Why not just get the algae producing biodiesel? They'll consume CO2 during its production, and biodiesel doesn't require compression tanks, etc.
Algae will consume CO2 producing hydrogen as well, then when burned no CO2 will be released. So whereas biodiesel is carbon neutral, using algae to produce hydrogen will actually take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Also algae can be used to produce hydrogen in many more places than can biodiesel, you can produce hydrogen in the desert. However biodiesel has to be made where the plant food stock is grown unless you're going to use fuel to deliver the crops to where the biodiesel is produced. And without using up a lot of energy you're not going to grow crops in the desert. As far as compression tanks, they are already being used for hydrogen as well as propane liquefied natural gas, and others. I like biodiesel but it is only a stopgap in converting from oil to hydrogen. Biodiesel is feasible in places like Brazil, where they can make the fuel where the crop is grown, but it's not in the desert.
When I dislike your model railroad station, or more realistically, when I (or the opposing political party) dislike your political talk station, I could purposefully broadcast white noise at the same frequency. While maybe I could broadcast at 99.666667 instead of 99.666668 (your station) I only want to be disruptive. Make it illegal to broadcast white noise? So I broadcast me singing the Star-Spangled Banner on a loop, etc. What, want to make it first come-first serve? Then we are back to FCC regulation, and frankly, I would rather the channels were bid on than given away.
Additionally, there are anti-profanity laws regarding what may be broadcast.
The same sort of laws on profanity can be used for interference, no FCC needed. Someone starts interfering then there's such a thing as courts. If someone intensionally interferes then you can sue them. And if they do it to a lot of others there may be a legal basis for a class action lawsuit.
You want "research" showing US employer health insurance makes us less competitive? Why don't you just read some news about US car corps choking on their healthcare costs, while foreign competitors benefit from the more economical nationalized healthcare?
Since you didn't even notice that your favorite experiment in peoples lives and privatized economics is failing in our core industry
Prey tell, what's my favorite experiment? Not what you imagine it is but what it really is.
I don't expect you'll understand that the US income tax is low because we're $10 TRILLION IN DEBT
You are compleatly and utterly mixed up. US taxes are not low because of the debt, the debt is high because government has gone on a spending spree since Bush came into office. One of the few good things Clinton did was reducing the government deficit. He took the deficit from the biggest there was before Bush Jr to almost wiping it out, actually there was a small surplus when Clinton left office. Bush Jr then increased spending but cut taxes. Can you understand that?
I can't read the rest of the garbage, the way you ignore things or twist what you don't.
necessarily opposites. In reality it all comes down to the nature of the regulation and what intended mission of the regulation is. If your regulation is to limit anti-competitive behaviour, ensure the prevention of dilution of free-speech and ensure that companies operate within the social structure of the country, then I can only see it as a good thing. If your regulation ensures all the opposite, then I can see why you wouldn't want it.
True, however a lot of regulations today in the US do limit competition. As with regulations from the FCC.
Anyone could start one, but competing with a large monopoly like that is impossible. They would use every trick in the book to destroy competition.
Oh really? The big media companies of today are different companies from 20 years ago. Check this out, "Does Rupert Murdoch control the media? Does anyone?". If there are problems with what TFA says then point them out, don't just trash it because who wrote or published it.
Yes, I prefer a variety too, but these companies are not mine to control. They are not yours either, but, mysteriously, you feel comfortable telling them, what they can and can not do.
No I don't "feel comfortable" telling them what to do. Neither do I like the government telling me what to do. I shouldn't need a license to broadcast, whether it cost millions of dollars as broadcasting licenses do today, or if the license is free. The regulations in place today for broadcasting go back to 1934. Back then when the FCC was created from the Federal Radio Commission, itself creared in 1927, the technology available then did not allow broadcasters to use frequencies that are close. Transmissions would interfere with each other, however with the tech available today broadcasters could use frequencies that are much closer. Instead of the dozen or so broadcasters a city may have today, technology can allow dozens more. Besides allowing the use of closer frequencies, micropower radio makes it able to broadcast in a small area.
