It's a library. The root of the word is libre, as in free
Who modded this insightful? That's wrong. The root of library is the Latin word liber, meaning book. Spanish for book is libro, by the way, which is a Romance language. The Spanish word librería means bookstore, and bibliotéca means library. The word library has nothing to do with the root libre; there are private libraries that are not free. (To add, the root libre means free as in liberty, not free as in beer, which is represented by the Latin word gratis)
I was pretty libertarian until I realized that it seriously breaks down when you have to pay for legal issues and some people get too much money. A sufficiently rich person or corporation can do just about anything they want to most people and keep it tied up in court forever.
I like your thinking, but your only error is that you are confusing libertarianism with anarchocapitalism. Libertarians want small government; you will still have a government operated police force, lawyers, laws, a justice system, etc. Anarchocapitalists want no government; all legal issues and laws are dealt with via arbitration. Resolving conflicts is an issue that separates libertarians from anarchocapitalists. I fall under the libertarian side of this argument; a judicial system is something that is best handled by the government. A government holds a monopoly of force. Judicial issues is one of the few things that I want the government to be involved with, since it can use its power to resolve issues.
Some people have received iTunes gift certificates and bought some music with iTunes. AmaroK cannot play DRM-encumbered iTunes media. This is one reason why I still have a Windows partition (even though I use FreeBSD regularly), but I have a few more serious reasons as well.
Now you can build their product on your own by order a Dell and installing openBSD.
I miss the PowerPC too, and if somebody came out with a G5 notebook with OS X, I'd buy one of those in a heartbeat. I'm not too fond of the Intel switch, either, due to the same reasons (even though I would buy a PowerBook Core Duo^W^W^W MacBook Pro if I had the money). However, Apple still has OS X. OpenBSD and OS X are two different beasts (even though OS X is a BSD derivative) OpenBSD is a standard Unix derivative that is designed for security. (I am personally a FreeBSD and Windows user). OS X is a Unix derivative designed so that way nobody would know it was Unix until somebody opened the Terminal. The Mac OS has always had a wonderful interface (OS 8 and 9 are still very usable and had wonderful applications, albeit a bit unstable), and OS X improves on it by a mile. There is also a lot of support for important proprietary software whose OSS equivalents still have some improvement or nonexistant (e.g, Photoshop, MS Office, Java [yes, it works in BSD, but not without spending a good half of a day compiling, and forget Java on an non-x86 platform in BSD], certain software required for work/school, etc). OpenBSD is a fine OS (especially for security and for CS majors), but it isn't a hallmark of usability. (I can say the same with OS X; OS X doesn't focus on security as much as OpenBSD does, and sometimes OS X is suspectible to little but annoying security issue that OpenBSD patched up years before)
Of OS X was merely BSD with lipstick, then why are so many PC users are willing to either pirate OS X or buy it for $129 and break EULAs and even the DMCA to install OS X on their vanilla PCs? For those who don't feel like cracking DRM, why are they using emulators like PearPC to run OS X that only run OS X at the speed of an old Power Mac 8600? Heck, we still have Rhapsody and NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP users. Turns out that the lipstick makes a huge difference. Put it like this, if you had a choice between asking somebody out who is very intelligent and nice, versus somebody who was not only very intelligent and nice, but also so beautiful or handsome that you dropped everything that you were carrying when you saw her or him, who would you ask out? There are many people at the Apple store shelling out hundreds or thousands of dollars itching to have their hands on a white or aluminum object running BSD with lipstick, because that lipstick makes BSD easy to use and supports all of the applications that they need. Heck, I'd buy OS X on my PC if Apple decided to release OS X on vanilla PCs (but that will never happen, so I'm content with sticking to FreeBSD for my Unix stuff and Windows XP for compatibility with the outside world, until I switch to the Mac. Besides, my fastest machine is a 950MHz Duron; OS X for x86 requires SSE2).
So yes, Apple lost the PowerPC (which was a great chip, it was just the G4's performance stagnated over the past year or two), but Apple still has the Mac. As long as Apple still continues to sell Macs (even if those Macs are just PCs with pretty cases and BSD-with-lipstick), then people will still demand them, and I will still lust for them;)
Because some people need Linux. CS majors, for example, might need to study the Linux kernel for their operating system class (in which the professor decided to use Linux instead of BSD or Minix). A multi-boot box that can legally boot OS X, Linux, and (eventually) Windows can be a great test machine for software developers as well (since OS X and Linux does certain things differently; it will be good to test all common OSes).
