Ask your average person here what DRM or the Patriot act is, and they have no clue.
Touche.(Just imagine that the accent is where it belongs)
I still don't think we're that close to being sheeple, but we are getting closer. The difference between Democracy and Communism may be shown to be about two hundred and fifty years.
And we're getting less creative - or rather the masses are less imaginitive, now that they can just watch TV - so maybe the moon will be turned into a national park instead of a housing tract.
Kudos for giving a civil reply to a obviously demented individual. I was all ready to flame him and to hell with karma.
That said, bloated or not, the US population is... un-sheeplike... to the point where you'd never be able to get that sort of policy down their throats. At least not any current generation. We'd make it a national priority to colonise the moon and mars before we'd accept 'limits on reproductive rights'.
Absolutely! Goes back to an earlier post about "trading freedom for celphone coverage." All these doodads we're talking about are obtainable if we really want them, it's just that our process is a bit slower (Read:Holy-bleeping-SLOW). It's just that China's top down administration can and does implement improvements on a wider scale. Our infrastructure changes have to go up the ladder before they come back down again, and personally I don't mind the delay too much.
Anybody want to pay for the installation of 7000 new upgrades stoplights?
There are so many laws that nobody wants to spend the time to find out if there's already a law that covers it, so they shovel on another layer.::evil grin::
Either that, or they want the problem to make headlines so that people will be properly outraged and the politicians will get credit for patching a hole in the system. Most of them aren't above that.
The only parties left with any sort of real ideals are the thirds, and nobody will vote for them because there's no way they can win, because there's nobody who'll vote for them, because...::infinite loop error::
It's the only party I can find that actually wants to shrink the government and actually says what they mean 99.98% of the time.
From a 2002 articale on the party website, "According to the Constitution, the federal government has the power to 'promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries,'" he noted. "In other words, Congress can grant exclusive copyrights, which entertainers can defend, as necessary, by filing copyright infringement lawsuits.["]
The Feds should be doing nothing more and nothing less.
The article is an old one about a fight against one proposed "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" that would mandate anti-piracy shielding of copywrighted material on most forms of media, but last time I checked I didn't see a 'use by' date on the constitution so the position should still be valid.
This conversation's getting old and off topic, but it's been fun.
Maybe I'm marginally sociopathic, but I have very little sympathy for criminals of any kind, and very little tolerance for destructive stupidity.
If society thinks It's a heinous crime for me to shoot a guy in the back as he makes off with my wallet, then I think that's something wrong with society. That ought to be a perfectly acceptable response. Just for the record, though, I'd let him go unless there was something in there worth shooting about. Replacing credit cards and keys isn't a difficult task.
All the mishmash about whether or not having a gun would make the situation better or worse is moot. It'd be my descision, in that moment, whether drawing a gun would be a good idea or not, and of course I'd check to see if there were less drastic ways of dealing with the situation. Drawing a gun is a pretty serious thing to do, I know that. Everyone knows that, and most people still probably wouldn't have them even if concealed carry was totally legal everywhere. I'd just rather have the option than not.
Having a gun doesn't enable me to kill somebody or injure them, it just changes how fast I can do it, and how likely it is that they won't get a hit in.
And you're right about the drunks. It's illegal to drive while drunk, it darn well better be illegal to pack heat while under the influence. It would cut down on the lethal barfight problem you seem so worried about.
It's the suggestion that groping and purse snatching ought to be taken in stride that bothers me. You don't really have to go too far back to find a time when nobody would be surprised if you got shot or stabbed in the act of groping someone or stealing their property. Some might say it's because we're more civilized now, and so we don't do that sort of thing, but I'd say we're just morally loose. Maybe I'm just anachronistic.
How many people would keep going if you pointed a gun at them? Not many. The rest are exceptionally stupid and I don't see anything wrong with stopping them. If they live, which they probably will, they probably won't do it again.
Besides that, though, stopping someone in the commision of a criminal act IS a different circumstance than having caught them afterward. Nobody would complain if you pointed a gun at someone who was trying to steal your purse, and most people would stop. But what is that threat worth if it's not legal to shoot them if they continue?
