I admit I don't own an XBox and have never played Halo single-player before.
But I've played it multiplayer before (8 players), and it doesn't impress me. Quake and Q3 impressed me. Counterstrike and the original UT impressed me. Even Deus Ex multiplayer impressed me more (skill upgrades, etc.).
But Halo doesn't impress me.
Halo is just your typical FPS game w/ fairly-open spaces; whoopee, Tribes and Delta Force did that forever ago on the PC.
Halo just seems like an FPS for people too dumb or too poor to use a PC instead.
Whatever. Enjoy your lack of keyboard + mouse control, generic "doomed space marine," average graphics, postage-stamp-sized corner-of-the-screen view ports (so that 4 people can play on 1 TV and not have the resolution to see WTF is going on in their "corner of the TV". I've always hated playing 4 player split-screen for that reason though, even Goldeneye and Perfect Dark on N64), and so forth.
You think he is a liberterian, ask a conservative or a liberal and they would think that he was a conservative or a liberal. Sounds like a politician.
Does a liberal politician cut massive amounts of funding for various programs? No.
Does a liberal politician use a bond issue to pay off debts, rather than raise taxes? No.
He is a politician, no doubt, but economically, he is not a liberal.
Is he an *absolute* conservative, economically? No, because he pushed through a $3b taxpayer-funded program for stem-cell research, and he has vowed to defend CA's environment as well.
What you're failing to understand is that there are *gradients* of political spectrum. In your world, somebody is not a libertarian unless they shred all the state's laws and let corporations rape and pillage the countryside.
Just because Schwarzenegger isn't an *absolute* libertarian, like Murray Rothbard or Ayn Rand and her cultist followers, doesn't mean he does not have some strong streaks of libertarianism in him.
It's called "moderation", a word most libertarians and extremists of other sorts fail to comprehend. Go look it up, b/c I think you fail to comprehend it as well.
"That would be the mark of a free-market economist, not a corporatist."
There is no difference. A free market economist is a corporatist. They believe that corporations should be able to run amok without any govt regulation, environmental regulation, consumer safety laws, or anything.
Wrong again.
Having taken several semesters of economics classes and being of a classical-liberal political persuasion (though perhaps not quite "libertarian" anymore), I consider myself a free-market economist (an armchair economist, at least). And you know what?
I'm all for abolishing the legal entity we call a "corporation".
What I want is to see that corporations are not held accountable, but that the *owners* of the corporation are. The shareholders should be responsible. If it's a private partnership, then the private partners of the corp. are liable. If it's a publicly-traded Fortune 500 corp, then all the shareholders have purchased themselves a share of responsbility for the company's actions.
This would provide incentive for those people to prevent companies from committing the sort of problems anti-corporate types so often complain about; the trouble right now is, that the corporation provides a "liability shield" for those owners -- I want that shield removed.
Here's an example of the power this change would have. If you were thinking about buying shares of Monsanto, but knew that they were dumping toxic waste in and around East St. Louis, wouldn't that make you more hesitant to own a part of the company? After all, sooner or later that toxic waste is going to come back to haunt the company in the form of lawsuits. Therein lies the increased incentive for companies not to act unethically: the responsibility of the actions of the company are placed back onto the company's owners, not onto this fictitious creature of law we call a "corporation."
Let me make the libertarian argument for this: Getting rid of that law would be an altogether very libertarian move; after all, libertarians view as restrictions of liberty (which they necessarily are), and thus, legislation is to be avoided whenever possible. In fact, Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Presidential candidate this year, supported the same removal of corporations as legal entity (see "Are some free trade restrictions necessary?") that I do, and which Joel Bakan, socialist law professor and author of the book "The Corporation" (later turned into a film) also supports (but for different reasoning, of course).
Of course, Badnarik is not an economist, and I've never seen a free-market economist speak one way or the other about it. But until I hear sufficiently-good arguments *again
Cut govn't programs outright? Not yet. But if you read the article I linked to about Arnie shrinking funding for various programs, for which the Socialists are screaming bloody-murder, you'd see that he's working on it.
Just because he didn't eliminate education, healthcare, etc. overnight in a state dominated by liberals and other such economic girlie-men doesn't mean he isn't trying.
You have to realize that politics is a game of compromise. Arnie is taking pretty much the most economically-conservative route that his constituency will tolerate; any more than what he is doing and he'll be voted out. He's handling the situation very well IMO -- he's getting CA residents "warmed up" to the idea of freer, more-open markets and shrunken govn't again.
But doing so will take time -- unlike what the Libertarian Party tells you, this is not something which can be done overnight.
Has he borrowed heavily?
Not to my knowledge. But he did put up a $15b bond to help pay for CA's budget woes. And Moody's recently upgraded CA's bond rating, BTW, meaning CA is going to be a more-attractive place for bond buyers to invest. This is a Good Thing for CA's economy.
Note that this bond issuance is not a tax increase...
It's an unfortunate mistake on Arnie's part to fund it w/ taxes, rather than another bond issue, or better yet, simply making it legal to perform and leave the market to do the research.
There's a reasonable argument that may be made that companies won't do "fundamental" R&D unless there's a clearly-obtainable profit-making goal at the end of it; i.e., business isn't going to study things like particle physics, b/c there's no market for it currently, and none which are apparent either. But most people would agree that such research *needs* to be done, b/c decades or centuries down the road, such discoveries lead to inventions we cannot conceive of yet - and *then* the profits can be made... It's not like the automobile or airplane, for which the promise of faster transportation was a no-brainer in terms of profit (who wouldn't want to be able to travel more-quickly and reliably?).
But on stem-cell research, however, I think the benefits are visible to businesspeople (new drugs, new medical procedures, etc.), hence, govn't funding seems unnecessary.
From your description he sounds like a corprotist not a liberterian
Who Is Governor Arnold? George Shultz's Hunch: Andrew Ferguson
Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. Treasury Secretary George Shultz, sitting in serene retirement in his office on the campus of Stanford University, likes to tell this story about Arnold Schwarzenegger.
``Buffett and I'' -- that would be billionaire investor Warren Buffett, who with Shultz heads the soon-to-be-governor's team of informal economic advisers -- ``were doing a conference call with Arnold back in September. A number of businessmen had joined us. And one of them, a Latino restaurant owner, starts to push this driver's license thing.''
That would be the new California law, signed by a desperate Governor Gray Davis shortly before last Tuesday's recall election, allowing illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses.
``This fellow says, `Arnold, all my employees are for it. All my customers are for it. You sup
I didn't say he was a *perfect* libertarian. But that's my whole point -- his leanings, by and large, are of a libertarian nature.
* Economics? Staunchly free-market and anti-tax. Why do you suppose he used a $15b bond issue to try to pay off CA's deficit, rather than raising taxes?