Quite simply if I wanted to start a radio station specializing in talking about model railroads without needing a license I should be able to do so. The radio spectrum is no longer the limited resource it was in 1934, heck just 20 years ago.
We have limited radio spectrum, allowing anyone to broadcast will cause collisions, either accidentally or on purpose.
But with technology radio stations can be a lot closer together allowing more stations to broadcast in a given area.
Jamming a station that disagrees with you?
"During the 1920s, such a common-law-based order in radio was emerging, with spectrum rights being traded and some court decisions recognizing a right against interference. Unfortunately, the free-market, common-law regime that was beginning to break through the crust of federal regulation was strangled in its cradle by the 1927 Act, which eliminated all individual rights in the radio spectrum. Henceforth, the Federal Radio Commission (later renamed the Federal Communications Commission) would assign frequencies, and naturally politics would play a leading role."
"During the 1920s, the courts were working out precisely such a system of homesteaded private property rights in airwave frequencies. It is because such a private property structure was evolving that Secretary of Commerce Hoover pushed through the Radio Act of 1927, nationalizing ownership of the airwaves."
Then it comes down to who can afford umpteen gigawatts of broadcast power. Pretty hard for the common person to compete.
Have you ever heard two different people trying to talk on radios using the same frequency? I have and it was sometimes hard to make out what was being said by either party. Now if they both had been selling ads and I was a potential advertiser I never would have advertised on either one. Playing music would have been even worse. Two, as was done before the FRC, Federal Radio Commission, renamed the FCC in 1934, the courts were recognizing a right against interference. "During the 1920s, the courts were working out precisely such a system of homesteaded private property rights in airwave frequencies. It is because such a private property structure was evolving that Secretary of Commerce Hoover pushed through the Radio Act of 1927, nationalizing ownership of the airwaves."
If Ropert Morduck wants to own every station in my market, let him! I won't be listening to any of that garbage. I have iPods, CDs and superior satellite radio. What do I need with a Ropert Murduck? Sounds like a skin condition. Throw another media outlet on the barbie, douche!
And what if Ropert Murdock also owned the satellite?
Oh, and Ron Paul FTW. Ever notice how Fox/CNN/ABC/NBC are trying so hard to ignore him?
Yeap, the mass media does downplay Ron Paul. CNN did have a small spot of him that I thought was good though. What will be even worse is the media attention the Libertarian Party will get. Back in the 2004 campaign Michael Badnarik, the LP's candidate, was arrested when he tried to attend one of the presidential debates and Nader was barred. Yet there was hardly a peep out of the press. The press is supposed give voice to the people, instead they drown it. I did like how CNN teamed up with YouTube to sponsor the debates recently but I wonder how the questions were picked. I liked the response from one of the questions for Ron Paul. After he spoke it seemed like the whole auditorium stood up and applauded him. I know there's not enough tyme to answer all the questions but I'd like to see the candidates answer the unasked questions online after the debate. Perhaps a bunch of similar questions can be combined and answered at one tyme.
Your argument relies mostly on the fallacy that the law is morality
No, my point was that unlike what you said corporations were in fact granted charters when they served the public good, and that when they no longer did the charter could be revoked. Just because charters are no longer revoked doesn't make this untrue. Just as Thomas Jefferson warned about them, I am wary of corporations, and would like it for states to start revoking charters.
The price would be pretty much the same whether it was US companies or French companies doing the drilling.
But it makes a big difference to both French and US companies who gets the money.
scale up solar cell production to the same level (and with the requirement that they be completely replaced every few years). Solar cells have gotten a lot cleaner than they used to be, but we're still talking about a LOT of them.
Solar cells last more than a "few years". You can find solar panels with warranties longer than 20 years. SunPower's panels have a 25 year warranty. As does some BP panels. Here are more panels with 20 or 25 year warranties. And those were just the first 3 results from googling "solar panels" warranty.
OK, now you've demonstrated you don't understand even the basics behind radio,
I've built radios, have you? And not by assembling a kit. The first radio I built I even wrapped bare wire around the tube from an empty paper roll. All the other pieces I used I scavenged. Years ago, when knowing Morse code was needed I wanted to get my amateur, shortwave, radio license. Back then you had to be able to build your own shortwave radio. Unfortunately I had difficulty with Morse code so I didn't get my license.
