Artists will have to work every day just like everyone else, always producing new content to sell just like a farmer must always produce new food to sell.
However whereas farmers used to save seeds to plant next year companies like Monsanto are trying to make sure farmers have to buy seeds from them every year.
Intermediates like Rowling (and sorry, but no she's not as good as people gushing over her like to think) do the opposite: they just cut off and sit back on the eternal "it's copyrighted forever" bandwagon.
In general I agree, but not with this. Even after Rowlings made it big she kept writing. She wrote at least 7 books. On Amazon's first page of results searching for Rowlings there are 6 individual books she wrote. And though she can live comfortably the rest of her life, she's one of the UK's wealthiest people, without ever writing another book I believe she will write more, she didn't have to write the last ones.
I can point to societies (often very wealthy societies) that were historically set up more or less the way libertarians advocate (at least from an economic standpoint); and show that the underclasses suffered greatly in those societies.
Libertarianism isn't just an economic system but a political one as well and I can point out socialist societies that killed many people, NAZI Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, and Mao's ROC come to mind. The same ones I listed before. On the other hand there are countries that once the economic system was opened many more people were helped. China being a good example, while I disagreed with almost everything Nixon did he was right about opening up trade with China. And while China isn't fully open, they are opening up slowly. With more people making enough to live on they are pushing for government that's open as well.
And I believe if the US were to end the embargo on Cuba the same thing would happen there. Unfortunately Cuba has disadvantages China didn't. Such as the sugar cane growers around Lake Okeechobee, Florida. If Cuban sugar could be imported into the US those farmers would be hurt financially. That's while Brazilian sugar and ethanol isn't imported, high tariffs.
You cannot, I don't think, point to a liberal
What definition of "liberal" are you using, the original meaning? Or the one socialists use?
modestly socialist society in which major atrocities were perpetrated upon the people.
Ah, the socialist meaning.
Libertarians advocate a completely market driven economy in which the government takes a hands off approach and provides few if any social services.
That's right, we've seen what happens when government controls the economy, or regulates businesses. Because of regulations it's hard for someone to start their own lawn care business. The big lawn care businesses want these regulations to keep out competition. Growing up I used to cut neighbors' grass but it's getting to the point where a teenager will need a license now, I wouldn't be surprised if it got to where a person had to have a license to cut their own lawn.
I advocate a government with very limited powers in the areas of personal freedom, but authority to make and enforce economic policy and provide services to those in need
If you don't have economic control you don't have personal control. Nor can you start your own business and create jobs. A sister of mine started her own business years ago, she and friends of hers are Certified Public Accountants, CPAs, and they started an accounting firm. When she did I chatted with someone in Germany and he said it would hard to start an accounting business there. First, he said a lawyer had to start it. Then because of employment laws, if the business hires someone and they don't do the work they were hired for it's virtually impossible to fire them. As if it's better to drive someone out of business than it is to fire a bad employee. That's what those riots by youth in France a couple of years ago were about. The government wanted to make it easier for businesses to fire bad employees, so many youth rioted. However if employers could easily fire bad people they would be more willing to hire people to begin with.
Simply, government laws and regulations are used by established businesses to keep out competition.
I'd suggest that a manual key exchange is preferable to a UN controlled key server, particularly given the small number countries in the world (you can count them all with only two hands!)
With 15 countries in South America alone, taking 3 hands to count, there's more countries than you think. Africa has another 53.
How about the government leaves us alone and sees to its actual responsibilities and, oh i don't know, obeys its own laws and attempts to embody American ideals? Just a suggestion.
Vote for Obama and you'll get a chance of seeing that.
Since corporations are inherently more powerful than individuals, and utterly amoral on top of that, they need to be kept in tight leash.
Probably the single biggest reason corporations are so powerful is because they give stockholders limited liability. However, in general, Libertarians would end that limited liability. Personally I probably wouldn't so far as to totally eliminate it, because of the limit on liability a corporation can take more risks than individuals can. This is why corporations were granted charters to begin with. The first two charters granted to corporations were given to the Honourable East India Company in 1600 and the Dutch East India Company in 1602. Both were shipping companies facilitating trade between Great Britain and the Netherlands and India respectively. Shipping was a financially risky business, ships could be attacked by pirates or be sunk by bad weather. If a shop was lost the ship owner was financially liable, for both the cargo and for the lives of the crew. No matter how wealthy an owner was they could lose everything, even their home. So charters were granted to corporations to limit the liability of stockholders, the most a stockholder could lose was the money they invested in the corporation. With this limit more people were willing to invest in shipping which boosted trade and benefited a lot of people.