* Marijuana? He favors decriminalization (or is it legalization?) for medicinal purposes. No, he's not going for out-and-out drug legalization, but admit it: it's a step in the right direction, and a bigger one than virtually all Republicans are taking now.
* Abortion? Pro-choice.
* Gay marriage? Opposes a Constitutional amendment, and while he says it's illegal under CA law, he otherwise doesn't really care and seems to have no intention of actually having the law enforced.
Now, granted, he's not perfect. His stance on gun control is *far* from libertarian, and his stance on the environment is rather liberal (not that this is an entirely-bad thing IMO though).
But, when all else fails in demonstrating Arnie's libertarian cred, at least economically, well, he pisses off the socialists with his economic policies. That alone speaks volumes. And even socially, as I have described above, he is *far* more tolerant and moderate than most Republicans.
Face it, he's a libertarian-Republican; not a Libertarian, but not a Republican either. California could have done *far* worse than to elect the Terminator for governor.
Frankly, as *electable* candidates go (that is, the hardline Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, etc. are obviously not electable), he is about the best one could hope for; in stark contrast to President Bush, who is about as bad as it gets.
Now, your comments about journalism and reporters I find truly perplexing. While your perspective on bias carries some element of truth, I seriously doubt a self-respecting journalism professional would condone or support such a perspective. Because beyond a certain threshold, the media consuming public wouldn't stand for it. No one enjoy being swindled, lied to, or otherwise tricked with half truths and exagerations. The fact it is sometimes tolerated does not mean it should be emulated or promoted. I'm fairly confident most in this profession aspire to a grander ideal and only bends to the extent necessary to apease advertisers and sponsors.
Well, in fact, in the 1800s in the U.S., most newspapers explicitly stated their bias on the front page. We still have remnants of that era; one of my town's local papers is the "Republican", for example (in an area which has usually voted strongly Republican).
I don't believe I ever promoted a media which lies or deceives its audience (I don't normally advocate such deception; actually, one of my biggest pet-peeves is a chronic lack of honesty in America. Call me old-fashioned, but I truly despise being lied-to).
But all sources of media are biased; it does not matter which source you cite, for they have a bias (the NYTimes and SFGate are liberal, the WSJ and Chicago Tribune are conservative, Reason and The Economist magazine tend to be libertarian, and so forth).
The only question is *how* are they biased... Looking again at TV media, I would argue that FOX is a fairly-staunchly conservative channel, CNN is moderate to slightly-left, MSNBC is all over the place depending on what polls show people think of their shows, and CNBC is business/financial news with an economically-conservative (but socially-moderate to slightly-conservative; i.e., this is basically TV for the WSJ crowd) slant.
There is no such thing as unbiased media. Many people dream that there is such thing, but throw a source at me -- *any* source -- and I will detect a bias for you, no matter how subtle (as long as it's in English or uses very-basic Spanish, i.e. I can read it)...
I'd also like to address the source you cite for forced prison labor. While the article resides under the prestigious banner of CNN, it should be emphasized the piece is presented as an OPINION. Harry Wu, the author, is a social activist of significant notoriety and as such, can not make much claims to journalistic integrity. In the body of the article, he fails to mention that he has been incarcerated via the LaoGai system and has a bone to pick with the Chinese regime. To take him seriously as a proper reporter presenting reliable information would be like asking SCO to arbitrate a dispute between Microsoft and Linux. For what it's worth, the article itself links to a counterpoint that disects Wu's assertions point by point.
Just because he has a bone to pick w/ the Chinese govn't does not mean he is wrong.
Still, if (for some reason) you cannot believe CNN's quoting of a Chinese guy with an anti-China bias, you can try the BSR.
As for the population control... There are so many fucking people- EVERYWHERE. Really, some population control here would not be so bad. As I see it, a major problem is that the use of birthcontrol is not widespread enough to help fix the situation.
Meh, let the market sort it out. If it becomes too expensive to feed/house/clothe/educate children, people either won't have kids or they'll call for the govn't to save them from themselves (more likely, since people tend not to like being told "don't have children")...
But yeah, more birth-control promotion (condoms, etc.) would help immensely, I think.
I would suggest that America's better organization of law is both a blessing and a curse.
A blessing, because when you want to know if X is illegal or not, it's spelled out in black-and-white, and you can be reasonably-sure that with a competent lawyer reading it that you will have a safe interpretation. From your description of China, it sounds like a coin-toss.
But it's a curse, because as you say, it allows for rigid control eminating from the legislative bodies. Still, that's what our Constitution and Bill of Rights protect against (or are *supposed* to protect against -- Bush has done much to run roughshod over this American institution of limiting govn't power, in particular, those who might use that power for personal gain).
All in all, I still favor the U.S. system; I'll take my relative legal certainty (and the attendant predictable likelihood of winning in court) over a vague system like China's.
Thank you! You are absolutely correct... The LP's problem is that they sell 1 "Big Libertarian Package" as the solution to everything -- as if free markets are a miracle elixir.
Well, for the most part, free markets *are* close to a miracle elixir,:-) but good luck convincing everybody else of that. The LP needs to sell their stance in pieces at a time, being staunch and principled when it counts, and moderate at others.
IMO, Arnold Schwarzenegger is as close to a Libertarian as anybody has ever elected to significant office (Ron Paul aside, although I think Ah-nold actually is more powerful in his position). True, he's not libertarian on gun control and his support of Bush is disheartening, but otherwise, he exhibits some rather libertarian traits.
But Schwarzenegger is not a big-'L' Libertarian. He realizes he cannot sell full drug legalization to voters, so he instead sells marijuana legalization for medicinal purposes. He can't sell privatization of most govn't functions to people, so he sells the easier privatizations first. He attempts to fund the govn't in a relatively low-tax way, e.g. via his $15b bond issue.
Like Ronald Reagan, the CA governor he seems to emulate (but with a deeper streak of social liberalism), Arnold sells to the public a package of strong (but not extreme) fiscal conservatism in the face of "economic girly-men", social tolerance, and sunny Reagan-style optimism.
Personally, I think the Libertarian Party ought to emulate Schwarzenegger if they want to break their current Presidential popular-vote record of 1% (in 1980, with Ed Clark, who eventually founded the Cato Institute). Of course, the LP, being run by Randroids left over from the 1960s when "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" were big hits are still the ones running the show -- and Randroids, of course, don't compromise.
So we're stuck w/ the LP of today until the damn idealistic Randroid old farts leave.