I didn't say that health care or insurance was created by libertarians (or the Libertarian Party). I said the health care and insurance corps have produced a hoax that looks "libertarian", but is just a reversal of the actual condition.
Rereading the post of your's I replied to I have to admit I was wrong, you didn't say it was created by libertarians. Sorry for the mistake.
Individuals each paying their own health insurance is more expensive than the broader base of statistical risk and per-capita cost of sales of policies by employers, but also much more expensive than if that aggregation were replaced by the government which also takes no profits on the operation.
While true now that most people who have health insurance get it through employers insurance costs more, I believe that if employers paid employees more to cover the cost of insurance, it would be lower. This is because there would be more competition driving costs down. However I disagree the government providing healthcare would cost less. When something is "free", ie the government pays for it, people will use it more thus driving up the costs. Since people won't pay out of pocket for healthcare they don't see how much it actually costs. But when they have to pay then they notice it. And though government may not be into making a profit bureaucracies always expands driving up costs. Businesses though, if the people are any good, try to lower costs so they can maximize profits. When they have to compeat this means reducing bureaucracy and paperwork. The same as Dell compeating against HP, compeating against Gateway. That's why governments pay contractors to build roads, they can do it cheaper. Heck, years ago I worked for a construction subcontractor and one of the jobs we had was building an assembly building at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Even though while working there all of us on the work crew were paid more than at any other job site, I was paid more than $5 an hour more, it was still cheaper for the Air Force to have a contractor build it.
As is proven around the world by our competition, which didn't waste time on employer insurance the way we have.
Health insurance is an advantage businesses in other countries have over US businesses. They don't have to pay for health insurance. However because of this taxes are higher. The US has one of the lowest income taxes in the world.
Nor is healthcare a good argument for libertarianism, when every decrease in government service has resulted in both worse care and higher costs that have made the US much less competitive with foreigners who do less work for better health, because their governments ensure they're protected in that way.
Can you provide any research links supporting this?
Next you'll be arguing for a return to the private fire departments that let America burn until the late 1800s, and then maybe private gangs to replace our police with competitive security - for the warlords on top, anyway.
Ah now you're reading my mind. But you read it wrong, I have never thought that. That is one problem I have with anarchists, I am not an anarchist. And I know of no other Libertarians who think that either.
I don't really mind seeing ads to read Salon content, but the site is no longer allowing client machines that block ad.doubleclick.net to view anything.
I block ad.doubleclick.net yet I have the Salon page open in a tab. Of course right at the top of the page there's
"Unable to connect"
"Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at ad.doubleclick.net."
TFA on the page shows though. Are you using a Hosts file?
This may come as a shock, but businesses are not established "for the public good"
No but this may shock you, corporations are granted charters to serve the public, or common, good. The very first company to be granted a corporate charter, the Dutch East India Company, was granted the charter for that very reason.
You're going to have to explain how the market is served by your buying a transmitter to drown out the signal of your incumbent competition, broadcasting their format to their old listeners, but with your own ads inserted.
Can you please tell me where I said ANYTHING about drowning out my competition? That's a good thing about courts, if I interfere with someone else they can sue me. However why would I even want to drown them out, by broadcasting on the same frequency nobody would be able to listen to anything, theirs or mine.
Pirate radio stations are prima facia imposisble to allow.
Only impossible from the big corporate media perspective. Competition takes advertising revenue from them.
And competition does not mean anarchy.
Not requiring licenses isn't anarchy.
Aside from the fact that they would collide with one another, and thus interfer greatly
That was true in 1934 when the FCC was created but with modern technology stations can broadcast at much closer frequencies allowing more stations in the same area.
micropower stations make copyright law much harder to enforce.
It may but it also allows more media. Without needing a license if I wanted to I could start a radio talk show about model railroads. I could then sell ads to local hobby shoppes that sale trains and equipment. Or I could have a radio station that plays music from local bands, which would give them more exposure, then air ads for the bands. I like Reggae and Calypso so maybe I'd start a radio station playing them, or maybe I could play Bluegrass. Or, the ultimate reason for free speech, I could have a political talk station.
healthcare/insurance corps have produced a "libertarian" hoax that is precisely wrong.
