If you were a terrorist organization, you would play a video game where chats are monitored by the company as a rule? No you would not. Monitoring text is clearly in the EULA of these games, and private chats are logged just like group/party, raid, etc.. chats are logged. If you truly believe in this fantasy of propaganda please go visit your local mental health professional and request medication immediately.
Now if you were asking "Are some corrupt fuckers in a 3 letter agency advocating that agents try to recruit people on these MMO sites?" my reply would be different. Sure they would. Numerous 3 letter agencies have made it a habit of trolling forums and Facebook looking for patsies. They even found a few of them and gave them everything they needed including targets so that they could heroically save the day by busting the patsy at the scene of the crime with fake explosives that the agency provided. I don't put any shitty tactics beyond these people at this point.
Fat != Lazy, there are countless factors involved. Been a single parent? Been in poverty where you can't afford groceries so live off of dollar menu fast food? Been injured where you can't exercise? How about combinations of these things?
In _YOUR_ experience being lazy was why you are fat. Your experiences are seemingly useless when discussing the real issues with obesity in the US.
The primary reason for obesity in the US from numerous studies is Poverty.
In my opinion, it appears that main patent simply added "on the computer" to an existing process, namely in an business transaction between two parties, there is a third party that ensures that payment is made and is facilitated. The computer made the transaction faster and more automated as noted by Judge Lourie in his opinion.
That is the heart of the Business Process patent laws. It's not about "invention", it's about 'ownership' of ideas. I can extend any patent you own, as long as I pay you royalty for your idea. This is one of the main reasons these laws are so bad!
You patent "2+2=4"
I come back and patent (2+2=4) - 1 = 3, acknowledge your original patent and will give you 50% of what I make on my extension of your patent.
Now anyone that uses "2+4=4" can be sued, but also anyone using my extension can be sued. The best part is that we make enough money to sue anyone that uses a result of 4 or 3 and put them out of business for potential violation of our patents.
Nobody should be amazed at how these patents have fucked up both the economy and IT industry as a whole. We gave the same exact arguments when Bush the first was trying to pass the patent laws, and they were passed regardless of what experts said. (Follow the money on that one).
What is amazing, is that it has taken this long to make it to the Supreme Court for ruling.
FUD! Sure, Debian "could" provide keys to a default service at installation time. The amount of eyes watching what happens in the Distro would ensure that the community knew of such a cookie cutter key. It would be announced, and patched to generate a new key dynamically. The beauty of OpenSource is that it's not just "The Bobs" that knows what happens. There are thousands of people that test, because they enjoy testing. There are thousands that patch because they enjoy patching. All of this process is done in the open, not by some back room board deal where "The Bobs" called the shot.
Of course this does not make it impossible for an agency like the NSA to try and sneak something in. Hell, they have been caught doing just that, and caught trying to do so. The difference between Open Source and Closed Source is that you can catch them in Open Source.
It does not matter if the NSA gives a bucket of money to "The Bobs" to look the other way either. Namely because there are people in Germany, Brazil, Russia, France, etc.. that are not paid that watch also and will blow "The Bobs" cover and reputation if they took money to look the other way. Going a bit further, because people are constantly coming in and out of the source projects an agency could not know "who" to pay off.
In fairness, it would not require "free software" to accomplish the openness. It would however require the source code for the encrypting software to be freely available to review, inspect, compile, and compare to what is installed.
"Free" software does this for you by nature, but a company could do the same thing. Microsoft "won't", but absolutely "could". Sun did it, HP has done it, IBM has done it, Cisco has done it, etc.. etc...
Microsoft would not do this however, because it would open up the nasty crap that they currently do in addition to bringing up concerns surrounding their code and implementation.
I agree with everything until you said "THAT is the part that doesn't work, not the patent laws themselves.". That is absolutely wrong, because of the whole concept of "idea" patents, which are currently legal (and have been since the first Bush).
The Patent laws have not been working correctly since then. The same arguments we have against those types of patents today date back to the 1700s. The difference between now and then is that people passed these horrible laws which allow not just the monopoly on an invention, but the monopoly on an idea.
While it's nice that some of the issues are being addressed, the underlying principle is still a failure. Our economy (or lack thereof) should make it painfully obvious to anyone that does even minimal research how bad "Idea" patents are. Our economy won't be fixed because of this law, which basically allows you to retrieve damage from a patent troll if the plaintiff loses. The "Why?" of that is very simple. Not very many of these cases get overturned.
