There is no valid argument for banning paid pornography any more than there's an argument for banning paid work in a fast food restaurant. They're providing a product that people are willing to buy, and the workers who help produce the product get compensated for their effort. How can it even be called a "profession" if people volunteer?
If the only coercion is the promise of a paycheck for engaging in entirely legal behavior, it's not "coercion".
He did not believe in the Second Amendment. His manifesto actually advocated strong gun control for us civilians.
However, the case does serve to destroy the theory that the people can't fight the government using firearms. One armed man put the government into panic mode, made the cops so scared that they started shooting at innocent people, forced them to stop doing motorcycle patrols, etc. Not to mention the fact that the bill for this effort is easily in the millions if not tens of millions. All for one armed guy.
"You're an idiot if you think gold is any more "real money" than any other commodity,"
It's more "real money" than FRN, Euros, Yen or any other fancy paper with printed symbols. Unlike other commodities such as food and petroleum it also has the advantage of being portable, non-perishable and a highly liquid asset..
One function of money SHOULD BE as a store of value. Fake (fiat) money, does not serve that purpose because governments and central banks always steal that value over time. Holding your money in the form of any bulky (e.g. copper or steel) or perishable(e.g. food or fuel) commodity makes no sense.
The films "Food Inc." and "The Corporation" provide a perspective.
First, Monsanto convinced the U.S. government that genes could be patented. This was challenged and taken to the SCOTUS (see Diamond v. Chakrabarty) where Monsanto won.
Monsanto now has a department of investigators whose mission is to hunt down farmers who are using the patented plants, even unknowingly. Their army of lawyers then extort the farmer into paying licensing fees or bankrupt them through relentless litigation. The Canadian court case of Monsanto v. Schmeiser is also an interesting precedent on contamination and saving of seeds.
Monsanto also successfully sued a guy who ran a business providing the service of separating seeds from mature plants. i.e. moving his equipment from farm to farm and allowing farmers to recover seeds from their crops. They claimed he was facilitating the illegal practice of saving seeds.
Belief in the free market does not preclude belief in the need for an arbitration system to settle disputes.
I'm not agreeing completely with Ron Paul on this one. I think he and the people who registered "ronpaul.com" both have valid arguments and that the case should be settled by a 3rd party arbitrator. Based on the previously established rules, it appears that the avenues for arbitration have been reduced to one and it's being used.
It's exactly like the government transportation system. It doesn't make one a "dishonest libertarian" to use government roads, because the government has established a system which precludes competing alternatives.
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I might re-visit some of it later. I wanted to make a few points however.
When libertarians criticize the institution of government, they are not rejecting the idea of "rules". They are objecting to the idea of "ruleRs" who have granted themselves an arbitrary monopoly on the use of violence.
We have millions of rules now, and millions of police and military enforcers, yet it hasn't eradicated violence. In fact, the more ridiculous rules like drug prohibition have stimulated violence. Furthermore, the consolidation of power in the hands of the state leads to violence of epic proportions in the form of war between states or any of the other government-backed internecine slaughters we've witnessed.
I accept the fact that a libertarian society would have small scale violent disputes, but I prefer that to the massive death and destruction made possible by vesting power in the state.
The "real world" has burdened us with institutions which may be antithetical to our basic beliefs, but are essential for carrying out many basic functions.
For example, government has used its power to shape the transportation infrastructure and exert monopoly control over most of it. Do I use government roads? Yes. Why? Because government killed off any significant competition in transportation ~100 years before I was born.
Even die-hard libertarians recognize the need for some sort of arbitration system. ICANN (non-government) has decided to turn over disputes like this one to a UN-based arbitration system. It's not like Ron Paul has a parallel system available, just like we don't have a choice of using private sector roads.
The separation of everything and "The State" has failed because the state has slowly and inexorably infiltrated itself into every aspect of our lives. That's how The Constitution has been dismantled, much to our detriment.
Separate The State from education and none of this debate is necessary. Separate The State from the idea of marriage, and that debate goes away as well.
Just get the government out of the education business entirely.