However what is overlooked today was that a corporation had to serve the common, or public, good. If a corporation did not do so it could have it's corporate charter Revoked.
While this sound fine on the surface, it would make investing an unacceptably high risk activity for anyone who can't watch the company full-time.
Actually it shouldn't take that much tyme or effort, no more than people should take anyway. Stockholders should hold the corporation accountable. They need to read any and all proxies they get and make sure they understand them. They can support shareholder resolutions. They need to be Activist Shareholders. If that's too much work, then they can invest in Socially responsible investing, SRI, mutual funds. Anyway, those who are active in their investments and oppose something the corporation does that causes harm or supports responsible and sustainable activities shouldn't lose their limited liability. Also corporate executives should be held responsible as well. Other than the captain not one person was held responsible the Exxon Valdez nor was anyone held accountable for the Union Carbide Bhopal disaster.
The core libertarian principle of removing government control would allow powerful entities to get away with whatever they want, because with government power gone, who's going to stop them ?
Government control is not the same as the control a court can wield. I have not heard of one Libertarian who wants a weak justice system. Actually I bet many would prefer to make it easier for people to sue corporations. Then if it is found it is not serving the public good then it's charter can be revoked.
Libertarianism would lead to the return of feudalism, which was, after all, rule by those who owned the land and could thus afford to hire armies to enforce their will,
I suggest you research the economics of slavery. The economics of slavery was unsustainable. It cost more to hire and keep an army than it costs to pay freemen a living wage. It was Libertarians, then called Liberals as in
Wow, thats not how things are around here. My stats seem to indicate that most Wiccans are 14 to 16 year old girls.
I don't recall any Wiccans I knew who weren't at least 20, except for children of Wiccans, though some were middle aged or older. The same applies to Kabalists, though I only met a few.
Their percentage body fat varies pretty much around the norm.
In appearance and intelligence I didn't see much of a difference between Wiccans and the general population. Which kind of surprises me because with Wiccans believing their body was a temple in a sense I'd think they'd have healthier life styles than the general population.
history has shown me what happens when we just leave it to charities.
History has also shown people what happens when everything is left to government. Let's see, between 1930 and 1950 or so some 70.6 million people were killed by government. The NAZI's killed more than 600,000, Stalin 20 million, and Mao some 50 million. History shows governments are the largest terrorists there are. I don't recall now but how many did Pol Pot kill? How many were killed in Rwanda? And though it's died down in the Sudan, how many have been killed there? Between the invasion of East Timor in 1975 and it's independence in 1999 200,000 East Timorese, 1/3 the population, were massacred.
On the the other hand, I've researched Barr a bit more and like him more than I did.
I absolutely hated Barr's positions in the early 1990s.
Uh, as far as I know, the media did report the arrests. Few people actually cared that a couple of minor party candidates were not invited and got busted trying to crash the event.
Yes, it was reported, but like how surveys are worded, how things are reported have a lot to do with the public's reaction.
After he got 20% of the vote, the Big Two are a lot less likely to let a 3rd party get anywhere near them in a debate.
They won't let in third party candidates now. In 2004 both Michael Badnarik and the Green Party candidate, I don't recall his name now, were arrested when they tried to get into a debate.
You don't think that if the Democratic National Committee had even a hint of real vote fraud that they wouldn't be fomenting bloody rebellion?
There ARE accusations, inside and outside the Democrat Party, that there was voter fraud in the voting in Ohio.
Are you kidding me?
I am dead serious. Even though I was not and am not a supporter of the Democrat Party or Kerry. In 2004 I supported Michael Badnarik. I don't even vote on party lines, I mostly vote Libertarian but I have also voted for Democrats, Reform Party, and Republican party candidates. I vote for the person who I agree with the most on the issues that are important to me. This year for president I support and will vote for Bob Barr, unless Jesse "The Body" Ventura enters the race. Then I'll vote for him.