Certainly nobody's saying you should fry them for it if they give up, or even if they get away and get caught later. At that point, there's no concern for stopping the act, and there are much better ways to teach them their manners. It's just that in midst of the act, I don't know whether they're going to get caught, get away or give up and leave, I have no idea how far it's going to go, whether the jerk is armed or how he'll react when I protest.
what's my best method for making sure that neither me or mine are harmed?
So... Point a gun, and if he doesn't stop right then and there, shoot him.
And I'm sure it'll play better in court if they don't die, but I don't really think I should have to be overly concerned for the safety of a fellow who's committing criminal acts against me when I already have to worry about myself and my loved ones. If I'm a lousy shot and know it, I'll aim for his gut and vaguely hope that he lives. If I'm a better shot, I'll aim for his leg.
Who said anything about capital punishment? I'm not quite that far from normal. I'm talking about self defense.
And unless my aim was really bad, or the dude was really obnoxious, I'd probably shoot him in the foot.
There are a few crimes that I think ought not be misdemeanors, but I'm no legal eagul, and I don't really know what crimes are misdemeanors and what are felonies. I know I tend to take a rather large amount of offense from gross invasions of my personal space, and would like the option of taking a rather large chunk out of the offender as a purely preventive measure.
Makes me feel all warm and cozy inside. How about you?
If it's my wife being groped, my purse being stolen, then, yes, they deserve to be shot if they continue to grope after I've pointed my gun. As for the other, do you have any idea how hard it is to shoot someone in a moving vehicle?
And actually, I have more confidence in the mis-marksmanship of the average american. Most people who can't shoot worth beans and know it will just point and hope unless they're seriously in danger, in which case, they may as well have the option. 40,000 is not a frighteningly large number of people, and I think much of it is due to people forgetting that their car can kill somebody. I doubt they would forget with a gun.
I think we'd be rational individuals more often if there were more guns around - in the hands of those who want them, that is.
How, exactly, would having, say, twenty handguns distributed amongst participants and spectators alike have made this situation any better?
Ah, but you see, that's the beauty of it. Do you think that that barfight would have broken out at all if nearly every person in the bar had a handgun? Even a person who's 'seeing red' has an instinct for self preservation.
And as for the other situation, if nearly every person in Manhattan had a gun, anyone acually pulling a gun out would be a rather stupid individual, and would likely be shot very quickly with a minimum of colateral damage. I think I'd feel very, very safe knowing that the one dangerously unstable person, even one in ten, let alone one in a hundred or a thousnd, would be seriously overmatched by the various stable people around them.
Agreed. There are quite a lot of Libertarians now who heard some of our policies, liked our stance and joined up without ever running into our core value. But if you trace any stance back to it's root, it's the non-initiation of force
Yes. I'm a newbie. I hit submit instead of preview.
Libertarians are traditionally against almost all taxes except those needed for "minimum" regulation and the military. However, this also ignores the fact that some things you simply need taxes to finance.
Other options also include user fees, import taxes, tax on foriegn entities operating in the US, Voluntary contributions(I know, I know, 'in a pig's eye', but it would happen somewhat if the government didn't tax us to death and avertised for contributions more than once every four years), and a whole load of other ways to get money without taxing us to death. And I could maybe even support a theft-tax... ahh.. income tax... if it was just big enough to support the national defense (as opposed to our current national offense), overseeing interstate and international commerce, and funding congress.
Problems with healthcare? Excess regulation! The fact that preventative medicine costs the consumer a lot less and is given less frequently encourages companies to go with heavy medication has no effect. The fact that the reason why medicine (and education for that matter) cost so much is largely how man-hour intensive these occupations are (this gap compared to regular industry has only been widening) apparently doesn't register either. Decreased regulation won't fix the core problems, whereas increased government funding into robots, AI, research, and even certain kinds of healthcare (or encouragement of preventative medicine) could greatly help. Of course, Libertarians are ostensibly against that.
