again. The issue is that while we have a two party state, the GOP is a vastly more capable party (as far as winning elections goes).
I think you forgot your recent history. Going into the 2006 elections the Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House of Reps. In 2007 the Democrats had 52 Senators as well as a majority on the House.
I fail to understand nothing. You ever hear of a little place called Tiananmen Square? I wonder how many protesters were clinging to notions like yours while they were being run over with tanks.
By trying to use Tiananmen Square you show you're missing a big thing. Because the local military unit, the 38th Army of Beijing, refused to fire on the demonstrators the government had to call in the 27th Army from Mongolia.
They're going to use satellite imagery, informants, quick strikes and assassinations to deal with you.
And how are they going to find you when you are part of the local population? Can those satellite images tell the difference between combatants and noncombatants? To take a hand full of people they'll have to kill a lot of noncombatants. And when civilian causalities build up don't you think others will start picking up weapons to defend themselves?
But you're missing a big issue, how can you get the military to fire on civilians when soldiers are known to frag those who give bad orders?
BTW, it is legal now for private citizens to purchase AR-15's and.223 ammo. For now. I, for one, have been stocking up.
File a certain part of the triggering and you've have an auto. BTW, do you know who made it? I had an M16 with parts made by Mattel, the toy company. "Mattel" was plainly stamped on it.
If a future apocalyptic showdown in America was pretty much between the Armed Forces and a wide-ranging collective of gun clubs and "citizen militia" groups, my suspicion is that it would not go very well for the latter.
Having served in the US Army I think you're wrong here as some of those in the army would join citizens to defend liberty. Recall the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989? Do you know how the Chinese government did it? China is made up many different ethnic groups who generally live within certain areas of China. When the government first ordered troops to Tiananmen Square the local military unit, the 38th Army of Beijing refused to fire because they were from the same ethnic groups. Because of this the government had to order the 27th Army, who was made up of different ethnic groups, from Mongolia to pull the trigger. Unlike Chinese units which are pretty much homogeneous US military units have people from different groups and who came from different parts of the US. Simply getting the US Army to fire on US citizens would be much harder.
Just as the U.S. Army would wipe the floor with you and your delusional gun nut buddies.
Have you ever served in the US Army? I have, as a Small Arms Specialist colloquially known as the infantry. While in I knew quite a few people in my unit who would have fragged an officer who gave orders to fire on civilians. I have a nephew who's a Marine stationed in Iraq and I'm pretty sure he feels the same. While there may not be a lot of people in the military who would also do it there's enough to start infighting in the military.
When you combine that with the growing trend of international cooperation to capture terrorists and criminals, to what country should we flee when ours becomes a police state?
What you do is use the three boxes of liberty; soap box, ballot box, and lastly ammo box.
My hope is that our military and intelligence community career employees will be a firewall against a greater slide into tyranny.
Though I'm not sure about them today I think the people in the military now will be pretty much like the service people were when I was in the Army. I knew a good number of people in my infantry unit who would have fragged anyone who gave them orders to fire on US citizens.
After the last seven years, it's funny that the very notion of a "Bill of Rights" seems quaint and antiquated. Like something the Bush Administration has "modernized" out of existence.
I knew what was going on back then. For years, various services had been crying for more power and to break down the walls between agencies so that more domestic monitoring could occur. 9/11 just gave them the excuse they needed. They already had what they wanted drawn up.
Almost every power the Patriot Act gave the Bush admin Clinton requested as president but the Republicans refused to give him. Once they had one of their own in the Oval Office they were more than happy to give them to Bush. If they weren't willing to give these powers to Clinton they shouldn't have given them to Bush either. Now that Bush will be leaving office in less than a year, how would they feel about Obama or Hillary having those powers?
Libertarianism in general, and Objectivism in particular, is incompatible with my religious and moral beliefs. As a Christian I find it to be an ethical lapse and, as a citizen and taxpayer, I find it to be an illogical and unsustainable economic system.