Neither healthcare nor health insurance were created by Libertarians in the US. The current health insurance industry was created by a Democrat, FDR. During WWII, because of wage and price control laws, employers couldn't pay employees more so to entice people to work in factories and other establishments the government allowed employers to pay for health insurance for the employees. And still today employer have an incentive to offer insurance instead of just paying employees more. If the laws favoring employer provided health insurance, they pay no tax on it, were gotten rid of and employers were able to pay employees more so they could buy health insurance on their own healthcare would be cheaper and more people would be more keen to hold costs down. And by allowing people to buy and pay for their own healthcare they will be able to decide what sort of coverage they want, if they only want catastrophic coverage they can pay less for it versus another person who wants everything covered. Then with more people paying more out of pocket they will be more willing to shop for lower prices. That's called competition, you know, what many blame on driving workers pay down? Let competition drive cost down.
So, I don't think the comparison between "taming the rampant corporations" and "stopping the British from burning our city" is fair.
No less than Thomas Jefferson saw the risk of the Corporate Aristocracy. Specifically Jefferson said "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Slashdot Mirror
Why not just get the algae producing biodiesel? They'll consume CO2 during its production, and biodiesel doesn't require compression tanks, etc.
Algae will consume CO2 producing hydrogen as well, then when burned no CO2 will be released. So whereas biodiesel is carbon neutral, using algae to produce hydrogen will actually take CO2 out of the atmosphere. Also algae can be used to produce hydrogen in many more places than can biodiesel, you can produce hydrogen in the desert. However biodiesel has to be made where the plant food stock is grown unless you're going to use fuel to deliver the crops to where the biodiesel is produced. And without using up a lot of energy you're not going to grow crops in the desert. As far as compression tanks, they are already being used for hydrogen as well as propane liquefied natural gas, and others. I like biodiesel but it is only a stopgap in converting from oil to hydrogen. Biodiesel is feasible in places like Brazil, where they can make the fuel where the crop is grown, but it's not in the desert.
FalconWhen I dislike your model railroad station, or more realistically, when I (or the opposing political party) dislike your political talk station, I could purposefully broadcast white noise at the same frequency. While maybe I could broadcast at 99.666667 instead of 99.666668 (your station) I only want to be disruptive. Make it illegal to broadcast white noise? So I broadcast me singing the Star-Spangled Banner on a loop, etc. What, want to make it first come-first serve? Then we are back to FCC regulation, and frankly, I would rather the channels were bid on than given away.
Additionally, there are anti-profanity laws regarding what may be broadcast.
The same sort of laws on profanity can be used for interference, no FCC needed. Someone starts interfering then there's such a thing as courts. If someone intensionally interferes then you can sue them. And if they do it to a lot of others there may be a legal basis for a class action lawsuit.
FalconYou want "research" showing US employer health insurance makes us less competitive? Why don't you just read some news about US car corps choking on their healthcare costs, while foreign competitors benefit from the more economical nationalized healthcare?
The first result of the link you provide has this to say " GM's biggest competitor Toyota, in its home ground of Japan, did not have to foot the bill for their employees' healthcare. The state provides healthcare, paid out of taxes. Toyota has a clear competitive advantage over GM in the pricing of its products, thanks to the difference in the two countries' healthcare systems. Of course, this is not the only competitive advantage that Toyota has over GM." Notice how it says Toyota "did not have to foot the bill for their employees' healthcare" thus giving Toyota an advantage over GM, ie GM is not as competitive. A big factor in negotiations between the big three auto companies in the US and the United Auto Workers is health insurance. Ford, GM, and Chrysler don't want to continue to pay for health insurance for retired workers.
Since you didn't even notice that your favorite experiment in peoples lives and privatized economics is failing in our core industry
Prey tell, what's my favorite experiment? Not what you imagine it is but what it really is.