Next, there is an openness that Linux (and the free BSDs) has but OS X doesn't have. You can study everything about a complete operating system and a complete desktop environment by pouring over the source code for KDE/GNOME, various applications, etc. By contrast, I have to be an Apple employee to look at OS X Aqua code, and I can't do anything with it.
There are some jobs that call for Linux and not just any Unix derivative. OS X is BSD, not Linux. Having Darwin source code means a hill of beans when you are writing Linux device drivers, for instance.
So, yes, there are cases where Linux is necessary, or required.
Japanese students are obsessed about grades, because to be successful in life, they have to be perfect students, and get great grades, and do very well on exams. I'd imagine that if we put American kids into that kind of situation, the rates would be even *worse*.
American kids are put in these kinds of situations (albeit not to the extent as in Japan). I suppose you've never been to the College Confidential message boards, haven't you? Go to some of the sections about getting into college and high school preparation, and come back with your findings. None of them are suicidal, but the board is filled with perfectionists, complaining about 2390s on the SAT (highest score is 2400 now), 3.99 GPAs versus 4.0s, and stressing themselves out wondering if they have the stats to get into MIT and Stanford. (The graduate school boards are similar). I went to that site when I was in 11th grade, accidentally stubling across it to find college admissions advice. Let's just say, that site made my perfectionism a bit worse (even though it never got as bad as some people on the board), until I finally went away from it after two months of browsing.
I'm a CS freshman at a reasonably good university, but I am still an ardent perfectionist, even though I haven't been doing a good job at being perfect;) (looks at my sub-3.4 GPA). There are certain goals that I have (such as being a researcher) that require that I do extremely well in school. However, my fear is not doing well. The other issues with perfectionists is what is considered "well." To many perfectionists, a 3.0 or even a 3.5 college GPA is considered terrible, even though some people on campus will kill for that GPA (no pun intended). However, it seems that everybody needs to perform almost perfectly or perfectly to have a chance to get the best things in life, or they'll be shafted.
So, I feel that American kids are already feeling the pressure. The message is that you have to do exceptionally well in elemetary school, middle school, high school, and college in order to get anything in life. That, or learn how to be exceptional with a sport or be an exceptional performer.
Your points seem interesting. I don't believe in just "right" and "left" because they don't fully reflect all of the possible political viewpoints that exist. People's personalities cannot be just black or white, there exist many shades of gray that we haven't even named yet. However, you only have half of libertarianism correct. Yes, libertarians and (some) neoconservatives are both ardent free-market capitalists. However, there is more to libertarianism than just capitalism. Kristol, for example, is a supporter of the war in Iraq and other parts of the War on Terror. Most libertarians (like myself) do not agree with the war.
However, there is a faction of libertarians (called neolibertarians) who do support the war. Now, neolibertarians and neoconservatives have a lot in common, which is where I think your point is. If you strip a neoconservative of religious-right views (and, for some, big spending), then you get a neolibertarian. You do make sense here.
Reveal yourself, Anonymous Coward. You are on to something; he could be a neolibertarian in neoconservative clothing. Now if I can find out more about him....
I admit that democracies aren't perfect. But there is one important and nice feature about democracy; democracies are good at correcting the worst abuses of government. If government leaders make huge mistakes, then the people of the country can vote those leaders out and elect people who fix those mistakes.
In a dictatorship, your life depends on one person and his decisions. If you don't like the dictator's decisions, tough. Subscribe to a religion or political philosophy that the dictator dislikes? Sorry, it's time to "reeducate" your butt. Have a complaint and want it voiced? Hope you liked saying those words, since you're going to be spending the next few years with Bubba, or worse....
Finally, the Chinese didn't have this system of government for "thousands of years" as you claim. It started in 1949. This government is not representative of the Chinese culture.
But since you love dictators, why don't you move to Cuba or China or North Korea or some other dictatorship. Tell me how it is when you get there.
