Its this interesting thing called "freedom of choice". If you don't want to read a certain/. article, then you don't have to do so. I know it takes every bit of your intellect to simply disregard articles you don't care about, but do try it sometime.
Its funny. People complained (correctly) that stuff like this was in YRO when it had nothing to do with rights online. So they made the politics section and you still aren't happy. Sheesh.
If you mean that whenever there are more vendors that sell a particular product, the end result is ultimately better for the end-user, I agree.
I could definitely be into free markets so long as there were sufficient government (or any other entity) safeguards that made sure that no vendor had too much influence on prices. I could name probably 50 corporations off the top of my head that I believe have too much power in their market.
The problem is that laissez-faire economic policy has the same fallacy as Leninist communism. In theory, they are supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread, but in reality they simply don't work as advertised.
In short, if markets behaved as they are always prophecized to behave, I would have no problem calling myself a free-market Libertarian. Then again, if Marxist communism worked according to theory, I'd be a Marxist.
I think we can all attest to the wonderful customer service and prices that a government sanctioned localized monopoly provides.
In cases where monopolies naturally occur, a government monopoly is as good as it gets.
Energy deregulation was supposed to lower bills by adding competition to the equation. If you lived in California, prices skyrocketed due to the fact many energy producers (see Enron) were keeping production off-line in order to artifically inflate prices.
In cases like these, I like my government-granted and regulated monopolies. In cases like this (VOIP), I'm inclined to agree with you.
In many states (such as Ohio), write-in votes are not counted unless the person has registered with the Secretary of State as a write-in candidate.
So you could write-in Bill O'Reilly in Ohio, but the only person who would know you did it is you and the poll worker who didn't tally that vote.
A vote not counted is indeed a vote wasted. The idea behind writing-in a non-candidate is that you are trying to send a message that you feel there are no candidates that represent you.
Without "Bill O'Reilly - 1 vote" in the official returns, your vote means nothing.
IIRC, Canada has an extradition treaty with the US regarding draft dodgers now. Perhaps if we go up into the Yukon or Northwest Territories, the Candadian authorities may have a hard time finding us.
Re:Slashdot becoming fascist?
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Can you say "Ad Hominem"?
I totally agree that vdare.com isn't exactly "fair and balanced", but that doesn't mean their analysis is inherently flawed. Fox News happens to be correct a lot of the time. It hurts yourself when you self-censor certain news sources.
True liberals keep and open mind about everything . . . including closed-mindedness.
Re:Ever heard of the "General Welfare" Clause?
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 1
Technically, that clause is in the Preamble. You'll probably get a lot of people pointing that out to you ad nauseaum.
I do agree, though. The government was founded to promote the general welfare (as well as provide for the common defense), so it only reasons that the government should have inherent powers to promote that welfare, except where the Constitution specifically denies power to the Feds.
Alot of the problem with Ohio (like many Mountain West states) is one-party rule.
Where I live, I am represented by a Republican from city council and County Commissioner all the way up to President. Our State Supreme Court elections are partisan, and is controlled by Republican judges.
Republicans (and many Democrats) have put Issue 1 on the ballot, which bans gay marriage, and according to some interpretations, may ban businesses from recognizing gay relationships as well. That is, if John wants to put his partner on his health care plan, the company may not be allowed to do so, even if they agree!
Also of note:
Ohio is the only state to have never ratified the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
The mixing of government and religion can be a threat to free government, even if no one is forced to participate.... When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion, it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.
Aren't you essentially advocating a watered-down version of "Anybody but Bush" by saying the Green Party should only campaign?
Make that:
Aren't you essentially advocating a watered-down version of "Anybody but Bush" by saying the Green Party should only campaign in states have been all but decided?
Mr. Cobb, I would like to thank you for doing so much to help build the Green Party in Texas as well as across the entire USA.
As a Green, I feel that the "Safe-State" strategy you advocate is detrimental to the process of keeping the Green Party growing. That is, if Greens fail to run in competitive elections and only run candidates in states/districts/etc. that are not competitive, how can the party continue to grow? Aren't you essentially advocating a watered-down version of "Anybody but Bush" by saying the Green Party should only campaign?
In short, how does the "Safe-State" strategy translate into growing the Green Party?
IMO, IRV is useless as far as I'm concerned until proportional representation is concerned.
Of course, the idea is that IRV allows for ranked preferences so the vote isn't split. Unfortunately, if your single candidate doesn't win, your candidate/party/etc. gets zero representation.
Its all fine and dandy if Nader gets 20% of the vote in an IRV scenario, but what is the point if he never wins? Under proportional representation, a 5% vote for a party gets 5% of the seats in congress.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, a state does not even have to allow its citizens to vote for the electors.
In the early days of the electoral college, many state legislatures simply appointed electors without any popular vote on the matter.
I don't come to slashdot for this kind of story.
/. article, then you don't have to do so. I know it takes every bit of your intellect to simply disregard articles you don't care about, but do try it sometime.
Well I do.