That paragraph is so incoherant I'm not sure what half of it means, but I'll try to respond anyway. There are two major regulations that I know of that rather obviously cause the price of medicine to rise.
There's Doctor licensing, which could easily be overseen entirely by private consumer advocacy organizations. Making it illegal to practice without a license serves no purpose, as long as people know that such-and-such doctor is not insured, or not certified by organization XYZ, why is it anybody else's business?
There's the FDA bungling of perscription certification that keeps drugs off the shelves and away from voluntary human testing for years. Again this could be handled much more efficiantly by a private consumer advocacy. And once again, if you want to take or to help test an un-tried perscription medication, that should be your affair, as long as they're clearly labled as such, and not advertised as anything but potentially very dangerous substances.
A third government mess of red tape is government funded healthcare, but I don't really know enough about that to comment. I'm sure you can search for it at http://www.lp.org/ and get a good explanation.
The wealth gap? Libertarianism has no problem with it; let it grow as much as you want. Of course, they ignore the massive numbers of poor that couldn't afford education or healthcare; and are free to be exploited by companies thanks to lowered regulations. Public Charities are nice and do good, but they cannot compare to the scope and global ability of a government program.
No, it's just that charities aren't allowed to steal money out of my pocket. They have to prove to me that they're actually doing good things first, and they have to be doing it where I want them to do it, which personally would be locally, instead of in an obscure foreign country. But then, I'm a bit callous, and I'm sure there are people who would preffer to send their money to cambodia, viet-nam or mexico. I you're right, I have very little trouble with the wealth gap. I fully intend to be a part of the upper middle class if I can possibly manage it. But even if I'm poor, I'd prefer that my friends have more money to loan me if I need it. Welfare and Social security have made our nation forget how to help people by our own choice. We assume of strangers, neighbors or even our close friends and famil
I know Libertarianism is pretty popular on Slashdot, but there are fairly extreme idealists. These means there are numerous problems with Libertarian positions.He has these extremely naive and idealistic idea that all problems facing the country are because of "excess regulation."Libertarians are traditionally against almost all taxes except those needed for "minimum" regulation and the military. However, this also ignores the fact that some things you simply need taxes to finance.
Other options also include user fees, import taxes, tax on foriegn entities operating in the US, Voluntary contributions(I know, I know, 'in a pig's eye', but it would happen somewhat if the government didn't tax us to death and avertised for contributions more than once every four years), and a whole load of other ways to get money without taxing us to death. And I could maybe even support a theft-tax... ahh.. income tax... if it was just big enough to support the national defense (as opposed to our current national offense), overseeing interstate and international commerce, and funding congress.
Problems with healthcare? Excess regulation! The fact that preventative medicine costs the consumer a lot less and is given less frequently encourages companies to go with heavy medication has no effect. The fact that the reason why medicine (and education for that matter) cost so much is largely how man-hour intensive these occupations are (this gap compared to regular industry has only been widening) apparently doesn't register either. Decreased regulation won't fix the core problems, whereas increased government funding into robots, AI, research, and even certain kinds of healthcare (or encouragement of preventative medicine) could greatly help. Of course, Libertarians are ostensibly against that.
That paragraph is so incoherant I'm not sure what half of it means, but I'll try to respond anyway. There are two major regulations that I know of that rather obviously cause the price of medicine to rise.
There's Doctor licensing, which could easily be overseen entirely by private consumer advocacy organizations. Making it illegal to practice without a license serves no purpose, as long as people know that such-and-such doctor is not insured, or not certified by organization XYZ, why is it anybody else's business?
There's the FDA bungling of perscription certification that keeps drugs off the shelves and away from voluntary human testing for years. Again this could be handled much more efficiantly by a private consumer advocacy. And once again, if you want to take or to help test an un-tried perscription medication, that should be your affair, as long as they're clearly labled as such, and not advertised as anything but potentially very dangerous substances.
A third government mess of red tape is government funded healthcare, but I don't really know enough about that to comment. I'm sure you can search for it at http://www.lp.org/ and get a good explanation.
