Also, the article has "Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are perfectly preserved." followed immediately by "Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery." So, which is it?
I think what they mean is that once the subject is revived, they can repair whatever damaged parts caused them to hibernate the subject in the first place. That was my read on it, given the emphasis on battlefield injuries and casualties. However, the text is not very clear, and probably written in haste.
You don't have time. Plus, if they wind up being managers, they don't need to know about PHP and MySQL's specifics. You're only going to have about enough time to teach them how to make a completely watered-down application, which will be totally useless to them, and won't help them understand what real developers are doing.
Instead, show them what the LAMP model is all about. Bring up issues like:
LAMP vs. Oracle
Open vs. Proprietary
MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
read-heavy applications vs. transaction-heavy applications
Dealing with high demand (/. effect). You might want to mention:
Smart caching with Squid/mod_proxy
Database optimization
Making non-dynamic pages static
Using a smaller http server to serve static content (such as thttpd or a barebones Apache)
Moving from PHP to mod_perl for high-traffic applications
One big server vs. two or three (or more) very cheap servers
Time vs. Money:
In-house vs. Outside development
Creating a new system vs. Adapting existing system (which may cost)
etc
Try to get some opinions and discussions happening -- these high-level topics are more useful to them than how to set up an over-simplified database-driven website that won't scale.
Well, based on all the Reason music I've heard, and based on the time I've put into it, I would say you can create "spectacular & complex electroPop" with it. All software affects and informs the kind of work created with it, and Reason is no exception. It may be a fast tool for creating unusual synth sounds, but the idea that it gives you this huge amount of control over your sound is, as a pd user, hilarious. You're still stuck with their knobs.
How come no one has mentioned pure data (pd)? You can't get much more "Pro" than that. The possibilities are endless...
Anyway, I don't understand the obsession with Reason and ProTools. People always go on and on about how much control and flexibility Reason gives you. Reason gives you the illusion of control, but always winds up making EuroDance/Trance. If you want real power, check out pd. Otherwise, don't bring up control.
Pro Tools is widely hated by audio professionals for its ridiculously bad interface -- the only reason they keep using it is that it can handle the throughput of massive mixing consoles, and there's a ton of money already invested in it. Why should Linux apps try to emulate the "Pros?" Start fresh and build something better.
I agree, and anyone who's actually read The Anticybersquatting Protection Act of 1999 would agree as well.
The act mostly applies to business names and trademarks; the only restriction it makes for the registration of personal names is that you cannot register someone else's name, and then attempt to sell it back to them for financial gain. You can be as misleading and "unethical" as you like. I would think that using only someone's last name (as in VanHollen2004) would ensure that an individual couldn't come after you.
Now, it would be a different matter if Chris Van Hollen had declared or registered "VanHollen2004" as a trademark; indeed, if he has, the VanHollen2004.com/net/org certainly belong to him, in keeping with the Act.
Regarding libel, it would be a tough case. VanHollen would have to prove that the statements made by Floyd are "a false statement of fact. Since name-calling, hyperbole, or exaggerated and heated words cannot be proven true or false, they cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim." (from the Libel Defense Resource Center In addition, since the subject of the "libel" would be a public government figure, it would be even more difficult: "Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement" (also from the LDRC).
In short, it's clearly in the realm of free-speech. You may disagree with the tactics, but they are legal and protected, not just by Amendment I, but by thousands of subsequent legal cases.
You're right, I am too busy to get into this with you.
And counting cards is not cheating. It's perfectly legal. But so is banning people from private property, which casinos love to do. But it's worth mentioning that in Illinois and New Jersey, it's illegal for casinos to bar you from counting cards. So if you're trying to stretch that to equal theft, good luck. Furthermore, I've never gambled in my life. It's just a gig, d00d.
I didn't say you were un-American, I said I thought your alternative to the current form of government is un-American.
And maybe you don't hate the poor. If not, then why would you support policies that would kill thousands if not millions of them by cutting them off from support they rely on? Why would you tell them to "try harder" when many of them are working multiple jobs, taking buses to jobs far away, doing everything in their power, but still not breaking even?
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
As for the constitutionality of broad federal programs, I'd advise you to read about Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court case that affirmed the constitutionality of Social Security.
Beyond that, I don't have time to get into it, as I mentioned before. You're free to have your views, however much they scare me.
I don't have time for this anymore. Rhetoric is masturbation; nothing either of us say will convince the other, so why bother? I simply posted my first message to raise these questions, and hopefully this discussion made a few slashdotters question whether or not they are really libertarian. I think many geeks assume they're libertarian because they don't like governmental meddling. But they often don't stop to think what the consequences of a libertarian government would be.
You will go to war to continue taking my property from me?
Newsflash, jackass: no one is taking property from you. You are willingly surrendering part of your earnings as taxes. It was your choice to live here, and this is one of the consequences. No one is "taking" anything from you that you're not freely giving. If you don't want to pay taxes, just stop. It's called civil disobedience. It's how many of those poor you hate got their civil rights. And yes, I would go to war on this issue, not to take your property, but to protect the country I love from those that would essentially dismantle it.
