My parents always believed in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. To me, this means solving your own problems.
Privacy is your own problem. Never expect other people to solve it. Solve it for yourself. Encrypt, shut up, set up trusts, use pseudonyms, whatever. I don't do any of that because I personally don't care about privacy. I don't see the threat. And I'm not embarrasable and cannot be blackmailed because I am a stand-up person. So I don't care.
But if I did, I would.
As for countries, I second the New Zealand responses. I'm a U.S. expat living here since May. Even though the country is somewhat nanny-state leaning, the culture of the people has a stronger effect. People are very reasonable and practical, which in itself more than makes up for the nanny-state part. People have strong moral ethics and a solid sense of duty. People believe in their government, and participate, and have hope (as opposed to the U.S. where people only get involved to milk the system). People don't seem to abuse positions of power. Politicians are suprisingly regular people. People care about each other. It seems quite possible to be heard, and to have a positive effect, because it's so much smaller. There is a tall-poppy syndrome, which has good and bad effects. Also, because of the history (1984, Rogernomics, and the reasons that had to happen), people here are clued into all the benefits of free-trade, market competition, etc. Overall, I have to say that the positives far outweigh the negatives.
The downsides are (1) schools are going from bad to worse, for predictable reasons of a lack of proper market forces (2) same with health care. Also, as a small economy, economies of scale, uh, don't. Cost of living is dearer, more work required for less output. Oh, and Kiwi's are very nationalistic (I say "bad") and tend to isolate themselves... not enough world trade going on down here.
But lots of land, not too many people. Great place to relax if you have fears of war.
I've heard Chile is nice, but I haven't visited yet. And I don't want to bother with a language/culture barrier.
We can see clearly that they are pursuing a strategy of mercantilism in trade, to our great disadvantage, thanks to the cluelessness of free-traders in Congress and the White House.
But it takes two to tango. The U.S.A. chooses to interact with China in this way. And the U.S.A. loves cheap chinese goods. That is not a bad thing! In exchange, the U.S.A. can reinvest the money and labor that would have otherwise been spent on making t-shirts into things like I.T. technology. Free trade is not clueless at all, it's brilliant; just remember to measure all of the effects when you draw up your equasions.
Within the context of war, merchantilism on their part is their utter downfall... they export real goods in exchange for soon-to-be-useless (if we embargo them during war) U.S. dollars. They lose.
Ya know, I think this whole US government control of DNS is really not a problem. We can live without DNS, should the states muck it up somehow. DNS is not the end-all be-all of the Internet. The Internet works fine with IP and routing... that is the critical infrastructure. DNS is just a kludgey shared directory lookup system which really ought to be replaced by something better anyways...
Rather than fight losing political battles to have oversight of the Internet somehow internationally mediated, we ought to just abandon DNS and build better resolution systems.
One potential starting place: http://grinfs.org/
The lie: "...basically exists due to slave or quasi-slave labor"
The truth: Laborers choose their employer voluntarily, and can leave at will.
I'm not even gonna argue this point, and I dare say that I fully believe that 100% of people reading this post know in their hearts that there is no slavery here in America at least, and even very little elsewhere.
So why has such a statement survived as a propogable meme? How is it that such ridiculous lies are continually retold?
I think I know the answer...
Many people don't have enough self-discipline to distance themselves from the paycheck-shackle. That is, they spend as much money as they have, and are thus shackled to their jobs. With no buffer, they have no opportunity to shop around for another employer. Thus they feel enslaved. Thus they develop a resentment for their employer, or the stockholders, or whomever... thus they develop a resentment against corporations... thus they develop a resentment against capitalism.
They choose to believe that Capitalism is an institution, something created by us as one way of organizing, as a policy... rather than the truth that capitalism is an inherent emergent property of any group of humans that wish to trade things.
Rather than choose to see the truth, and benefit from a working knowledge of the truth, these people choose to decieve themselves... to lie to themselves about the nature of the world... just because it makes them feel better about themselves... just because they won't have to accept the truth that they have no self-discipline.
But there is a way out. Everyone has the opportunity to save up a buffer and become free from the paycheck-shackle. It is not a matter of how much you get paid. You can always get by with a little less. ALWAYS. Especially in a country with such handouts as America has.
So save up, break free, and realize that your entire set of political beliefs was motivated by a silly little thing.... and then come be a Libertarian, for god sake.
Technically this is fascinating. But it is for defense purposes... defense of an empire that doesn't need any more defensive power. Isn't it sad how technically minded people can so easily ignore who it is they are working for (or competing for), just because a problem is fascinating? Isn't this what happened to Einstein? Wasn't that his biggest regret?
