The "Fairness Doctrine" applied to outlets that were licensed by the FCC, using "public" airwaves. The thinking was that the airwaves were a limited resource, and that limitation shouldn't be used to shut out competing voices.
The Fairness Doctrine never applied to print. There, your only restrictions were the laws against slander.
The question is, is the internet more like a news stand or broadcast? Since you don't have to have a license to run a web site, I think the press model (say what ever you like short of slander) should apply to the internet.
Ah, today I'd ask if a license is needed to broadcast. However I've already answered it. No, licenses aren't needed from a technical aspect to broadcast. The reason licenses exist now is because big businesses and the mass media want to limit competition.
It's because society couldn't function without them.
Oh darn, I realized I missed this. The reason corporations exist is not because society could not function without them. If this were true society would not exist now, society is thousands of years old yet the first corporation was granted a corporate charter in 1600. That corporation was the Honourable East India Company. The next corporation chartered was the Dutch East India Company, in 1602, which was also the first corporation to issue stocks. In exchange for limited liability Corporate Charters were granted only if it served the common, or public, good. Once a corporation no longer did it could have it's charter revoked. But thst has not happened in a long tyme, not in the US at least.
Government grants this protection to business men so they can operate with immunity. Does this seam fair?
It is absolutely more fair than the alternative.
But it not fair to the person who owns his or her own business. Let's use your example of Ford. Let's say Ford is a private company not a corporation, is it fair the owner can be sued for wrongful death but the CEO of the competition isn't?
Oh, please. Name the industry that is so dominated by patents that newcomers can't enter it.
Patents aren't the only way big businesses control competition, licensing and other regulations are used as well. Try to start a lawn care business in some places. Growing up I used to cut some people's grass, but if I tried now I'd have to have a license in some cities and counties.
Sure, Microsoft can break their own products, but they can't break everyone else's products
Oh but Microsoft did break other people's programs, Vista will not run many programs that run quite well on XP. The same with Windows 2000, NT4, ME, '98, and '95. MS doesn't even release the APIs to Windows developers in tyme for them to release updated software. Even if they are a member of MSDN, which can cost at least $700. Even then there are several different licenses. Because MS delays releasing the APIs MS's own divisions can release a product before the competition does.
The first company that produces a *good* Windows clone will make billions. They'll instantly get 20-30% marketshare.
In theory perhaps but not in real life. You don't think MS won't slap a lawsuit on a competitor who tries to clone Windows? MS has a war chest for lawsuits of hundreds of millions of dollars, both to beat competitors over the head, and when they steal someone else's patent.
also notice that corporations are OWNED by "the people" -- which you also can own -- and that's a hell of a lot more direct power.
Corporations are owned by people, not "the people". Many people own no stocks in corporations. You even have less of a chance to influence corporations as a stockholder than you have influencing politicians as a voter. Unless you own a hugh chunk of stocks.
Wrong. This sounds like something a Randian would say.
Corporate power is backed by the government; that's why it's insidious.
You try to equate Ayn Rand to bad, however you advocate just what she did, reduce the power of government. Reduce that power and corporations won't have the power they do now.
Try getting electric power from a different company than your local utility. Sorry, there's no competition, as it's a monopoly. The government has granted them a monopoly, though they're regulated.
That's right, government made those corporations powerful. If government hadn't then there would be competition and not a monopoly. Fact is is you're arguing Libertarian positions.
For example, if you can't find a job that pays well enough to feed your family, the Libertarian response is "Well, the market has spoken. You aren't needed. Sorry."
I think that it basically boils down to, the Republicans don't care about you because you don't have enough money and the Democrats don't care about you because you don't have enough money. The Libertarians care about you, but they think its wrong toforce others to help you.
There are more opportunities for the poor than ever before yet many remain perpetually poor.
Again, you're blaming people for circumstances which are often beyond their control. If you've never been poor and don't know anyone who is, it can be hard to understand the difficulty of getting out of that situation, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.
I was born poor. I came from a low income family, my dad was enlisted in the US Air Force from which he retired, and my mom worked her way through a 2 year technical school to become a lab tech in a hospital. While raising 3 children, I have 2 sisters. Even though we were poor, all three of us went on to college, luckily our mother taught us we could be almost anything we wanted to be as long as we worked at it and encouraged us to get an education. So, my older sister and I went into the military then to college after we got out. My younger sister worked full tyme while attending college. The older sister in now a nurse and the younger one earned her Masters and became a Certified Public Accountant. Not only does she run her own accounting firm, she also owns a few rental properties, including the apartment building I live in now.
People don't stay poor because they like being poor, or because welfare pays better than working
Bullshit! At one employer though I worked full tyme I didn't have insurance, the employer didn't offer it, so I looked into getting my own. Unfortunately because I made only a little above minimum wage and there's no free market in health or medical insurance, I couldn't afford to get any myself. So someone suggested I try medical assistance in the county I lived in. There they told me I made too much but if I quit my job I'd be able to get medical assistance. I would have also been able to get food stamps. Financially speaking I would have been better if I quit however I believe each person has to try to make it on their own and not sponge off of society.