States have their heads up their asses. If it were up to Alabama, they'd bring back slavery. No one pays attention to local elections anymore, so it's easier than ever for crazy people to be elected as mayors, governors, congresspeople, etc. And you want to hand the power to them? Hundreds of years of constitutional review and amendment have created the system we now rely on, which gives the federal government slightly more control than our founding fathers preferred for their day.
But they more than anyone realized that times change, and instituted the concept of Amendments so that the constitution would never get too out-of-date to be useful. I don't understand how you can cherish the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) so much, while discarding all of the amendments which have followed, which, taken together, form the basis of our current system of government.
You may want to read up on some constitutional law. Our governmental structures themselves are all thoroughly constitutional. They've all been vetted by a myriad of constitutional lawyers. Everything is backed up in the Constitution and its amendments.
Sure, libertarians support private programs for socio-economic mobility... Your view of extensive public funding for schools is certainly not in the mainstream of libertarian thought, but is extremely logical and necessary.
The race card is the logical extension of "let those poor people sort themselves out." The overt message of this theory is classist, but the subtext is racial. How else can you look at our current situation, with 25% of all blacks living in poverty, many working multiple minimum wage jobs and still falling deep into debt, and say "well, they just have to work harder." It's hard enough as it is, and you want to cut them off further? When you're heartless to poor people, you're heartless to far more blacks and minorities than whites. Just something to think about.
Do you think your parents ever would have made it to college without the great generosity of the federal government in their day? Not likely. Your parents may have preached the gospel of raising yourself up by your bootstraps, but lets face it -- they and everyone who does this has help from someone.
"Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise that it will last; but in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes."
Our founding fathers realized that a certain amount of federal taxes and government was necessary. But in those days, the main role of the federal government was to keep the states in check, take care of the courts, and develop the military. The fear was that the federal government, armed with the military, could strongarm the states into doing whatever it wanted.
Well, the federal government needs to do a lot more now. There's a massive amount of infrastructure that the founding fathers couldn't have dreamt about. There are hundreds of industries that, without government regulation, would spiral out of control, polluting our environment, endangering our food, and much worse. Without regulation (and even now, with regulation to a certain extent), corporations would grow much more powerful than state and federal government combined. These are things that Jefferson et al could not have forseen -- it would have sounded like science fiction. But if there were here today, I think they would certainly approve of a substantially larger federal government.
The great thing about Liberatarianism is that once the government stops doing all this other stuff it can concentrate on a few necessary things and do them well - like check corporate power if it gets out of hand.
Libertarianism is corporate power out of hand! It's the mass privatization of everything. If the government had to keep all these corporations in check, it would wind up being bigger than it is now!
Think about it. The government has a hard enough time delivering mail. Imagine if the USPS was privatized. Now it's dozens or hundreds of companies. If the government had to ensure that all of these companies were being ethical and legal, it would be a bigger and more expensive job than just delivering the goddamn mail! Now imagine a bunch of those companies consolidate into one or two monopolistic entities. What if one company decides not to deliver mail to customers of the other company? What if they decide to start charging $1.50 for every letter? It's well known that the Post Office, along with many other government agencies operate at a defecit. They intentionally lose money, because the overall economic value of letting citizens send documents around for $0.37 outweighs the fact that it may cost much more to deliver these documents. Your private corporations won't have such a broad and enlightened view.
The biggest problem with Libertarianism is that it just doesn't work. Many great minds have considered it, and concluded that it's simply not viable. Society needs some money from its people, and in well-run societies like ours, it provides innumerable benefits for everyone in exchange. And its the moral thing to do.
You're wrong about Thomas Jefferson. If he could see the US now, I'm sure he'd want every American to have the freedom to persue her/his dreams. In your America, that would be literally impossible for about a third of our citizens. Jefferson was a kind and excruciatingly moral man, as was Benjamin Franklin and all of our founding fathers. They would never advocate policies that would transform our nation into a loose, un-unified collection of private gated communities and urban hells.
I'm sure we would agree on a lot of points if we just don't talk about the fact that you would starve millions of Americans to save a few thousand dollars in taxes.
"But let's talk about a US in which all these heartless, high achieving libertarians move out. I guess part of my point is that if high earners moved out you couldn't live in the same America."
Wait a second -- not all high-earners are libertarians. In fact, most upper class folks gladly pay their taxes, knowing full well the good it does society. No one is arguing that America would run fine without "high-earners." What I take issue with is the idea that because you have more money, you somehow have more of a say of how it's used. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. We all have to pay taxes, regardless of how much we make. If you make more, you pay more. That's the way to ensure that our nation stays healthy.