My sister is kind of like you. She loved Rand until, as a Christian, she found out about Rand's Objectivism. Thereafter she turned her back on Rand.
they would be aghast if a Constitutional Amendment actually passed to ban abortion, because then they couldn't use it as an election issue in every single election.
Could it be that the Republicans haven't actually worked on an Amendment to ban abortions is because some Republicans are pro-choice?
Do you honestly expect a mother to buy food that she believes to be less healthy if she has other options?
Just as you don't many others don't believe organics are any healthier than conventional foods. Look, she still has a choice, nobody's forcing her to buy organic.
Besides, you are operating under the false assumption that saving back seeds is a common practice
Among many people it is a common practice. There's even Seed Savers Exchange where people can get seeds others have saved. I recently read an article on how to harvest tomato seeds to save as tomato seeds are so small. I save my pepper, I love peppers the hotter the better, seeds among others. It may not be too common for large scale farmers in the developed world though organic farmers and gardeners along with farms in third world countries save seeds. TFA even said how as Director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in Iraq Paul Bremer ordered Iraqi farmers to pay a tax on the seeds they saved, there was an article about this on/, "Iraq law Requires Seed Licenses". People still create their own heirloom plants and that's done by saving seeds. Googling heirloom seeds returns more than 200,000 results. Take for instance peppers, to create a pepper heirloom I want, perhaps it has a specific flavor or heat. I will save seeds from peppers like what I want, and plant perhaps a dozen seeds only from those peppers. When peppers from those plants mature, I'll save the seeds from the best peppers to plant the following planting season then do it all over again.
If you were to develop something patentable wouldn't you want to reap the benefit of your intelligence and investments
You can reap the benefits, for one thing you have the advantage of first to market. And by continually making improvements you can stay ahead. I brought the same point as yours in a discussion about copyrights, and someone pointed out that if a reader likes your writing he or she will support you so you will write more. What you can do is release a book on pdf then offer a way readers can order a signed hardback copy of the book from you. I used to write and so supported copyrights. But now I'm not so sure, what I'd do maybe is shorten copyright terms. Say make them 5 to 7 years instead of the life + 50 or 70 congress has extended them. The purpose of copyrights and patents is to encourage progress in the arts and sciences, and the best way to do that is by encouraging continued creation. If you can lock someone out of a market for many years you don't have much incentive to continue to create on a frequent basis.
don't really think the "organic" movement is necessarily about hormones or pesticides.
is (and I'm not trying to be offensive) proof that you are speaking past your true understanding concerning what the Organic movement is about. The refusal to use hormones, chemical pesticides, and growth promoting antibiotics is exactly what it is about
GP is right, while some people I know buy organic because they think it's healthier, I also know some who go organic because they are concerned about the environment. And I bet there's a lot of fishermen in LA who feel the same, because of all the runoff from conventional farms going into the Mississippi River there's a hugh dead zone south of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico killing fish and other seafood.
Second, I can give you a national example of someone who is being, if not forced then at the very least coerced into buying organic...
...
c. That out of a desire to keep her children healthy she buys organic food whenever possible (in one episode they even went to an organic farm and bought half a cow for their freezer).
Nobody's forcing her to buy organic, she buys it because she wants to. Her husband may not like it but if so then it's his job to put her on a budget.
Monsanto isn't sterilizing anyone, they don't have a monopoly on corn seeds, their are not destroying someone else's property.
So, if pollen from a neighbor's farm who grows Monsanto's GE seed cross pollinates with my crop I can still sell some and keep others for the next planting season? Not according to farmers who had them happen and were then sued by Monsanto.
People toss the word monopoly around way too much and use it in situations that don't really apply. The only way that Monsanto can be said to have a monopoly is if you limited it the scope to include only grains that are sold by their company and resistant to a single pesticide.
A patent is a monopoly. By granting a patent the government is giving a limited monopoly on what was patented.