Many, many people who have jobs still don't make enough to really support themselves and their families. They're one illness or injury away from bankruptcy and destitution.
Have you even been in such a situation? I have and am there now. I became a Libertarian when I heard about Ron Paul's run as president in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. I researched the LP and became a libertarian, notice the small "l" I'm not registered as a Libertarian but as party unaffiliated. In 1996 after being lain off at my job, but attending college, and not having any medical or health insurance I was in an accident that caused a permanent disability. My medical bills came to more than $120,000, so I got the medical treatment I needed though I couldn't afford it. More than 10 years later I am still on disability. Yet I'm still a libertarian.
"Nobody should be forced to... give up their money to help others" implies that when no one wants to help you out of the kindness of their hearts (as is often the case), you're just screwed.
Not being forced means just that, not being forced which is what the government is doing when they take the money you work to earn as tax. And just because you don't want government to take your money does not mean you're cold hearted. In college I helped handicapped students and though I majored in Computer Engineering I took American Sign Language, ASL, so I could communicate with hearing impaired students. At the tyme of my accident I was working on my third gallon of donating blood, I had already donated 16 tymes. Instead of having government take your money you may want to donate it yourself, to a cause you believe in or to a charity that is effective. Or you may want to invest some for your retirement. Starting when 18 years old if you invest $2000 a year for 7 years at 10% per annum, until you're 25 when you retire at 65 you'll have more than $870,000 invested, compounded interest does amazing things if given the chance. Do you think Social Security will pay you that much?
Libertarians would have us believe that when charity fails, it's better to let those unfortunate people starve
but the Republicans aren't nearly as bad as the Democrats in that regard
Really? I don't see Democrats wanting to censor porn or fine a broadcaster for a "wardrobe malfunction".
If you want freedom, the only party that's interested in that is the Libertarians. The other two want to oppress you and take your money, just in slightly different ways.
Well, in his defense he was making it bigger to build all them damn fancy roads.
Ike also strengthened the military. He started the Viet Nam War, er started the US envolvement in it when the Viet Namese and France had already made an agreement to end fighting in Viet Nam.
It denies nobody a voice. You approve of the candidates you approve of, and do not approve of the ones you do not approve of. If you choose to approve of only one candidate, that is your choice.
It appears I was wrong about what Approval Voting was, I thought it was an "either or" type, EITHER you vote for one candidate OR another. How do you signify what your preferred order is though, which is what the Condorcet method does? "I'd rather candidate A but between B, C, and D I'd rather D over C and B not at all." Here I may give A 5 points, C 3, D 2, and B none. It seems to me that that is Approval voting, I approve A more than I approve C and I don't approve of B at all.
Thanks for explaining Monotonic and Sigmoidal. They sound like terms used in math but even though I've taken calc and DE, Differential Equations, I don't recall either word. Maybe they're used in statistics, which I haven't taken.
Why is it so important that other people know that you're a vegan, are pro-abortion
I haven't kept track, counted, but I'm pretty sure I've seen just about as many pro-life bumper stickers as I have pro-choice stickers. I got a few bumper stickers myself, but I've never stuck them on a bumper.
Yep, the part about massive defense spending is part of my point. But that's actually a Democratic thing. Remember, LBJ (who kept us in Vietnam) was a Democrat. Republicans have been anti-defense spending until recent decades.
Except it was Republican President Eisenhower who sent troops into Viet Nam, and in a bid to defeat democracy.
Republicans haven't been for smaller government since the 80s.
Republicans haven't wanted smaller government since at least Nixon. Heck even Republican President Eisenhower, who talked about the Military-industrial Complex, made government bigger. Before him, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt expanded government.
Skip Condorcet and go for straight Approval Voting.
And how does this Approval Voting work? Yea, or Nay? And what if nobodies gets 50% + 1?
Approval Voting removes the either-or restriction
Yea, it denies some a voice, which is good. NOT!
Effectiveness is monotonic with approval, and sigmoidal
I have no idea what this means. I looked in my dictionaries, I have two in arms reach and didn't see monotonic in either so I looked it up online. Reading the definition I must say I prefer colour over blandness. Not seeing it in my dictionaries as well I also checked sigmoidal online and I have to ask what the intestines has to do with elections? Or "C" or "S" or Sigma.
"There's a big difference between an artist and being a consumer of said art." - Not so sure I agree. For example there are people who make sculptures out of their own excrement
I addressed this when I said I buy work from artists I like. I don't like, and won't support by buying, art like those sculptures made out of shit. And I don't want my taxpayer money paying for it either. I however would like to see that shit composted and used as humanure.
My argument was simply that if you think it is a good thing warp and distort reality, to provide constraints, additional costs and barriers to entry for billions of people just to support a few thousand / million then you may have your priorities a little messed up.
I have no idea what you mean, what you are trying to communicate, in which case I won't attempt to address.
You don't think it's ok to stab a kid so you can get a laugh, right? But copyright is just a matter of degree and scale - you could make the argument for copyright actually costing lives...
First, where do these insane comparisons come from? I will make the argument the lack of copyright can cost lives, without copyright an artist may not be able to feed their family.