"Self reliance?" Excuse me, but fuck you. Lets see how you fare when you're born into a Libertarian-spawned burned-out ghetto, with no money, no family, no resources, and no money to pay for school, which is now 100% private. Lets see how far you can get all by yourself when you're born with a serious mental illness that prevents you from working. Oh well, I guess it's survival of the fittest, right? Better luck next life.
But hey, I can see your point -- idiot like money. Idiot want keep money. Idiot don't want stupid poor black people steal money.
Why is it that you would not care to hear my words of dissent? Am I not free to speak them?
We hear your "words of dissent." I'm proud of the fact that in our country, you're free to voice them. But I'm under no obligation to agree with them or speak in a friendly tone. If it were up to you, you would plunge millions of Americans into utter squalor, and kill millions indirectly by cutting them off financially. If people like this ever come to power, there will be civil war, and I'll be the first to enlist.
The thing that makes Libertarianism truly insane is that you people don't take the theory to its obvious conclusions. If the government isn't going to be involved in regulating the quality of food, the infrastructure you rely on, and so forth, who is? And will they do it for free? Probably not. You'll wind up paying far more to corporations than you do currently to the government. Do you really want to get separate monthly bills for highway usage, number of minutes spent in the park, pounds of meat analyzed for e. coli, and so forth? Just picture your cell-phone bill and imagine getting one of those for everything you now take for granted.
But here's the real stumper: if Libertarians hate government so much, why do they want to get involved with it? It's obvious that you'll never see Libertarians come to power in your lifetime, so why make yourself crazy complaining about taxes and government control? If you hate this government so much, why not take more effective steps to eliminate it? If this Michael Badnarik was actually serious about his ideals, he'd crash a jet airplane into the Pentagon or something. Some guys actually did this already -- Maybe you've read about it.
If you want to live in America, get used to the idea that most people here don't want anarchy -- excuse me, I mean "Libertarianism." I love this country, and anyone actively trying to dismantle its government is my enemy.
AC, you're borderline insane. Taxation does not equal socialism, and anyone who disputes this must count nearly every nation in the world, including ours, as socialist. It simply doesn't hold up. I don't believe ALL of the output of the economy should go to the government, you nitwit, I'm saying SOME taxes should go towards helping the less fortunate. I didn't even call for an increase in taxes. I'm just saying we shouldn't cut them.
Your comments about the "lazy welfare mama" are way off-base and outstandingly cruel. There are 35.9 million Americans living below the poverty line right now. Your fascist views would deny those people the critical assistance they need and deserve, so that giant corporations could give their CEOs higher salaries.
You Libertarians always use this phrase, "put your money where your mouth is." I've got news for you, moron: I do -- I pay my fscking taxes. Those taxes are used to (among other things) help the poor and homeless. There's no need for me to house homeless people right now, because we have a sane society that rightfully has taken it upon itself to help those in need. If it were left up to heartless Libertarian bastards like you, the poverty rate would skyrocket, millions would die of starvation on the streets, all so you could take home an extra $5,000 a year due to lower taxes. It's astoundingly short-sighted.
This isn't what the founding fathers had in mind. These were above all moral men, and they founded the country on the ideal that a society could work together while remaining independent. That's the whole fscking idea of United States. Our founding fathers were avid Bible-readers, and the Bible is all about helping the less fortunate.
But may I suggest that if you hate paying taxes so much, why not found your own republic? Our founding fathers did, and they were in their mid-twenties. There seem to be enough far-right-wing-nutjobs like you lurking on slashdot to put together a minor revolution. Put your money where your mouth is, asshole. But if you want to stay in America, you'll have to realize that this country believes in equality, moral vision, compassion, and charity. Your ideal society went out of vogue in 1945.
I guess the answer to "where is the compassion" is "what compassion?" Your answer is so thoroughly frightening to me that I'm not sure how to respond.
You say "Why not just work harder/smarter or just be happy with your modest circumstances? Do you really deserve more than you have? Why should you get some of my stuff?"
MODEST CIRCUMSTANCES? Try telling that to the single mom who's working three jobs and not getting by. What happens when her kids want to go to college? Would you tell her to work harder or just be happy with poverty? Surely you're not that heartless, but that's exactly what you suggest. Does she deserve some of your stuff? Yes. That's what society is about. Government is supposed to help all of its citizens, and taxation is one way they can accomplish that. To equate that to socialism is idiotic.
If you want total independence, go buy yourself an island. Otherwise, we need taxation to make sure that our infrastructure is maintained, and our people are well cared for. Even the Libertarian party agrees on this, I just don't like the way they propose doing it. We have a name for your brand of "every man for himself" government: Anarchy.
I agree that lobbying is one of the evils of our current situation, but guess what: lobbyists are funded primarily by large corporations! And you want to hand those same corporations the keys to our country? No thank you. We need better laws to control lobbying, but essentially privatizing the government is going the wrong direction when it comes to corporate influence.