Based on what admittedly-little (not being a CA resident after all) I know of Schwarzenegger, I would *gladly* vote for him for President on either a Republican or Libertarian ticket (of course, this would require a change the Constitution - which is pretty unlikely). If he were running for President today in place of Bush, no doubt in my mind, I would vote for Schwarzenegger, as would many Americans, I believe... but as it stands, I voted Badnarik, and most Americans will likely vote for Bush (the polls appear to be shaping up that way). *sigh*
My *ideal* Presidential candidate would be my favorite moderate libertarian and economic deity, Milton Friedman. But alas, he has no interest in actually running for office, and at his present age of 92, he's really too old now anyway. But Schwarzenegger is, by Arnie's own statements, basically one of the intellectual offspring of Friedman's books ("Free to Choose"). Fortunately, it seems to show too...
1) Personally: It offends my sense of civil-libertarian principle. The law leaves Americans less-free to go about their business unmolested by the hand of Big Brother. Restrictions on freedom should always be as few as reasonably possible, and the PATRIOT Act certainly doesn't qualify as a justifiable reasonable restriction on freedom in my book. It didn't 3 years ago, and it still does not.
2) Professionally: Having worked in the financial industry, the PATRIOT Act made my employer more-transparent to the govn't for terrorist-spotting purposes. This is a drain on our system resources and therefore, our productivity, and therefore, our efficiency, and therefore, our profits, and therefore, my income. So the PATRIOT Act has regulated away some (perhaps admittedly-small) amount of my income -- and for what?
Nothing except freedom-reduction and inefficiency, as far as I can tell.
Here's a better question: how many terrorists have we caught thanks *solely* to the PATRIOT Act? If we are to justify the law as useful for catching terrorists, then we had better *judge* it based on how many terrorists we catch -- NOT whether we have each been harmed by it. After all, a law that does nothing is a useless law wasting space on the shelves of law libraries across America, continuing to displace liberty in the name of security.
Indeed, true liberty is a lawyer's empty bookshelf.
And if the PATRIOT Act has been unsuccessful in catching terrorists, then the law has failed and we damn well had better repeal it for freedom's sake (and then proceed to find a better solution to the terrorist problem).
Look, just because the law hasn't affected somebody *yet* doesn't mean it *never* will. Take the tax cuts of the Reagan era -- it wasn't a week before Democrats were saying "OMG, it's not working!" But the process isn't that fast -- and in the end, the tax cuts worked.
So too will it be with the PATRIOT Act -- we may not have each been severely violated by it yet, but it is likely we will, sooner or later -- just like the DMCA. Therein lies the problem with the PATRIOT Act, the DMCA, the McCain-Feingold Act, or any other law: sooner or later, it comes back to bite you in the ass. But few people realize it until it's too late...
As a society, we have decided that some material is unsuitable for children, we have enacted laws to that effect, and we enforce them.
But does *everybody* agree with those laws? No. Perhaps only 80-90% do. What about the other 10-20% who do not? Are they to be subject to the whims of "society"? Why? Is that fair to them?
Perhaps they have children who are mentally-competent to handle more-mature subject matter than other children. Why should they be restricted by the whims of lesser people?
The same argument about wine can be made thusly: in the U.S., one must be 21 to drink wine. But over in Europe, the drinking age is lower: 18, 16, and even lower. Why? Because Europeans believe their children are more competent to drink responsibly than we in America do.
But let's say Europe's laws were written by the U.S. (not so far-fetched a hypothesis, really). Would it be fair to you to have to wait until you're 21 to drink? Up until that time, you had been drinking with no life-threatening ill effect (else, you would be dead!). So why should the whims of American society be placed on your own?
Now scale this hypothesis back down to the national British level, or even scale it further to the provincial/state level, etc. This is the fundamental flaw with letting "society" decide how the individual may lead their own life.
We only accept it because we feel as though we haven't found a better solution...
You need to grow up and stop using any "China shuts down" stories as an excuse for xenophobic knee-jerk reactions.
You need to grow up and stop making assumptions about what I think of the Chinese.
I am not xenophobic. I have absolutely nothing against Chinese people. Some of the best people I have ever met are Chinese.
But this wouldn't be/. without a WAG (Wild-Ass Guess) about the reality of somebody else's situation, would it?
Socialism and communism are not interchangeable. socialism is anti-captialism, while communism is post-captialism. (well actually it's captitalism, then a brief period of socialism, then communism).
This is an oversimplification, and from a purely economic perspective, not quite correct. Respond if you want to know why...
Anyway, if you're 16 you can do whatever you want in a netbar. Watch porn. Play CS. Whatever.
In that respect, yes, China is less totalitarian than the U.S., as they allow things like porn at a lower age than we do...
But how about free-speech restrictions (can you talk about Tianenman there?)? Forced prison-labor camps? Childbirth restrictions (1 child per woman, last I checked)? These are not the policies of a non-totalitarian society.
In China there's no age limit on alcohol or cigarette purchases. In the US, there is. Does this make the US a totalitarian state? I don't think it does.
Depends on how you define "totalitarian." I would argue that yes, these are traits of totalitarianism -- it's the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children are not doing the things they ought not do.
I think there can be room for cultural differences in how certain things which are both socially and physically affectatious are treated though (e.g. drinking alcohol often leads to accidents with previously-uninvolved people, so we restrict that from children, but political speech on the Internet hurts nobody, no matter how repulsive, because it still requires actions on the part of an individual somewhere to turn those words into harm).
The U.S. is far from free of totalitarian influence, even on such things we tend to hold dear as free-speech, but relative to other nations, the U.S. is still less-totalitarian than most (though Bush has been working overtime to change this...).
Of course, the US is more tolerant of violence than some cultures. Other non Judeo-Christian cultures are a lot more tolerant of sex.
Exactly; I think there can be room for cultural differences in the treatment of some issues. Sex is the classic U.S. vs. Europe example...:-)
Last I checked, CounterStrike was rated M for mature. The fact you allow children to play it does not necessarily make it a right or wise decision.
Did I say it *was*? No...
It is my firm opinion that it is the responsibility of the parent to ensure that their child is not doing what they, the parent, do not want them doing. So long as the child cannot be liable for non-criminal offenses under the law (e.g. cannot sign contracts), the responsibility of a child's actions is on the parents.
When your Internet access is shut down for whatever reason, it infringes on your right to use it for legitimate purposes. *THAT* is the source of your oppression. The double standard lies in the reasoning of "we have a better reason than you do". It is a double edged sword that cuts both ways no matter which sided of the Pacific you are.
This much I actually agree with. I am a diehard free-speech advocate (my only real limitation being speech which poses a "clear and present danger" (and it must be a very-blunt, obvious, agreeable one at that, e.g. somebody giving nuke launch codes to known terrorists. I would not even ban yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, although certainly whoever does that is fully-responsible for the harm that results)).:-)
But again, I never said it was legitimate to shut down Internet cafes for trafficking child porn (although I do think the individuals doing it -- i.e., probably the patrons -- should be held accountable for it, just not the cafe owner, unless it is the owners themselves who are doing it)...