I never said people shouldn't be able to buy or sell their art, I disagreed that society should be set up to harm the many for the good of the few.
And in what way does copyright harm anyone, other than freeloaders who want something for nothing?
I never said it should be free, and do not mistake what I am saying for what I am doing.
You want to get rid of copyright therefore you do want art free. Without some way to restrict free loading copiers, which copyrights do, then what art is created will be free. And watch how much will be created, hardly any. Unlike software, which people and businesses can sale service and support for, art has no support costs. Actually even commercial software companies give software away then sell support. What support can a painter sell though? Or writer, or photographer?
I have bought all of the films I have, all of the music, all of the games. I do not pirate (or violate copyright as it should be called). The innuendo that I pirated all my stuff wasn't exactly fair...
First, I didn't say you did infringe on copyright. But I will say you will make it virtually impossible for artists to make a living. And I too have a lot of movies, but not as much music. I have hundreds of VCR movies, hundreds more of DVD movies, 25 music cds, and a few cassette tapes. Three movies I have on tape I recorded off of cable, every other one I either bought or was given.
And as for you mentioning patents in your post, well let me quote what you said:
"Yes, it does sound harsh. What sounds harsher, at least to me, is there being no or little progress. While I believe there will still be progress with no patents" - Maybe it's just me but it appears the word patent appeared in there at least.
And I said there I didn't think patents were needed. That's it, nothing else. You had to dig out one sentence, at the end of my post, where I said anything about patents. I suppose I should say why I support copyrights but not patents though. Other than the skills, art is readily copyable. An item protected by a patent though isn't quite as duplicable. Land has to be bought for factories, which have be to built. About the only tyme this isn't true is when government condemns someone else's land, gives the land to big businesses, and gives them tax breaks. As some states and cities have done to lure auto manufacturers to build the plants. Quite simply it can take a lot of capital to make something which naturally reduces any competition.
Since it seems pretty obvious that copyright (aside from in the computing industry) does nothing to 'promote progress'
Reread the USA Constitution, it doesn't just say progress in science, b
"There's a big difference between an artist and being a consumer of said art." - Not so sure I agree. For example there are people who make sculptures out of their own excrement
I addressed this when I said I buy work from artists I like. I don't like, and won't support by buying, art like those sculptures made out of shit. And I don't want my taxpayer money paying for it either. I however would like to see that shit composted and used as humanure.
My argument was simply that if you think it is a good thing warp and distort reality, to provide constraints, additional costs and barriers to entry for billions of people just to support a few thousand / million then you may have your priorities a little messed up.
I have no idea what you mean, what you are trying to communicate, in which case I won't attempt to address.
You don't think it's ok to stab a kid so you can get a laugh, right? But copyright is just a matter of degree and scale - you could make the argument for copyright actually costing lives...
First, where do these insane comparisons come from? I will make the argument the lack of copyright can cost lives, without copyright an artist may not be able to feed their family.
I never said people shouldn't be able to buy or sell their art, I disagreed that society should be set up to harm the many for the good of the few.
And in what way does copyright harm anyone, other than freeloaders who want something for nothing?
I never said it should be free, and do not mistake what I am saying for what I am doing.
You want to get rid of copyright therefore you do want art free. Without some way to restrict free loading copiers, which copyrights do, then what art is created will be free. And watch how much will be created, hardly any. Unlike software, which people and businesses can sale service and support for, art has no support costs. Actually even commercial software companies give software away then sell support. What support can a painter sell though? Or writer, or photographer?
I have bought all of the films I have, all of the music, all of the games. I do not pirate (or violate copyright as it should be called). The innuendo that I pirated all my stuff wasn't exactly fair...
First, I didn't say you did infringe on copyright. But I will say you will make it virtually impossible for artists to make a living. And I too have a lot of movies, but not as much music. I have hundreds of VCR movies, hundreds more of DVD movies, 25 music cds, and a few cassette tapes. Three movies I have on tape I recorded off of cable, every other one I either bought or was given.
And as for you mentioning patents in your post, well let me quote what you said:
"Yes, it does sound harsh. What sounds harsher, at least to me, is there being no or little progress. While I believe there will still be progress with no patents" - Maybe it's just me but it appears the word patent appeared in there at least.
And I said there I didn't think patents were needed. That's it, nothing else. You had to dig out one sentence, at the end of my post, where I said anything about patents. I suppose I should say why I support copyrights but not patents though. Other than the skills, art is readily copyable. An item protected by a patent though isn't quite as duplicable. Land has to be bought for factories, which have be to built. About the only tyme this isn't true is when government condemns someone else's land, gives the land to big businesses, and gives them tax breaks. As some states and cities have done to lure auto manufacturers to build the plants. Quite simply it can take a lot of capital to make something which naturally reduces any competition.