I don't expect you'll understand that the US income tax is low because we're $10 TRILLION IN DEBT
You are compleatly and utterly mixed up. US taxes are not low because of the debt, the debt is high because government has gone on a spending spree since Bush came into office. One of the few good things Clinton did was reducing the government deficit. He took the deficit from the biggest there was before Bush Jr to almost wiping it out, actually there was a small surplus when Clinton left office. Bush Jr then increased spending but cut taxes. Can you understand that?
I can't read the rest of the garbage, the way you ignore things or twist what you don't.
Falconthe current Roman Catholic position is more in line with Theistic evolution
Yea, Pope John Paul II acknowledged evolution.
Falconnecessarily opposites. In reality it all comes down to the nature of the regulation and what intended mission of the regulation is. If your regulation is to limit anti-competitive behaviour, ensure the prevention of dilution of free-speech and ensure that companies operate within the social structure of the country, then I can only see it as a good thing. If your regulation ensures all the opposite, then I can see why you wouldn't want it.
True, however a lot of regulations today in the US do limit competition. As with regulations from the FCC.
FalconAnyone could start one, but competing with a large monopoly like that is impossible. They would use every trick in the book to destroy competition.
Oh really? The big media companies of today are different companies from 20 years ago. Check this out, "Does Rupert Murdoch control the media? Does anyone?". If there are problems with what TFA says then point them out, don't just trash it because who wrote or published it.
FalconYes, I prefer a variety too, but these companies are not mine to control. They are not yours either, but, mysteriously, you feel comfortable telling them, what they can and can not do.
No I don't "feel comfortable" telling them what to do. Neither do I like the government telling me what to do. I shouldn't need a license to broadcast, whether it cost millions of dollars as broadcasting licenses do today, or if the license is free. The regulations in place today for broadcasting go back to 1934. Back then when the FCC was created from the Federal Radio Commission, itself creared in 1927, the technology available then did not allow broadcasters to use frequencies that are close. Transmissions would interfere with each other, however with the tech available today broadcasters could use frequencies that are much closer. Instead of the dozen or so broadcasters a city may have today, technology can allow dozens more. Besides allowing the use of closer frequencies, micropower radio makes it able to broadcast in a small area.
Quite simply if I wanted to start a radio station specializing in talking about model railroads without needing a license I should be able to do so. The radio spectrum is no longer the limited resource it was in 1934, heck just 20 years ago.
FalconWe have limited radio spectrum, allowing anyone to broadcast will cause collisions, either accidentally or on purpose.
But with technology radio stations can be a lot closer together allowing more stations to broadcast in a given area.
Jamming a station that disagrees with you?
"During the 1920s, such a common-law-based order in radio was emerging, with spectrum rights being traded and some court decisions recognizing a right against interference. Unfortunately, the free-market, common-law regime that was beginning to break through the crust of federal regulation was strangled in its cradle by the 1927 Act, which eliminated all individual rights in the radio spectrum. Henceforth, the Federal Radio Commission (later renamed the Federal Communications Commission) would assign frequencies, and naturally politics would play a leading role."
"During the 1920s, the courts were working out precisely such a system of homesteaded private property rights in airwave frequencies. It is because such a private property structure was evolving that Secretary of Commerce Hoover pushed through the Radio Act of 1927, nationalizing ownership of the airwaves."
FalconOk.
FalconThen it comes down to who can afford umpteen gigawatts of broadcast power. Pretty hard for the common person to compete.
Have you ever heard two different people trying to talk on radios using the same frequency? I have and it was sometimes hard to make out what was being said by either party. Now if they both had been selling ads and I was a potential advertiser I never would have advertised on either one. Playing music would have been even worse. Two, as was done before the FRC, Federal Radio Commission, renamed the FCC in 1934, the courts were recognizing a right against interference. "During the 1920s, the courts were working out precisely such a system of homesteaded private property rights in airwave frequencies. It is because such a private property structure was evolving that Secretary of Commerce Hoover pushed through the Radio Act of 1927, nationalizing ownership of the airwaves."
FalconIf Ropert Morduck wants to own every station in my market, let him! I won't be listening to any of that garbage. I have iPods, CDs and superior satellite radio. What do I need with a Ropert Murduck? Sounds like a skin condition. Throw another media outlet on the barbie, douche!