"Oh, and instead of asking me to give up even more for the homeless why don't you be the one to work harder and give more? Seriously why are you, Mr. Responsibility, so helpless? Oh that's right, I wouldn't want to barge in on your charished 9-5 workday."
Wow. I never suggested you should give up more for the homeless than me. I never suggested I was helpless. I'm an artist/programmer with my own business--I work whenever I want. But clearly, money-hoarding materialists such as yourself would never give a single dollar to the homeless unless the government did it for you, as they do now. Which is why we need to maintain these federal programs. You prove my point perfectly. Under your Libertarian society, I guess you'd just let mentally disabled homeless people die of starvation, since they're not able to work, and private charities benefiting them wouldn't be adequately funded.
It scares me that so many slashdotters confuse Civil Libertarianism with Libertarianism. I love civil rights and the ACLU. But Libertarianism is an anarchistic, heartless, very dangerous philosophy, and it does not reflect the values of Americans. And it is certainly not in keeping with the philosophies of our nation's founders, as you suggest. How can anyone pursue happiness when they're working hard but not getting by, breathing polluted air from unregulated factories, unable to send their kids to college, and living in a corporate-sponsored state? We're close enough to that already; the last thing we need is to speed the descent into madness...
Libertarianism is extremism. May our great country never fall prey to such an administration that would sell it off.
I leave you with two quotes from very different people. First, Mussollini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
And finally Thomas Jefferson: "A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society."
...not Libertarians. Most geeks just want the government off their back when it comes to information, free speech, and copyright/patent issues.
However, ask geeks whether they think it's a good idea to deny our poorest citizens the support and resources they rely on. Ask geeks whether they think it's a good idea to privatize the primary role of the government, which is to take care of its citizens. Ask geeks if they really think private companies will act in the best interests of society, rather than their bottom line. Ask geeks if they look forward to getting no help whatsoever from the government when it comes time to send their kids to school--not to college, but to kindergarten! Libertarians want to privatize everything, and our poorest citizens would pay the largest price.
Ask geeks if they agree with all that. Ask them if they're truly that devoid of compassion and civic responsibility. If they do, then they're truly Libertarian, and truly scary.
Libertarianism places much emphasis on the theory that individuals can pull themselves up by their bootstraps to success. With good enough education, the theory goes, even the poorest members of our society should be able to become wealthy entrepreneurs. Under this model, if you're impoverished, it's simply because you're not trying hard enough. But bootstrapping is a myth; even if it were possible (for many people it is just not), millions of people do not have the desire to start their own business, and simply want to make a fair and livable wage working their 9-5 job.
Because Libertarianism is even more conservative than Republicanism, impoverished people would be denied many of the resources they need to survive. Libertarians call for the dismantling of welfare, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and the reliance on private charities to care for our neediest citizens. Reagan gave us a taste of this logic when he all but dismantled the federal financial aid program for college students. The theory was that the private sector would step up and help our nation's students.
They didn't.
Instead, students and their families often face the burden of massive debt upon graduation, limiting their ability to start building their lives. The Libertarians point out that Americans already contribute over $125 billion to charity already. But Social Security alone contributes $535 billion to our citizens. That much cannot be generated from charitable contributions, even if the tax benefit is increased.
If Libertarians such as yourself had their way, our nation's poor would sink even deeper into poverty and debt while our nation's wealthy would grow wealthier and wealthier. Sure, the rich would donate to private charities to lessen their tax burden--but less "sexy" charities would suffer. Would you rather give money to a charity for mentally disabled homeless people (who now receive Social Security), or to Cancer research?
The role of government is to take care of its citizens, and ensure that we do the right things for society. Private corporations and organizations have no such goals, and cannot be entrusted with such responsibilities. If Libertarians had their way, the government would step back and let people sink or swim. This is short-sighted, cynical and above all, cruel.
Which brings me to my question, Mr. Badnarik: If the government is there to care for its citizens, why do you want to outsource this responsibility to the private sector, which has no real incentive to work for the public good? In short, where is the compassion?
I really love the phrase "mouth to mouth advertisement." I can just see a bunch of ad executives guzzling Listerine and going door to door.
I'm willing to buy that some people don't care what format their music is stored in on their player. But I'm curious as to how this "serves a purpose" for "something else." Pray tell, what purpose does an overpriced music player -- that transfers music slowly, in a dumb proprietary compression format -- serve anybody?
I'm not trying to be a jackass, I'm actually curious what you're saying...
Slashdot Mirror
Also, the article has "Although the animals are clinically dead, their tissues and organs are perfectly preserved." followed immediately by "Damaged blood vessels and tissues can then be repaired via surgery." So, which is it?
I think what they mean is that once the subject is revived, they can repair whatever damaged parts caused them to hibernate the subject in the first place. That was my read on it, given the emphasis on battlefield injuries and casualties. However, the text is not very clear, and probably written in haste.