If parents want to send their kids to a school that teaches 'science' classes about the flying spaghetti monster, more power to them. As long as there are no government subsidies, there's nothing to argue about. The parents and students can vote on the curriculum with their dollars and their feet.
Bring some entrepreneurship and consumer choice back to the business of education.
The President of the USA labeled Iran, Iraq and N. Korea as an "Axis of Evil" and you think WE are living as hostages to their demands? Iraq has been invaded and occupied, Iran is getting a steady diet of USA and Israeli politicians threatening military action against them. I think these countries have one major demand. "Don't F*** with us!" Seems like obtaining nuclear weapons is the only way of guaranteeing one's safety from the sociopaths controlling the USA government. Neither N. Korea or Iran has anything to gain by a nuclear attack on the USA. Despite the media propaganda about them being "insane", they are not going to commit national suicide for the sake of damaging the USA.
Look at the voting patterns of urban vs. rural areas and do a survey of hypothetical "end of the world" scenarios. Then re-examine your hypothesis.
Densely populated urban areas are clearly the Democrat strongholds. I think it's also fairly safe to assume that WTSHTF, zombie apocalypse or otherwise, the cities are going to be the first to burn.
Fair price has everything to do with it, and yes, he's going to pay as little as possible.
He should not have to pay for the value of his own name. How much would the domain be worth if it wasn't for Ron Paul's fame as a Representative, author and presidential candidate? That's the "fair" price.
As a libertarian, I'm definitely OK with the dispute being decided by an arbitrator. I can see an argument on both sides.
Obviously the vast majority of the value of the domain and mailing list is directly due to Ron Paul's notoriety as an elected official, author and presidential candidate. It's not the talent and hard work of the people who have been using the domain. There should be some compensation to them, but Ron Paul shouldn't have to pay a premium because of the value of his own name.
I'm a little disappointed by the fact that the arbitrator is the UN. A response to another comment I made stated that the UN would be the only proper venue for deciding such a dispute however.
The only thing remotely hypocritical is that he chose the UN to arbitrate the dispute.
There is debate among libertarians about exactly how the tort system should be implemented and torts enforced, but universal recognition that there will inevitably be disputes in a society and hence the need for some sort of arbitration system.
This is a dispute that needs arbitration. I can see a legitimate argument on both sides.
The "free market" does not meant that there are no rules whatsoever. No free market advocate would consider fraud, theft or murder acceptable acts for the pursuit of profit.
It's not a question of the free market or free market price, It's a question of property rights, which is one of the foundations of libertarianism. Libertarians also recognize the need for some sort of arbitration system to settle disputes.
Both sides have a legitimate argument and the way to settle the dispute is through arbitration. I do think he's being a jerk by choosing the UN as the arbitrator.
If the person had used some unique domain name and built up traffic and a mailing list, there would be no question whatsoever that it's their property to sell at fair market value.
Several reasons. Most notable of which are the banking cartel, the MIC and their MSM mouthpieces.
What distinguishes Dr. Paul from 99% of the other politicians out there is that he wanted the government and the executive branch in particular to be LESS powerful. He recognizes and embraces the fact that human beings are flawed. You might think he has some crazy ideas, but his primary idea is that people should not be able to force their ideas on you at the point of a gun.
The only person you are going to agree with 100% of the time is yourself. What we should all agree on is that the power of government must be minimal in case some crazy guy or evil bastard gets elected.
Instead, we have had a steady stream of people who have accumulated more and more power, thus creating the potential for catastrophic abuse. e.g. arbitrary detention and assassination of U.S. citizens.
I can see both sides of this, but I think Dr. Paul is right.
The argument is not about the free market price, it's about who actually owns the property to begin with.
Does Ron Paul own his name? Put yourself in his position. Suppose someone registered $YourName.com, generated some traffic and built a mailing list. Was it their own innovation and hard work that generated the value, or were they merely capitalizing on your fame as a Congressman, author and presidential candidate?
If they had done this with their own domain name, then yes, it would be a marketable asset. IMO, 99% of whatever value they created was because they used Ron Paul's property.
Note, I am VERY disappointed that he would take this to the UN.
"...anybody who wants to see anything different has got to tell me how we de-centralize."