Excuse me, but how much do you really know about China? Your so-called proof is *poof*!
Seeing as I have very-likely studied more economics than you have, I am probably more qualified to call it "socialist", because the truth is, even though it is called "communist", there has never actually *been* a communist state; in fact, the phrase "communist state" is an oxymoron, because under pure communism, there is no government. But under Chinese "communism" (now more of a socialist-leaning mixed-economy), there is a large government.
They are *far* more market-oriented than they were prior to 1978, that's true. But take a look at their tax schedule. Their income tax rates are fairly-similar to those in the U.S., with a wider variance (between 10-45%, rather than 10-38% as in the U.S. for singles). And their corporate taxes, ranging from 18-33%, are similar to the U.S. range of 15-39%. But unlike the U.S., China imposes a "Value-Added Tax" (VAT) of anywhere between 0-17%. They also impose real estate taxes, land-appreciation taxes, and land-use fees, among a raft of others...
All totaled, these taxes can easily add up to over 50% of the income of the average individual in the Chinese economy. That means that China is, by definition, still more socialist than capitalist (whether that's a good thing in your mind is your own opinion).
How much air time has the third party candidates recieved in the upcoming presidential election? Do *you* even know who your third party candidates are? With all the spin put out by the two dominant political parties, straight facts are impossible to come by.
Thanks for the lecture. Yes, I know the third-party candidates, and I've already voted for mine:
"An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
It may be relatively-small (compared to their forced-labor prisons, Great Firewall of China, etc.), but it is still an example of China's lack of freedom. And even examples as small as this must ultimately be eliminated.
And what were these guys shut down for? For allowing children to play adult games in public. Oh, that would be fine in the US right? Bullshit.
Wrong. We have allowed children to play CounterStrike in Internet cafes for years.
And the US shuts down net cafes with just as much gusto as the Chinese. The double stardard is attrocious.
Oh? Prove it. I've *never* heard of an Internet cafe in the U.S. being shut down by the government because children were playing violent computer games. (they may have been shut down for other reasons, e.g. trafficking child porn, but violent computer gaming? Never heard of it.)
China is still a totalitarian socialist state, and this is more proof that socialism and totalitarianism go hand in hand.
Stop trying to justify a totalitarian nation's destruction of freedom by dodging the issue and bringing out the red-herring of what the U.S. does. This article talks about China, not the U.S..
Look at that. The right 1/3 of the entire page is filled with ads. The article has a half screen-length (at 1024x768) of text ads. There are another 2 screen-lengths of text ads and crap info I don't care about beneath the article, excluding the author's info. Oh, and they have a banner ad at the top of the page.
And they expect me to read the article? Fuck that.
If they wonder why their bandwidth costs are so high, why don't they take a look at all their graphic advertisements instead, along with the fact that they're allowing full, free fat-ass PDF downloads of each issue.
I've lost any desire to buy anything from HP, IBM or anyone else involved in this crap. Give me "made in the US" label or give me death.
Then you'd better go wrap your (Ford|Chevy|Dodge) around a telephone pole the next time you go for a drive, because they don't manufacture all their parts in the U.S. (or even the cars themselves)...
Show me an all-American computer maker, auto-maker, or maker of virtually any other product. If the product uses any electronics at all (as is increasingly the case), then most-likely, it's using Taiwanese electronics.
Heck, the computer you typed your message on is probably not 100% American.
Well, is there any reason you guys can't take a few million immigrants? You've got all that land up to the north towards the Arctic Circle basically going unused.:-)
We could send export all our uninsured people to you guys so you can take care of them... Dunno what they'd do for jobs there, but the prospects for work in Canada tend to be similar to those here in the U.S. at least.
What you have under George Bush is pretty close to government under Libertarian principals
NO IT IS NOT! Dear lord you are an idiot.
What Bush practices is crony capitalism -- he uses the government's power and mondy to the benefit of business interests. Libertarians are *fundamentally* opposed to the use of government for *any* business purposes, because in the eyes of libertarians, government is bad.
If anything, Bush has done a magnificent job of *proving* why government is bad.
Get it right. I'm known here to be distinctly-libertarian, and Bush has done nothing but flip the bird to libertarians everywhere, by increasing the size of the government in fiscal terms while simultaneously depriving citizens of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Bush is a fucking disaster (and he *causes* disasters too) and a menace to society.
You would have to put a gun to my head before I would vote for Bush, and that is *not* an exaggeration.
With your dog-eat-dog fundamental economic philosophy, I doubt that you'll ever be able to get a good system going.
As it stands, people too poor to afford their medical care are able to use non-profit charity hospitals. The main problem with those hospitals, currently, is that the executives running them make far, far too much (some make $750k/year -- at a freaking non-profit!).
Fortunately, the anti-tobacco industry lawyer, Richard Scruggs, is taking on those hospitals to rout out the over-compensated executives. I have no love for them; if they want lots of money, don't make it on the back of charity, do it via a for-profit venture... Leave those of good will to run the non-profits.
In the meantime, people do still get treatment at these hospitals. It's not one of the more often-mentioned facts of American healthcare (because the interests on both sides of the debate win by ignoring them -- the big healthcare companies win by ensuring this competing market doesn't come to light to compete w/ them, and the anti-business leftists win b/c by ignoring those charity hospitals, it encourages people to forget about charity and thus promote government as a means to their socialistic ends), but it is true.
Faith says "I believe X is true, without condition."
Science says "I don't know whether X is true, so I will test it. I will believe X is true on condition that X is true; I will believe X is false on condition that X is false."
Note the use of the word "condition." One tests theories; the other accepts them automatically.
Therein lies the dichotomy.
You are correct that there is no proof of Newton's laws of thermodynamics. That's why they are called "theories." With respect to religion, the best you could say of the existence of God is that His existence too, is only a "theory."
Hence, I am agnostic. He may or may not exist, but thus far, I've seen no evidence that couldn't also be explained by science. I don't put myself in the camp that automatically accepts theory as fact -- i.e., the camp of faith.
Slashdot Mirror
I admit I don't own an XBox and have never played Halo single-player before.
But I've played it multiplayer before (8 players), and it doesn't impress me. Quake and Q3 impressed me. Counterstrike and the original UT impressed me. Even Deus Ex multiplayer impressed me more (skill upgrades, etc.).
But Halo doesn't impress me.
Halo is just your typical FPS game w/ fairly-open spaces; whoopee, Tribes and Delta Force did that forever ago on the PC.
Halo just seems like an FPS for people too dumb or too poor to use a PC instead.