-ben
You don't have time. Plus, if they wind up being managers, they don't need to know about PHP and MySQL's specifics. You're only going to have about enough time to teach them how to make a completely watered-down application, which will be totally useless to them, and won't help them understand what real developers are doing.
Instead, show them what the LAMP model is all about. Bring up issues like:
- LAMP vs. Oracle
- Open vs. Proprietary
- MySQL vs. PostgreSQL
- read-heavy applications vs. transaction-heavy applications
- Dealing with high demand (/. effect). You might want to mention:
- Smart caching with Squid/mod_proxy
- Database optimization
- Making non-dynamic pages static
- Using a smaller http server to serve static content (such as thttpd or a barebones Apache)
- Moving from PHP to mod_perl for high-traffic applications
- One big server vs. two or three (or more) very cheap servers
- Time vs. Money:
- In-house vs. Outside development
- Creating a new system vs. Adapting existing system (which may cost)
- etc
Try to get some opinions and discussions happening -- these high-level topics are more useful to them than how to set up an over-simplified database-driven website that won't scale.-ben
Subject line got cut off?
Well, based on all the Reason music I've heard, and based on the time I've put into it, I would say you can create "spectacular & complex electroPop" with it. All software affects and informs the kind of work created with it, and Reason is no exception. It may be a fast tool for creating unusual synth sounds, but the idea that it gives you this huge amount of control over your sound is, as a pd user, hilarious. You're still stuck with their knobs.
How come no one has mentioned pure data (pd)? You can't get much more "Pro" than that. The possibilities are endless...
Anyway, I don't understand the obsession with Reason and ProTools. People always go on and on about how much control and flexibility Reason gives you. Reason gives you the illusion of control, but always winds up making EuroDance/Trance. If you want real power, check out pd. Otherwise, don't bring up control.
Pro Tools is widely hated by audio professionals for its ridiculously bad interface -- the only reason they keep using it is that it can handle the throughput of massive mixing consoles, and there's a ton of money already invested in it. Why should Linux apps try to emulate the "Pros?" Start fresh and build something better.
-ben
WMDs and nuclear weapons are out, but they say nothing about high powered lasers for striking specific targets...
I agree, and anyone who's actually read The Anticybersquatting Protection Act of 1999 would agree as well.
The act mostly applies to business names and trademarks; the only restriction it makes for the registration of personal names is that you cannot register someone else's name, and then attempt to sell it back to them for financial gain. You can be as misleading and "unethical" as you like. I would think that using only someone's last name (as in VanHollen2004) would ensure that an individual couldn't come after you.
Now, it would be a different matter if Chris Van Hollen had declared or registered "VanHollen2004" as a trademark; indeed, if he has, the VanHollen2004.com/net/org certainly belong to him, in keeping with the Act.
Regarding libel, it would be a tough case. VanHollen would have to prove that the statements made by Floyd are "a false statement of fact. Since name-calling, hyperbole, or exaggerated and heated words cannot be proven true or false, they cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim." (from the Libel Defense Resource Center In addition, since the subject of the "libel" would be a public government figure, it would be even more difficult: "Public figures, such as government officials, celebrities, well-known individuals, and people involved in specific public controversies, are required to prove actual malice, a legal term which means the defendant knew his statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of his statement" (also from the LDRC).
In short, it's clearly in the realm of free-speech. You may disagree with the tactics, but they are legal and protected, not just by Amendment I, but by thousands of subsequent legal cases.
- ben
Yeah, and how much does that cost? Right.
You're right, I am too busy to get into this with you.
And counting cards is not cheating. It's perfectly legal. But so is banning people from private property, which casinos love to do. But it's worth mentioning that in Illinois and New Jersey, it's illegal for casinos to bar you from counting cards. So if you're trying to stretch that to equal theft, good luck. Furthermore, I've never gambled in my life. It's just a gig, d00d.
I didn't say you were un-American, I said I thought your alternative to the current form of government is un-American.
And maybe you don't hate the poor. If not, then why would you support policies that would kill thousands if not millions of them by cutting them off from support they rely on? Why would you tell them to "try harder" when many of them are working multiple jobs, taking buses to jobs far away, doing everything in their power, but still not breaking even?
I guess you believe in tough love.
No one cares because the alternative you present is unthinkably, bone-chillingly cruel and in my view, un-American.
I'd advise you to review the 16th amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
As for the constitutionality of broad federal programs, I'd advise you to read about Helvering v. Davis, the Supreme Court case that affirmed the constitutionality of Social Security.
Beyond that, I don't have time to get into it, as I mentioned before. You're free to have your views, however much they scare me.
I don't have time for this anymore. Rhetoric is masturbation; nothing either of us say will convince the other, so why bother? I simply posted my first message to raise these questions, and hopefully this discussion made a few slashdotters question whether or not they are really libertarian. I think many geeks assume they're libertarian because they don't like governmental meddling. But they often don't stop to think what the consequences of a libertarian government would be.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have actual work to do on the MIT Blackjack DVD...