That's because that is exactly what would happen. Libertarian philosophy's end result is corporate domination of the individual. They can claim they believe otherwise, but "pure" Libertarian principles applied to today's society means corporate fascism.
More FUD, that's hogwash.
BTW, the term is "run amok," not "run a muck."
I should have checked my dictionary, I just did. When I spelled it "amuck", like right now, my spell checker says it's wrong but it's right with a space. And you may now say I still have it wrong, using a "u" instead of an "o" however the dictionary says "amuck = amok".
Okay, I've heard of an income tax that's the same percentage for all income levels instead of being progressive as being called a "fair tax".
Second, I was aware of the history of the name changes and the case, I was making a joke when I said "whatever it's called this week."
I wasn't aware of any name change but while checking the name I did come across the case, or a related one, as being called after Gonzalez.
Third, it's not me that argues the commerce clauses gives them that ability, it was the majority of SCOTUS that did
You also said it was idiot to disagree with the ruling, yet 3 of the Justices did disagree.
I happen to agree that the commerce clause *ought* to be interpreted broadly.
Reading papers left by some of the Founding Fathers, specifically Thomas Jefferson and James Madison come to mind, the Constitution is to be taken quite narrowly in meaning, both were for limited government but a broad interpretation gives government any power it wants. And Madison was a principle writer of the Constitution. I happen to agree with them, as I say above it not interpreting it narrowly gives the government any power it wants. So, what powers the Constitution does not explicitly give the federal government it does not have to power to do. That's why a way to amend the Constitution was written into it.
Bush wasn't reelected, Diebold gave him the election. Diebold's CEO even bragged he was going to give Bush Ohio's vote and Bush "won" because of Ohio's results.
If people are dissatisfied with both parties they should "throw away" their vote on some other party, rather than keep throwing it at Twiddledum and Twiddledumber.
Unfortunately the mass media makes out third parties as weirdos or on the fringe. Take Libertarians, most people thing Libertarians will allow corporations to run a muck and do whatever they want. However Libertarians actually hate monopolies, many large corporations got big by government granted monopolies, and would end the limited liability corporations get now.
I've seen him on some of the Sunday morning news shows...and I gotta say, I am quite impressed with him now....I wish to hell he could get included on the 3 'presidential debates'....he can speak quite well, and I'd love to see him actually throw answers out there in the middle of the main parties candidates who love to say nothing so far.
I doubt Barr, or any other presidential candidate, will be invited to participate in many debates McCain and Obama have. Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party were both arrested for trying to enter a debate in 2004. Yet not many people know that because the mass media didn't do their job and let people know.
I think Barr would actually make a good showing, and possibly even force the other two candidates to take some positions, or look like idiots afraid to answer a question...
That's why third party candidates aren't invited. But if the mass media did it's job, of informing people, more people would demand they be allowed to debate.
Do we really want to allow Microsoft to become OCP? I'm all for smaller government, but the whole "free markets solve everything" thing seems incredibly naive to me.
If Libertarians were in charge, Microsoft wouldn't have gotten as big and powerful as they have. Libertarians hate monopolies. But there's Democrats and others to blame for the fear mongering, FUD.
Your implication that Obama is ignorant of constitutional law is without merit.
The merit is based on there being no constitutional authority yet he's pushing for a national health care system. Some may argue, as you do, the interstate commerce clause may give the authority to the federal government. What those people don't say is that the constitution puts a limit on the power of government, it enumerates what powers the government has, and bars it from doing anything else. One it does not give the power for is national health care. The 10th Amendment specifically states that what powers are not granted are reserved for the states and individuals. If the federal government wants that power it also says how it can gain that power, by amending the Constitution. Unfortunately while amendments were originally used to guaranty right, the First 10 Amendments being the Bill of Rights, now they are used to expand the power of government.
As for Gonzales v. Raich (or whatever it's called this week) I was frankly hoping the controlled substances act would be overturned, but I think the decision, legally, was the correct one.
Originally it was Raich v. Ashcroft, Ashcroft being the Attorney General then. The vote itself was a 6 to 3 vote, the descending justices were Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, O-Conner and Rehnquist being nominated by Reagan and Thomas was nominated by Bush Sr. The descending opinions weren't very flattering of the majority decision.