You had me hooked until you started attacking laissez-faire capitalism and other tenets of classical liberalism (a.k.a, libertarianism). I would argue that laissez-faire capitalism has never been tried. (The cause of the Great Depression isn't a failure of capitalism; it started as a normal recession that gotten much worse due to the Fed's mishandling of failing banks. Hoover did a terrible job during those 4 years, and FDR vastly expanded the government and destroyed the gold standard [now our currency is fiat money that is only worth 5% of what is was worth 100 years ago, even though it stayed relatively stable until the 1970s when the gold standard was completely removed]) Plus, neoconservatives are not libertarians; calling a libertarian a "neocon" is liable to start a fight.
That's why Randroid-type "self only" oriented philisophy is as doomed as a pure collectivist attitude. Eventually (ironically) self interest creates collectives when people realize they are inferior as individuals (someone needs to be)
Agreed. In fact, capitalism relies on the voluntary interactions between people to exchange goods and services. Some thing are best handled in group situations than individually. My only request is that collectivism is voluntary, not coerced by government or by other beliefs
Libertarians do recognize a need for some government (as compared to anarchocapitalists, who want the government to disapper and be replaced with private services.). I don't think anarchism of any kind (even of a capitalist kind) will work in the long run. However, we just want to be free and left alone.
The biggest error in your posting, however, is calling neocons libertarians. That is just like calling a Maoist an anarchosyndicalist (which are polar opposites of leftism). Just don't do that again, capice?
Web firms who want to be democratic missionaries in China need to go with the system. This is a long process, and waaaaaay too complicated to be understood by the average libertarian libertine-wanna-be slashdotter coding in mom and dad's basement.
If you knew anything about libertarianism, you would know that most libertarians support free markets, and many of them will have no qualms with companies entering Chinese markets (although all of them do not like the Chinese government).
Why does it seem that everybody disses libertarians, without knowing what libertarianism is about? Libertarians aren't immoral and licentious. Libertarianism (as well as neoliberalism and small-government conservatism, in case those words make you feel better) is about free markets and individual liberties.
Maybe it is you who needs to step out of the basement and learn something.
We should immediately ban all exports and all imports to/from China until there is immediate and permanent improvment in their human rights. If we don't want American companies complying with China's requests to repress its own people, we shouldn't be trading with them at all.
NO NO NO NO NO! That will actually make China's human rights situation worse. Look at Cuba, for example. We had an embargo with them for over 40 years. Have that changed Cuba? No.
People should be able to trade with whomever they feel like. I don't like the Chinese government at all and I am worried about them increasing power, but our country doesn't have the right to tell other countries what to do. Blocking trade with China will make the Chinese people less free, not more free.
Disclaimer/Warning: I am a black poster, who is also libertarian. Be prepared for libertarianism and discrimination issues.
Well, during the Civil Rights Movement, the original focus of the movement was to topple the Jim Crow laws, which stifled the freedoms of African-Americans (and other minority groups). Segregation was enforced throughout many businesses and government services, especially in Southern states; in fact, it was against the law for a business to not practice segregation. Affected people weren't even allowed to vote in many locales without many strings attached (such as literacy tests), despite the 15th and 19th amendments.
The Civil Rights Movement toppled all restrictive Jim Crow laws, and the people were finally free. They achieved many other acts such as the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which are compatible with freedom. However, the Movement shifted from liberty-based goals to a egalitarian-based goals. Certain civil rights leaders and politicians started pushing for more egalitarian-based regulations that (ironically) restricted the freedoms of private property holders to associate (or disassociate) with certain people. For example, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 are of a different character than the eariler acts. Plus, the entire politics of the nation at the time has switched from a limited government, conservative administration to an administration, which values egalitarianism over liberty (look at Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency. The federal government expanded like melted butter during his tenure).
I am very grateful for the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement. However, certain legislation made during that area comes at odds with individual liberties. Besides, racism (and other forms of discrimination based on other characteristics) is still alive and kicking. No laws can or will eliminate those forms of discrimination. Those are social things that government can't fix. As Barry Goldwater said, "you cannot legislate morality." Perhaps it is time to rethink the role of government in social issues.
And don't forget an overlooked, but very important amendment - the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This is also known as federalism, or "state rights." Anything not covered under the Constitution is left to the states, cities, and people to decide. Ideally, that is the way the country was (and should be) structures, a small federal government handling certain national issues that states can't provide individually, and the states control the rest. Unfortunately, this amendment has been largely shoved aside since 1933 (and some people will say 1861), and the federal government has now became very big and uses its weight a lot.