Whatever. Enjoy your lack of keyboard + mouse control, generic "doomed space marine," average graphics, postage-stamp-sized corner-of-the-screen view ports (so that 4 people can play on 1 TV and not have the resolution to see WTF is going on in their "corner of the TV". I've always hated playing 4 player split-screen for that reason though, even Goldeneye and Perfect Dark on N64), and so forth.
Microsoft sees no redeeming features in OSS.
Slashdotters remain puzzled, but intend to get to the bottom of this...
You think he is a liberterian, ask a conservative or a liberal and they would think that he was a conservative or a liberal. Sounds like a politician.
Does a liberal politician cut massive amounts of funding for various programs? No.
Does a liberal politician use a bond issue to pay off debts, rather than raise taxes? No.
He is a politician, no doubt, but economically, he is not a liberal.
Is he an *absolute* conservative, economically? No, because he pushed through a $3b taxpayer-funded program for stem-cell research, and he has vowed to defend CA's environment as well.
What you're failing to understand is that there are *gradients* of political spectrum. In your world, somebody is not a libertarian unless they shred all the state's laws and let corporations rape and pillage the countryside.
Just because Schwarzenegger isn't an *absolute* libertarian, like Murray Rothbard or Ayn Rand and her cultist followers, doesn't mean he does not have some strong streaks of libertarianism in him.
It's called "moderation", a word most libertarians and extremists of other sorts fail to comprehend. Go look it up, b/c I think you fail to comprehend it as well.
"That would be the mark of a free-market economist, not a corporatist."
There is no difference. A free market economist is a corporatist. They believe that corporations should be able to run amok without any govt regulation, environmental regulation, consumer safety laws, or anything.
Wrong again.
Having taken several semesters of economics classes and being of a classical-liberal political persuasion (though perhaps not quite "libertarian" anymore), I consider myself a free-market economist (an armchair economist, at least). And you know what?
I'm all for abolishing the legal entity we call a "corporation".
What I want is to see that corporations are not held accountable, but that the *owners* of the corporation are. The shareholders should be responsible. If it's a private partnership, then the private partners of the corp. are liable. If it's a publicly-traded Fortune 500 corp, then all the shareholders have purchased themselves a share of responsbility for the company's actions.
This would provide incentive for those people to prevent companies from committing the sort of problems anti-corporate types so often complain about; the trouble right now is, that the corporation provides a "liability shield" for those owners -- I want that shield removed.
Here's an example of the power this change would have. If you were thinking about buying shares of Monsanto, but knew that they were dumping toxic waste in and around East St. Louis, wouldn't that make you more hesitant to own a part of the company? After all, sooner or later that toxic waste is going to come back to haunt the company in the form of lawsuits. Therein lies the increased incentive for companies not to act unethically: the responsibility of the actions of the company are placed back onto the company's owners, not onto this fictitious creature of law we call a "corporation."
Let me make the libertarian argument for this: Getting rid of that law would be an altogether very libertarian move; after all, libertarians view as restrictions of liberty (which they necessarily are), and thus, legislation is to be avoided whenever possible. In fact, Michael Badnarik, Libertarian Presidential candidate this year, supported the same removal of corporations as legal entity (see "Are some free trade restrictions necessary?") that I do, and which Joel Bakan, socialist law professor and author of the book "The Corporation" (later turned into a film) also supports (but for different reasoning, of course).
Of course, Badnarik is not an economist, and I've never seen a free-market economist speak one way or the other about it. But until I hear sufficiently-good arguments *again
Cut govn't programs outright? Not yet. But if you read the article I linked to about Arnie shrinking funding for various programs, for which the Socialists are screaming bloody-murder, you'd see that he's working on it.
Just because he didn't eliminate education, healthcare, etc. overnight in a state dominated by liberals and other such economic girlie-men doesn't mean he isn't trying.
You have to realize that politics is a game of compromise. Arnie is taking pretty much the most economically-conservative route that his constituency will tolerate; any more than what he is doing and he'll be voted out. He's handling the situation very well IMO -- he's getting CA residents "warmed up" to the idea of freer, more-open markets and shrunken govn't again.
But doing so will take time -- unlike what the Libertarian Party tells you, this is not something which can be done overnight.
Has he borrowed heavily?
Not to my knowledge. But he did put up a $15b bond to help pay for CA's budget woes. And Moody's recently upgraded CA's bond rating, BTW, meaning CA is going to be a more-attractive place for bond buyers to invest. This is a Good Thing for CA's economy.
Note that this bond issuance is not a tax increase...
Has he proprosed increases in govt spending?
The $3b for stem-cell research is the only one I know of, though admittedly, that *is* pretty big.
It's an unfortunate mistake on Arnie's part to fund it w/ taxes, rather than another bond issue, or better yet, simply making it legal to perform and leave the market to do the research.
There's a reasonable argument that may be made that companies won't do "fundamental" R&D unless there's a clearly-obtainable profit-making goal at the end of it; i.e., business isn't going to study things like particle physics, b/c there's no market for it currently, and none which are apparent either. But most people would agree that such research *needs* to be done, b/c decades or centuries down the road, such discoveries lead to inventions we cannot conceive of yet - and *then* the profits can be made... It's not like the automobile or airplane, for which the promise of faster transportation was a no-brainer in terms of profit (who wouldn't want to be able to travel more-quickly and reliably?).
But on stem-cell research, however, I think the benefits are visible to businesspeople (new drugs, new medical procedures, etc.), hence, govn't funding seems unnecessary.
From your description he sounds like a corprotist not a liberterian
If Arnie's a corporatist, then at the bare minimum, he sure as hell doesn't pander to the Latino businessman "I want drivers licenses for illegal immigrants" crowd:
I didn't say he was a *perfect* libertarian. But that's my whole point -- his leanings, by and large, are of a libertarian nature.
* Economics? Staunchly free-market and anti-tax. Why do you suppose he used a $15b bond issue to try to pay off CA's deficit, rather than raising taxes?
Also, Arnie reads Milton Friedman and F.A. Hayek. Economic girly-men need not apply where such authors are concerned, and Arnie calls Friedman, in fact, "my great hero"... The California GOP tried to paint him as a "liberal" (the evil "l" word) in the election, but failed b/c his capitalist tendencies are so strong. He has also attended an Austrian economics conference hosted by the Reason Foundation (and personally, for as libertarian as my ideals are, even *I* think the Austrians go too far).
BTW, have a look at his 16 person economic advisory board. It's reads like a who's-who list of outstanding free-market economists: Milton Friedman, Arthur Laffer, and Gary Becker are on that list, to name a few!
* Marijuana? He favors decriminalization (or is it legalization?) for medicinal purposes. No, he's not going for out-and-out drug legalization, but admit it: it's a step in the right direction, and a bigger one than virtually all Republicans are taking now.