It's starting, and slowly gaining momentum. Support any efforts in your state or local government to re-assert sovereignty. CO and WA are actively defying federal drug laws. Twenty six states sued to block Obamacare and many governors are actively resisting its implementation. Several states have passed resolutions asserting that the NDAA won't be enforced in their states. With all of the anti-gun hysteria, we're seeing states and even county LEOs claiming that they will stop any new gun control laws being forced on their citizens. Something really interesting is that several county LEOs are claiming that they will actively thwart federal LEOs from enforcing the laws in their jurisdictions. Maybe if we could elect some courageous state AGs, they could prosecute these banking slime on charges of fraud, forgery, perjury, etc. I like the idea of state banks. Until fractional reserve banking is banned, I think that's the best way to restore the money power to the people. F*** the federal government's "oversight" role. They have the FDIC, OTS, OCC, SEC, FBI, CFTC, etc. etc. and they not only failed to stop the Wall St. fraud factory and thwarted any investigation and prosecution, they actively conspired to facilitate and cover up the frauds. There is little hope of positive change at the federal level.
That's definitely the trend. The "where you've been" thing is a little creepy.
I resisted joining FB for a long time. The ironic thing is that I'm a civil liberties activist, and FB just became too bloody useful for organizing people and scheduling events. Like you said, if you don't use it, you're definitely "out of the loop" on a lot of things. It's a conundrum. I don't like it, but you have to figure that anyone interested can already intercept your e-mail and phone calls, know about every hotel, airline or rental car agency you've used, track any online(or other CC/DC) purchases you've made, etc. Unless you want to give up all of those things too, I think you're already compromised.
My rationale for using FB is that my political views and activities are already so widely known that anyone attempting to profile me must have had a complete dossier long before I joined. I'm involved in nothing illegal, so I'll be OK until the government begins its violent crackdown on peaceful political activists.
----------- "But what about the Rule of Law?" While the Rule of Law is an amazing and desirable standard to live by, it unfortunately won't shield you from someone shooting at you or detonating an explosive device next to you....
Collateral Damage ------------
Rather ironic comment considering that the government is claiming the power to shoot you or detonate an explosive device next to you. There is nothing limiting them from exercising this power on U.S. soil either. They claim the whole world is the battlefield.
Replace "terrorist" in your comments with "some person that a government official accuses of terrorism."
All of the sheeple who justify this insanity are operating under the presumption that the accused "terrorist" is actually guilty. If you are ever accused of any crime, you'll appreciate the fact that a basic tenet of our legal system is presumption of innocence.
I'd rather live in a dangerous world than subject myself to completely arbitrary government power for the false promise of safety. One of the major advances in Western democracy was eliminating the power of a king to imprison or kill the individual serf based on a royal whim.
What happens when a bureaucrat points a finger at YOU and says "terrorist!" ? What will you do? Deny it? Sure, but they claim the power to kill you without even telling you that you've been accused, let alone provide evidence or give you the right to defend yourself.
> They don't have any power that's not explicitly granted to them by The Constitution. > The USA and federal government were created by states voluntarily ratifying The Constitution and joining in a union with other states. > The federal government has no legal authority to use military force against a state wishing to voluntarily withdraw from the union.
Many states are getting very tired of relentless federal government abuses like the drug war, NDAA, anti-gun legislation, etc. What's Big Brother going to do when 30 or 40 states decide they've had enough of this BS? Deploy nukes?
I'm overjoyed that we're finally seeing some push-back from local, county and state governments to stop the rampant abuses of power by the federal government. CO, CA and WA telling the feds to F*** off on marijuana. Arizona actually enforcing immigration law. Virginia passing an anti-NDAA resolution. Country sheriffs saying "No" to proposed anti-gun policies. Now, people standing up to this ridiculous drone policy. Good for them. State, local and country governments (at least in my locale) are fairly responsive to the people. Federal government is owned by the banking cartel and other elite special interests. I don't care if it's healthcare, global warming, campaign finance reform or anything else. This government in Washington DC should not be allowed to seize any more wealth or power.