"Organic" foods is by and large just a pseudo-scientific bunk phrase like "moisturizes your skin". That's not to say that I don't approve of some forms of agriculture over others. I'm seriously pondering getting my own chickens, for the fresh eggs and maybe even a few meat birds.
Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Here's some links to science articles on organic food:
Maybe I missed it but I didn't see one key way to feed the world in any of the articles above, cutting out a lot of meat if not moving to a vegetarian diet. Raising animals to eat requires more land to grow the food to feed them than if people didn't eat meat.
Falcon
Oh, don't take what I wrote in that last paragraph to mean I'm vegetarian, I'm not. I love going to BBQs where we'll cook some frog legs, gator tail, and wild boar or hog.
Farmers who buy GM seeds are often required to sign contracts promising not to replant the seed, etc. It is a little different from your friendly local hardware store.
The thing is is if those GM plants cross pollinate with your non GM plants you're out of luck through no fault of your own. I suppose that if you're successful at holding your neighbor responsible though, the next tyme it may make them think about using GM seeds again. That could however lead to hostile neighbors.
Slashdot Mirror
Lincoln was justified, even if he agonized over executing it, in suspending Habeas Corpus in some cases during that war.
Except the Supreme Court, well the Chief Justice, ruled against Lincoln when he suspended Habeas Corpus.
Falconagain. The issue is that while we have a two party state, the GOP is a vastly more capable party (as far as winning elections goes).
I think you forgot your recent history. Going into the 2006 elections the Republicans controlled both the Senate and the House of Reps. In 2007 the Democrats had 52 Senators as well as a majority on the House.
FalconI fail to understand nothing. You ever hear of a little place called Tiananmen Square? I wonder how many protesters were clinging to notions like yours while they were being run over with tanks.
By trying to use Tiananmen Square you show you're missing a big thing. Because the local military unit, the 38th Army of Beijing, refused to fire on the demonstrators the government had to call in the 27th Army from Mongolia.
FalconThey're going to use satellite imagery, informants, quick strikes and assassinations to deal with you.
And how are they going to find you when you are part of the local population? Can those satellite images tell the difference between combatants and noncombatants? To take a hand full of people they'll have to kill a lot of noncombatants. And when civilian causalities build up don't you think others will start picking up weapons to defend themselves?
But you're missing a big issue, how can you get the military to fire on civilians when soldiers are known to frag those who give bad orders?
FalconBTW, it is legal now for private citizens to purchase AR-15's and .223 ammo. For now. I, for one, have been stocking up.
File a certain part of the triggering and you've have an auto. BTW, do you know who made it? I had an M16 with parts made by Mattel, the toy company. "Mattel" was plainly stamped on it.
FalconIf a future apocalyptic showdown in America was pretty much between the Armed Forces and a wide-ranging collective of gun clubs and "citizen militia" groups, my suspicion is that it would not go very well for the latter.
Having served in the US Army I think you're wrong here as some of those in the army would join citizens to defend liberty. Recall the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989? Do you know how the Chinese government did it? China is made up many different ethnic groups who generally live within certain areas of China. When the government first ordered troops to Tiananmen Square the local military unit, the 38th Army of Beijing refused to fire because they were from the same ethnic groups. Because of this the government had to order the 27th Army, who was made up of different ethnic groups, from Mongolia to pull the trigger. Unlike Chinese units which are pretty much homogeneous US military units have people from different groups and who came from different parts of the US. Simply getting the US Army to fire on US citizens would be much harder.
FalconJust as the U.S. Army would wipe the floor with you and your delusional gun nut buddies.
Have you ever served in the US Army? I have, as a Small Arms Specialist colloquially known as the infantry. While in I knew quite a few people in my unit who would have fragged an officer who gave orders to fire on civilians. I have a nephew who's a Marine stationed in Iraq and I'm pretty sure he feels the same. While there may not be a lot of people in the military who would also do it there's enough to start infighting in the military.
FalconAnd for those with delusions of defeating the Army with local militias, ask Hamas and Hezbollah how close they are to beating the IDF.