And what if Ropert Murdock also owned the satellite?
FalconOh, and Ron Paul FTW. Ever notice how Fox/CNN/ABC/NBC are trying so hard to ignore him?
Yeap, the mass media does downplay Ron Paul. CNN did have a small spot of him that I thought was good though. What will be even worse is the media attention the Libertarian Party will get. Back in the 2004 campaign Michael Badnarik, the LP's candidate, was arrested when he tried to attend one of the presidential debates and Nader was barred. Yet there was hardly a peep out of the press. The press is supposed give voice to the people, instead they drown it. I did like how CNN teamed up with YouTube to sponsor the debates recently but I wonder how the questions were picked. I liked the response from one of the questions for Ron Paul. After he spoke it seemed like the whole auditorium stood up and applauded him. I know there's not enough tyme to answer all the questions but I'd like to see the candidates answer the unasked questions online after the debate. Perhaps a bunch of similar questions can be combined and answered at one tyme.
FalconYour argument relies mostly on the fallacy that the law is morality
No, my point was that unlike what you said corporations were in fact granted charters when they served the public good, and that when they no longer did the charter could be revoked. Just because charters are no longer revoked doesn't make this untrue. Just as Thomas Jefferson warned about them, I am wary of corporations, and would like it for states to start revoking charters.
FalconThe price would be pretty much the same whether it was US companies or French companies doing the drilling.
But it makes a big difference to both French and US companies who gets the money.
scale up solar cell production to the same level (and with the requirement that they be completely replaced every few years). Solar cells have gotten a lot cleaner than they used to be, but we're still talking about a LOT of them.
Solar cells last more than a "few years". You can find solar panels with warranties longer than 20 years. SunPower's panels have a 25 year warranty. As does some BP panels. Here are more panels with 20 or 25 year warranties. And those were just the first 3 results from googling "solar panels" warranty.
FalconOK, now you've demonstrated you don't understand even the basics behind radio,
I've built radios, have you? And not by assembling a kit. The first radio I built I even wrapped bare wire around the tube from an empty paper roll. All the other pieces I used I scavenged. Years ago, when knowing Morse code was needed I wanted to get my amateur, shortwave, radio license. Back then you had to be able to build your own shortwave radio. Unfortunately I had difficulty with Morse code so I didn't get my license.
That's it for me on this thread.
FalconI didn't say that health care or insurance was created by libertarians (or the Libertarian Party). I said the health care and insurance corps have produced a hoax that looks "libertarian", but is just a reversal of the actual condition.
Rereading the post of your's I replied to I have to admit I was wrong, you didn't say it was created by libertarians. Sorry for the mistake.
Individuals each paying their own health insurance is more expensive than the broader base of statistical risk and per-capita cost of sales of policies by employers, but also much more expensive than if that aggregation were replaced by the government which also takes no profits on the operation.
While true now that most people who have health insurance get it through employers insurance costs more, I believe that if employers paid employees more to cover the cost of insurance, it would be lower. This is because there would be more competition driving costs down. However I disagree the government providing healthcare would cost less. When something is "free", ie the government pays for it, people will use it more thus driving up the costs. Since people won't pay out of pocket for healthcare they don't see how much it actually costs. But when they have to pay then they notice it. And though government may not be into making a profit bureaucracies always expands driving up costs. Businesses though, if the people are any good, try to lower costs so they can maximize profits. When they have to compeat this means reducing bureaucracy and paperwork. The same as Dell compeating against HP, compeating against Gateway. That's why governments pay contractors to build roads, they can do it cheaper. Heck, years ago I worked for a construction subcontractor and one of the jobs we had was building an assembly building at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Even though while working there all of us on the work crew were paid more than at any other job site, I was paid more than $5 an hour more, it was still cheaper for the Air Force to have a contractor build it.
As is proven around the world by our competition, which didn't waste time on employer insurance the way we have.
Health insurance is an advantage businesses in other countries have over US businesses. They don't have to pay for health insurance. However because of this taxes are higher. The US has one of the lowest income taxes in the world.