The wealth gap? Libertarianism has no problem with it; let it grow as much as you want. Of course, they ignore the massive numbers of poor that couldn't afford education or healthcare; and are free to be exploited by companies thanks to lowered regulations. Public Charities are nice and do good, but they cannot compare to the scope and global ability of a government program.
No, it's just that charities aren't allowed to steal money out of my pocket. They have to prove to me that they're actually doing good things first, and they have to be doing it where I want them to do it, which personally would be locally, instead of in an obscure foreign country. But then, I'm a bit callous, and I'm sure there are people who would preffer to send their money to cambodia, viet-nam or mexico. I you're right, I have very little trouble with the wealth gap. I fully intend to be a part of the upper middle class if I can possibly manage it. But even if I'm poor, I'd prefer that my friends have more money to loan me if I need it. Welfare and
Actually, the libertarian philosophical cornerstone is based in non-initiation of force. We obey the laws our government sets for us becaust it has the power to use force ugainst us to make us obey, that force being fines, prison and ultimately a gun. Where does the government derive it's right to use force against us? From it's supporting people. So when it comes down to it, the Libertarian philosophy is that if you wouldn't point a gun at your neighbor to force him to do something or shoot him to stop him from doing something, then the government shouldn't either. Apply that idea to every situation imaginable, and you'll have the libertarian view of what the government should and should not be involved in.
How about a Democratic Heirarchy? Cut it all up into precints of say, 5000 or 10,000 people and let them elect a representative. Then cut the representatives into groups of about 50 and let them elect a representative. Lather, rinse, repeat untill you reach the top. What's fun about that is that you'd have an easily modifyable makeup of representatives. Don't like what's going on in politics? Yank your local rep and plug in someone who represents your point of view.
His slogan would be the last one. We only want meth labs in pharmeceutical companies, not garages - and being able to carry a concealed.45 would make me feel a lot safer. Your first and fifth points don't make any sense that I can see. Your third one is MY slogan.
Slashdot Mirror
Touche.(Just imagine that the accent is where it belongs)
I still don't think we're that close to being sheeple, but we are getting closer. The difference between Democracy and Communism may be shown to be about two hundred and fifty years.
And we're getting less creative - or rather the masses are less imaginitive, now that they can just watch TV - so maybe the moon will be turned into a national park instead of a housing tract.
How depressing
Hmm... I always thought we were under a combination of corporate hegemony and end-times theocracy.
That's Republicans and Democrats, right? ::Sarcasm Alert::
Kudos for giving a civil reply to a obviously demented individual. I was all ready to flame him and to hell with karma.
That said, bloated or not, the US population is... un-sheeplike... to the point where you'd never be able to get that sort of policy down their throats. At least not any current generation. We'd make it a national priority to colonise the moon and mars before we'd accept 'limits on reproductive rights'.
Sheesh...
Absolutely! Goes back to an earlier post about "trading freedom for celphone coverage." All these doodads we're talking about are obtainable if we really want them, it's just that our process is a bit slower (Read:Holy-bleeping-SLOW). It's just that China's top down administration can and does implement improvements on a wider scale. Our infrastructure changes have to go up the ladder before they come back down again, and personally I don't mind the delay too much.
Anybody want to pay for the installation of 7000 new upgrades stoplights?
No, he's just saying that they're getting diculous again. I absolutely agree.
There are so many laws that nobody wants to spend the time to find out if there's already a law that covers it, so they shovel on another layer. ::evil grin::
Either that, or they want the problem to make headlines so that people will be properly outraged and the politicians will get credit for patching a hole in the system. Most of them aren't above that.
I'm a Libertarian. http://www.lp.org/
It's the only party I can find that actually wants to shrink the government and actually says what they mean 99.98% of the time.