The other problem with the term "state rights" is that it has been attached to certain restrictive laws such as Jim Crow laws, to the point that whenever you say "state rights," some circles will think that this is a codename for Jim Crow laws and other similar laws. However, this disdain for the term has also lead to a disdain in the true spirit of federalism in general, and it is used as an excuse to expand federal power in all directions.
Hmmm, read Section 804 of the Fair Housing Act, then come back with your findings. Here is one interesting section:
[It shall be unlawful] to make, print, or publish, or cause to be made, printed, or published any notice, statement, or advertisement, with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling that indicates any preference, limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such preference, limitation, or discrimination.
So, does that mean that all of the "looking for a nice Christan male" advertisements are illegal because they are discriminating against non-Chritstans and females? I see those advertisements all the time.
Disclaimer/Warning: I am a black poster, who is also libertarian. Be prepared for libertarianism and discrimination issues.
Hmmm, shouldn't the owner of the property have a say in what roommates they should pick? After all, no anti-discrimination law will stop racism, sexism, anti-homosexuality, ageism, xenophobia, and other social ills. It does no good to live in the same space as a bigot, or to accept services and goods from people who wouldn't serve me (what's better, a sign at a restaurant telling me that I'm not allowed, or shoddy service because of my background; they have to let me in, but they can give me terrible service and remain within the law as long as they don't utter a slur. And if I notice that, then I'm accused of "thoughtcrime" and paranoia.).
Don't get me wrong. I am a vehemoth opponent of Jim Crow laws (that is when a city or state uses government power to restrict freedoms of certain people), and I do not support the types of discrimination enumerated in the various anti-discrimination laws. However, I am a supporter of private property rights, too. I believe that homeowners should be free to decide which types of roomates that they want.
I wonder what other minority libertarians and minority people of other similar beliefs (such as classical liberals, small-government conservatives of the Goldwater mold, and anarchocapitalists) have to say?
...now we know Vista sales aren't going to flop too badly, since some of the top games will only run on it. I remember something similar with Windows 95, in which new games in 1995 were released exclusively for Windows 95.
Still, I wonder if the Vista requirement for Halo 2 is because of technologies only available in Vista, or because of an artificial requirement.
The better question is, why didn't Apple switch to Intel chips earlier?
Because, up until recently (2004 or 2005), the PowerPC still was a better performing chip (and the G5 is still better in many ways). The G5 came out in 2003, and it knocked the socks off of any Intel offering at the time. However, the PowerPC G4 was left to get old and rust (As much as I hate the x86, I will admit that the G4 performance sucks in comparison to the Pentium M and Solo/Core Duo), and they couldn't fit a PowerPC G5 processor into a laptop, which is Apple's bread and butter. I would much rather have a PowerBook Core Duo^W^W^W MacBook Pro than a PowerBook G4 (even though I would much rather have a PowerBook G5 than a MacBook Pro if the G5 existed).
Apple's switch to Intel is about performace per watt. The G4 is getting too ancient compared to Intel's offerings, and the G5 isn't designed for laptops and other small-form computers (like the Mac mini, for example).
Free-market based ideologies deal with poverty in a completely different manner than leftists do. I guess you never heard of the negative income tax, have you? And guess who founded it? Well, no other than the "extremely egocentric libertarian" Milton Friedman.
Plus, libertarians support a sort of voluntary welfare system on a local level. Communities should be able to help out people in need; however, it should be done voluntarily (either from the votes of the community or from voluntary donations) and should not be implemented on a statewide or federal scale. Libertarians don't believe in huge, bureaucratic welfare systems that have been implemented in the United States, for example. Even though I don't believe in mandatory welfare, many European countries implemented a system of welfare combined with community donations and state-funded welfare, which is very extensive and works well.
It's not that libertarians encourage extreme egocentrism. It is just libertarians don't want social safety nets implemented on national levels; they should be implemented on a community level.
The rich already makes and enforce the laws. Look at copyright extensions, software patents, DMCA, and other related legislature. Most libertarians do not support this political bribery at all, and wish it would be done away with.
Why do so many people spew all of this bad crap about libertarianism? Libertarianism is about reducing the government's role to protecting our individual freedoms, and is about promoting free markets, indivudal freedoms, and limited government. You need to start reading about libertarians before you compare a libertarian society to serfdom. (In fact, one libertarian, Friedrich Hayek, wrote a book called The Road to Serfdom which describes what happens when socialist and collectivist policies are implemented. Go and read, before you spew anti-libertarian garbage.