* Abortion? Pro-choice.
* Gay marriage? Opposes a Constitutional amendment, and while he says it's illegal under CA law, he otherwise doesn't really care and seems to have no intention of actually having the law enforced.
Now, granted, he's not perfect. His stance on gun control is *far* from libertarian, and his stance on the environment is rather liberal (not that this is an entirely-bad thing IMO though).
But, when all else fails in demonstrating Arnie's libertarian cred, at least economically, well, he pisses off the socialists with his economic policies. That alone speaks volumes. And even socially, as I have described above, he is *far* more tolerant and moderate than most Republicans.
Face it, he's a libertarian-Republican; not a Libertarian, but not a Republican either. California could have done *far* worse than to elect the Terminator for governor.
Frankly, as *electable* candidates go (that is, the hardline Libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, etc. are obviously not electable), he is about the best one could hope for; in stark contrast to President Bush, who is about as bad as it gets.
Now, your comments about journalism and reporters I find truly perplexing. While your perspective on bias carries some element of truth, I seriously doubt a self-respecting journalism professional would condone or support such a perspective. Because beyond a certain threshold, the media consuming public wouldn't stand for it. No one enjoy being swindled, lied to, or otherwise tricked with half truths and exagerations. The fact it is sometimes tolerated does not mean it should be emulated or promoted. I'm fairly confident most in this profession aspire to a grander ideal and only bends to the extent necessary to apease advertisers and sponsors.
Well, in fact, in the 1800s in the U.S., most newspapers explicitly stated their bias on the front page. We still have remnants of that era; one of my town's local papers is the "Republican", for example (in an area which has usually voted strongly Republican).
I don't believe I ever promoted a media which lies or deceives its audience (I don't normally advocate such deception; actually, one of my biggest pet-peeves is a chronic lack of honesty in America. Call me old-fashioned, but I truly despise being lied-to).
But all sources of media are biased; it does not matter which source you cite, for they have a bias (the NYTimes and SFGate are liberal, the WSJ and Chicago Tribune are conservative, Reason and The Economist magazine tend to be libertarian, and so forth).
The only question is *how* are they biased... Looking again at TV media, I would argue that FOX is a fairly-staunchly conservative channel, CNN is moderate to slightly-left, MSNBC is all over the place depending on what polls show people think of their shows, and CNBC is business/financial news with an economically-conservative (but socially-moderate to slightly-conservative; i.e., this is basically TV for the WSJ crowd) slant.
There is no such thing as unbiased media. Many people dream that there is such thing, but throw a source at me -- *any* source -- and I will detect a bias for you, no matter how subtle (as long as it's in English or uses very-basic Spanish, i.e. I can read it)...
I'd also like to address the source you cite for forced prison labor. While the article resides under the prestigious banner of CNN, it should be emphasized the piece is presented as an OPINION. Harry Wu, the author, is a social activist of significant notoriety and as such, can not make much claims to journalistic integrity. In the body of the article, he fails to mention that he has been incarcerated via the LaoGai system and has a bone to pick with the Chinese regime. To take him seriously as a proper reporter presenting reliable information would be like asking SCO to arbitrate a dispute between Microsoft and Linux. For what it's worth, the article itself links to a counterpoint that disects Wu's assertions point by point.
Just because he has a bone to pick w/ the Chinese govn't does not mean he is wrong.
Still, if (for some reason) you cannot believe CNN's quoting of a Chinese guy with an anti-China bias, you can try the BSR.
Or Freechina.net.
Or Thefreedictionary.com.
Surely you don't believe China to be a beacon of human rights...
As for the population control... There are so many fucking people- EVERYWHERE. Really, some population control here would not be so bad. As I see it, a major problem is that the use of birthcontrol is not widespread enough to help fix the situation.
Meh, let the market sort it out. If it becomes too expensive to feed/house/clothe/educate children, people either won't have kids or they'll call for the govn't to save them from themselves (more likely, since people tend not to like being told "don't have children")...
But yeah, more birth-control promotion (condoms, etc.) would help immensely, I think.
I would suggest that America's better organization of law is both a blessing and a curse.
A blessing, because when you want to know if X is illegal or not, it's spelled out in black-and-white, and you can be reasonably-sure that with a competent lawyer reading it that you will have a safe interpretation. From your description of China, it sounds like a coin-toss.
But it's a curse, because as you say, it allows for rigid control eminating from the legislative bodies. Still, that's what our Constitution and Bill of Rights protect against (or are *supposed* to protect against -- Bush has done much to run roughshod over this American institution of limiting govn't power, in particular, those who might use that power for personal gain).
All in all, I still favor the U.S. system; I'll take my relative legal certainty (and the attendant predictable likelihood of winning in court) over a vague system like China's.
*claps*
:-) but good luck convincing everybody else of that. The LP needs to sell their stance in pieces at a time, being staunch and principled when it counts, and moderate at others.
Thank you! You are absolutely correct... The LP's problem is that they sell 1 "Big Libertarian Package" as the solution to everything -- as if free markets are a miracle elixir.
Well, for the most part, free markets *are* close to a miracle elixir,
IMO, Arnold Schwarzenegger is as close to a Libertarian as anybody has ever elected to significant office (Ron Paul aside, although I think Ah-nold actually is more powerful in his position). True, he's not libertarian on gun control and his support of Bush is disheartening, but otherwise, he exhibits some rather libertarian traits.
But Schwarzenegger is not a big-'L' Libertarian. He realizes he cannot sell full drug legalization to voters, so he instead sells marijuana legalization for medicinal purposes. He can't sell privatization of most govn't functions to people, so he sells the easier privatizations first. He attempts to fund the govn't in a relatively low-tax way, e.g. via his $15b bond issue.
Like Ronald Reagan, the CA governor he seems to emulate (but with a deeper streak of social liberalism), Arnold sells to the public a package of strong (but not extreme) fiscal conservatism in the face of "economic girly-men", social tolerance, and sunny Reagan-style optimism.
Personally, I think the Libertarian Party ought to emulate Schwarzenegger if they want to break their current Presidential popular-vote record of 1% (in 1980, with Ed Clark, who eventually founded the Cato Institute). Of course, the LP, being run by Randroids left over from the 1960s when "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" were big hits are still the ones running the show -- and Randroids, of course, don't compromise.
So we're stuck w/ the LP of today until the damn idealistic Randroid old farts leave.
