Do you have any idea of what a monopoly actually is? It appears to me that no one on/. does. You only have a monopoly when there is no competition and no *threat* of competition in the future. Not only does Comcast have plenty of competition between Qwest dsl and satellite TV, there is clearly a continuous threat of competition.
I know all you hippies on/. hate big business, but please stop branding them all monopolies.
Hey dickwad,
Whats easier, voting someone out of office, OR NOT USING THE FUCKING SERVICE. No one forced you use their service. But instead, you want cheap broadband, so everyone in the community is forced to pay for it, even if they don't want it, or don't use it.
Hey dickwad, It WAS founded with the principles of choice as well as IP. Taken from Article 1 of the US Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
No where does it say anthing about the "Public Good" I'm sorry your government schools didn't teach you anything about the constitution.
No, were not utopian idealists. We know that the world is never going to be perfect, that crimes will always occur, and that some people will always be poor. What we advocate will help these problems, and do it without taking away our liberty. We know that more government is never going to make less people take drugs, and that more government is going to help your health care costs. What we do know is that more government makes all these social problems worse, and yet the both Kerry and Bush are advocating more government.
It's unfortunate that you think that if the government didn't educate you, you would be stupid and poor. Education in a free market not only would exist, but it would be more efficent and cheaper.
What you said would be like someone under Soviet Russia thanking the government for bread, because without the government providing bread, there would be no bread at all.
I guess your government (AKA public) schools didn't teach you to think for yourself.
You sound like a well intended individual, it's just unfortunate that all your good intentions have bad consequences. Point by point:
the platform they advocate and realize its concentrated Big Business Republican
No, take the power away from government to regulate and aid business, and you're left with more small businesses.
Sell National Reserves and Parks to private owners
The largest polluter in this country is the federal government. People who own private land take better care of it because they have a greater interest in it
Make pollution a civil offense?
Right now you're prevented from suing polluters because they lobby the federal government into passing laws so that it's not even a civil offence
Eliminating the minimum wage really isn't as drastic as it seems, except for those immigrants that Badnarik claims are vital to American prosperity
The minimum wage causes unemployment. People can choose where they want to work, and if they wish to seek a greater wage.
How about you quit spending all your time letting politicians run your life and worry about yourself. You will find that it's better for everyone if you worry about yourself, and not everyone else. Any time you give the government the power to do good, that power will eventually be used to do evil. The problem is not the corruption of power, rather the power to corrupt. - Michael Cloud
You should read more about the Libertarian party, they don't want to have any federal taxes at all. What the states do is up to them. We would go back to a fed that survives only on tarifs, and is drastically cut in size. We don't believe in taking someones property to give to someone else (AKA involuntary taxation).
How could there be a surplus when the Federal Government didn't start collecting taxes until 1894, and not reliably until 1913 (16th amendment). References please, oh wait, this is slashdot politics.
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil, vote Libertarian.
You cannot justify bad behavior with worse behavior. The deficit is a big problem that needs to be addressed. Also, Bush has done nothing in regards to Social Security reform, other then happily spend its surplus on other government programs. The only reform of Social Security you will get through the Bush administration will be to allow you to put a small percentage into a heavily regulated government account.
If anyone is concerned with the fiscal policies of this administration and getting rid of Social Security, they should be voting Libertarian.
As their primary motivation *should* be putting profits first. And in doing so, this puts saftey first. They dont want an accident to happen because they know they will be put out of business if there were one. If a booster were to kill someone on the ground they would be sued into oblivion with or without regulation (manslaughter), also hurting profits. I would rather have these guys who know space flight impose the best saftey over some dip ship from washington who knows *nothing* of the matter reside over my saftey.
Some libertarians beleive that they should have the right to own nuclear weapons, just like *some* consertives beleive this. Also, just like *some* liberals beleive that we should have 90+% tax rates. Or *some* other consertives beleive that we should turn Iraq into a glass parking lot. If you listen to what the whackos say in any party you can never have a political viewpoint you beleive in.
I asked him this at a recent speech he gave at the University of Colorado, Boulder. His answer was that our government is the largest polluter in this country. The EPA passes laws that regulate polluters, but all to often coroprations are "grandfathered in" this means they are exempt from these regulations, he would repeal this. He would allow individuals to sue polluters, where for the most part we are not allowed to now. If I live downstream from you and you pollute my water, I would have the right to sue the pants off you. Currently most people don't have this right. This would give polluters more motivation not to pollute then they have now. Right now the government is protecting the polluters. Take away that power from the government and let the people regulate the environment.
Libertarians beleive that our government shall not entangle themselves in alliances with other nations.
I think that we can all agree that supporting the Afghanistan Taliban fighting the Soviets led to 9-11, along with our bases in Saudi. And I also think we can agree that no one could have ever predicted that this would have ever led to 9-11. This is the libertarian premise, foreign affairs are so complicated that engaging in them can *alyaws* lead to unforseen consequences, so you dont engage in them at all. We also have similar premise with regards to free markets, but thats another discussion.