Nor is healthcare a good argument for libertarianism, when every decrease in government service has resulted in both worse care and higher costs that have made the US much less competitive with foreigners who do less work for better health, because their governments ensure they're protected in that way.
Can you provide any research links supporting this?
Next you'll be arguing for a return to the private fire departments that let America burn until the late 1800s, and then maybe private gangs to replace our police with competitive security - for the warlords on top, anyway.
Ah now you're reading my mind. But you read it wrong, I have never thought that. That is one problem I have with anarchists, I am not an anarchist. And I know of no other Libertarians who think that either.
FalconWithout the FCC, there would likely be only one media conglomerate in America, owning all publishing, television, radio, and movies.
Not likely, without requiring licenses anyone could start their own media company and have a radio or TV station.
FalconI don't really mind seeing ads to read Salon content, but the site is no longer allowing client machines that block ad.doubleclick.net to view anything.
I block ad.doubleclick.net yet I have the Salon page open in a tab. Of course right at the top of the page there's
"Unable to connect"
"Firefox can't establish a connection to the server at ad.doubleclick.net."
TFA on the page shows though. Are you using a Hosts file?
FalconThis may come as a shock, but businesses are not established "for the public good"
No but this may shock you, corporations are granted charters to serve the public, or common, good. The very first company to be granted a corporate charter, the Dutch East India Company, was granted the charter for that very reason.
Falconthink of how all the news channels seem to have determined that Hillary is the winner
What I've heard most recently is Obama is ahead of Hillary in some polls.
Falcon
If you love freedom vote for Ron Paul
five reducing themselves to four is perfectly fine...
It's fine as long as you don't want freedom to choice what you listen to. I'd rather have 100, 1000, even 100,000 options instead of 4.
FalconYou're going to have to explain how the market is served by your buying a transmitter to drown out the signal of your incumbent competition, broadcasting their format to their old listeners, but with your own ads inserted.
Can you please tell me where I said ANYTHING about drowning out my competition? That's a good thing about courts, if I interfere with someone else they can sue me. However why would I even want to drown them out, by broadcasting on the same frequency nobody would be able to listen to anything, theirs or mine.
FalconPirate radio stations are prima facia imposisble to allow.
Only impossible from the big corporate media perspective. Competition takes advertising revenue from them.
And competition does not mean anarchy.
Not requiring licenses isn't anarchy.
Aside from the fact that they would collide with one another, and thus interfer greatly
That was true in 1934 when the FCC was created but with modern technology stations can broadcast at much closer frequencies allowing more stations in the same area.
micropower stations make copyright law much harder to enforce.
It may but it also allows more media. Without needing a license if I wanted to I could start a radio talk show about model railroads. I could then sell ads to local hobby shoppes that sale trains and equipment. Or I could have a radio station that plays music from local bands, which would give them more exposure, then air ads for the bands. I like Reggae and Calypso so maybe I'd start a radio station playing them, or maybe I could play Bluegrass. Or, the ultimate reason for free speech, I could have a political talk station.
Falconhealthcare/insurance corps have produced a "libertarian" hoax that is precisely wrong.
Neither healthcare nor health insurance were created by Libertarians in the US. The current health insurance industry was created by a Democrat, FDR. During WWII, because of wage and price control laws, employers couldn't pay employees more so to entice people to work in factories and other establishments the government allowed employers to pay for health insurance for the employees. And still today employer have an incentive to offer insurance instead of just paying employees more. If the laws favoring employer provided health insurance, they pay no tax on it, were gotten rid of and employers were able to pay employees more so they could buy health insurance on their own healthcare would be cheaper and more people would be more keen to hold costs down. And by allowing people to buy and pay for their own healthcare they will be able to decide what sort of coverage they want, if they only want catastrophic coverage they can pay less for it versus another person who wants everything covered. Then with more people paying more out of pocket they will be more willing to shop for lower prices. That's called competition, you know, what many blame on driving workers pay down? Let competition drive cost down.
FalconSo, I don't think the comparison between "taming the rampant corporations" and "stopping the British from burning our city" is fair.
No less than Thomas Jefferson saw the risk of the Corporate Aristocracy. Specifically Jefferson said "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Falcon