The current patent system is still designed to allow monopolization of ideas, and wealth distribution among the people that already have patents on ideas. I don't care how smart you are as an inventor. When you come out with a product like NEST and get sued into oblivion because someone had the idea patented long ago and never used it, you can't possibly develop new products as an entrepreneur. When you have companies like Microsoft and IBM with think-tanks that do nothing but submit idea patents to the tune of hundreds of thousands of individual patents each year, your grand idea is already taken.
I agree with not lying about where you live, but finding a job ahead of time should not be that difficult. Vacation and visit, send lots of emails and most importantly be HONEST about what your plans are. Moving without a job, as the AC points out is a bad idea.
Huh? Do you know how many recruiters I told "I need information on a the proposed relocation package prior to reviewing the job offer" from in the past 10 years? Repeat offenders are requested "Please go purchase a Globe and review where you are hiring for versus where I live." I have further reported some companies as spammers because they simply fish by regular expression and ignore location.
Most companies _do_ screen based on area codes these days, and I'm happy for it. The foreign run agencies not so much, but I ignore them even if they get lucky with a local job offer.
Now this is of course different than me going on line to fill out an application, but I can't see a recruiter treating it any differently. Unless there is a way to make them know ahead of reading the resume "I want to move next door and I won't ask for money from you to do it.".
Then you don't travel very much, meaning to different locations. I have flown out of San Jose and get the minimal treatment you describe. Go to Reagan Intl. in DC and it's a very different experience which leaves you feeling violated. Detroit and Dallas are somewhere in the Middle of the two depending on your luck in getting into line.
The lack of consistency from a group that is allegedly working from the same playbook is both confusing and concerning.
I drive most places and don't see "voluntary DUI checks" or mandatory "fruit and vegetable inspections". I have at times run into those things as well, so know they happen first hand.
Just because you have not experienced bad things does not mean they don't exist. If have doubts and you do fly a lot, change your name to Sadam and book a flight. I'm sure you will get a nice dose of treatment people complain about.
You are like the guy living in the suburbs that thinks inner city gangs are not really a problem. Move your ass downtown and your opinion would change rather quickly.
Logic failure again. It's no fun playing any more because you can't see a basic error. How many "health" articles cover "drugs"? Many of them, so your search would pull every one of those articles into both your "drug" search and your "health" search. Trying to fabricate some numbers off of general terminology is idiocy.
Hence why I stated:
How about you do things a bit more sensibly, and look at papers and speeches Ron Paul has submitted during Congress, during his campaigns, and after his retirement.
Of course that would not back your argument.
And of course you did ignore it because it would not suit your fallacy. You don't want to fix your delusional view, so have fun playing alone.
Except that your methodology is absolutely broken, which you should have considered before hitting the submit button. "Drug" relates to all topics pharmaceutical in addition to legalization topics. It would also hit on Medical issues discussing prescription coverage.
Additionally, the amount of web pages related to the topic have very little to do with the party as a whole. I can express the legality of the Federal Reserve in very few web pages. I can't do the same with legalization.
How about you do things a bit more sensibly, and look at papers and speeches Ron Paul has submitted during Congress, during his campaigns, and after his retirement.
Whether or not you agree with my perception, that is in fact the perception created the the libertarian PR.
Bullshit! The perception you have is not due to Libertarian PR, it's due to slander and libel from Media owned and controlled by the same people that own the Democratic and Republican parties.
Face facts! You have done no homework on the party or Ron Paul or you completely ignore information you read. You can't argue a single platform or value that the party stands on, you can only provide ad homimen against them. Claiming that the party or Ron Paul are huge on drugs is yet another fabricated argument from you. Ron Paul and the Libertarian party both argue much more for economic stability and anti-imperialism than they do for drugs.
You are a liar, simply put. Whether you are a shill or just an ignorant person makes no difference.
Often that view isn't held by most informed people because the viewpoint is misinformed.
A difference of opinion is not necessarily misinformed. A subtle fallacy, but a fallacy regardless. The same repeated "wacky" argument is still nothing but ad hominem. So two sentences and two fallacies back to back.
I'd be interested in your pen name when writing for NORML. You have not displayed effective writing skills here, for what ever reason, but I'd be happy to read other work. Sure, an ignorant person will latch on to the appeal to emotion and ad hominem you present. I am absolutely not ignorant, and do recognize fallacy.