Since it seems pretty obvious that copyright (aside from in the computing industry) does nothing to 'promote progress'
Reread the USA Constitution, it doesn't just say progress in science, b
Ok, so we should have to compete against foreigners. But why is it primarily science and engineering jobs are the ones the government is pushing to allow more foreigners to compete for? Why not allow foreigners to compete for all jobs, from bus drivers to corporate sales? Remember, the reason why we have H1-B visas in the first place is because there is supposedly a shortage of skilled American workers, not because the skilled American workers are asking for too much pay.
First off, I disagree with the H1-B visas. There is no shortage of people with the skills needed. most of the businesses who say they need H1-B employees aren't willing to pay what US workers demand. As for compeating with foreigners, actually yes I believe everyone should compeat. So long as they have the money or skills anyone should be able to live anywhere they want. Businesses compeat every day for business. Unless they have a government granted monopoly, like a patent. For as long as I can recall, I've wanted to own and run my own business and I've always known I would have to compeat with others. People shouldn't have an easy ride just because of who they are. At some point a business will realize, if it stays in business long enough, that paying good employees a descent salary is good for the company. Productivity suffers when employees don't like the employer. When unhappy many people will only do enough to keep a job but when they like where they work they are more willing to do more. Also when people are unhappy the turnover rate goes up which adds expenses to the cost of doing business.
Actually, the term is you and me. Ass-u-me is the word and the joke has been around a lot longer then you. As for you age, I already told you, we have discussed this in the past and at least I paid attention. Even if I forgot the actual age difference.
I specifically used "ass" because I think that's what you are by saying you know me and how old I am. While I admit I don't recall stating how old I am I am pretty sure I in fact have not stated that. If you can provide proof I did then I will apologize.
Fake embargo. Tell me, what was fake about it?
Okay, perhaps that was too strong a word, "fake". However even though OPEC stopped shipping oil to countries that supported Israel in the Yom Kipper War of 1973 it would not have been so bad in the US except for what the Republican President, Nixon, did. "President Nixon, as part of his ill-fated price control program, had slapped controls on oil in March 1973."
Detroit accurately said that they couldn't produce the same care any more efficient.
Who said Detroit had to keep building the same cars? Who said they couldn't build more efficient cars?
I have one of those cramped Japanese cars BTW, a Toyota, and I have issues getting in and out of it, no head room compared to my truck
I had two Japanese trucks, Mazdas, and I had no problem with either one. Well I did with the first one but that was my own fault. While working on one of the brakes, the truck slipped off the jack and pinned my hand to the ground. Otherwise I had no problems working on either. I should have used blocks to keep the wheels from moving. Actually it was more of a hassle when I rebuilt the engine in my Monte Carlo, a Detroit car. The second one I loved and was sorry to get rid of it, I moved across the country so I sold it. Now I own another American car, a Saturn, and I won't even change the oil on my own, when I did just that with every other vehicle I owned including the Japanese trucks.
GM right now has the most fuel efficient vehicle on the market.
Where is GM's hybrid or EV car? Are you saying GM's vehicle is more efficient? Is it available to buy now? And if so what model is it? Meanwhile Toyota can't build it's hybrid fast enough to fill the orders.
That's all nice and all, but it really has nothing to do with what I said.
Actually it applies directly to what you said. You say things would be more expensive if energy wasn't subsidized so I pointed out energy efficiency can be improved. I even included what you said, here it is again: if energy costs what it does today because of all the subsidies, then without the subsidies, the alternative energy would cost that much more. By subsidizing cheap energy, energy efficiency was discouraged. If businesses and people had to pay the full price for the energy they use they would be more efficient.
I think there are some arbitrary and pointless regulations on the books designed to raise the bar for entry specifically for competitors intending to compete with existing industries.
Actually I agree, many regulations are created to block competition. However subsides also block competition when it gives one industry an advantage over another. And that's both an outright handout of money, and reduced costs such as royalties. I bet the government isn't paid as much in royalties for offshore drilling as a person does for allowing drilling on their own land. With as big a budget deficit as the US has those royalties would surely help.
Then there is the entire manufactured pollution consistent with the global warming scams were all the sudden something harmless is now a pollutant.
Global Warming scam? Now I will ask you if you think the 1000s of scientists who say it is real are running a scam? Something harmless as well? Is water harmless? A person can't drown in water? Ask NASCAR drivers if CO2 is harmles
Also, a co-op term in Canada (co-op is Canadian for Intern) will definitely pay
Though it's rarely heard of the US has co-ops too. Here, in the US, from what I've been told by career counselors the biggest difference between them is that you will get paid with a co-op whereas you may or may not be paid as an intern.
so calling us "America Jr" is a shallow and meaningless insult
How about Canuk? Though I was born in the US and both of my parents were as well both sides of my family are French Canadians. I still have a number of relatives living in Detroit.
Slashdot Mirror
The "Fairness Doctrine" applied to outlets that were licensed by the FCC, using "public" airwaves. The thinking was that the airwaves were a limited resource, and that limitation shouldn't be used to shut out competing voices.
The Fairness Doctrine never applied to print. There, your only restrictions were the laws against slander.
The question is, is the internet more like a news stand or broadcast? Since you don't have to have a license to run a web site, I think the press model (say what ever you like short of slander) should apply to the internet.
