trust and financial support*, unlike the wasteful bureaucrats in Washington, who squander our money and help noone.
--
Indeed, the Green party platform is pure Communism.
Nader's speeches on taking over management of corporations make me nauseous. What happens when the new government management starts screwing up? Who steps in to 'take over' the mismanaged company then? I guess we're just supposed to 'trust the people in power' to do the right thing. I think I've heard that one somewhere before...
Everytime we manage to throw out inept and/or corrupt politicians, we just elect a whole new set.
--
Actually PDFA stopped taking donations from tobacco and alcohol companies a few years ago, after coming under pressure for it.
IIRC they're now financed heavily by the president's commission on drugs, headed by Drug Czar Barry McCaffrey or whatever his name is.
But you're right about the economics of it. If pot were legal, alcohol users would be switching left and right.
--
I encourage everyone to vote their conscience, regardless of who they support.
A vote for a serious third party candidate is never a wasted vote, and it does much more than just 'send a message'.
In the case of the Libertarian Party... obviously Harry Browne is not going to be elected president this year. The important thing, though, is that every vote he gets this year makes it easier for the party next time around.
In states where the vote totals meet a certain level, the LP will automatically have ballot access in the next election. Right now the party relies on volunteer and paid petitioners, which is a giant diversion of money and personnel resources. Also, higher vote totals mean more media coverage next time around.
Despite an almost complete absence of national media coverage, Browne is nipping at the heels of Pat Buchanan, and is on track to receive between 1 and 1.5 million votes, which will help pave the way for the 2004 LP presidential candidate.
Anyway, regardless of which candidate you support, I would urge you to vote for who you believe in. If you vote for a major party candidate that you don't necessarily like, you are just sending them a mandate that you support what they're doing, and you want it to continue.
Third parties aren't built overnight. They have to start somewhere and grow over time. Every vote helps.
--
Probably in the same way it just got moderated down even more as flamebait.
I'm all for the moderation system, except when a moderator uses it to suppress other viewpoints.
--
I have serious problems with people who immediately consider all government expenditure a "waste of taxpaper resources." That's why I don't vote libertarian.
There are two main camps of libertarians. One is more prone to that reaction than the other. That group is more accurately referred to as the Anarcho-Capitalists, sometimes also known as individualist anarchists. They see no use whatsoever for a central government. Although they are commonly lumped in with libertarians, it is a distinct and separate philosophy which is more radical and often received unfavorably.
The term 'libertarian' properly and accurately belongs to the second group. Libertarians support government to the extent that it exists to protect our rights, provide police protection of our lives and property, and defend our shores. I consider myself in this group.
My point is that not all libertarians are rabidly anti-government on any and every issue.
I'm still not sure what to think of anti-spam laws, personally. I'm hoping some sort of technical solution will arise, as so often happens on the Internet. I have to say that spam hasn't been a problem for me at all since I learned not to post my address in newsgroups or submit it to dubious sites. I have about 12 different email addresses forwarding to one mailbox, and I get less than one piece of spam a week.
--
Here are links to some economic data which you and others may find very interesting:
1) The Economic Freedom of the World 2000 annual report, which rates the world's economies according to how free they are. (spoiler: the U.S. is 4th, and a laundry list of African nations make up the bottom of the list)
http://www.fraseri nstitute.ca/publications/books/econ_free_2000/
2) Within this report is a section which correlates different measures of social welfare against different levels of economic freedom:
htt p://www.fraserinstitute.ca/publications/books/econ _free_2000/section_09.html
--
And how exactly can a consumer complain or boycott companies which are virtual monopolies on necessities? You just can't. You have to eat, you have to have some sort of clothes, you pretty much need electricity and hot water.
I think that everyone here knows that no company has a monopoly, virtual or otherwise, on either food or clothing.
I will give you that electricity and water are monopolized in most areas, either because the government owns the utility, or because the state PSCs grant an exclusive artificial monopoly to one company.