>Oh and you're the idiot for saying they are.
My bad statement, I realized that after posting. I should of used better wording, such as saying I thought that because I thought calling being disagreed with idiots was being idiot itself.
I don't think the income tax system is good and personally would prefer the fairtax system
I heard a number of "fair tax" systems, but I don't consider a tax on people's income to be fair at all. People shouldn't be made to pay tax on what they earn. The closest I come to agreeing with national taxes is on fuel, to pay for highways only, and a sales tax on nonessential items. However if the federal government had stayed within the limits put on it by the Constitution there wouldn't need to be a sales tax.
but if you think it isn't constitutional, then yes, to me that's the thinking of an idiot. There's very clear rulings on this.
Yes, necessary and proper and the commerce clause among others.
Health care isn't interstate commerce, but he can try it afterall the Supreme Court allows the feds to deny states the right to authorize medical marijuana. As for others, what others are those?
Are you one of those idiots who think the income tax isn't valid too?
I don't know but I would abolish the income tax for individuals.
Remember that to stop someone doing something, non-essential: not eating or breathing, you just need to make it hard enough to be not worth their while. An example of this is the Chinese firewall, people know the government are watching, so they don't bother looking at anything that isn't authorised.
Slashdot Mirror
Artists will have to work every day just like everyone else, always producing new content to sell just like a farmer must always produce new food to sell.
However whereas farmers used to save seeds to plant next year companies like Monsanto are trying to make sure farmers have to buy seeds from them every year.
Falcon
Intermediates like Rowling (and sorry, but no she's not as good as people gushing over her like to think) do the opposite: they just cut off and sit back on the eternal "it's copyrighted forever" bandwagon.
In general I agree, but not with this. Even after Rowlings made it big she kept writing. She wrote at least 7 books. On Amazon's first page of results searching for Rowlings there are 6 individual books she wrote. And though she can live comfortably the rest of her life, she's one of the UK's wealthiest people, without ever writing another book I believe she will write more, she didn't have to write the last ones.
Falcon
Uh, yeah... so he'll also be proposing tax cuts? Since it's actual responsibilities will be LESS then, right?
Yes, The Libertarian Party: Working to slash your taxes!.
You're an idiot if you think government will get smaller or less intrusive, under EITHER party.
You're an idiot if you think the Libertarian Party is EITHER party.
The FUD against the LP it working pretty good.
Falcon
I can point to societies (often very wealthy societies) that were historically set up more or less the way libertarians advocate (at least from an economic standpoint); and show that the underclasses suffered greatly in those societies.
Libertarianism isn't just an economic system but a political one as well and I can point out socialist societies that killed many people, NAZI Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, and Mao's ROC come to mind. The same ones I listed before. On the other hand there are countries that once the economic system was opened many more people were helped. China being a good example, while I disagreed with almost everything Nixon did he was right about opening up trade with China. And while China isn't fully open, they are opening up slowly. With more people making enough to live on they are pushing for government that's open as well.
And I believe if the US were to end the embargo on Cuba the same thing would happen there. Unfortunately Cuba has disadvantages China didn't. Such as the sugar cane growers around Lake Okeechobee, Florida. If Cuban sugar could be imported into the US those farmers would be hurt financially. That's while Brazilian sugar and ethanol isn't imported, high tariffs.
You cannot, I don't think, point to a liberal
What definition of "liberal" are you using, the original meaning? Or the one socialists use?
modestly socialist society in which major atrocities were perpetrated upon the people.
Ah, the socialist meaning.
Libertarians advocate a completely market driven economy in which the government takes a hands off approach and provides few if any social services.
That's right, we've seen what happens when government controls the economy, or regulates businesses. Because of regulations it's hard for someone to start their own lawn care business. The big lawn care businesses want these regulations to keep out competition. Growing up I used to cut neighbors' grass but it's getting to the point where a teenager will need a license now, I wouldn't be surprised if it got to where a person had to have a license to cut their own lawn.