Ah, today I'd ask if a license is needed to broadcast. However I've already answered it. No, licenses aren't needed from a technical aspect to broadcast. The reason licenses exist now is because big businesses and the mass media want to limit competition.
Falcon
It's because society couldn't function without them.
Oh darn, I realized I missed this. The reason corporations exist is not because society could not function without them. If this were true society would not exist now, society is thousands of years old yet the first corporation was granted a corporate charter in 1600. That corporation was the Honourable East India Company. The next corporation chartered was the Dutch East India Company, in 1602, which was also the first corporation to issue stocks. In exchange for limited liability Corporate Charters were granted only if it served the common, or public, good. Once a corporation no longer did it could have it's charter revoked. But thst has not happened in a long tyme, not in the US at least.
Falcon
Government grants this protection to business men so they can operate with immunity. Does this seam fair?
It is absolutely more fair than the alternative.
But it not fair to the person who owns his or her own business. Let's use your example of Ford. Let's say Ford is a private company not a corporation, is it fair the owner can be sued for wrongful death but the CEO of the competition isn't?
Falcon
Exactly - organized crime (ie corporations) would take over if the feds withdrew.
Except Libertarians wouldn't let corporations do what they want: "What would libertarians do about concentrations of corporate power?".
Falcon
Oh, please. Name the industry that is so dominated by patents that newcomers can't enter it.
Patents aren't the only way big businesses control competition, licensing and other regulations are used as well. Try to start a lawn care business in some places. Growing up I used to cut some people's grass, but if I tried now I'd have to have a license in some cities and counties.
Sure, Microsoft can break their own products, but they can't break everyone else's products
Oh but Microsoft did break other people's programs, Vista will not run many programs that run quite well on XP. The same with Windows 2000, NT4, ME, '98, and '95. MS doesn't even release the APIs to Windows developers in tyme for them to release updated software. Even if they are a member of MSDN, which can cost at least $700. Even then there are several different licenses. Because MS delays releasing the APIs MS's own divisions can release a product before the competition does.
The first company that produces a *good* Windows clone will make billions. They'll instantly get 20-30% marketshare.
In theory perhaps but not in real life. You don't think MS won't slap a lawsuit on a competitor who tries to clone Windows? MS has a war chest for lawsuits of hundreds of millions of dollars, both to beat competitors over the head, and when they steal someone else's patent.
also notice that corporations are OWNED by "the people" -- which you also can own -- and that's a hell of a lot more direct power.
Corporations are owned by people, not "the people". Many people own no stocks in corporations. You even have less of a chance to influence corporations as a stockholder than you have influencing politicians as a voter. Unless you own a hugh chunk of stocks.
Falcon
Wrong. This sounds like something a Randian would say.
Corporate power is backed by the government; that's why it's insidious.
You try to equate Ayn Rand to bad, however you advocate just what she did, reduce the power of government. Reduce that power and corporations won't have the power they do now.
Try getting electric power from a different company than your local utility. Sorry, there's no competition, as it's a monopoly. The government has granted them a monopoly, though they're regulated.
That's right, government made those corporations powerful. If government hadn't then there would be competition and not a monopoly. Fact is is you're arguing Libertarian positions.
Falcon
For example, if you can't find a job that pays well enough to feed your family, the Libertarian response is "Well, the market has spoken. You aren't needed. Sorry."
FUD, FUD, and more FUD.
Falcon
I think that it basically boils down to, the Republicans don't care about you because you don't have enough money and the Democrats don't care about you because you don't have enough money. The Libertarians care about you, but they think its wrong to force others to help you.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
Falcon
There are more opportunities for the poor than ever before yet many remain perpetually poor.
Again, you're blaming people for circumstances which are often beyond their control. If you've never been poor and don't know anyone who is, it can be hard to understand the difficulty of getting out of that situation, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.
I was born poor. I came from a low income family, my dad was enlisted in the US Air Force from which he retired, and my mom worked her way through a 2 year technical school to become a lab tech in a hospital. While raising 3 children, I have 2 sisters. Even though we were poor, all three of us went on to college, luckily our mother taught us we could be almost anything we wanted to be as long as we worked at it and encouraged us to get an education. So, my older sister and I went into the military then to college after we got out. My younger sister worked full tyme while attending college. The older sister in now a nurse and the younger one earned her Masters and became a Certified Public Accountant. Not only does she run her own accounting firm, she also owns a few rental properties, including the apartment building I live in now.
People don't stay poor because they like being poor, or because welfare pays better than working
Bullshit! At one employer though I worked full tyme I didn't have insurance, the employer didn't offer it, so I looked into getting my own. Unfortunately because I made only a little above minimum wage and there's no free market in health or medical insurance, I couldn't afford to get any myself. So someone suggested I try medical assistance in the county I lived in. There they told me I made too much but if I quit my job I'd be able to get medical assistance. I would have also been able to get food stamps. Financially speaking I would have been better if I quit however I believe each person has to try to make it on their own and not sponge off of society.
Many, many people who have jobs still don't make enough to really support themselves and their families. They're one illness or injury away from bankruptcy and destitution.