I don't know what his personal beliefs are on Theology, nor do I find it important. He was asked if he believed in evolution in an interview, and gave an answer that he believed that the Universe has a creator.
If you find that confusing, it's not uncommon. In brief, there is a Philosophical question dating back to the origins of writing. "Does the Universe require a creator or can it spontaneously just happen?". Contrary to what some people claim, the question has not been solved nor can it be solved any time in the foreseeable future. What we could state with a degree of honestly is that all of the arguments both for and against having a creator have been made, so read the work done on both sides and contemplate your own answer.
Answering that question does not require any Theology, or belief in a specific deity. It's not an easy question to contemplate, namely because we are full of taught biases. You won't get the concepts of the debate in a few minute post.
Believing in a creator does not mean you believe in a particular Theology. Atheists tend to falsely lump both concepts together and use them as an ad hominem when it suits them. To be fair, theists do the same thing in the other direction.
That said, if someone does believe in a creator then there are certain aspects of most theologies that become important. If you have done the ground work to believe in a creator, generally you will do the same amount of ground work in determining which portions of theologies may also be valid.
Remember that correlation is not equal to causation, and all that. I'm fully for equal rights, and believe that a woman should receive equal pay for equal work. The first advocate of a gender neutral society was Socrates. He points out what we fail to argue when discussing equal rights, which is that there are numerous physiological differences between men and women. Those differences should not equate to discrimination, but tend to because our society teaches discrimination.
A woman can function fully in the military for example. What they can't do is carry the same amount of weight as men, because of physical differences. That is no reason to prevent them from performing in the military, just an issue for logistics planners on how long a mission can run how re-supply is done.
You really should stop relying on Fox News or similar ilk to give you the concepts you base people and their words upon. I'm betting you will claim to not watch such "news", but you parrot the same bullshit without any fact or logical opposition.
Example: Do you understand why Libertarians are against the drug prohibition and can you debate their points? Claiming they are "wacko" without any debate is simply wacko. The arguments regarding 1) constitutionality and 2) the effectiveness of prohibitions are very rational arguments. I'm not claiming there are not some valid points to debate on the other side, but you address nothing and just make a claim that I heard on TV for 6 years about "Ron Paul" being crazy. Meanwhile I read his papers, listened to his speeches, and wondered why he would be labelled as such except that the media does not want an alternative viewpoint hitting main steam.
It's like the atheist zealots that claim "Ron Paul is Theist" when he never mentions any theology, he only mentions that he believes in a creator. Based on 30 years of Philosophical study, I have the same conclusion. Some may study and come to a different conclusion, but most will never bother to study. It is much easier to have someone else do the thinking for them. I doubt they could fathom separating Theology from the discussion, let alone debate the topic with any rationality.
Point is, go do the homework and you will probably find out that they are not "wacko". They present rational thought and demonstrate the failures of following the status quot for the last 30 years, which scares the shit out of people in power.
Ron Paul wanted to cut military expenditures, not disband the military or hand them over to the state. Ron Paul wanted to reduce the size of Government in general. Because, for example, having 9 different 3 letter organizations to handle national security is too many.
Reducing size and scope is not the same thing as disbanding the whole thing. Claiming those two things are the same is ignorance (willful or otherwise).
That single aspect (reduction of Government) is only a portion of what both Libertarians and Ron Paul stand for and request. Increased accountability and transparency are two more subjects easy to look for in both the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul.
It's not because of Wealth of Nations that people differ on views, it's because there was much more work than just one book. People that read part of the works don't see the same thing as the people that read the complete works.
I have read the books several times, and your quote does not change my statement or what he said in "Of Systems of political Economy" and hinted at in other works. I do hope you realize that Adam Smith wrote much more than "The Wealth of Nations".
Are you now trying to falsely claim that Ron Paul said to move everything to the State level? One lie tends lead to another lie, and you prove to be no exception. Your irrational generalization was wrong, and no amount of fallacy or lies makes it true.
In fairness, Adam Smith also discussed how Government regulation must prevent monopolization to ensure that this didn't happen. We used to have laws that were enforced to handle some of this, but those have been repealed or simply ignored.
Slashdot Mirror
If you were a terrorist organization, you would play a video game where chats are monitored by the company as a rule? No you would not. Monitoring text is clearly in the EULA of these games, and private chats are logged just like group/party, raid, etc.. chats are logged. If you truly believe in this fantasy of propaganda please go visit your local mental health professional and request medication immediately.