I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of corporations. Corporations and trusts (especially trusts) are shameful devices allowing criminals to (1) avoid liability and protect assets from fair and just criminal procedings, (2) obfuscate responsibility for actions (is the leader responsible, or the actor him/herself?).
BTW, problem number (2), obfuscating responsibility, is inherent in ALL organizations, corporate or otherwise, and especially in the acts of a government: Is the soldier responsible for killing the Iraqi? Maybe it's Donald Rumsfeld's responsibility. Maybe it's yours(!) you tax-paying American murderer! After all, you hired Donald Rumsfeld with your tax dollars... so YOU are the "shareholder", you are the rich owner, behind the scenes, obfuscating your actions behind the veil of liability that you call "government".
I don't see much difference between government and corporations. Both are just as evil.
As for capitalism leading to the consolidation of money, I disagree, and I must remind everyone of something. Every trade within capitalism is voluntary on both sides. Every poor person has the option of choosing amongst a large number of opportunities, or foregoing them all. How can opportunity itself be bad? It cannot be. If a potential choice is bad, one always can forego that choice. How can other people's making of money ("it takes money to make money") affect this poor person's estate? It cannot, unless the poor person allows it to by making bad choices. Any smart poor person will only make trades when it benefits him/her... and the actions of other "rich people" do not take away or impinge upon this poor person's ability to get rich, even in the slightest.
The only exceptions I can think of are (1) laws that restrict freedom, and (2) devaluation of money by allowing banks to loan out money that doesn't exist. These are the things that can and do hurt the poor in society. If you can agree about this point, then your movement to change the world for the better can have a very powerful ally.. old-school republicans and libertarians.
Capitalism is inherent in humanity prior to any notions of money, banks, or government institutions. The concept of ownership is an instinctive, innate property of humans, that we in fact share with dogs, monkeys, bears, and many species of fish, who are also territorial like we are. Money is an emergent property of trade.
Prior to money, people came to the marketplace to trade. Growing only coffee means you have nothing to eat... you need to trade some of your coffee for food. But what if the guy with food doesn't need coffee, but instead needs clay pots? Now you have to trade away coffee for clay pots, and then trade the clay pots for the food. What happens eventually is that people learn to use a medium of exchange, something that sells very well, e.g. salt or silver or gold, in order to get what they want more directly. Once a threshold of people choose the same medium of exchange, that medium becomes even more so a good medium of exchange, and rises to it's position as money.
Because of this, capitalism (the joint concepts of private property including capital property, and of money for free trade) is not something that humanity can just shrug off, in e.g. becoming a new world order of socialists... it is instinctive, and solidly so. Any real solutions to the problems of America (corrupt power, injustice, etc), need to take all aspects of humanity into account.
Sadly for us libertarians, that also means we need to accept that the powerful (silly) notions of authority and collectiveness that everyone else has are not going away anytime soon, and that our elegant solutions are generally inapplicable to broad society.
Given the notions of property and of money, it's undeniable that some people will be richer, and some will be poorer. Some work harder, some are lazy (me, for instance). Some work smarter. Some are
Slashdot Mirror
My parents always believed in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. To me, this means solving your own problems.
Privacy is your own problem. Never expect other people to solve it. Solve it for yourself. Encrypt, shut up, set up trusts, use pseudonyms, whatever. I don't do any of that because I personally don't care about privacy. I don't see the threat. And I'm not embarrasable and cannot be blackmailed because I am a stand-up person. So I don't care.
But if I did, I would.
As for countries, I second the New Zealand responses. I'm a U.S. expat living here since May. Even though the country is somewhat nanny-state leaning, the culture of the people has a stronger effect. People are very reasonable and practical, which in itself more than makes up for the nanny-state part. People have strong moral ethics and a solid sense of duty. People believe in their government, and participate, and have hope (as opposed to the U.S. where people only get involved to milk the system). People don't seem to abuse positions of power. Politicians are suprisingly regular people. People care about each other. It seems quite possible to be heard, and to have a positive effect, because it's so much smaller. There is a tall-poppy syndrome, which has good and bad effects. Also, because of the history (1984, Rogernomics, and the reasons that had to happen), people here are clued into all the benefits of free-trade, market competition, etc. Overall, I have to say that the positives far outweigh the negatives.
The downsides are (1) schools are going from bad to worse, for predictable reasons of a lack of proper market forces (2) same with health care. Also, as a small economy, economies of scale, uh, don't. Cost of living is dearer, more work required for less output. Oh, and Kiwi's are very nationalistic (I say "bad") and tend to isolate themselves... not enough world trade going on down here.