Have you even been in such a situation? I have and am there now. I became a Libertarian when I heard about Ron Paul's run as president in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. I researched the LP and became a libertarian, notice the small "l" I'm not registered as a Libertarian but as party unaffiliated. In 1996 after being lain off at my job, but attending college, and not having any medical or health insurance I was in an accident that caused a permanent disability. My medical bills came to more than $120,000, so I got the medical treatment I needed though I couldn't afford it. More than 10 years later I am still on disability. Yet I'm still a libertarian.
"Nobody should be forced to ... give up their money to help others" implies that when no one wants to help you out of the kindness of their hearts (as is often the case), you're just screwed.
Not being forced means just that, not being forced which is what the government is doing when they take the money you work to earn as tax. And just because you don't want government to take your money does not mean you're cold hearted. In college I helped handicapped students and though I majored in Computer Engineering I took American Sign Language, ASL, so I could communicate with hearing impaired students. At the tyme of my accident I was working on my third gallon of donating blood, I had already donated 16 tymes. Instead of having government take your money you may want to donate it yourself, to a cause you believe in or to a charity that is effective. Or you may want to invest some for your retirement. Starting when 18 years old if you invest $2000 a year for 7 years at 10% per annum, until you're 25 when you retire at 65 you'll have more than $870,000 invested, compounded interest does amazing things if given the chance. Do you think Social Security will pay you that much?
Libertarians would have us believe that when charity fails, it's better to let those unfortunate people starve
Now you're lying, lying, lying, lying.
Falcon
but the Republicans aren't nearly as bad as the Democrats in that regard
Really? I don't see Democrats wanting to censor porn or fine a broadcaster for a "wardrobe malfunction".
If you want freedom, the only party that's interested in that is the Libertarians. The other two want to oppress you and take your money, just in slightly different ways.
Unfortunately this is all too true.
Falcon
Well, in his defense he was making it bigger to build all them damn fancy roads.
Ike also strengthened the military. He started the Viet Nam War, er started the US envolvement in it when the Viet Namese and France had already made an agreement to end fighting in Viet Nam.
Falcon
it denies some a voice, which is good. NOT!
It denies nobody a voice. You approve of the candidates you approve of, and do not approve of the ones you do not approve of. If you choose to approve of only one candidate, that is your choice.
It appears I was wrong about what Approval Voting was, I thought it was an "either or" type, EITHER you vote for one candidate OR another. How do you signify what your preferred order is though, which is what the Condorcet method does? "I'd rather candidate A but between B, C, and D I'd rather D over C and B not at all." Here I may give A 5 points, C 3, D 2, and B none. It seems to me that that is Approval voting, I approve A more than I approve C and I don't approve of B at all.
Thanks for explaining Monotonic and Sigmoidal. They sound like terms used in math but even though I've taken calc and DE, Differential Equations, I don't recall either word. Maybe they're used in statistics, which I haven't taken.
Falcon
It's not enough to have willing shills in every other form of media - fawning sychophants in TV (all major networks), newspapers (NYT, etc).
Yeap Disney (ABC), Viacom (CBS), and NBC's owners General Electric and Vivendi along with Fox are all sycophants.
Falcon
Why is it so important that other people know that you're a vegan, are pro-abortion
I haven't kept track, counted, but I'm pretty sure I've seen just about as many pro-life bumper stickers as I have pro-choice stickers. I got a few bumper stickers myself, but I've never stuck them on a bumper.
Falcon
Go by the term Classical Liberal then
Ah, another one who knows what Liberal used to mean, and still means in some places.
Falcon
Yep, the part about massive defense spending is part of my point. But that's actually a Democratic thing. Remember, LBJ (who kept us in Vietnam) was a Democrat. Republicans have been anti-defense spending until recent decades.
Except it was Republican President Eisenhower who sent troops into Viet Nam, and in a bid to defeat democracy.
Falcon
Republicans haven't been for smaller government since the 80s.
Republicans haven't wanted smaller government since at least Nixon. Heck even Republican President Eisenhower, who talked about the Military-industrial Complex, made government bigger. Before him, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt expanded government.
Falcon
Skip Condorcet and go for straight Approval Voting.
And how does this Approval Voting work? Yea, or Nay? And what if nobodies gets 50% + 1?
Approval Voting removes the either-or restriction
Yea, it denies some a voice, which is good. NOT!
Effectiveness is monotonic with approval, and sigmoidal
I have no idea what this means. I looked in my dictionaries, I have two in arms reach and didn't see monotonic in either so I looked it up online. Reading the definition I must say I prefer colour over blandness. Not seeing it in my dictionaries as well I also checked sigmoidal online and I have to ask what the intestines has to do with elections? Or "C" or "S" or Sigma.
Falcon
"There's a big difference between an artist and being a consumer of said art." - Not so sure I agree. For example there are people who make sculptures out of their own excrement
I addressed this when I said I buy work from artists I like. I don't like, and won't support by buying, art like those sculptures made out of shit. And I don't want my taxpayer money paying for it either. I however would like to see that shit composted and used as humanure.