You will go to war to continue taking my property from me?
Newsflash, jackass: no one is taking property from you. You are willingly surrendering part of your earnings as taxes. It was your choice to live here, and this is one of the consequences. No one is "taking" anything from you that you're not freely giving. If you don't want to pay taxes, just stop. It's called civil disobedience. It's how many of those poor you hate got their civil rights. And yes, I would go to war on this issue, not to take your property, but to protect the country I love from those that would essentially dismantle it.
States have their heads up their asses. If it were up to Alabama, they'd bring back slavery. No one pays attention to local elections anymore, so it's easier than ever for crazy people to be elected as mayors, governors, congresspeople, etc. And you want to hand the power to them? Hundreds of years of constitutional review and amendment have created the system we now rely on, which gives the federal government slightly more control than our founding fathers preferred for their day.
But they more than anyone realized that times change, and instituted the concept of Amendments so that the constitution would never get too out-of-date to be useful. I don't understand how you can cherish the first 10 amendments (the Bill of Rights) so much, while discarding all of the amendments which have followed, which, taken together, form the basis of our current system of government.
You may want to read up on some constitutional law. Our governmental structures themselves are all thoroughly constitutional. They've all been vetted by a myriad of constitutional lawyers. Everything is backed up in the Constitution and its amendments.
Sure, libertarians support private programs for socio-economic mobility... Your view of extensive public funding for schools is certainly not in the mainstream of libertarian thought, but is extremely logical and necessary.
The race card is the logical extension of "let those poor people sort themselves out." The overt message of this theory is classist, but the subtext is racial. How else can you look at our current situation, with 25% of all blacks living in poverty, many working multiple minimum wage jobs and still falling deep into debt, and say "well, they just have to work harder." It's hard enough as it is, and you want to cut them off further? When you're heartless to poor people, you're heartless to far more blacks and minorities than whites. Just something to think about.
Do you think your parents ever would have made it to college without the great generosity of the federal government in their day? Not likely. Your parents may have preached the gospel of raising yourself up by your bootstraps, but lets face it -- they and everyone who does this has help from someone.
Yes, but remember this Benjamin Franklin quote:
"Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise that it will last; but in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes."
Our founding fathers realized that a certain amount of federal taxes and government was necessary. But in those days, the main role of the federal government was to keep the states in check, take care of the courts, and develop the military. The fear was that the federal government, armed with the military, could strongarm the states into doing whatever it wanted.
Well, the federal government needs to do a lot more now. There's a massive amount of infrastructure that the founding fathers couldn't have dreamt about. There are hundreds of industries that, without government regulation, would spiral out of control, polluting our environment, endangering our food, and much worse. Without regulation (and even now, with regulation to a certain extent), corporations would grow much more powerful than state and federal government combined. These are things that Jefferson et al could not have forseen -- it would have sounded like science fiction. But if there were here today, I think they would certainly approve of a substantially larger federal government.
What?!
The great thing about Liberatarianism is that once the government stops doing all this other stuff it can concentrate on a few necessary things and do them well - like check corporate power if it gets out of hand.
Libertarianism is corporate power out of hand! It's the mass privatization of everything. If the government had to keep all these corporations in check, it would wind up being bigger than it is now!
Think about it. The government has a hard enough time delivering mail. Imagine if the USPS was privatized. Now it's dozens or hundreds of companies. If the government had to ensure that all of these companies were being ethical and legal, it would be a bigger and more expensive job than just delivering the goddamn mail! Now imagine a bunch of those companies consolidate into one or two monopolistic entities. What if one company decides not to deliver mail to customers of the other company? What if they decide to start charging $1.50 for every letter? It's well known that the Post Office, along with many other government agencies operate at a defecit. They intentionally lose money, because the overall economic value of letting citizens send documents around for $0.37 outweighs the fact that it may cost much more to deliver these documents. Your private corporations won't have such a broad and enlightened view.
The biggest problem with Libertarianism is that it just doesn't work. Many great minds have considered it, and concluded that it's simply not viable. Society needs some money from its people, and in well-run societies like ours, it provides innumerable benefits for everyone in exchange. And its the moral thing to do.
You're wrong about Thomas Jefferson. If he could see the US now, I'm sure he'd want every American to have the freedom to persue her/his dreams. In your America, that would be literally impossible for about a third of our citizens. Jefferson was a kind and excruciatingly moral man, as was Benjamin Franklin and all of our founding fathers. They would never advocate policies that would transform our nation into a loose, un-unified collection of private gated communities and urban hells.
I'm sure we would agree on a lot of points if we just don't talk about the fact that you would starve millions of Americans to save a few thousand dollars in taxes.
- ben
"But let's talk about a US in which all these heartless, high achieving libertarians move out. I guess part of my point is that if high earners moved out you couldn't live in the same America."