But I think in many cases there is no choice, or the choices are just equally bad (so, how exactly are you going to *choose* the company with saner gasoline prices? you can't, they're all fixed the same).
Even if every petrol company in the world did get together and raise their prices to the same level, it would simply spur innovation in alternative energy sources. That's exactly what happened in the 1970's OPEC oil crisis. The whole country started getting into alternative energy sources. There were ads everywhere for solar panels, wind-powered generators, etc. That's also when automakers started paying attention to fuel-efficiency.
--
I'm actually not a fan of huge corporations. I am annoyed by the homogenization of culture that comes with them, and their lack of attention to local communities.
As I see it, the problem is that corporations are buying and manipulating our elected representatives, who are giving them special favors like land seized through eminent domain, tax breaks, free utilities & roads, etc. This 'corporate welfare' tilts the market in favor of the large corporations, and against the local small business owners. It distorts the market.
The way I see it, the solution is not to regulate business to death, but to take away from the politicians the power to give those special favors. The fewer handouts they have to give, the less corruption there will be.
I dunno. I think we agree that changes are needed - we just don't quite agree on what those changes should be.
--
Of course its fair for a mugging victim to file a complaint.
Two key differences between your scenario and the application of antitrust law to Microsoft:
1) In antitrust cases, the less successful competitor is never the plaintiff. Competitors like Sun, Netscape, and Discover simply press the issue with DOJ until they put their overzealous antitrust department on the case. The competitors assist the prosecution (quite often behind closed doors) but the government (DOJ, EU) is always the plaintiff.
2) In your mugging example, an act of force or fraud was committed. Antitrust law requires neither - it provides only murky definitions of 'fair competition' and 'monopoly' which are open to a very wide range of interpretations.
If Microsoft were to do something like renenge on a contract or commit corporate espionage, I would fully support government action against them.
That's not the case, however. They are in trouble a) in the U.S. for building a browser into their OS (which the KDE and GNOME projects are also doing) and b) in Europe for selling a very popular desktop OS that happens to work best in conjunction with their server OS.
In both of these cases, Microsoft commits neither force nor fraud in getting people to buy its operating systems. All transactions and contracts between Microsoft and consumers / business partners are entirely voluntary acts, a.k.a. acts of free will.
Microsoft is quite vulnerable in the marketplace right now. Linux, KDE2, MacOS X, and GNOME 2.0 are going to war with Windows, and it is going to be a bloodbath. If we let the free market take its most efficient, natural course we will end up with a much better choice of operating systems.
--
Here are two reasons why:
1. 99.9999% of the time, it is not applied to ensure 'fairness in the marketplace', but rather as a strategic weapon by less successful competitors. This is flat out immoral, and it's so obvious I'm surprised more Slashdotters can't see right through it.
This is the same situation that occurred when Tonya Harding had Nancy Kerrigan roughed up with a pipe before the winter Olympics.
Examples: *Netscape* started the action against MS in the US, *Sun* started the action against MS in Europe, *Tribal Voice* is pushing the FTC and FCC to act against AOL, *Discover* started the antitrust action against Visa/MC, and the list goes on and on, *ALL THE WAY BACK TO PRECIOUS STANDARD OIL*, which was brought down in the same way, at the behest of its competitors
2. Antitrust law is vague and open-ended, revolving around nebulous concepts like 'unfair competition' and 'bundling' instead of more quantifiable, tangible criteria.
If a company prices its products:
Too low - it can be charged with 'predatory pricing'
Too high - it can be charged with 'price gouging' or 'intent to monopolize'
Similar to its competitors - it can be charged with 'price fixing' or 'collusion'
Example 1: "The European Commission said it had sent a 'statement of objections' to the US software giant 'for allegedly abusing its dominant position in the market for personal computer operating systems software by leveraging this power into the market for server software" (from the BBC story) Buncha psychobabble.
Example 2: Microsoft went into the DOJ trial simply being charged with integrating a browser into their OS, and very quickly the trial delved into a whole host of other unrelated issues.