My argument was simply that if you think it is a good thing warp and distort reality, to provide constraints, additional costs and barriers to entry for billions of people just to support a few thousand / million then you may have your priorities a little messed up.
I have no idea what you mean, what you are trying to communicate, in which case I won't attempt to address.
You don't think it's ok to stab a kid so you can get a laugh, right? But copyright is just a matter of degree and scale - you could make the argument for copyright actually costing lives...
First, where do these insane comparisons come from? I will make the argument the lack of copyright can cost lives, without copyright an artist may not be able to feed their family.
I never said people shouldn't be able to buy or sell their art, I disagreed that society should be set up to harm the many for the good of the few.
And in what way does copyright harm anyone, other than freeloaders who want something for nothing?
I never said it should be free, and do not mistake what I am saying for what I am doing.
You want to get rid of copyright therefore you do want art free. Without some way to restrict free loading copiers, which copyrights do, then what art is created will be free. And watch how much will be created, hardly any. Unlike software, which people and businesses can sale service and support for, art has no support costs. Actually even commercial software companies give software away then sell support. What support can a painter sell though? Or writer, or photographer?
I have bought all of the films I have, all of the music, all of the games. I do not pirate (or violate copyright as it should be called). The innuendo that I pirated all my stuff wasn't exactly fair...
First, I didn't say you did infringe on copyright. But I will say you will make it virtually impossible for artists to make a living. And I too have a lot of movies, but not as much music. I have hundreds of VCR movies, hundreds more of DVD movies, 25 music cds, and a few cassette tapes. Three movies I have on tape I recorded off of cable, every other one I either bought or was given.
And as for you mentioning patents in your post, well let me quote what you said:
"Yes, it does sound harsh. What sounds harsher, at least to me, is there being no or little progress. While I believe there will still be progress with no patents" - Maybe it's just me but it appears the word patent appeared in there at least.
And I said there I didn't think patents were needed. That's it, nothing else. You had to dig out one sentence, at the end of my post, where I said anything about patents. I suppose I should say why I support copyrights but not patents though. Other than the skills, art is readily copyable. An item protected by a patent though isn't quite as duplicable. Land has to be bought for factories, which have be to built. About the only tyme this isn't true is when government condemns someone else's land, gives the land to big businesses, and gives them tax breaks. As some states and cities have done to lure auto manufacturers to build the plants. Quite simply it can take a lot of capital to make something which naturally reduces any competition.
Since it seems pretty obvious that copyright (aside from in the computing industry) does nothing to 'promote progress'
Reread the USA Constitution, it doesn't just say progress in science, b
"There's a big difference between an artist and being a consumer of said art." - Not so sure I agree. For example there are people who make sculptures out of their own excrement
I addressed this when I said I buy work from artists I like. I don't like, and won't support by buying, art like those sculptures made out of shit. And I don't want my taxpayer money paying for it either. I however would like to see that shit composted and used as humanure.
My argument was simply that if you think it is a good thing warp and distort reality, to provide constraints, additional costs and barriers to entry for billions of people just to support a few thousand / million then you may have your priorities a little messed up.
I have no idea what you mean, what you are trying to communicate, in which case I won't attempt to address.
You don't think it's ok to stab a kid so you can get a laugh, right? But copyright is just a matter of degree and scale - you could make the argument for copyright actually costing lives...
First, where do these insane comparisons come from? I will make the argument the lack of copyright can cost lives, without copyright an artist may not be able to feed their family.
I never said people shouldn't be able to buy or sell their art, I disagreed that society should be set up to harm the many for the good of the few.
And in what way does copyright harm anyone, other than freeloaders who want something for nothing?
I never said it should be free, and do not mistake what I am saying for what I am doing.
You want to get rid of copyright therefore you do want art free. Without some way to restrict free loading copiers, which copyrights do, then what art is created will be free. And watch how much will be created, hardly any. Unlike software, which people and businesses can sale service and support for, art has no support costs. Actually even commercial software companies give software away then sell support. What support can a painter sell though? Or writer, or photographer?
I have bought all of the films I have, all of the music, all of the games. I do not pirate (or violate copyright as it should be called). The innuendo that I pirated all my stuff wasn't exactly fair...
First, I didn't say you did infringe on copyright. But I will say you will make it virtually impossible for artists to make a living. And I too have a lot of movies, but not as much music. I have hundreds of VCR movies, hundreds more of DVD movies, 25 music cds, and a few cassette tapes. Three movies I have on tape I recorded off of cable, every other one I either bought or was given.
And as for you mentioning patents in your post, well let me quote what you said:
"Yes, it does sound harsh. What sounds harsher, at least to me, is there being no or little progress. While I believe there will still be progress with no patents" - Maybe it's just me but it appears the word patent appeared in there at least.
And I said there I didn't think patents were needed. That's it, nothing else. You had to dig out one sentence, at the end of my post, where I said anything about patents. I suppose I should say why I support copyrights but not patents though. Other than the skills, art is readily copyable. An item protected by a patent though isn't quite as duplicable. Land has to be bought for factories, which have be to built. About the only tyme this isn't true is when government condemns someone else's land, gives the land to big businesses, and gives them tax breaks. As some states and cities have done to lure auto manufacturers to build the plants. Quite simply it can take a lot of capital to make something which naturally reduces any competition.