Now if you were asking "Are some corrupt fuckers in a 3 letter agency advocating that agents try to recruit people on these MMO sites?" my reply would be different. Sure they would. Numerous 3 letter agencies have made it a habit of trolling forums and Facebook looking for patsies. They even found a few of them and gave them everything they needed including targets so that they could heroically save the day by busting the patsy at the scene of the crime with fake explosives that the agency provided. I don't put any shitty tactics beyond these people at this point.
Fat != Lazy, there are countless factors involved. Been a single parent? Been in poverty where you can't afford groceries so live off of dollar menu fast food? Been injured where you can't exercise? How about combinations of these things?
In _YOUR_ experience being lazy was why you are fat. Your experiences are seemingly useless when discussing the real issues with obesity in the US.
The primary reason for obesity in the US from numerous studies is Poverty.
You made a bit more clear what I intended with being able to inspect what is compiled versus what is installed.
In my opinion, it appears that main patent simply added "on the computer" to an existing process, namely in an business transaction between two parties, there is a third party that ensures that payment is made and is facilitated. The computer made the transaction faster and more automated as noted by Judge Lourie in his opinion.
That is the heart of the Business Process patent laws. It's not about "invention", it's about 'ownership' of ideas. I can extend any patent you own, as long as I pay you royalty for your idea. This is one of the main reasons these laws are so bad!
You patent "2+2=4"
I come back and patent (2+2=4) - 1 = 3, acknowledge your original patent and will give you 50% of what I make on my extension of your patent.
Now anyone that uses "2+4=4" can be sued, but also anyone using my extension can be sued. The best part is that we make enough money to sue anyone that uses a result of 4 or 3 and put them out of business for potential violation of our patents.
Nobody should be amazed at how these patents have fucked up both the economy and IT industry as a whole. We gave the same exact arguments when Bush the first was trying to pass the patent laws, and they were passed regardless of what experts said. (Follow the money on that one).
What is amazing, is that it has taken this long to make it to the Supreme Court for ruling.
FUD! Sure, Debian "could" provide keys to a default service at installation time. The amount of eyes watching what happens in the Distro would ensure that the community knew of such a cookie cutter key. It would be announced, and patched to generate a new key dynamically. The beauty of OpenSource is that it's not just "The Bobs" that knows what happens. There are thousands of people that test, because they enjoy testing. There are thousands that patch because they enjoy patching. All of this process is done in the open, not by some back room board deal where "The Bobs" called the shot.
Of course this does not make it impossible for an agency like the NSA to try and sneak something in. Hell, they have been caught doing just that, and caught trying to do so. The difference between Open Source and Closed Source is that you can catch them in Open Source.
It does not matter if the NSA gives a bucket of money to "The Bobs" to look the other way either. Namely because there are people in Germany, Brazil, Russia, France, etc.. that are not paid that watch also and will blow "The Bobs" cover and reputation if they took money to look the other way. Going a bit further, because people are constantly coming in and out of the source projects an agency could not know "who" to pay off.
In fairness, it would not require "free software" to accomplish the openness. It would however require the source code for the encrypting software to be freely available to review, inspect, compile, and compare to what is installed.
"Free" software does this for you by nature, but a company could do the same thing. Microsoft "won't", but absolutely "could". Sun did it, HP has done it, IBM has done it, Cisco has done it, etc.. etc...
Microsoft would not do this however, because it would open up the nasty crap that they currently do in addition to bringing up concerns surrounding their code and implementation.
I agree with everything until you said "THAT is the part that doesn't work, not the patent laws themselves.". That is absolutely wrong, because of the whole concept of "idea" patents, which are currently legal (and have been since the first Bush).
The Patent laws have not been working correctly since then. The same arguments we have against those types of patents today date back to the 1700s. The difference between now and then is that people passed these horrible laws which allow not just the monopoly on an invention, but the monopoly on an idea.
While it's nice that some of the issues are being addressed, the underlying principle is still a failure. Our economy (or lack thereof) should make it painfully obvious to anyone that does even minimal research how bad "Idea" patents are. Our economy won't be fixed because of this law, which basically allows you to retrieve damage from a patent troll if the plaintiff loses. The "Why?" of that is very simple. Not very many of these cases get overturned.