The so-called "authorities" often refuse to release the information required to ascertain the "facts". This is an open invitation to rampant speculation concerning the missing facts and what the authorities have to hide.
I've long since stopped discussing the 9-11 "conspiracy theories" but one undeniable "truth" is that the greatest crime ever perpetrated on U.S. soil was followed up by one of the most lame and superficial investigations imaginable. There are many legitimate questions that the government never answered. That's an open invitation for rampant speculations and all sorts of theories.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no valid argument for banning paid pornography any more than there's an argument for banning paid work in a fast food restaurant. They're providing a product that people are willing to buy, and the workers who help produce the product get compensated for their effort. How can it even be called a "profession" if people volunteer?
If the only coercion is the promise of a paycheck for engaging in entirely legal behavior, it's not "coercion".
He did not believe in the Second Amendment. His manifesto actually advocated strong gun control for us civilians.
However, the case does serve to destroy the theory that the people can't fight the government using firearms. One armed man put the government into panic mode, made the cops so scared that they started shooting at innocent people, forced them to stop doing motorcycle patrols, etc. Not to mention the fact that the bill for this effort is easily in the millions if not tens of millions. All for one armed guy.
/Off Topic but you touched a sore spot.
"You're an idiot if you think gold is any more "real money" than any other commodity,"
It's more "real money" than FRN, Euros, Yen or any other fancy paper with printed symbols. Unlike other commodities such as food and petroleum it also has the advantage of being portable, non-perishable and a highly liquid asset..
One function of money SHOULD BE as a store of value. Fake (fiat) money, does not serve that purpose because governments and central banks always steal that value over time. Holding your money in the form of any bulky (e.g. copper or steel) or perishable(e.g. food or fuel) commodity makes no sense.
The films "Food Inc." and "The Corporation" provide a perspective.
First, Monsanto convinced the U.S. government that genes could be patented. This was challenged and taken to the SCOTUS (see Diamond v. Chakrabarty) where Monsanto won.
Monsanto now has a department of investigators whose mission is to hunt down farmers who are using the patented plants, even unknowingly. Their army of lawyers then extort the farmer into paying licensing fees or bankrupt them through relentless litigation. The Canadian court case of Monsanto v. Schmeiser is also an interesting precedent on contamination and saving of seeds.
Monsanto also successfully sued a guy who ran a business providing the service of separating seeds from mature plants. i.e. moving his equipment from farm to farm and allowing farmers to recover seeds from their crops. They claimed he was facilitating the illegal practice of saving seeds.
I hypothesize that ravers would exhibit more wave-like properties.
Belief in the free market does not preclude belief in the need for an arbitration system to settle disputes.
I'm not agreeing completely with Ron Paul on this one. I think he and the people who registered "ronpaul.com" both have valid arguments and that the case should be settled by a 3rd party arbitrator. Based on the previously established rules, it appears that the avenues for arbitration have been reduced to one and it's being used.
It's exactly like the government transportation system. It doesn't make one a "dishonest libertarian" to use government roads, because the government has established a system which precludes competing alternatives.
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I might re-visit some of it later. I wanted to make a few points however.
When libertarians criticize the institution of government, they are not rejecting the idea of "rules". They are objecting to the idea of "ruleRs" who have granted themselves an arbitrary monopoly on the use of violence.
We have millions of rules now, and millions of police and military enforcers, yet it hasn't eradicated violence. In fact, the more ridiculous rules like drug prohibition have stimulated violence. Furthermore, the consolidation of power in the hands of the state leads to violence of epic proportions in the form of war between states or any of the other government-backed internecine slaughters we've witnessed.
I accept the fact that a libertarian society would have small scale violent disputes, but I prefer that to the massive death and destruction made possible by vesting power in the state.
The "real world" has burdened us with institutions which may be antithetical to our basic beliefs, but are essential for carrying out many basic functions.
For example, government has used its power to shape the transportation infrastructure and exert monopoly control over most of it. Do I use government roads? Yes. Why? Because government killed off any significant competition in transportation ~100 years before I was born.
Even die-hard libertarians recognize the need for some sort of arbitration system. ICANN (non-government) has decided to turn over disputes like this one to a UN-based arbitration system. It's not like Ron Paul has a parallel system available, just like we don't have a choice of using private sector roads.