Based on what admittedly-little (not being a CA resident after all) I know of Schwarzenegger, I would *gladly* vote for him for President on either a Republican or Libertarian ticket (of course, this would require a change the Constitution - which is pretty unlikely). If he were running for President today in place of Bush, no doubt in my mind, I would vote for Schwarzenegger, as would many Americans, I believe... but as it stands, I voted Badnarik, and most Americans will likely vote for Bush (the polls appear to be shaping up that way). *sigh*
My *ideal* Presidential candidate would be my favorite moderate libertarian and economic deity, Milton Friedman. But alas, he has no interest in actually running for office, and at his present age of 92, he's really too old now anyway. But Schwarzenegger is, by Arnie's own statements, basically one of the intellectual offspring of Friedman's books ("Free to Choose"). Fortunately, it seems to show too...
1) Personally: It offends my sense of civil-libertarian principle. The law leaves Americans less-free to go about their business unmolested by the hand of Big Brother. Restrictions on freedom should always be as few as reasonably possible, and the PATRIOT Act certainly doesn't qualify as a justifiable reasonable restriction on freedom in my book. It didn't 3 years ago, and it still does not.
2) Professionally: Having worked in the financial industry, the PATRIOT Act made my employer more-transparent to the govn't for terrorist-spotting purposes. This is a drain on our system resources and therefore, our productivity, and therefore, our efficiency, and therefore, our profits, and therefore, my income. So the PATRIOT Act has regulated away some (perhaps admittedly-small) amount of my income -- and for what?
Nothing except freedom-reduction and inefficiency, as far as I can tell.
Here's a better question: how many terrorists have we caught thanks *solely* to the PATRIOT Act? If we are to justify the law as useful for catching terrorists, then we had better *judge* it based on how many terrorists we catch -- NOT whether we have each been harmed by it. After all, a law that does nothing is a useless law wasting space on the shelves of law libraries across America, continuing to displace liberty in the name of security.
Indeed, true liberty is a lawyer's empty bookshelf.
And if the PATRIOT Act has been unsuccessful in catching terrorists, then the law has failed and we damn well had better repeal it for freedom's sake (and then proceed to find a better solution to the terrorist problem).
Look, just because the law hasn't affected somebody *yet* doesn't mean it *never* will. Take the tax cuts of the Reagan era -- it wasn't a week before Democrats were saying "OMG, it's not working!" But the process isn't that fast -- and in the end, the tax cuts worked.
So too will it be with the PATRIOT Act -- we may not have each been severely violated by it yet, but it is likely we will, sooner or later -- just like the DMCA. Therein lies the problem with the PATRIOT Act, the DMCA, the McCain-Feingold Act, or any other law: sooner or later, it comes back to bite you in the ass. But few people realize it until it's too late...
As a society, we have decided that some material is unsuitable for children, we have enacted laws to that effect, and we enforce them.
/. without a WAG (Wild-Ass Guess) about the reality of somebody else's situation, would it?
But does *everybody* agree with those laws? No. Perhaps only 80-90% do. What about the other 10-20% who do not? Are they to be subject to the whims of "society"? Why? Is that fair to them?
Perhaps they have children who are mentally-competent to handle more-mature subject matter than other children. Why should they be restricted by the whims of lesser people?
The same argument about wine can be made thusly: in the U.S., one must be 21 to drink wine. But over in Europe, the drinking age is lower: 18, 16, and even lower. Why? Because Europeans believe their children are more competent to drink responsibly than we in America do.
But let's say Europe's laws were written by the U.S. (not so far-fetched a hypothesis, really). Would it be fair to you to have to wait until you're 21 to drink? Up until that time, you had been drinking with no life-threatening ill effect (else, you would be dead!). So why should the whims of American society be placed on your own?
Now scale this hypothesis back down to the national British level, or even scale it further to the provincial/state level, etc. This is the fundamental flaw with letting "society" decide how the individual may lead their own life.
We only accept it because we feel as though we haven't found a better solution...
You need to grow up and stop using any "China shuts down" stories as an excuse for xenophobic knee-jerk reactions.
You need to grow up and stop making assumptions about what I think of the Chinese.
I am not xenophobic. I have absolutely nothing against Chinese people. Some of the best people I have ever met are Chinese.
But this wouldn't be
Socialism and communism are not interchangeable. socialism is anti-captialism, while communism is post-captialism. (well actually it's captitalism, then a brief period of socialism, then communism).
This is an oversimplification, and from a purely economic perspective, not quite correct. Respond if you want to know why...
Anyway, if you're 16 you can do whatever you want in a netbar. Watch porn. Play CS. Whatever.
:-)
In that respect, yes, China is less totalitarian than the U.S., as they allow things like porn at a lower age than we do...
But how about free-speech restrictions (can you talk about Tianenman there?)? Forced prison-labor camps? Childbirth restrictions (1 child per woman, last I checked)? These are not the policies of a non-totalitarian society.
In China there's no age limit on alcohol or cigarette purchases. In the US, there is. Does this make the US a totalitarian state? I don't think it does.
Depends on how you define "totalitarian." I would argue that yes, these are traits of totalitarianism -- it's the responsibility of parents to ensure that their children are not doing the things they ought not do.
I think there can be room for cultural differences in how certain things which are both socially and physically affectatious are treated though (e.g. drinking alcohol often leads to accidents with previously-uninvolved people, so we restrict that from children, but political speech on the Internet hurts nobody, no matter how repulsive, because it still requires actions on the part of an individual somewhere to turn those words into harm).
The U.S. is far from free of totalitarian influence, even on such things we tend to hold dear as free-speech, but relative to other nations, the U.S. is still less-totalitarian than most (though Bush has been working overtime to change this...).
Of course, the US is more tolerant of violence than some cultures. Other non Judeo-Christian cultures are a lot more tolerant of sex.
Exactly; I think there can be room for cultural differences in the treatment of some issues. Sex is the classic U.S. vs. Europe example...
Last I checked, CounterStrike was rated M for mature. The fact you allow children to play it does not necessarily make it a right or wise decision.
:-)
Did I say it *was*? No...
It is my firm opinion that it is the responsibility of the parent to ensure that their child is not doing what they, the parent, do not want them doing. So long as the child cannot be liable for non-criminal offenses under the law (e.g. cannot sign contracts), the responsibility of a child's actions is on the parents.
When your Internet access is shut down for whatever reason, it infringes on your right to use it for legitimate purposes. *THAT* is the source of your oppression. The double standard lies in the reasoning of "we have a better reason than you do". It is a double edged sword that cuts both ways no matter which sided of the Pacific you are.
This much I actually agree with. I am a diehard free-speech advocate (my only real limitation being speech which poses a "clear and present danger" (and it must be a very-blunt, obvious, agreeable one at that, e.g. somebody giving nuke launch codes to known terrorists. I would not even ban yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater, although certainly whoever does that is fully-responsible for the harm that results)).
But again, I never said it was legitimate to shut down Internet cafes for trafficking child porn (although I do think the individuals doing it -- i.e., probably the patrons -- should be held accountable for it, just not the cafe owner, unless it is the owners themselves who are doing it)...