Better yet, ask the Iraqi militias.
FalconWhen you combine that with the growing trend of international cooperation to capture terrorists and criminals, to what country should we flee when ours becomes a police state?
What you do is use the three boxes of liberty; soap box, ballot box, and lastly ammo box.
FalconAs long as corporations don't have armies and nukes, it's the lesser of two evils.
Not nukes but corporations do have armies: "Coca-Cola Accused of Using Death Squads to Target Union Leaders". "Corporate Liability for Human Rights Abuses Goes on Trial". The Alien Tort Claims Act of 1789 allows foreign nationals to file lawsuits against US citizens and businesses that violate or assist others in those countries who violate people's rights. "Since 1993, lawyers in the US have filed 36 corporate human rights abuse suits under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA)".
FalconMy hope is that our military and intelligence community career employees will be a firewall against a greater slide into tyranny.
Though I'm not sure about them today I think the people in the military now will be pretty much like the service people were when I was in the Army. I knew a good number of people in my infantry unit who would have fragged anyone who gave them orders to fire on US citizens.
After the last seven years, it's funny that the very notion of a "Bill of Rights" seems quaint and antiquated. Like something the Bush Administration has "modernized" out of existence.
And McCaine will make it a vague memory.
FalconI knew what was going on back then. For years, various services had been crying for more power and to break down the walls between agencies so that more domestic monitoring could occur. 9/11 just gave them the excuse they needed. They already had what they wanted drawn up.
Almost every power the Patriot Act gave the Bush admin Clinton requested as president but the Republicans refused to give him. Once they had one of their own in the Oval Office they were more than happy to give them to Bush. If they weren't willing to give these powers to Clinton they shouldn't have given them to Bush either. Now that Bush will be leaving office in less than a year, how would they feel about Obama or Hillary having those powers?
FalconLibertarianism in general, and Objectivism in particular, is incompatible with my religious and moral beliefs. As a Christian I find it to be an ethical lapse and, as a citizen and taxpayer, I find it to be an illogical and unsustainable economic system.
My sister is kind of like you. She loved Rand until, as a Christian, she found out about Rand's Objectivism. Thereafter she turned her back on Rand.
FalconI'm with you. I would happily vote for, contribute to, and volunteer time to any non-Ayn Randian candidate who campaigns on some/all of the following:
Four of five of those you side with Rand yet you won't support a Randian candidate?
Falconthey would be aghast if a Constitutional Amendment actually passed to ban abortion, because then they couldn't use it as an election issue in every single election.
Could it be that the Republicans haven't actually worked on an Amendment to ban abortions is because some Republicans are pro-choice?
FalconHaving switched from Windows to OS X another /.er told me how to switch apps and windows.
FalconDo you honestly expect a mother to buy food that she believes to be less healthy if she has other options?
Just as you don't many others don't believe organics are any healthier than conventional foods. Look, she still has a choice, nobody's forcing her to buy organic.
FalconBesides, you are operating under the false assumption that saving back seeds is a common practice
Among many people it is a common practice. There's even Seed Savers Exchange where people can get seeds others have saved. I recently read an article on how to harvest tomato seeds to save as tomato seeds are so small. I save my pepper, I love peppers the hotter the better, seeds among others. It may not be too common for large scale farmers in the developed world though organic farmers and gardeners along with farms in third world countries save seeds. TFA even said how as Director of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance in Iraq Paul Bremer ordered Iraqi farmers to pay a tax on the seeds they saved, there was an article about this on /, "Iraq law Requires Seed Licenses". People still create their own heirloom plants and that's done by saving seeds. Googling heirloom seeds returns more than 200,000 results. Take for instance peppers, to create a pepper heirloom I want, perhaps it has a specific flavor or heat. I will save seeds from peppers like what I want, and plant perhaps a dozen seeds only from those peppers. When peppers from those plants mature, I'll save the seeds from the best peppers to plant the following planting season then do it all over again.