From a 2002 articale on the party website, "According to the Constitution, the federal government has the power to 'promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries,'" he noted. "In other words, Congress can grant exclusive copyrights, which entertainers can defend, as necessary, by filing copyright infringement lawsuits.["]
The Feds should be doing nothing more and nothing less.
http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view& record=575
The article is an old one about a fight against one proposed "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" that would mandate anti-piracy shielding of copywrighted material on most forms of media, but last time I checked I didn't see a 'use by' date on the constitution so the position should still be valid.
This conversation's getting old and off topic, but it's been fun.
Maybe I'm marginally sociopathic, but I have very little sympathy for criminals of any kind, and very little tolerance for destructive stupidity.
If society thinks It's a heinous crime for me to shoot a guy in the back as he makes off with my wallet, then I think that's something wrong with society. That ought to be a perfectly acceptable response. Just for the record, though, I'd let him go unless there was something in there worth shooting about. Replacing credit cards and keys isn't a difficult task.
All the mishmash about whether or not having a gun would make the situation better or worse is moot. It'd be my descision, in that moment, whether drawing a gun would be a good idea or not, and of course I'd check to see if there were less drastic ways of dealing with the situation. Drawing a gun is a pretty serious thing to do, I know that. Everyone knows that, and most people still probably wouldn't have them even if concealed carry was totally legal everywhere. I'd just rather have the option than not.
Having a gun doesn't enable me to kill somebody or injure them, it just changes how fast I can do it, and how likely it is that they won't get a hit in.
And you're right about the drunks. It's illegal to drive while drunk, it darn well better be illegal to pack heat while under the influence. It would cut down on the lethal barfight problem you seem so worried about.
The other odds I can deal with.
It's the suggestion that groping and purse snatching ought to be taken in stride that bothers me. You don't really have to go too far back to find a time when nobody would be surprised if you got shot or stabbed in the act of groping someone or stealing their property. Some might say it's because we're more civilized now, and so we don't do that sort of thing, but I'd say we're just morally loose. Maybe I'm just anachronistic.
How many people would keep going if you pointed a gun at them? Not many. The rest are exceptionally stupid and I don't see anything wrong with stopping them. If they live, which they probably will, they probably won't do it again.
Besides that, though, stopping someone in the commision of a criminal act IS a different circumstance than having caught them afterward. Nobody would complain if you pointed a gun at someone who was trying to steal your purse, and most people would stop. But what is that threat worth if it's not legal to shoot them if they continue?
Certainly nobody's saying you should fry them for it if they give up, or even if they get away and get caught later. At that point, there's no concern for stopping the act, and there are much better ways to teach them their manners. It's just that in midst of the act, I don't know whether they're going to get caught, get away or give up and leave, I have no idea how far it's going to go, whether the jerk is armed or how he'll react when I protest.
what's my best method for making sure that neither me or mine are harmed?
So... Point a gun, and if he doesn't stop right then and there, shoot him.
And I'm sure it'll play better in court if they don't die, but I don't really think I should have to be overly concerned for the safety of a fellow who's committing criminal acts against me when I already have to worry about myself and my loved ones. If I'm a lousy shot and know it, I'll aim for his gut and vaguely hope that he lives. If I'm a better shot, I'll aim for his leg.
Who said anything about capital punishment? I'm not quite that far from normal. I'm talking about self defense.
And unless my aim was really bad, or the dude was really obnoxious, I'd probably shoot him in the foot.
There are a few crimes that I think ought not be misdemeanors, but I'm no legal eagul, and I don't really know what crimes are misdemeanors and what are felonies. I know I tend to take a rather large amount of offense from gross invasions of my personal space, and would like the option of taking a rather large chunk out of the offender as a purely preventive measure.
Makes me feel all warm and cozy inside. How about you?
If it's my wife being groped, my purse being stolen, then, yes, they deserve to be shot if they continue to grope after I've pointed my gun. As for the other, do you have any idea how hard it is to shoot someone in a moving vehicle?
And actually, I have more confidence in the mis-marksmanship of the average american. Most people who can't shoot worth beans and know it will just point and hope unless they're seriously in danger, in which case, they may as well have the option. 40,000 is not a frighteningly large number of people, and I think much of it is due to people forgetting that their car can kill somebody. I doubt they would forget with a gun.