The current patent system is still designed to allow monopolization of ideas, and wealth distribution among the people that already have patents on ideas. I don't care how smart you are as an inventor. When you come out with a product like NEST and get sued into oblivion because someone had the idea patented long ago and never used it, you can't possibly develop new products as an entrepreneur. When you have companies like Microsoft and IBM with think-tanks that do nothing but submit idea patents to the tune of hundreds of thousands of individual patents each year, your grand idea is already taken.
I agree with not lying about where you live, but finding a job ahead of time should not be that difficult. Vacation and visit, send lots of emails and most importantly be HONEST about what your plans are. Moving without a job, as the AC points out is a bad idea.
Huh? Do you know how many recruiters I told "I need information on a the proposed relocation package prior to reviewing the job offer" from in the past 10 years? Repeat offenders are requested "Please go purchase a Globe and review where you are hiring for versus where I live." I have further reported some companies as spammers because they simply fish by regular expression and ignore location.
Most companies _do_ screen based on area codes these days, and I'm happy for it. The foreign run agencies not so much, but I ignore them even if they get lucky with a local job offer.
Now this is of course different than me going on line to fill out an application, but I can't see a recruiter treating it any differently. Unless there is a way to make them know ahead of reading the resume "I want to move next door and I won't ask for money from you to do it.".
Fair point!! :)
The terrorists have won? Or the shitbags sitting in the back rooms pushing these programs and running the media has won?
Then you don't travel very much, meaning to different locations. I have flown out of San Jose and get the minimal treatment you describe. Go to Reagan Intl. in DC and it's a very different experience which leaves you feeling violated. Detroit and Dallas are somewhere in the Middle of the two depending on your luck in getting into line.
The lack of consistency from a group that is allegedly working from the same playbook is both confusing and concerning.
I drive most places and don't see "voluntary DUI checks" or mandatory "fruit and vegetable inspections". I have at times run into those things as well, so know they happen first hand.
Just because you have not experienced bad things does not mean they don't exist. If have doubts and you do fly a lot, change your name to Sadam and book a flight. I'm sure you will get a nice dose of treatment people complain about.
You are like the guy living in the suburbs that thinks inner city gangs are not really a problem. Move your ass downtown and your opinion would change rather quickly.
Logic failure again. It's no fun playing any more because you can't see a basic error. How many "health" articles cover "drugs"? Many of them, so your search would pull every one of those articles into both your "drug" search and your "health" search. Trying to fabricate some numbers off of general terminology is idiocy.
Hence why I stated:
How about you do things a bit more sensibly, and look at papers and speeches Ron Paul has submitted during Congress, during his campaigns, and after his retirement.
Of course that would not back your argument.
And of course you did ignore it because it would not suit your fallacy. You don't want to fix your delusional view, so have fun playing alone.
Except that your methodology is absolutely broken, which you should have considered before hitting the submit button. "Drug" relates to all topics pharmaceutical in addition to legalization topics. It would also hit on Medical issues discussing prescription coverage.
Additionally, the amount of web pages related to the topic have very little to do with the party as a whole. I can express the legality of the Federal Reserve in very few web pages. I can't do the same with legalization.
How about you do things a bit more sensibly, and look at papers and speeches Ron Paul has submitted during Congress, during his campaigns, and after his retirement.
Of course that would not back your argument.
Whether or not you agree with my perception, that is in fact the perception created the the libertarian PR.
Bullshit! The perception you have is not due to Libertarian PR, it's due to slander and libel from Media owned and controlled by the same people that own the Democratic and Republican parties.
Face facts! You have done no homework on the party or Ron Paul or you completely ignore information you read. You can't argue a single platform or value that the party stands on, you can only provide ad homimen against them. Claiming that the party or Ron Paul are huge on drugs is yet another fabricated argument from you. Ron Paul and the Libertarian party both argue much more for economic stability and anti-imperialism than they do for drugs.
You are a liar, simply put. Whether you are a shill or just an ignorant person makes no difference.
Often that view isn't held by most informed people because the viewpoint is misinformed.
A difference of opinion is not necessarily misinformed. A subtle fallacy, but a fallacy regardless. The same repeated "wacky" argument is still nothing but ad hominem. So two sentences and two fallacies back to back.