I understand that most people here hate Microsoft. I don't particularly care for them myself.
The slate of recent competitor-brought antitrust action, however, is far more anti-competitive and destructive to the marketplace than any of Microsoft's real or alleged crimes. To encourage these dirty tactics to continue is to sink to a level lower than that of Microsoft.
If Linux is going to win, it should happen because of the hard work and dedication of the thousands of people and companies who are contributing to it. It should not happen because we tilted the marketplace in our favor by using the force of government to get the main competitor out of the way.
--
The question in my mind is whether Carnivore will ultimately be used only for scanning for 'illegal' things.
We all know the government spied on leaders of the Vietnam war protest and civil rights movements. Their activities weren't illegal, just unpopular with the establishment.
I don't have any problem with the Carnivore-like technologies if it is only used a) with a search warrant and b) to aid investigations of illegal, not just unpopular, activities. Unfortunately, I don't trust the FBI to police themselves on this.
I would rather the FBI present a warrant to the ISP, who then sets up the monitoring. How hard could it be to set up a sendmail rule to forward all message headers for a given user to the FBI?
--
Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.
While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.
Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force.
This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.
In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.
Read more at http://www.libertarian.org/
--
What is Libertarianism?
Libertarians and their ideas are often misunderstood. Libertarian.Org is here to offer an overview of the libertarian philosophy and the libertarian movement. It is designed to be an introduction to the breadth and depth of libertarianism, for the long-time libertarian and the curious newcomer.
While libertarians are a diverse group of people with many philosophical starting points, they share a defining belief: that everyone should be free to do as they choose, so long as they don't infringe upon the equal freedom of others.
Human interaction should be peaceful, voluntary, and honest. It is never acceptable to use physical force to achieve your goals. The only time force is acceptable is when you are defending against force.
This might not seem very radical. After all, your parents probably taught you not to cheat, steal or pick fights -- in other words, not to use force against others. What sets libertarians apart is that they don't make any exceptions to this principle -- not even for governments.
In the libertarian view, governments should be held to the same standards of right and wrong as individuals. As a result, libertarians believe that governments should not interfere with the interactions and exchanges of peaceful people.
(from http://www.libertarian.org/)
--
Jason -
Before you discount the libertarian movement entirely, you may want to check out this organization:
Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty
P.O.Box 65743 - Washington, DC 20035
URL: http://www.glil.org/
I know there are several other organizations that have been around a long time (I think one is called LGLC) but I can't find their contact information.
--
Corporations have the power of money.
Government have the power of law (and money, to a lesser extent)
As I see it, governments have the power of money to a greater extent than corporations.
Governments can print more money anytime they need it (thus increasing the money supply and causing inflation in the long term)
Governments have the power to take up to 100% of your money in taxes (the average American now pays 47% of their income in various state/local/federal taxes, up from <10% in the 1800's and early 1900's)
Governments have the power to take up to 100% of corporations' income in taxes (at which point said corporations will just fold and cease to produce)
In order to stop a corporation from taking your money you just have to stop buying from them. You will go to jail if you try that with the government, no matter how right you may be. You would have to move out of the country, if you're lucky enough to have a government that allows that.
Of course, some corporations are buying political favors left and right. So, I guess these corporations have law on their side also.
--
No, I read this scathing review of the book a couple months ago and decided not to waste my time.
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep, voting on what to have for lunch."
I first heard that about 10 years ago, and then a couple weeks ago here on /., but I forget who posted it.
That's why the U.S. was formed as a Constitutional republic and not a pure democracy - to keep the majority from infringing on the rights of the minority. Fat lot of good that's done though - the Constitution gives NO authority for the creation of almost all the three-letter federal agencies that exist, but did that stop them from being created?
--
I dunno... I like U.S. Representative Ron Paul (R-TX).
He is the strongest defender of the Constitution we have in Congress today. Sometimes I think he's the only one that pays any attention to it at all.
--