I advocate a government with very limited powers in the areas of personal freedom, but authority to make and enforce economic policy and provide services to those in need
If you don't have economic control you don't have personal control. Nor can you start your own business and create jobs. A sister of mine started her own business years ago, she and friends of hers are Certified Public Accountants, CPAs, and they started an accounting firm. When she did I chatted with someone in Germany and he said it would hard to start an accounting business there. First, he said a lawyer had to start it. Then because of employment laws, if the business hires someone and they don't do the work they were hired for it's virtually impossible to fire them. As if it's better to drive someone out of business than it is to fire a bad employee. That's what those riots by youth in France a couple of years ago were about. The government wanted to make it easier for businesses to fire bad employees, so many youth rioted. However if employers could easily fire bad people they would be more willing to hire people to begin with.
Simply, government laws and regulations are used by established businesses to keep out competition.
Falcon
The only thing they proved was that when they turned off all the encryption and key validation
After reading this I reread TFA and didn't see anywhere in it where they said encryption and key validation was turned off. Can you provide the quote?
Falcon
I'd suggest that a manual key exchange is preferable to a UN controlled key server, particularly given the small number countries in the world (you can count them all with only two hands!)
With 15 countries in South America alone, taking 3 hands to count, there's more countries than you think. Africa has another 53.
Falcon
You still need to forge the paper to make a passport. And the authentication hasn't been broken - the software this guy used didn't check it.
He used the same software used in airports. If his was broken so is the airport software.
Falcon
Ideally, there should be no demand for any passport or any other ID.
Falcon
How about the government leaves us alone and sees to its actual responsibilities and, oh i don't know, obeys its own laws and attempts to embody American ideals? Just a suggestion.
Vote for Obama and you'll get a chance of seeing that.
Vote for Bob Barr and your changes are better.
Falcon
Since corporations are inherently more powerful than individuals, and utterly amoral on top of that, they need to be kept in tight leash.
Probably the single biggest reason corporations are so powerful is because they give stockholders limited liability. However, in general, Libertarians would end that limited liability. Personally I probably wouldn't so far as to totally eliminate it, because of the limit on liability a corporation can take more risks than individuals can. This is why corporations were granted charters to begin with. The first two charters granted to corporations were given to the Honourable East India Company in 1600 and the Dutch East India Company in 1602. Both were shipping companies facilitating trade between Great Britain and the Netherlands and India respectively. Shipping was a financially risky business, ships could be attacked by pirates or be sunk by bad weather. If a shop was lost the ship owner was financially liable, for both the cargo and for the lives of the crew. No matter how wealthy an owner was they could lose everything, even their home. So charters were granted to corporations to limit the liability of stockholders, the most a stockholder could lose was the money they invested in the corporation. With this limit more people were willing to invest in shipping which boosted trade and benefited a lot of people.
However what is overlooked today was that a corporation had to serve the common, or public, good. If a corporation did not do so it could have it's corporate charter Revoked.
While this sound fine on the surface, it would make investing an unacceptably high risk activity for anyone who can't watch the company full-time.
Actually it shouldn't take that much tyme or effort, no more than people should take anyway. Stockholders should hold the corporation accountable. They need to read any and all proxies they get and make sure they understand them. They can support shareholder resolutions. They need to be Activist Shareholders. If that's too much work, then they can invest in Socially responsible investing, SRI, mutual funds. Anyway, those who are active in their investments and oppose something the corporation does that causes harm or supports responsible and sustainable activities shouldn't lose their limited liability. Also corporate executives should be held responsible as well. Other than the captain not one person was held responsible the Exxon Valdez nor was anyone held accountable for the Union Carbide Bhopal disaster.
The core libertarian principle of removing government control would allow powerful entities to get away with whatever they want, because with government power gone, who's going to stop them ?
Government control is not the same as the control a court can wield. I have not heard of one Libertarian who wants a weak justice system. Actually I bet many would prefer to make it easier for people to sue corporations. Then if it is found it is not serving the public good then it's charter can be revoked.
Libertarianism would lead to the return of feudalism, which was, after all, rule by those who owned the land and could thus afford to hire armies to enforce their will,
I suggest you research the economics of slavery. The economics of slavery was unsustainable. It cost more to hire and keep an army than it costs to pay freemen a living wage. It was Libertarians, then called Liberals as in
Wow, thats not how things are around here. My stats seem to indicate that most Wiccans are 14 to 16 year old girls.