I'd be interested in your pen name when writing for NORML. You have not displayed effective writing skills here, for what ever reason, but I'd be happy to read other work. Sure, an ignorant person will latch on to the appeal to emotion and ad hominem you present. I am absolutely not ignorant, and do recognize fallacy.
I don't know what his personal beliefs are on Theology, nor do I find it important. He was asked if he believed in evolution in an interview, and gave an answer that he believed that the Universe has a creator.
If you find that confusing, it's not uncommon. In brief, there is a Philosophical question dating back to the origins of writing. "Does the Universe require a creator or can it spontaneously just happen?". Contrary to what some people claim, the question has not been solved nor can it be solved any time in the foreseeable future. What we could state with a degree of honestly is that all of the arguments both for and against having a creator have been made, so read the work done on both sides and contemplate your own answer.
Answering that question does not require any Theology, or belief in a specific deity. It's not an easy question to contemplate, namely because we are full of taught biases. You won't get the concepts of the debate in a few minute post.
Believing in a creator does not mean you believe in a particular Theology. Atheists tend to falsely lump both concepts together and use them as an ad hominem when it suits them. To be fair, theists do the same thing in the other direction.
That said, if someone does believe in a creator then there are certain aspects of most theologies that become important. If you have done the ground work to believe in a creator, generally you will do the same amount of ground work in determining which portions of theologies may also be valid.
Remember that correlation is not equal to causation, and all that. I'm fully for equal rights, and believe that a woman should receive equal pay for equal work. The first advocate of a gender neutral society was Socrates. He points out what we fail to argue when discussing equal rights, which is that there are numerous physiological differences between men and women. Those differences should not equate to discrimination, but tend to because our society teaches discrimination.
A woman can function fully in the military for example. What they can't do is carry the same amount of weight as men, because of physical differences. That is no reason to prevent them from performing in the military, just an issue for logistics planners on how long a mission can run how re-supply is done.
You really should stop relying on Fox News or similar ilk to give you the concepts you base people and their words upon. I'm betting you will claim to not watch such "news", but you parrot the same bullshit without any fact or logical opposition.
Example: Do you understand why Libertarians are against the drug prohibition and can you debate their points? Claiming they are "wacko" without any debate is simply wacko. The arguments regarding 1) constitutionality and 2) the effectiveness of prohibitions are very rational arguments. I'm not claiming there are not some valid points to debate on the other side, but you address nothing and just make a claim that I heard on TV for 6 years about "Ron Paul" being crazy. Meanwhile I read his papers, listened to his speeches, and wondered why he would be labelled as such except that the media does not want an alternative viewpoint hitting main steam.
It's like the atheist zealots that claim "Ron Paul is Theist" when he never mentions any theology, he only mentions that he believes in a creator. Based on 30 years of Philosophical study, I have the same conclusion. Some may study and come to a different conclusion, but most will never bother to study. It is much easier to have someone else do the thinking for them. I doubt they could fathom separating Theology from the discussion, let alone debate the topic with any rationality.
Point is, go do the homework and you will probably find out that they are not "wacko". They present rational thought and demonstrate the failures of following the status quot for the last 30 years, which scares the shit out of people in power.
I actually enjoy his works. Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment, but I also very much enjoy Milton Friedman's works.
Ron Paul wanted to cut military expenditures, not disband the military or hand them over to the state. Ron Paul wanted to reduce the size of Government in general. Because, for example, having 9 different 3 letter organizations to handle national security is too many.
Reducing size and scope is not the same thing as disbanding the whole thing. Claiming those two things are the same is ignorance (willful or otherwise).
That single aspect (reduction of Government) is only a portion of what both Libertarians and Ron Paul stand for and request. Increased accountability and transparency are two more subjects easy to look for in both the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul.
It's not because of Wealth of Nations that people differ on views, it's because there was much more work than just one book. People that read part of the works don't see the same thing as the people that read the complete works.
I have read the books several times, and your quote does not change my statement or what he said in "Of Systems of political Economy" and hinted at in other works. I do hope you realize that Adam Smith wrote much more than "The Wealth of Nations".
Are you now trying to falsely claim that Ron Paul said to move everything to the State level? One lie tends lead to another lie, and you prove to be no exception. Your irrational generalization was wrong, and no amount of fallacy or lies makes it true.
In fairness, Adam Smith also discussed how Government regulation must prevent monopolization to ensure that this didn't happen. We used to have laws that were enforced to handle some of this, but those have been repealed or simply ignored.