Steve Jobs was around when the Toasted Bunny commercial was introduced in 1998 (the Apple keynote got it wrong; there were no Power Mac G3s in 1996). Even Apple's new Intel commercial bashes PCs.
Apple's commercials don't have as much "teeth" as they used to back in the day, but Apple still produces commercials that make fun of the competition.
Slashdot Mirror
Who modded this insightful? That's wrong. The root of library is the Latin word liber, meaning book. Spanish for book is libro, by the way, which is a Romance language. The Spanish word librería means bookstore, and bibliotéca means library. The word library has nothing to do with the root libre; there are private libraries that are not free. (To add, the root libre means free as in liberty, not free as in beer, which is represented by the Latin word gratis)
I like your thinking, but your only error is that you are confusing libertarianism with anarchocapitalism. Libertarians want small government; you will still have a government operated police force, lawyers, laws, a justice system, etc. Anarchocapitalists want no government; all legal issues and laws are dealt with via arbitration. Resolving conflicts is an issue that separates libertarians from anarchocapitalists. I fall under the libertarian side of this argument; a judicial system is something that is best handled by the government. A government holds a monopoly of force. Judicial issues is one of the few things that I want the government to be involved with, since it can use its power to resolve issues.
Some people have received iTunes gift certificates and bought some music with iTunes. AmaroK cannot play DRM-encumbered iTunes media. This is one reason why I still have a Windows partition (even though I use FreeBSD regularly), but I have a few more serious reasons as well.
I miss the PowerPC too, and if somebody came out with a G5 notebook with OS X, I'd buy one of those in a heartbeat. I'm not too fond of the Intel switch, either, due to the same reasons (even though I would buy a PowerBook Core Duo^W^W^W MacBook Pro if I had the money). However, Apple still has OS X. OpenBSD and OS X are two different beasts (even though OS X is a BSD derivative) OpenBSD is a standard Unix derivative that is designed for security. (I am personally a FreeBSD and Windows user). OS X is a Unix derivative designed so that way nobody would know it was Unix until somebody opened the Terminal. The Mac OS has always had a wonderful interface (OS 8 and 9 are still very usable and had wonderful applications, albeit a bit unstable), and OS X improves on it by a mile. There is also a lot of support for important proprietary software whose OSS equivalents still have some improvement or nonexistant (e.g, Photoshop, MS Office, Java [yes, it works in BSD, but not without spending a good half of a day compiling, and forget Java on an non-x86 platform in BSD], certain software required for work/school, etc). OpenBSD is a fine OS (especially for security and for CS majors), but it isn't a hallmark of usability. (I can say the same with OS X; OS X doesn't focus on security as much as OpenBSD does, and sometimes OS X is suspectible to little but annoying security issue that OpenBSD patched up years before)
Of OS X was merely BSD with lipstick, then why are so many PC users are willing to either pirate OS X or buy it for $129 and break EULAs and even the DMCA to install OS X on their vanilla PCs? For those who don't feel like cracking DRM, why are they using emulators like PearPC to run OS X that only run OS X at the speed of an old Power Mac 8600? Heck, we still have Rhapsody and NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP users. Turns out that the lipstick makes a huge difference. Put it like this, if you had a choice between asking somebody out who is very intelligent and nice, versus somebody who was not only very intelligent and nice, but also so beautiful or handsome that you dropped everything that you were carrying when you saw her or him, who would you ask out? There are many people at the Apple store shelling out hundreds or thousands of dollars itching to have their hands on a white or aluminum object running BSD with lipstick, because that lipstick makes BSD easy to use and supports all of the applications that they need. Heck, I'd buy OS X on my PC if Apple decided to release OS X on vanilla PCs (but that will never happen, so I'm content with sticking to FreeBSD for my Unix stuff and Windows XP for compatibility with the outside world, until I switch to the Mac. Besides, my fastest machine is a 950MHz Duron; OS X for x86 requires SSE2).
So yes, Apple lost the PowerPC (which was a great chip, it was just the G4's performance stagnated over the past year or two), but Apple still has the Mac. As long as Apple still continues to sell Macs (even if those Macs are just PCs with pretty cases and BSD-with-lipstick), then people will still demand them, and I will still lust for them ;)
Because some people need Linux. CS majors, for example, might need to study the Linux kernel for their operating system class (in which the professor decided to use Linux instead of BSD or Minix). A multi-boot box that can legally boot OS X, Linux, and (eventually) Windows can be a great test machine for software developers as well (since OS X and Linux does certain things differently; it will be good to test all common OSes).