There are 165 countries in the world, we have troops in 130 of them.
Although I dont't know much about approval voting, he does support this. This was one of my questions when I attended a speech and meet and greet at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He likes approval voting over other voting systems such as Instant Runoff Voting.
Attend a speech from Michael Badnarik and support him, his schedule can be found here
I recently attended a speech and meet and greet at the University of Colorado Boulder that Michael Badnarik was giving. One of his stated goals for this election is to get into a debate with Kerry and Bush. If he were to be in a debate with thses two he would chew them up and spit them out. The reason that he was selected to be the libertarian presidential candidate was because he won the debate against other libertarians. The party decided that this year a stated goal is to get into a major presidental debate, and they selected the best debater. In order to get into a debate he has to get at least 15% in the polls, so he is encourgaging people to say they would vote for him to get into the debate.
I will be voting for Badnarik this election but I dont find him as strong a candidate as Harry Browne but I beleive the campaign is going well.
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet
from the WSPQ are not libertarian issues, there issues relevant to all political parties. What other axes could you plot political parties on? The axes measure government intervention in personal and economic aspects of life. I would like to see a political model that charts the parties differntly, but I never have. Do you have an example?
I just took the Political Compass and the test in itself is quite skewed. Questions like:
Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
Aren't political questions. There are many questions like this. If anyone would like to take a real political quiz, try The Worlds Smallest Political Quiz
They claim to write a.doc file to disk as xml, the only problem is that binary data is embedded in the xml tags. Microsoft has absolutley no intentions of disclosing the format of.doc files in office 2003. The XML reference is nothing more then them capitalizing on the latest IT buzzwords.
Everyone thinks that you have to submit to the brethalizer and the road side tests if you're pulled over, and you're all wrong. You can refuse the road side tests, and the brethalizer, then at that point if a cop has probable cause for DUI, they will arrest you. If you refuse the brethalizer at the station, then you lose your license. The pigs use your stupidity to their advantage, know the law and your rights.
Slashdot Mirror
Great Idea, 6 more invites: Invite
Invite
Invite
Invite
Invite
Invite
Do you have any idea of what a monopoly actually is? It appears to me that no one on /. does. You only have a monopoly when there is no competition and no *threat* of competition in the future. Not only does Comcast have plenty of competition between Qwest dsl and satellite TV, there is clearly a continuous threat of competition.
I know all you hippies on /. hate big business, but please stop branding them all monopolies.
Hey dickwad, Whats easier, voting someone out of office, OR NOT USING THE FUCKING SERVICE. No one forced you use their service. But instead, you want cheap broadband, so everyone in the community is forced to pay for it, even if they don't want it, or don't use it.
Hey dickwad,
It WAS founded with the principles of choice as well as IP. Taken from Article 1 of the US Constitution:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
No where does it say anthing about the "Public Good"
I'm sorry your government schools didn't teach you anything about the constitution.
No tool can sniff switched networks. The information never makes it to your network adapter, nothing to sniff. A hub on the other hand, no problem.
Here's how: Get the government out of schooling, privatize schools. Problem solved, period.
No, were not utopian idealists. We know that the world is never going to be perfect, that crimes will always occur, and that some people will always be poor. What we advocate will help these problems, and do it without taking away our liberty. We know that more government is never going to make less people take drugs, and that more government is going to help your health care costs. What we do know is that more government makes all these social problems worse, and yet the both Kerry and Bush are advocating more government.
It's quite simple, if roads were private, then there would be no need for drivers licenses or the DMV.
How is the government going to pay back the interest and principal of those bonds. Oh, thats right, they'll tax you.
It's unfortunate that you think that if the government didn't educate you, you would be stupid and poor. Education in a free market not only would exist, but it would be more efficent and cheaper.
What you said would be like someone under Soviet Russia thanking the government for bread, because without the government providing bread, there would be no bread at all.
I guess your government (AKA public) schools didn't teach you to think for yourself.
You sound like a well intended individual, it's just unfortunate that all your good intentions have bad consequences. Point by point:
the platform they advocate and realize its concentrated Big Business Republican
No, take the power away from government to regulate and aid business, and you're left with more small businesses.
Sell National Reserves and Parks to private owners
The largest polluter in this country is the federal government. People who own private land take better care of it because they have a greater interest in it
Make pollution a civil offense?
Right now you're prevented from suing polluters because they lobby the federal government into passing laws so that it's not even a civil offence
Eliminating the minimum wage really isn't as drastic as it seems, except for those immigrants that Badnarik claims are vital to American prosperity
The minimum wage causes unemployment. People can choose where they want to work, and if they wish to seek a greater wage.