I think we'd be rational individuals more often if there were more guns around - in the hands of those who want them, that is.
Ah, but you see, that's the beauty of it. Do you think that that barfight would have broken out at all if nearly every person in the bar had a handgun? Even a person who's 'seeing red' has an instinct for self preservation.
And as for the other situation, if nearly every person in Manhattan had a gun, anyone acually pulling a gun out would be a rather stupid individual, and would likely be shot very quickly with a minimum of colateral damage. I think I'd feel very, very safe knowing that the one dangerously unstable person, even one in ten, let alone one in a hundred or a thousnd, would be seriously overmatched by the various stable people around them.
Agreed. There are quite a lot of Libertarians now who heard some of our policies, liked our stance and joined up without ever running into our core value. But if you trace any stance back to it's root, it's the non-initiation of force
Libertarians are traditionally against almost all taxes except those needed for "minimum" regulation and the military. However, this also ignores the fact that some things you simply need taxes to finance.
Other options also include user fees, import taxes, tax on foriegn entities operating in the US, Voluntary contributions(I know, I know, 'in a pig's eye', but it would happen somewhat if the government didn't tax us to death and avertised for contributions more than once every four years), and a whole load of other ways to get money without taxing us to death. And I could maybe even support a theft-tax... ahh.. income tax... if it was just big enough to support the national defense (as opposed to our current national offense), overseeing interstate and international commerce, and funding congress.
Problems with healthcare? Excess regulation! The fact that preventative medicine costs the consumer a lot less and is given less frequently encourages companies to go with heavy medication has no effect. The fact that the reason why medicine (and education for that matter) cost so much is largely how man-hour intensive these occupations are (this gap compared to regular industry has only been widening) apparently doesn't register either. Decreased regulation won't fix the core problems, whereas increased government funding into robots, AI, research, and even certain kinds of healthcare (or encouragement of preventative medicine) could greatly help. Of course, Libertarians are ostensibly against that.
That paragraph is so incoherant I'm not sure what half of it means, but I'll try to respond anyway. There are two major regulations that I know of that rather obviously cause the price of medicine to rise.
There's Doctor licensing, which could easily be overseen entirely by private consumer advocacy organizations. Making it illegal to practice without a license serves no purpose, as long as people know that such-and-such doctor is not insured, or not certified by organization XYZ, why is it anybody else's business?
There's the FDA bungling of perscription certification that keeps drugs off the shelves and away from voluntary human testing for years. Again this could be handled much more efficiantly by a private consumer advocacy. And once again, if you want to take or to help test an un-tried perscription medication, that should be your affair, as long as they're clearly labled as such, and not advertised as anything but potentially very dangerous substances.
A third government mess of red tape is government funded healthcare, but I don't really know enough about that to comment. I'm sure you can search for it at http://www.lp.org/ and get a good explanation.
The wealth gap? Libertarianism has no problem with it; let it grow as much as you want. Of course, they ignore the massive numbers of poor that couldn't afford education or healthcare; and are free to be exploited by companies thanks to lowered regulations. Public Charities are nice and do good, but they cannot compare to the scope and global ability of a government program.