Next, there is an openness that Linux (and the free BSDs) has but OS X doesn't have. You can study everything about a complete operating system and a complete desktop environment by pouring over the source code for KDE/GNOME, various applications, etc. By contrast, I have to be an Apple employee to look at OS X Aqua code, and I can't do anything with it.
There are some jobs that call for Linux and not just any Unix derivative. OS X is BSD, not Linux. Having Darwin source code means a hill of beans when you are writing Linux device drivers, for instance.
So, yes, there are cases where Linux is necessary, or required.
Hey, I almost died of a heart attack reading that.
American kids are put in these kinds of situations (albeit not to the extent as in Japan). I suppose you've never been to the College Confidential message boards, haven't you? Go to some of the sections about getting into college and high school preparation, and come back with your findings. None of them are suicidal, but the board is filled with perfectionists, complaining about 2390s on the SAT (highest score is 2400 now), 3.99 GPAs versus 4.0s, and stressing themselves out wondering if they have the stats to get into MIT and Stanford. (The graduate school boards are similar). I went to that site when I was in 11th grade, accidentally stubling across it to find college admissions advice. Let's just say, that site made my perfectionism a bit worse (even though it never got as bad as some people on the board), until I finally went away from it after two months of browsing.
I'm a CS freshman at a reasonably good university, but I am still an ardent perfectionist, even though I haven't been doing a good job at being perfect ;) (looks at my sub-3.4 GPA). There are certain goals that I have (such as being a researcher) that require that I do extremely well in school. However, my fear is not doing well. The other issues with perfectionists is what is considered "well." To many perfectionists, a 3.0 or even a 3.5 college GPA is considered terrible, even though some people on campus will kill for that GPA (no pun intended). However, it seems that everybody needs to perform almost perfectly or perfectly to have a chance to get the best things in life, or they'll be shafted.
So, I feel that American kids are already feeling the pressure. The message is that you have to do exceptionally well in elemetary school, middle school, high school, and college in order to get anything in life. That, or learn how to be exceptional with a sport or be an exceptional performer.
Your points seem interesting. I don't believe in just "right" and "left" because they don't fully reflect all of the possible political viewpoints that exist. People's personalities cannot be just black or white, there exist many shades of gray that we haven't even named yet. However, you only have half of libertarianism correct. Yes, libertarians and (some) neoconservatives are both ardent free-market capitalists. However, there is more to libertarianism than just capitalism. Kristol, for example, is a supporter of the war in Iraq and other parts of the War on Terror. Most libertarians (like myself) do not agree with the war.
However, there is a faction of libertarians (called neolibertarians) who do support the war. Now, neolibertarians and neoconservatives have a lot in common, which is where I think your point is. If you strip a neoconservative of religious-right views (and, for some, big spending), then you get a neolibertarian. You do make sense here.
Reveal yourself, Anonymous Coward. You are on to something; he could be a neolibertarian in neoconservative clothing. Now if I can find out more about him....
WTF?
I admit that democracies aren't perfect. But there is one important and nice feature about democracy; democracies are good at correcting the worst abuses of government. If government leaders make huge mistakes, then the people of the country can vote those leaders out and elect people who fix those mistakes.
In a dictatorship, your life depends on one person and his decisions. If you don't like the dictator's decisions, tough. Subscribe to a religion or political philosophy that the dictator dislikes? Sorry, it's time to "reeducate" your butt. Have a complaint and want it voiced? Hope you liked saying those words, since you're going to be spending the next few years with Bubba, or worse....
Finally, the Chinese didn't have this system of government for "thousands of years" as you claim. It started in 1949. This government is not representative of the Chinese culture.
But since you love dictators, why don't you move to Cuba or China or North Korea or some other dictatorship. Tell me how it is when you get there.
You had me hooked until you started attacking laissez-faire capitalism and other tenets of classical liberalism (a.k.a, libertarianism). I would argue that laissez-faire capitalism has never been tried. (The cause of the Great Depression isn't a failure of capitalism; it started as a normal recession that gotten much worse due to the Fed's mishandling of failing banks. Hoover did a terrible job during those 4 years, and FDR vastly expanded the government and destroyed the gold standard [now our currency is fiat money that is only worth 5% of what is was worth 100 years ago, even though it stayed relatively stable until the 1970s when the gold standard was completely removed]) Plus, neoconservatives are not libertarians; calling a libertarian a "neocon" is liable to start a fight.