Since it seems pretty obvious that copyright (aside from in the computing industry) does nothing to 'promote progress'
Reread the USA Constitution, it doesn't just say progress in science, b
I meant San Diego State University
Okay.
Ok, so we should have to compete against foreigners. But why is it primarily science and engineering jobs are the ones the government is pushing to allow more foreigners to compete for? Why not allow foreigners to compete for all jobs, from bus drivers to corporate sales? Remember, the reason why we have H1-B visas in the first place is because there is supposedly a shortage of skilled American workers, not because the skilled American workers are asking for too much pay.
First off, I disagree with the H1-B visas. There is no shortage of people with the skills needed. most of the businesses who say they need H1-B employees aren't willing to pay what US workers demand. As for compeating with foreigners, actually yes I believe everyone should compeat. So long as they have the money or skills anyone should be able to live anywhere they want. Businesses compeat every day for business. Unless they have a government granted monopoly, like a patent. For as long as I can recall, I've wanted to own and run my own business and I've always known I would have to compeat with others. People shouldn't have an easy ride just because of who they are. At some point a business will realize, if it stays in business long enough, that paying good employees a descent salary is good for the company. Productivity suffers when employees don't like the employer. When unhappy many people will only do enough to keep a job but when they like where they work they are more willing to do more. Also when people are unhappy the turnover rate goes up which adds expenses to the cost of doing business.
Falcon
Actually, the term is you and me. Ass-u-me is the word and the joke has been around a lot longer then you. As for you age, I already told you, we have discussed this in the past and at least I paid attention. Even if I forgot the actual age difference.
I specifically used "ass" because I think that's what you are by saying you know me and how old I am. While I admit I don't recall stating how old I am I am pretty sure I in fact have not stated that. If you can provide proof I did then I will apologize.
Fake embargo. Tell me, what was fake about it?
Okay, perhaps that was too strong a word, "fake". However even though OPEC stopped shipping oil to countries that supported Israel in the Yom Kipper War of 1973 it would not have been so bad in the US except for what the Republican President, Nixon, did. "President Nixon, as part of his ill-fated price control program, had slapped controls on oil in March 1973."
Detroit accurately said that they couldn't produce the same care any more efficient.
Who said Detroit had to keep building the same cars? Who said they couldn't build more efficient cars?
I have one of those cramped Japanese cars BTW, a Toyota, and I have issues getting in and out of it, no head room compared to my truck
I had two Japanese trucks, Mazdas, and I had no problem with either one. Well I did with the first one but that was my own fault. While working on one of the brakes, the truck slipped off the jack and pinned my hand to the ground. Otherwise I had no problems working on either. I should have used blocks to keep the wheels from moving. Actually it was more of a hassle when I rebuilt the engine in my Monte Carlo, a Detroit car. The second one I loved and was sorry to get rid of it, I moved across the country so I sold it. Now I own another American car, a Saturn, and I won't even change the oil on my own, when I did just that with every other vehicle I owned including the Japanese trucks.
GM right now has the most fuel efficient vehicle on the market.
Where is GM's hybrid or EV car? Are you saying GM's vehicle is more efficient? Is it available to buy now? And if so what model is it? Meanwhile Toyota can't build it's hybrid fast enough to fill the orders.
That's all nice and all, but it really has nothing to do with what I said.
Actually it applies directly to what you said. You say things would be more expensive if energy wasn't subsidized so I pointed out energy efficiency can be improved. I even included what you said, here it is again: if energy costs what it does today because of all the subsidies, then without the subsidies, the alternative energy would cost that much more. By subsidizing cheap energy, energy efficiency was discouraged. If businesses and people had to pay the full price for the energy they use they would be more efficient.
I think there are some arbitrary and pointless regulations on the books designed to raise the bar for entry specifically for competitors intending to compete with existing industries.
Actually I agree, many regulations are created to block competition. However subsides also block competition when it gives one industry an advantage over another. And that's both an outright handout of money, and reduced costs such as royalties. I bet the government isn't paid as much in royalties for offshore drilling as a person does for allowing drilling on their own land. With as big a budget deficit as the US has those royalties would surely help.
Then there is the entire manufactured pollution consistent with the global warming scams were all the sudden something harmless is now a pollutant.
Global Warming scam? Now I will ask you if you think the 1000s of scientists who say it is real are running a scam? Something harmless as well? Is water harmless? A person can't drown in water? Ask NASCAR drivers if CO2 is harmles
Also, a co-op term in Canada (co-op is Canadian for Intern) will definitely pay
Though it's rarely heard of the US has co-ops too. Here, in the US, from what I've been told by career counselors the biggest difference between them is that you will get paid with a co-op whereas you may or may not be paid as an intern.
Falcon
so calling us "America Jr" is a shallow and meaningless insult
How about Canuk? Though I was born in the US and both of my parents were as well both sides of my family are French Canadians. I still have a number of relatives living in Detroit.
Falcon