No, it's just that charities aren't allowed to steal money out of my pocket. They have to prove to me that they're actually doing good things first, and they have to be doing it where I want them to do it, which personally would be locally, instead of in an obscure foreign country. But then, I'm a bit callous, and I'm sure there are people who would preffer to send their money to cambodia, viet-nam or mexico. I you're right, I have very little trouble with the wealth gap. I fully intend to be a part of the upper middle class if I can possibly manage it. But even if I'm poor, I'd prefer that my friends have more money to loan me if I need it. Welfare and Social security have made our nation forget how to help people by our own choice. We assume of strangers, neighbors or even our close friends and famil
I know Libertarianism is pretty popular on Slashdot, but there are fairly extreme idealists. These means there are numerous problems with Libertarian positions. He has these extremely naive and idealistic idea that all problems facing the country are because of "excess regulation." Libertarians are traditionally against almost all taxes except those needed for "minimum" regulation and the military. However, this also ignores the fact that some things you simply need taxes to finance. Other options also include user fees, import taxes, tax on foriegn entities operating in the US, Voluntary contributions(I know, I know, 'in a pig's eye', but it would happen somewhat if the government didn't tax us to death and avertised for contributions more than once every four years), and a whole load of other ways to get money without taxing us to death. And I could maybe even support a theft-tax... ahh.. income tax... if it was just big enough to support the national defense (as opposed to our current national offense), overseeing interstate and international commerce, and funding congress. Problems with healthcare? Excess regulation! The fact that preventative medicine costs the consumer a lot less and is given less frequently encourages companies to go with heavy medication has no effect. The fact that the reason why medicine (and education for that matter) cost so much is largely how man-hour intensive these occupations are (this gap compared to regular industry has only been widening) apparently doesn't register either. Decreased regulation won't fix the core problems, whereas increased government funding into robots, AI, research, and even certain kinds of healthcare (or encouragement of preventative medicine) could greatly help. Of course, Libertarians are ostensibly against that. That paragraph is so incoherant I'm not sure what half of it means, but I'll try to respond anyway. There are two major regulations that I know of that rather obviously cause the price of medicine to rise. There's Doctor licensing, which could easily be overseen entirely by private consumer advocacy organizations. Making it illegal to practice without a license serves no purpose, as long as people know that such-and-such doctor is not insured, or not certified by organization XYZ, why is it anybody else's business? There's the FDA bungling of perscription certification that keeps drugs off the shelves and away from voluntary human testing for years. Again this could be handled much more efficiantly by a private consumer advocacy. And once again, if you want to take or to help test an un-tried perscription medication, that should be your affair, as long as they're clearly labled as such, and not advertised as anything but potentially very dangerous substances. A third government mess of red tape is government funded healthcare, but I don't really know enough about that to comment. I'm sure you can search for it at http://www.lp.org/ and get a good explanation. The wealth gap? Libertarianism has no problem with it; let it grow as much as you want. Of course, they ignore the massive numbers of poor that couldn't afford education or healthcare; and are free to be exploited by companies thanks to lowered regulations. Public Charities are nice and do good, but they cannot compare to the scope and global ability of a government program. No, it's just that charities aren't allowed to steal money out of my pocket. They have to prove to me that they're actually doing good things first, and they have to be doing it where I want them to do it, which personally would be locally, instead of in an obscure foreign country. But then, I'm a bit callous, and I'm sure there are people who would preffer to send their money to cambodia, viet-nam or mexico. I you're right, I have very little trouble with the wealth gap. I fully intend to be a part of the upper middle class if I can possibly manage it. But even if I'm poor, I'd prefer that my friends have more money to loan me if I need it. Welfare and
Actually, the libertarian philosophical cornerstone is based in non-initiation of force. We obey the laws our government sets for us becaust it has the power to use force ugainst us to make us obey, that force being fines, prison and ultimately a gun. Where does the government derive it's right to use force against us? From it's supporting people. So when it comes down to it, the Libertarian philosophy is that if you wouldn't point a gun at your neighbor to force him to do something or shoot him to stop him from doing something, then the government shouldn't either. Apply that idea to every situation imaginable, and you'll have the libertarian view of what the government should and should not be involved in.
How about a Democratic Heirarchy? Cut it all up into precints of say, 5000 or 10,000 people and let them elect a representative. Then cut the representatives into groups of about 50 and let them elect a representative. Lather, rinse, repeat untill you reach the top. What's fun about that is that you'd have an easily modifyable makeup of representatives. Don't like what's going on in politics? Yank your local rep and plug in someone who represents your point of view.
His slogan would be the last one. We only want meth labs in pharmeceutical companies, not garages - and being able to carry a concealed .45 would make me feel a lot safer. Your first and fifth points don't make any sense that I can see. Your third one is MY slogan.