Excuse me, but how much do you really know about China? Your so-called proof is *poof*!
Proof of China's totalitarianism would entail me citing something indicating that China uses forced prison labor, unlike the U.S., and citing the fact that by economic definition, socialism is the ownership of the output of the economy.
Seeing as I have very-likely studied more economics than you have, I am probably more qualified to call it "socialist", because the truth is, even though it is called "communist", there has never actually *been* a communist state; in fact, the phrase "communist state" is an oxymoron, because under pure communism, there is no government. But under Chinese "communism" (now more of a socialist-leaning mixed-economy), there is a large government.
They are *far* more market-oriented than they were prior to 1978, that's true. But take a look at their tax schedule. Their income tax rates are fairly-similar to those in the U.S., with a wider variance (between 10-45%, rather than 10-38% as in the U.S. for singles). And their corporate taxes, ranging from 18-33%, are similar to the U.S. range of 15-39%. But unlike the U.S., China imposes a "Value-Added Tax" (VAT) of anywhere between 0-17%. They also impose real estate taxes, land-appreciation taxes, and land-use fees, among a raft of others...
All totaled, these taxes can easily add up to over 50% of the income of the average individual in the Chinese economy. That means that China is, by definition, still more socialist than capitalist (whether that's a good thing in your mind is your own opinion).
How much air time has the third party candidates recieved in the upcoming presidential election? Do *you* even know who your third party candidates are? With all the spin put out by the two dominant political parties, straight facts are impossible to come by.
Thanks for the lecture. Yes, I know the third-party candidates, and I've already voted for mine:
"An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere." -- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
It may be relatively-small (compared to their forced-labor prisons, Great Firewall of China, etc.), but it is still an example of China's lack of freedom. And even examples as small as this must ultimately be eliminated.
And what were these guys shut down for? For allowing children to play adult games in public. Oh, that would be fine in the US right? Bullshit.
Wrong. We have allowed children to play CounterStrike in Internet cafes for years.
And the US shuts down net cafes with just as much gusto as the Chinese. The double stardard is attrocious.
Oh? Prove it. I've *never* heard of an Internet cafe in the U.S. being shut down by the government because children were playing violent computer games. (they may have been shut down for other reasons, e.g. trafficking child porn, but violent computer gaming? Never heard of it.)
China is still a totalitarian socialist state, and this is more proof that socialism and totalitarianism go hand in hand.
Stop trying to justify a totalitarian nation's destruction of freedom by dodging the issue and bringing out the red-herring of what the U.S. does. This article talks about China, not the U.S..
Gosh, FREE!!! wireless Internet access?
So nobody is paying for it?
So the routers, APs, switches, and bandwidth is all just going to appear ex nihilo (out of nothing) to San Francisco? Out of the ether?
I don't think that's what is meant by the term "ethernet"...
Look at that. The right 1/3 of the entire page is filled with ads. The article has a half screen-length (at 1024x768) of text ads. There are another 2 screen-lengths of text ads and crap info I don't care about beneath the article, excluding the author's info. Oh, and they have a banner ad at the top of the page.
And they expect me to read the article? Fuck that.
If they wonder why their bandwidth costs are so high, why don't they take a look at all their graphic advertisements instead, along with the fact that they're allowing full, free fat-ass PDF downloads of each issue.
I've lost any desire to buy anything from HP, IBM or anyone else involved in this crap. Give me "made in the US" label or give me death.
Then you'd better go wrap your (Ford|Chevy|Dodge) around a telephone pole the next time you go for a drive, because they don't manufacture all their parts in the U.S. (or even the cars themselves)...
Show me an all-American computer maker, auto-maker, or maker of virtually any other product. If the product uses any electronics at all (as is increasingly the case), then most-likely, it's using Taiwanese electronics.
Heck, the computer you typed your message on is probably not 100% American.
Such is the effect of international trade.
Well, is there any reason you guys can't take a few million immigrants? You've got all that land up to the north towards the Arctic Circle basically going unused. :-)
We could send export all our uninsured people to you guys so you can take care of them... Dunno what they'd do for jobs there, but the prospects for work in Canada tend to be similar to those here in the U.S. at least.
(this is a facetious solution, BTW)
What you have under George Bush is pretty close to government under Libertarian principals
NO IT IS NOT! Dear lord you are an idiot.
What Bush practices is crony capitalism -- he uses the government's power and mondy to the benefit of business interests. Libertarians are *fundamentally* opposed to the use of government for *any* business purposes, because in the eyes of libertarians, government is bad.
If anything, Bush has done a magnificent job of *proving* why government is bad.
Get it right. I'm known here to be distinctly-libertarian, and Bush has done nothing but flip the bird to libertarians everywhere, by increasing the size of the government in fiscal terms while simultaneously depriving citizens of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Bush is a fucking disaster (and he *causes* disasters too) and a menace to society.
You would have to put a gun to my head before I would vote for Bush, and that is *not* an exaggeration.
With your dog-eat-dog fundamental economic philosophy, I doubt that you'll ever be able to get a good system going.
As it stands, people too poor to afford their medical care are able to use non-profit charity hospitals. The main problem with those hospitals, currently, is that the executives running them make far, far too much (some make $750k/year -- at a freaking non-profit!).
Fortunately, the anti-tobacco industry lawyer, Richard Scruggs, is taking on those hospitals to rout out the over-compensated executives. I have no love for them; if they want lots of money, don't make it on the back of charity, do it via a for-profit venture... Leave those of good will to run the non-profits.
In the meantime, people do still get treatment at these hospitals. It's not one of the more often-mentioned facts of American healthcare (because the interests on both sides of the debate win by ignoring them -- the big healthcare companies win by ensuring this competing market doesn't come to light to compete w/ them, and the anti-business leftists win b/c by ignoring those charity hospitals, it encourages people to forget about charity and thus promote government as a means to their socialistic ends), but it is true.
Faith says "I believe X is true, without condition."
Science says "I don't know whether X is true, so I will test it. I will believe X is true on condition that X is true; I will believe X is false on condition that X is false."
Note the use of the word "condition." One tests theories; the other accepts them automatically.
Therein lies the dichotomy.
You are correct that there is no proof of Newton's laws of thermodynamics. That's why they are called "theories." With respect to religion, the best you could say of the existence of God is that His existence too, is only a "theory."
Hence, I am agnostic. He may or may not exist, but thus far, I've seen no evidence that couldn't also be explained by science. I don't put myself in the camp that automatically accepts theory as fact -- i.e., the camp of faith.
...so let's fix it!
Learn more about things besides the economy. It will make you look less dull and less an attractive target when the reds will come back.
At least you're a comedian of sorts, even if for the wrong reasons...