Agreed. In fact, capitalism relies on the voluntary interactions between people to exchange goods and services. Some thing are best handled in group situations than individually. My only request is that collectivism is voluntary, not coerced by government or by other beliefs
Libertarians do recognize a need for some government (as compared to anarchocapitalists, who want the government to disapper and be replaced with private services.). I don't think anarchism of any kind (even of a capitalist kind) will work in the long run. However, we just want to be free and left alone.
The biggest error in your posting, however, is calling neocons libertarians. That is just like calling a Maoist an anarchosyndicalist (which are polar opposites of leftism). Just don't do that again, capice?
If you knew anything about libertarianism, you would know that most libertarians support free markets, and many of them will have no qualms with companies entering Chinese markets (although all of them do not like the Chinese government).
Why does it seem that everybody disses libertarians, without knowing what libertarianism is about? Libertarians aren't immoral and licentious. Libertarianism (as well as neoliberalism and small-government conservatism, in case those words make you feel better) is about free markets and individual liberties.
Maybe it is you who needs to step out of the basement and learn something.
NO NO NO NO NO! That will actually make China's human rights situation worse. Look at Cuba, for example. We had an embargo with them for over 40 years. Have that changed Cuba? No.
People should be able to trade with whomever they feel like. I don't like the Chinese government at all and I am worried about them increasing power, but our country doesn't have the right to tell other countries what to do. Blocking trade with China will make the Chinese people less free, not more free.
Disclaimer/Warning: I am a black poster, who is also libertarian. Be prepared for libertarianism and discrimination issues.
Well, during the Civil Rights Movement, the original focus of the movement was to topple the Jim Crow laws, which stifled the freedoms of African-Americans (and other minority groups). Segregation was enforced throughout many businesses and government services, especially in Southern states; in fact, it was against the law for a business to not practice segregation. Affected people weren't even allowed to vote in many locales without many strings attached (such as literacy tests), despite the 15th and 19th amendments.
The Civil Rights Movement toppled all restrictive Jim Crow laws, and the people were finally free. They achieved many other acts such as the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, as well as the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which are compatible with freedom. However, the Movement shifted from liberty-based goals to a egalitarian-based goals. Certain civil rights leaders and politicians started pushing for more egalitarian-based regulations that (ironically) restricted the freedoms of private property holders to associate (or disassociate) with certain people. For example, the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 are of a different character than the eariler acts. Plus, the entire politics of the nation at the time has switched from a limited government, conservative administration to an administration, which values egalitarianism over liberty (look at Lyndon B. Johnson's presidency. The federal government expanded like melted butter during his tenure).
I am very grateful for the achievements of the Civil Rights Movement. However, certain legislation made during that area comes at odds with individual liberties. Besides, racism (and other forms of discrimination based on other characteristics) is still alive and kicking. No laws can or will eliminate those forms of discrimination. Those are social things that government can't fix. As Barry Goldwater said, "you cannot legislate morality." Perhaps it is time to rethink the role of government in social issues.
And don't forget an overlooked, but very important amendment - the 10th Amendment:
This is also known as federalism, or "state rights." Anything not covered under the Constitution is left to the states, cities, and people to decide. Ideally, that is the way the country was (and should be) structures, a small federal government handling certain national issues that states can't provide individually, and the states control the rest. Unfortunately, this amendment has been largely shoved aside since 1933 (and some people will say 1861), and the federal government has now became very big and uses its weight a lot.
The other problem with the term "state rights" is that it has been attached to certain restrictive laws such as Jim Crow laws, to the point that whenever you say "state rights," some circles will think that this is a codename for Jim Crow laws and other similar laws. However, this disdain for the term has also lead to a disdain in the true spirit of federalism in general, and it is used as an excuse to expand federal power in all directions.
Hmmm, read Section 804 of the Fair Housing Act, then come back with your findings. Here is one interesting section:
So, does that mean that all of the "looking for a nice Christan male" advertisements are illegal because they are discriminating against non-Chritstans and females? I see those advertisements all the time.