Wait a second -- not all high-earners are libertarians. In fact, most upper class folks gladly pay their taxes, knowing full well the good it does society. No one is arguing that America would run fine without "high-earners." What I take issue with is the idea that because you have more money, you somehow have more of a say of how it's used. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. We all have to pay taxes, regardless of how much we make. If you make more, you pay more. That's the way to ensure that our nation stays healthy.
"Self reliance?" Excuse me, but fuck you. Lets see how you fare when you're born into a Libertarian-spawned burned-out ghetto, with no money, no family, no resources, and no money to pay for school, which is now 100% private. Lets see how far you can get all by yourself when you're born with a serious mental illness that prevents you from working. Oh well, I guess it's survival of the fittest, right? Better luck next life.
But hey, I can see your point -- idiot like money. Idiot want keep money. Idiot don't want stupid poor black people steal money.
Why is it that you would not care to hear my words of dissent? Am I not free to speak them?
We hear your "words of dissent." I'm proud of the fact that in our country, you're free to voice them. But I'm under no obligation to agree with them or speak in a friendly tone. If it were up to you, you would plunge millions of Americans into utter squalor, and kill millions indirectly by cutting them off financially. If people like this ever come to power, there will be civil war, and I'll be the first to enlist.
The thing that makes Libertarianism truly insane is that you people don't take the theory to its obvious conclusions. If the government isn't going to be involved in regulating the quality of food, the infrastructure you rely on, and so forth, who is? And will they do it for free? Probably not. You'll wind up paying far more to corporations than you do currently to the government. Do you really want to get separate monthly bills for highway usage, number of minutes spent in the park, pounds of meat analyzed for e. coli, and so forth? Just picture your cell-phone bill and imagine getting one of those for everything you now take for granted.
But here's the real stumper: if Libertarians hate government so much, why do they want to get involved with it? It's obvious that you'll never see Libertarians come to power in your lifetime, so why make yourself crazy complaining about taxes and government control? If you hate this government so much, why not take more effective steps to eliminate it? If this Michael Badnarik was actually serious about his ideals, he'd crash a jet airplane into the Pentagon or something. Some guys actually did this already -- Maybe you've read about it.
If you want to live in America, get used to the idea that most people here don't want anarchy -- excuse me, I mean "Libertarianism." I love this country, and anyone actively trying to dismantle its government is my enemy.
- ben
AC, you're borderline insane. Taxation does not equal socialism, and anyone who disputes this must count nearly every nation in the world, including ours, as socialist. It simply doesn't hold up. I don't believe ALL of the output of the economy should go to the government, you nitwit, I'm saying SOME taxes should go towards helping the less fortunate. I didn't even call for an increase in taxes. I'm just saying we shouldn't cut them.
Your comments about the "lazy welfare mama" are way off-base and outstandingly cruel. There are 35.9 million Americans living below the poverty line right now. Your fascist views would deny those people the critical assistance they need and deserve, so that giant corporations could give their CEOs higher salaries.
You Libertarians always use this phrase, "put your money where your mouth is." I've got news for you, moron: I do -- I pay my fscking taxes. Those taxes are used to (among other things) help the poor and homeless. There's no need for me to house homeless people right now, because we have a sane society that rightfully has taken it upon itself to help those in need. If it were left up to heartless Libertarian bastards like you, the poverty rate would skyrocket, millions would die of starvation on the streets, all so you could take home an extra $5,000 a year due to lower taxes. It's astoundingly short-sighted.
This isn't what the founding fathers had in mind. These were above all moral men, and they founded the country on the ideal that a society could work together while remaining independent. That's the whole fscking idea of United States. Our founding fathers were avid Bible-readers, and the Bible is all about helping the less fortunate.
But may I suggest that if you hate paying taxes so much, why not found your own republic? Our founding fathers did, and they were in their mid-twenties. There seem to be enough far-right-wing-nutjobs like you lurking on slashdot to put together a minor revolution. Put your money where your mouth is, asshole. But if you want to stay in America, you'll have to realize that this country believes in equality, moral vision, compassion, and charity. Your ideal society went out of vogue in 1945.
ben syverson, democratic avenger
I guess the answer to "where is the compassion" is "what compassion?" Your answer is so thoroughly frightening to me that I'm not sure how to respond.
You say "Why not just work harder/smarter or just be happy with your modest circumstances? Do you really deserve more than you have? Why should you get some of my stuff?"
MODEST CIRCUMSTANCES? Try telling that to the single mom who's working three jobs and not getting by. What happens when her kids want to go to college? Would you tell her to work harder or just be happy with poverty? Surely you're not that heartless, but that's exactly what you suggest. Does she deserve some of your stuff? Yes. That's what society is about. Government is supposed to help all of its citizens, and taxation is one way they can accomplish that. To equate that to socialism is idiotic.
If you want total independence, go buy yourself an island. Otherwise, we need taxation to make sure that our infrastructure is maintained, and our people are well cared for. Even the Libertarian party agrees on this, I just don't like the way they propose doing it. We have a name for your brand of "every man for himself" government: Anarchy.