But lots of land, not too many people. Great place to relax if you have fears of war.
I've heard Chile is nice, but I haven't visited yet. And I don't want to bother with a language/culture barrier.
But it takes two to tango. The U.S.A. chooses to interact with China in this way. And the U.S.A. loves cheap chinese goods. That is not a bad thing! In exchange, the U.S.A. can reinvest the money and labor that would have otherwise been spent on making t-shirts into things like I.T. technology. Free trade is not clueless at all, it's brilliant; just remember to measure all of the effects when you draw up your equasions.
Within the context of war, merchantilism on their part is their utter downfall... they export real goods in exchange for soon-to-be-useless (if we embargo them during war) U.S. dollars. They lose.
Rather than fight losing political battles to have oversight of the Internet somehow internationally mediated, we ought to just abandon DNS and build better resolution systems. One potential starting place: http://grinfs.org/
The truth: Laborers choose their employer voluntarily, and can leave at will.
I'm not even gonna argue this point, and I dare say that I fully believe that 100% of people reading this post know in their hearts that there is no slavery here in America at least, and even very little elsewhere.
So why has such a statement survived as a propogable meme? How is it that such ridiculous lies are continually retold?
I think I know the answer...
Many people don't have enough self-discipline to distance themselves from the paycheck-shackle. That is, they spend as much money as they have, and are thus shackled to their jobs. With no buffer, they have no opportunity to shop around for another employer. Thus they feel enslaved. Thus they develop a resentment for their employer, or the stockholders, or whomever... thus they develop a resentment against corporations... thus they develop a resentment against capitalism.
They choose to believe that Capitalism is an institution, something created by us as one way of organizing, as a policy... rather than the truth that capitalism is an inherent emergent property of any group of humans that wish to trade things.
Rather than choose to see the truth, and benefit from a working knowledge of the truth, these people choose to decieve themselves... to lie to themselves about the nature of the world... just because it makes them feel better about themselves... just because they won't have to accept the truth that they have no self-discipline.
But there is a way out. Everyone has the opportunity to save up a buffer and become free from the paycheck-shackle. It is not a matter of how much you get paid. You can always get by with a little less. ALWAYS. Especially in a country with such handouts as America has.
So save up, break free, and realize that your entire set of political beliefs was motivated by a silly little thing.... and then come be a Libertarian, for god sake.
BTW, problem number (2), obfuscating responsibility, is inherent in ALL organizations, corporate or otherwise, and especially in the acts of a government: Is the soldier responsible for killing the Iraqi? Maybe it's Donald Rumsfeld's responsibility. Maybe it's yours(!) you tax-paying American murderer! After all, you hired Donald Rumsfeld with your tax dollars... so YOU are the "shareholder", you are the rich owner, behind the scenes, obfuscating your actions behind the veil of liability that you call "government".
I don't see much difference between government and corporations. Both are just as evil.
As for capitalism leading to the consolidation of money, I disagree, and I must remind everyone of something. Every trade within capitalism is voluntary on both sides. Every poor person has the option of choosing amongst a large number of opportunities, or foregoing them all. How can opportunity itself be bad? It cannot be. If a potential choice is bad, one always can forego that choice. How can other people's making of money ("it takes money to make money") affect this poor person's estate? It cannot, unless the poor person allows it to by making bad choices. Any smart poor person will only make trades when it benefits him/her... and the actions of other "rich people" do not take away or impinge upon this poor person's ability to get rich, even in the slightest.
The only exceptions I can think of are (1) laws that restrict freedom, and (2) devaluation of money by allowing banks to loan out money that doesn't exist. These are the things that can and do hurt the poor in society. If you can agree about this point, then your movement to change the world for the better can have a very powerful ally.. old-school republicans and libertarians.
Capitalism is inherent in humanity prior to any notions of money, banks, or government institutions. The concept of ownership is an instinctive, innate property of humans, that we in fact share with dogs, monkeys, bears, and many species of fish, who are also territorial like we are. Money is an emergent property of trade.
Because of this, capitalism (the joint concepts of private property including capital property, and of money for free trade) is not something that humanity can just shrug off, in e.g. becoming a new world order of socialists... it is instinctive, and solidly so. Any real solutions to the problems of America (corrupt power, injustice, etc), need to take all aspects of humanity into account.
Sadly for us libertarians, that also means we need to accept that the powerful (silly) notions of authority and collectiveness that everyone else has are not going away anytime soon, and that our elegant solutions are generally inapplicable to broad society.
Given the notions of property and of money, it's undeniable that some people will be richer, and some will be poorer. Some work harder, some are lazy (me, for instance). Some work smarter. Some are