Its this interesting thing called "freedom of choice". If you don't want to read a certain
Its funny. People complained (correctly) that stuff like this was in YRO when it had nothing to do with rights online. So they made the politics section and you still aren't happy. Sheesh.
I'm unsure how to interpret your post.
If you mean that whenever there are more vendors that sell a particular product, the end result is ultimately better for the end-user, I agree.
I could definitely be into free markets so long as there were sufficient government (or any other entity) safeguards that made sure that no vendor had too much influence on prices. I could name probably 50 corporations off the top of my head that I believe have too much power in their market.
The problem is that laissez-faire economic policy has the same fallacy as Leninist communism. In theory, they are supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread, but in reality they simply don't work as advertised.
In short, if markets behaved as they are always prophecized to behave, I would have no problem calling myself a free-market Libertarian. Then again, if Marxist communism worked according to theory, I'd be a Marxist.
I think we can all attest to the wonderful customer service and prices that a government sanctioned localized monopoly provides.
In cases where monopolies naturally occur, a government monopoly is as good as it gets.
Energy deregulation was supposed to lower bills by adding competition to the equation. If you lived in California, prices skyrocketed due to the fact many energy producers (see Enron) were keeping production off-line in order to artifically inflate prices.
In cases like these, I like my government-granted and regulated monopolies. In cases like this (VOIP), I'm inclined to agree with you.
Even social democrats like myself can appreciate good free-market competition like this.
If only all markets worked this way, I might be a Libertarian. . .
Reminds me of Soylent (Green) Cola.
It varies from person to person.
In many states (such as Ohio), write-in votes are not counted unless the person has registered with the Secretary of State as a write-in candidate.
So you could write-in Bill O'Reilly in Ohio, but the only person who would know you did it is you and the poll worker who didn't tally that vote.
A vote not counted is indeed a vote wasted. The idea behind writing-in a non-candidate is that you are trying to send a message that you feel there are no candidates that represent you.
Without "Bill O'Reilly - 1 vote" in the official returns, your vote means nothing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1171176/p osts
My source seemed to be wrong.
I would assume we should just reply to the posts with "MOD PARENT UP" and "MOD PARENT DOWN".
Get crackin', there's 50 posts to reply to.
IIRC, Canada has an extradition treaty with the US regarding draft dodgers now. Perhaps if we go up into the Yukon or Northwest Territories, the Candadian authorities may have a hard time finding us.
Can you say "Ad Hominem"? I totally agree that vdare.com isn't exactly "fair and balanced", but that doesn't mean their analysis is inherently flawed. Fox News happens to be correct a lot of the time. It hurts yourself when you self-censor certain news sources. True liberals keep and open mind about everything . . . including closed-mindedness.
Technically, that clause is in the Preamble. You'll probably get a lot of people pointing that out to you ad nauseaum.
I do agree, though. The government was founded to promote the general welfare (as well as provide for the common defense), so it only reasons that the government should have inherent powers to promote that welfare, except where the Constitution specifically denies power to the Feds.
Alot of the problem with Ohio (like many Mountain West states) is one-party rule.
Where I live, I am represented by a Republican from city council and County Commissioner all the way up to President. Our State Supreme Court elections are partisan, and is controlled by Republican judges.
Republicans (and many Democrats) have put Issue 1 on the ballot, which bans gay marriage, and according to some interpretations, may ban businesses from recognizing gay relationships as well. That is, if John wants to put his partner on his health care plan, the company may not be allowed to do so, even if they agree!
Also of note:
Ohio is the only state to have never ratified the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
The mixing of government and religion can be a threat to free government, even if no one is forced to participate.... When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion, it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.
-- Harry Blackmun, former Supreme Court Justice
Can I put the penis in the palm?
Perhaps we should have a constitutional amendment against that as well.
I bet you will not have one reason that holds up to the constitution.
No shit. That's why they're trying to amend it.
Oddly enough, the CPUSA did endorse him (as they have all Democratic nominees since 1988 IIRC).
Aren't you essentially advocating a watered-down version of "Anybody but Bush" by saying the Green Party should only campaign?
Make that:
Aren't you essentially advocating a watered-down version of "Anybody but Bush" by saying the Green Party should only campaign in states have been all but decided?
Mr. Cobb, I would like to thank you for doing so much to help build the Green Party in Texas as well as across the entire USA.
As a Green, I feel that the "Safe-State" strategy you advocate is detrimental to the process of keeping the Green Party growing. That is, if Greens fail to run in competitive elections and only run candidates in states/districts/etc. that are not competitive, how can the party continue to grow? Aren't you essentially advocating a watered-down version of "Anybody but Bush" by saying the Green Party should only campaign?
In short, how does the "Safe-State" strategy translate into growing the Green Party?
IMO, IRV is useless as far as I'm concerned until proportional representation is concerned.
Of course, the idea is that IRV allows for ranked preferences so the vote isn't split. Unfortunately, if your single candidate doesn't win, your candidate/party/etc. gets zero representation.
Its all fine and dandy if Nader gets 20% of the vote in an IRV scenario, but what is the point if he never wins? Under proportional representation, a 5% vote for a party gets 5% of the seats in congress.