How about you quit spending all your time letting politicians run your life and worry about yourself. You will find that it's better for everyone if you worry about yourself, and not everyone else. Any time you give the government the power to do good, that power will eventually be used to do evil. The problem is not the corruption of power, rather the power to corrupt. - Michael Cloud
You should read more about the Libertarian party, they don't want to have any federal taxes at all. What the states do is up to them. We would go back to a fed that survives only on tarifs, and is drastically cut in size. We don't believe in taking someones property to give to someone else (AKA involuntary taxation).
How could there be a surplus when the Federal Government didn't start collecting taxes until 1894, and not reliably until 1913 (16th amendment). References please, oh wait, this is slashdot politics.
When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you still get evil, vote Libertarian.
You cannot justify bad behavior with worse behavior. The deficit is a big problem that needs to be addressed. Also, Bush has done nothing in regards to Social Security reform, other then happily spend its surplus on other government programs. The only reform of Social Security you will get through the Bush administration will be to allow you to put a small percentage into a heavily regulated government account.
If anyone is concerned with the fiscal policies of this administration and getting rid of Social Security, they should be voting Libertarian.
As their primary motivation *should* be putting profits first. And in doing so, this puts saftey first. They dont want an accident to happen because they know they will be put out of business if there were one. If a booster were to kill someone on the ground they would be sued into oblivion with or without regulation (manslaughter), also hurting profits. I would rather have these guys who know space flight impose the best saftey over some dip ship from washington who knows *nothing* of the matter reside over my saftey.
Minimum wage increases unemployment. This is a fact and is not debatable. How then would you collect more taxes from less people working?
Some libertarians beleive that they should have the right to own nuclear weapons, just like *some* consertives beleive this. Also, just like *some* liberals beleive that we should have 90+% tax rates. Or *some* other consertives beleive that we should turn Iraq into a glass parking lot. If you listen to what the whackos say in any party you can never have a political viewpoint you beleive in.
I asked him this at a recent speech he gave at the University of Colorado, Boulder. His answer was that our government is the largest polluter in this country. The EPA passes laws that regulate polluters, but all to often coroprations are "grandfathered in" this means they are exempt from these regulations, he would repeal this. He would allow individuals to sue polluters, where for the most part we are not allowed to now. If I live downstream from you and you pollute my water, I would have the right to sue the pants off you. Currently most people don't have this right. This would give polluters more motivation not to pollute then they have now. Right now the government is protecting the polluters. Take away that power from the government and let the people regulate the environment.
Libertarians beleive that our government shall not entangle themselves in alliances with other nations.
I think that we can all agree that supporting the Afghanistan Taliban fighting the Soviets led to 9-11, along with our bases in Saudi. And I also think we can agree that no one could have ever predicted that this would have ever led to 9-11. This is the libertarian premise, foreign affairs are so complicated that engaging in them can *alyaws* lead to unforseen consequences, so you dont engage in them at all. We also have similar premise with regards to free markets, but thats another discussion.
There are 165 countries in the world, we have troops in 130 of them.
Although I dont't know much about approval voting, he does support this. This was one of my questions when I attended a speech and meet and greet at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He likes approval voting over other voting systems such as Instant Runoff Voting.
Attend a speech from Michael Badnarik and support him, his schedule can be found here
I recently attended a speech and meet and greet at the University of Colorado Boulder that Michael Badnarik was giving. One of his stated goals for this election is to get into a debate with Kerry and Bush. If he were to be in a debate with thses two he would chew them up and spit them out. The reason that he was selected to be the libertarian presidential candidate was because he won the debate against other libertarians. The party decided that this year a stated goal is to get into a major presidental debate, and they selected the best debater. In order to get into a debate he has to get at least 15% in the polls, so he is encourgaging people to say they would vote for him to get into the debate.
I will be voting for Badnarik this election but I dont find him as strong a candidate as Harry Browne but I beleive the campaign is going well.
Questions like:
Government should not censor speech, press, media or Internet
from the WSPQ are not libertarian issues, there issues relevant to all political parties. What other axes could you plot political parties on? The axes measure government intervention in personal and economic aspects of life. I would like to see a political model that charts the parties differntly, but I never have. Do you have an example?
I just took the Political Compass and the test in itself is quite skewed. Questions like:
Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
Aren't political questions. There are many questions like this. If anyone would like to take a real political quiz, try The Worlds Smallest Political Quiz
They claim to write a .doc file to disk as xml, the only problem is that binary data is embedded in the xml tags. Microsoft has absolutley no intentions of disclosing the format of .doc files in office 2003. The XML reference is nothing more then them capitalizing on the latest IT buzzwords.
Everyone thinks that you have to submit to the brethalizer and the road side tests if you're pulled over, and you're all wrong. You can refuse the road side tests, and the brethalizer, then at that point if a cop has probable cause for DUI, they will arrest you. If you refuse the brethalizer at the station, then you lose your license. The pigs use your stupidity to their advantage, know the law and your rights.