I don't recall any Wiccans I knew who weren't at least 20, except for children of Wiccans, though some were middle aged or older. The same applies to Kabalists, though I only met a few.
Their percentage body fat varies pretty much around the norm.
In appearance and intelligence I didn't see much of a difference between Wiccans and the general population. Which kind of surprises me because with Wiccans believing their body was a temple in a sense I'd think they'd have healthier life styles than the general population.
Falcon
history has shown me what happens when we just leave it to charities.
History has also shown people what happens when everything is left to government. Let's see, between 1930 and 1950 or so some 70.6 million people were killed by government. The NAZI's killed more than 600,000, Stalin 20 million, and Mao some 50 million. History shows governments are the largest terrorists there are. I don't recall now but how many did Pol Pot kill? How many were killed in Rwanda? And though it's died down in the Sudan, how many have been killed there? Between the invasion of East Timor in 1975 and it's independence in 1999 200,000 East Timorese, 1/3 the population, were massacred.
On the the other hand, I've researched Barr a bit more and like him more than I did.
I absolutely hated Barr's positions in the early 1990s.
Falcon
Uh, as far as I know, the media did report the arrests. Few people actually cared that a couple of minor party candidates were not invited and got busted trying to crash the event.
Yes, it was reported, but like how surveys are worded, how things are reported have a lot to do with the public's reaction.
Falcon
They also probably didn't consider him a threat.
Yea, that's probably true.
After he got 20% of the vote, the Big Two are a lot less likely to let a 3rd party get anywhere near them in a debate.
They won't let in third party candidates now. In 2004 both Michael Badnarik and the Green Party candidate, I don't recall his name now, were arrested when they tried to get into a debate.
Falcon
You don't think that if the Democratic National Committee had even a hint of real vote fraud that they wouldn't be fomenting bloody rebellion?
There ARE accusations, inside and outside the Democrat Party, that there was voter fraud in the voting in Ohio.
Are you kidding me?
I am dead serious. Even though I was not and am not a supporter of the Democrat Party or Kerry. In 2004 I supported Michael Badnarik. I don't even vote on party lines, I mostly vote Libertarian but I have also voted for Democrats, Reform Party, and Republican party candidates. I vote for the person who I agree with the most on the issues that are important to me. This year for president I support and will vote for Bob Barr, unless Jesse "The Body" Ventura enters the race. Then I'll vote for him.
Falcon
That's because that is exactly what would happen. Libertarian philosophy's end result is corporate domination of the individual. They can claim they believe otherwise, but "pure" Libertarian principles applied to today's society means corporate fascism.
More FUD, that's hogwash.
BTW, the term is "run amok," not "run a muck."
I should have checked my dictionary, I just did. When I spelled it "amuck", like right now, my spell checker says it's wrong but it's right with a space. And you may now say I still have it wrong, using a "u" instead of an "o" however the dictionary says "amuck = amok".
Falcon
Okay, I've heard of an income tax that's the same percentage for all income levels instead of being progressive as being called a "fair tax".
Second, I was aware of the history of the name changes and the case, I was making a joke when I said "whatever it's called this week."
I wasn't aware of any name change but while checking the name I did come across the case, or a related one, as being called after Gonzalez.
Third, it's not me that argues the commerce clauses gives them that ability, it was the majority of SCOTUS that did
You also said it was idiot to disagree with the ruling, yet 3 of the Justices did disagree.
I happen to agree that the commerce clause *ought* to be interpreted broadly.
Reading papers left by some of the Founding Fathers, specifically Thomas Jefferson and James Madison come to mind, the Constitution is to be taken quite narrowly in meaning, both were for limited government but a broad interpretation gives government any power it wants. And Madison was a principle writer of the Constitution. I happen to agree with them, as I say above it not interpreting it narrowly gives the government any power it wants. So, what powers the Constitution does not explicitly give the federal government it does not have to power to do. That's why a way to amend the Constitution was written into it.
Falcon
Ross Perot got on to the debates back between Clinton and Bush....how did he manage to get on those?
Easy, Ross Perot got into the debates because he's a billionaire. He had enough money to buy the mass media, or to start his own.
Falcon
Bush wasn't reelected, Diebold gave him the election. Diebold's CEO even bragged he was going to give Bush Ohio's vote and Bush "won" because of Ohio's results.