Disclaimer/Warning: I am a black poster, who is also libertarian. Be prepared for libertarianism and discrimination issues.
Hmmm, shouldn't the owner of the property have a say in what roommates they should pick? After all, no anti-discrimination law will stop racism, sexism, anti-homosexuality, ageism, xenophobia, and other social ills. It does no good to live in the same space as a bigot, or to accept services and goods from people who wouldn't serve me (what's better, a sign at a restaurant telling me that I'm not allowed, or shoddy service because of my background; they have to let me in, but they can give me terrible service and remain within the law as long as they don't utter a slur. And if I notice that, then I'm accused of "thoughtcrime" and paranoia.).
Don't get me wrong. I am a vehemoth opponent of Jim Crow laws (that is when a city or state uses government power to restrict freedoms of certain people), and I do not support the types of discrimination enumerated in the various anti-discrimination laws. However, I am a supporter of private property rights, too. I believe that homeowners should be free to decide which types of roomates that they want.
I wonder what other minority libertarians and minority people of other similar beliefs (such as classical liberals, small-government conservatives of the Goldwater mold, and anarchocapitalists) have to say?
Apparently, you failed at it. Properly bolding the letters, that is. (You accidentially made the whole word like boldface).
It's in BETA. As in use at your own risk, capiche?
...now we know Vista sales aren't going to flop too badly, since some of the top games will only run on it. I remember something similar with Windows 95, in which new games in 1995 were released exclusively for Windows 95.
Still, I wonder if the Vista requirement for Halo 2 is because of technologies only available in Vista, or because of an artificial requirement.
Because, up until recently (2004 or 2005), the PowerPC still was a better performing chip (and the G5 is still better in many ways). The G5 came out in 2003, and it knocked the socks off of any Intel offering at the time. However, the PowerPC G4 was left to get old and rust (As much as I hate the x86, I will admit that the G4 performance sucks in comparison to the Pentium M and Solo/Core Duo), and they couldn't fit a PowerPC G5 processor into a laptop, which is Apple's bread and butter. I would much rather have a PowerBook Core Duo^W^W^W MacBook Pro than a PowerBook G4 (even though I would much rather have a PowerBook G5 than a MacBook Pro if the G5 existed).
Apple's switch to Intel is about performace per watt. The G4 is getting too ancient compared to Intel's offerings, and the G5 isn't designed for laptops and other small-form computers (like the Mac mini, for example).
Time to buy myself an iPod, I suppose.
Sometimes the government "fix" is broken, too.
And for some of us Slashdotters (like myself), according to your theorem, Python will be the best thing in the world that is obtainable.
Looks like I have another programming language to learn....
Free-market based ideologies deal with poverty in a completely different manner than leftists do. I guess you never heard of the negative income tax, have you? And guess who founded it? Well, no other than the "extremely egocentric libertarian" Milton Friedman.
Plus, libertarians support a sort of voluntary welfare system on a local level. Communities should be able to help out people in need; however, it should be done voluntarily (either from the votes of the community or from voluntary donations) and should not be implemented on a statewide or federal scale. Libertarians don't believe in huge, bureaucratic welfare systems that have been implemented in the United States, for example. Even though I don't believe in mandatory welfare, many European countries implemented a system of welfare combined with community donations and state-funded welfare, which is very extensive and works well.
It's not that libertarians encourage extreme egocentrism. It is just libertarians don't want social safety nets implemented on national levels; they should be implemented on a community level.
The rich already makes and enforce the laws. Look at copyright extensions, software patents, DMCA, and other related legislature. Most libertarians do not support this political bribery at all, and wish it would be done away with.
Why do so many people spew all of this bad crap about libertarianism? Libertarianism is about reducing the government's role to protecting our individual freedoms, and is about promoting free markets, indivudal freedoms, and limited government. You need to start reading about libertarians before you compare a libertarian society to serfdom. (In fact, one libertarian, Friedrich Hayek, wrote a book called The Road to Serfdom which describes what happens when socialist and collectivist policies are implemented. Go and read, before you spew anti-libertarian garbage.
Steve Jobs was around when the Toasted Bunny commercial was introduced in 1998 (the Apple keynote got it wrong; there were no Power Mac G3s in 1996). Even Apple's new Intel commercial bashes PCs.
Apple's commercials don't have as much "teeth" as they used to back in the day, but Apple still produces commercials that make fun of the competition.