If you were to develop something patentable wouldn't you want to reap the benefit of your intelligence and investments
You can reap the benefits, for one thing you have the advantage of first to market. And by continually making improvements you can stay ahead. I brought the same point as yours in a discussion about copyrights, and someone pointed out that if a reader likes your writing he or she will support you so you will write more. What you can do is release a book on pdf then offer a way readers can order a signed hardback copy of the book from you. I used to write and so supported copyrights. But now I'm not so sure, what I'd do maybe is shorten copyright terms. Say make them 5 to 7 years instead of the life + 50 or 70 congress has extended them. The purpose of copyrights and patents is to encourage progress in the arts and sciences, and the best way to do that is by encouraging continued creation. If you can lock someone out of a market for many years you don't have much incentive to continue to create on a frequent basis.
FalconIs it possible for GM crops to cross-polinate/infect non-GM varieties?
Yes cross pollination can happen, and does. Actually because it happens superweeds are being created.
FalconYour statement that you
don't really think the "organic" movement is necessarily about hormones or pesticides.
is (and I'm not trying to be offensive) proof that you are speaking past your true understanding concerning what the Organic movement is about. The refusal to use hormones, chemical pesticides, and growth promoting antibiotics is exactly what it is about
GP is right, while some people I know buy organic because they think it's healthier, I also know some who go organic because they are concerned about the environment. And I bet there's a lot of fishermen in LA who feel the same, because of all the runoff from conventional farms going into the Mississippi River there's a hugh dead zone south of New Orleans in the Gulf of Mexico killing fish and other seafood.
FalconSecond, I can give you a national example of someone who is being, if not forced then at the very least coerced into buying organic...
c. That out of a desire to keep her children healthy she buys organic food whenever possible (in one episode they even went to an organic farm and bought half a cow for their freezer).
Nobody's forcing her to buy organic, she buys it because she wants to. Her husband may not like it but if so then it's his job to put her on a budget.
FalconMonsanto isn't sterilizing anyone, they don't have a monopoly on corn seeds, their are not destroying someone else's property.
So, if pollen from a neighbor's farm who grows Monsanto's GE seed cross pollinates with my crop I can still sell some and keep others for the next planting season? Not according to farmers who had them happen and were then sued by Monsanto.
People toss the word monopoly around way too much and use it in situations that don't really apply. The only way that Monsanto can be said to have a monopoly is if you limited it the scope to include only grains that are sold by their company and resistant to a single pesticide.
A patent is a monopoly. By granting a patent the government is giving a limited monopoly on what was patented.
FalconOrganic is intended to mean that it is not grown with pesticides or treated with artificial hormones, etc.
True, however organic also bans GMOs.
Falcon"Organic" foods is by and large just a pseudo-scientific bunk phrase like "moisturizes your skin". That's not to say that I don't approve of some forms of agriculture over others. I'm seriously pondering getting my own chickens, for the fresh eggs and maybe even a few meat birds.
Do you have any scientific evidence to back up your claim? Here's some links to science articles on organic food:
At the same time, if we're going to feed a growing global population, we're not going to do it by "organic" means.
Some scientific studies on this conclude organic food can't feed the world while others say it can:
Maybe I missed it but I didn't see one key way to feed the world in any of the articles above, cutting out a lot of meat if not moving to a vegetarian diet. Raising animals to eat requires more land to grow the food to feed them than if people didn't eat meat.
Falcon
Oh, don't take what I wrote in that last paragraph to mean I'm vegetarian, I'm not. I love going to BBQs where we'll cook some frog legs, gator tail, and wild boar or hog.Farmers who buy GM seeds are often required to sign contracts promising not to replant the seed, etc. It is a little different from your friendly local hardware store.
The thing is is if those GM plants cross pollinate with your non GM plants you're out of luck through no fault of your own. I suppose that if you're successful at holding your neighbor responsible though, the next tyme it may make them think about using GM seeds again. That could however lead to hostile neighbors.
Falcon