I agree that lobbying is one of the evils of our current situation, but guess what: lobbyists are funded primarily by large corporations! And you want to hand those same corporations the keys to our country? No thank you. We need better laws to control lobbying, but essentially privatizing the government is going the wrong direction when it comes to corporate influence.
"Oh, and instead of asking me to give up even more for the homeless why don't you be the one to work harder and give more? Seriously why are you, Mr. Responsibility, so helpless? Oh that's right, I wouldn't want to barge in on your charished 9-5 workday."
Wow. I never suggested you should give up more for the homeless than me. I never suggested I was helpless. I'm an artist/programmer with my own business--I work whenever I want. But clearly, money-hoarding materialists such as yourself would never give a single dollar to the homeless unless the government did it for you, as they do now. Which is why we need to maintain these federal programs. You prove my point perfectly. Under your Libertarian society, I guess you'd just let mentally disabled homeless people die of starvation, since they're not able to work, and private charities benefiting them wouldn't be adequately funded.
It scares me that so many slashdotters confuse Civil Libertarianism with Libertarianism. I love civil rights and the ACLU. But Libertarianism is an anarchistic, heartless, very dangerous philosophy, and it does not reflect the values of Americans. And it is certainly not in keeping with the philosophies of our nation's founders, as you suggest. How can anyone pursue happiness when they're working hard but not getting by, breathing polluted air from unregulated factories, unable to send their kids to college, and living in a corporate-sponsored state? We're close enough to that already; the last thing we need is to speed the descent into madness...
Libertarianism is extremism. May our great country never fall prey to such an administration that would sell it off.
I leave you with two quotes from very different people. First, Mussollini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
And finally Thomas Jefferson: "A nation, as a society, forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society."
- ben
...not Libertarians. Most geeks just want the government off their back when it comes to information, free speech, and copyright/patent issues.
However, ask geeks whether they think it's a good idea to deny our poorest citizens the support and resources they rely on. Ask geeks whether they think it's a good idea to privatize the primary role of the government, which is to take care of its citizens. Ask geeks if they really think private companies will act in the best interests of society, rather than their bottom line. Ask geeks if they look forward to getting no help whatsoever from the government when it comes time to send their kids to school--not to college, but to kindergarten! Libertarians want to privatize everything, and our poorest citizens would pay the largest price.
Ask geeks if they agree with all that. Ask them if they're truly that devoid of compassion and civic responsibility. If they do, then they're truly Libertarian, and truly scary.
Ben
Libertarianism places much emphasis on the theory that individuals can pull themselves up by their bootstraps to success. With good enough education, the theory goes, even the poorest members of our society should be able to become wealthy entrepreneurs. Under this model, if you're impoverished, it's simply because you're not trying hard enough. But bootstrapping is a myth; even if it were possible (for many people it is just not), millions of people do not have the desire to start their own business, and simply want to make a fair and livable wage working their 9-5 job.
Because Libertarianism is even more conservative than Republicanism, impoverished people would be denied many of the resources they need to survive. Libertarians call for the dismantling of welfare, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, and the reliance on private charities to care for our neediest citizens. Reagan gave us a taste of this logic when he all but dismantled the federal financial aid program for college students. The theory was that the private sector would step up and help our nation's students.
They didn't.
Instead, students and their families often face the burden of massive debt upon graduation, limiting their ability to start building their lives. The Libertarians point out that Americans already contribute over $125 billion to charity already. But Social Security alone contributes $535 billion to our citizens. That much cannot be generated from charitable contributions, even if the tax benefit is increased.
If Libertarians such as yourself had their way, our nation's poor would sink even deeper into poverty and debt while our nation's wealthy would grow wealthier and wealthier. Sure, the rich would donate to private charities to lessen their tax burden--but less "sexy" charities would suffer. Would you rather give money to a charity for mentally disabled homeless people (who now receive Social Security), or to Cancer research?
The role of government is to take care of its citizens, and ensure that we do the right things for society. Private corporations and organizations have no such goals, and cannot be entrusted with such responsibilities. If Libertarians had their way, the government would step back and let people sink or swim. This is short-sighted, cynical and above all, cruel.
Which brings me to my question, Mr. Badnarik: If the government is there to care for its citizens, why do you want to outsource this responsibility to the private sector, which has no real incentive to work for the public good? In short, where is the compassion?
Sincerely, Ben Syverson
I really love the phrase "mouth to mouth advertisement." I can just see a bunch of ad executives guzzling Listerine and going door to door.
I'm willing to buy that some people don't care what format their music is stored in on their player. But I'm curious as to how this "serves a purpose" for "something else." Pray tell, what purpose does an overpriced music player -- that transfers music slowly, in a dumb proprietary compression format -- serve anybody?
I'm not trying to be a jackass, I'm actually curious what you're saying...