If people are dissatisfied with both parties they should "throw away" their vote on some other party, rather than keep throwing it at Twiddledum and Twiddledumber.
Unfortunately the mass media makes out third parties as weirdos or on the fringe. Take Libertarians, most people thing Libertarians will allow corporations to run a muck and do whatever they want. However Libertarians actually hate monopolies, many large corporations got big by government granted monopolies, and would end the limited liability corporations get now.
Falcon
Eat it, wizard. Reductio ad absurdum gets you nowhere.
Being a wiseass doesn't either.
Falcon
I've seen him on some of the Sunday morning news shows...and I gotta say, I am quite impressed with him now....I wish to hell he could get included on the 3 'presidential debates'....he can speak quite well, and I'd love to see him actually throw answers out there in the middle of the main parties candidates who love to say nothing so far.
I doubt Barr, or any other presidential candidate, will be invited to participate in many debates McCain and Obama have. Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party and David Cobb of the Green Party were both arrested for trying to enter a debate in 2004. Yet not many people know that because the mass media didn't do their job and let people know.
I think Barr would actually make a good showing, and possibly even force the other two candidates to take some positions, or look like idiots afraid to answer a question...
That's why third party candidates aren't invited. But if the mass media did it's job, of informing people, more people would demand they be allowed to debate.
Falcon
Do we really want to allow Microsoft to become OCP? I'm all for smaller government, but the whole "free markets solve everything" thing seems incredibly naive to me.
If Libertarians were in charge, Microsoft wouldn't have gotten as big and powerful as they have. Libertarians hate monopolies. But there's Democrats and others to blame for the fear mongering, FUD.
Falcon
Your implication that Obama is ignorant of constitutional law is without merit.
The merit is based on there being no constitutional authority yet he's pushing for a national health care system. Some may argue, as you do, the interstate commerce clause may give the authority to the federal government. What those people don't say is that the constitution puts a limit on the power of government, it enumerates what powers the government has, and bars it from doing anything else. One it does not give the power for is national health care. The 10th Amendment specifically states that what powers are not granted are reserved for the states and individuals. If the federal government wants that power it also says how it can gain that power, by amending the Constitution. Unfortunately while amendments were originally used to guaranty right, the First 10 Amendments being the Bill of Rights, now they are used to expand the power of government.
As for Gonzales v. Raich (or whatever it's called this week) I was frankly hoping the controlled substances act would be overturned, but I think the decision, legally, was the correct one.
Originally it was Raich v. Ashcroft, Ashcroft being the Attorney General then. The vote itself was a 6 to 3 vote, the descending justices were Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, William Rehnquist and Clarence Thomas, O-Conner and Rehnquist being nominated by Reagan and Thomas was nominated by Bush Sr. The descending opinions weren't very flattering of the majority decision.
>Oh and you're the idiot for saying they are.
My bad statement, I realized that after posting. I should of used better wording, such as saying I thought that because I thought calling being disagreed with idiots was being idiot itself.
I don't think the income tax system is good and personally would prefer the fairtax system
I heard a number of "fair tax" systems, but I don't consider a tax on people's income to be fair at all. People shouldn't be made to pay tax on what they earn. The closest I come to agreeing with national taxes is on fuel, to pay for highways only, and a sales tax on nonessential items. However if the federal government had stayed within the limits put on it by the Constitution there wouldn't need to be a sales tax.
but if you think it isn't constitutional, then yes, to me that's the thinking of an idiot. There's very clear rulings on this.
So O'Conner, Rehnquist, and Thomas are idiots?
Falcon
Yes, necessary and proper and the commerce clause among others.
Health care isn't interstate commerce, but he can try it afterall the Supreme Court allows the feds to deny states the right to authorize medical marijuana. As for others, what others are those?
Are you one of those idiots who think the income tax isn't valid too?
I don't know but I would abolish the income tax for individuals.
Oh and you're the idiot for saying they are.
Falcon
Remember that to stop someone doing something, non-essential: not eating or breathing, you just need to make it hard enough to be not worth their while. An example of this is the Chinese firewall, people know the government are watching, so they don't bother looking at anything that isn't authorised.
Except Chinese are able to get around the Great Firewall of China. Chinese do find ways.
Falcon