The separation of everything and "The State" has failed because the state has slowly and inexorably infiltrated itself into every aspect of our lives. That's how The Constitution has been dismantled, much to our detriment.
Separate The State from education and none of this debate is necessary. Separate The State from the idea of marriage, and that debate goes away as well.
Just get the government out of the education business entirely.
If parents want to send their kids to a school that teaches 'science' classes about the flying spaghetti monster, more power to them. As long as there are no government subsidies, there's nothing to argue about. The parents and students can vote on the curriculum with their dollars and their feet.
Bring some entrepreneurship and consumer choice back to the business of education.
The President of the USA labeled Iran, Iraq and N. Korea as an "Axis of Evil" and you think WE are living as hostages to their demands?
Iraq has been invaded and occupied, Iran is getting a steady diet of USA and Israeli politicians threatening military action against them.
I think these countries have one major demand. "Don't F*** with us!" Seems like obtaining nuclear weapons is the only way of guaranteeing one's safety from the sociopaths controlling the USA government.
Neither N. Korea or Iran has anything to gain by a nuclear attack on the USA. Despite the media propaganda about them being "insane", they are not going to commit national suicide for the sake of damaging the USA.
Look at the voting patterns of urban vs. rural areas and do a survey of hypothetical "end of the world" scenarios. Then re-examine your hypothesis.
Densely populated urban areas are clearly the Democrat strongholds. I think it's also fairly safe to assume that WTSHTF, zombie apocalypse or otherwise, the cities are going to be the first to burn.
Fair price has everything to do with it, and yes, he's going to pay as little as possible.
He should not have to pay for the value of his own name. How much would the domain be worth if it wasn't for Ron Paul's fame as a Representative, author and presidential candidate? That's the "fair" price.
As a libertarian, I'm definitely OK with the dispute being decided by an arbitrator. I can see an argument on both sides.
Obviously the vast majority of the value of the domain and mailing list is directly due to Ron Paul's notoriety as an elected official, author and presidential candidate. It's not the talent and hard work of the people who have been using the domain. There should be some compensation to them, but Ron Paul shouldn't have to pay a premium because of the value of his own name.
I'm a little disappointed by the fact that the arbitrator is the UN. A response to another comment I made stated that the UN would be the only proper venue for deciding such a dispute however.
"Somebody else *does* own $MyName.com. Somebody who works in the same field as me, "
That sort of sucks, but is $YourName eq $TheirName or are they simply capitalizing on $YourName for their own profit?
If it was the latter, I think you'd have a legitimate claim that you should get the domain for a small fee.
The only thing remotely hypocritical is that he chose the UN to arbitrate the dispute.
There is debate among libertarians about exactly how the tort system should be implemented and torts enforced, but universal recognition that there will inevitably be disputes in a society and hence the need for some sort of arbitration system.
This is a dispute that needs arbitration. I can see a legitimate argument on both sides.
The "free market" does not meant that there are no rules whatsoever. No free market advocate would consider fraud, theft or murder acceptable acts for the pursuit of profit.
It's not a question of the free market or free market price, It's a question of property rights, which is one of the foundations of libertarianism. Libertarians also recognize the need for some sort of arbitration system to settle disputes.
Both sides have a legitimate argument and the way to settle the dispute is through arbitration. I do think he's being a jerk by choosing the UN as the arbitrator.
If the person had used some unique domain name and built up traffic and a mailing list, there would be no question whatsoever that it's their property to sell at fair market value.
"He loses for a reason."
Several reasons. Most notable of which are the banking cartel, the MIC and their MSM mouthpieces.
What distinguishes Dr. Paul from 99% of the other politicians out there is that he wanted the government and the executive branch in particular to be LESS powerful. He recognizes and embraces the fact that human beings are flawed. You might think he has some crazy ideas, but his primary idea is that people should not be able to force their ideas on you at the point of a gun.
The only person you are going to agree with 100% of the time is yourself. What we should all agree on is that the power of government must be minimal in case some crazy guy or evil bastard gets elected.
Instead, we have had a steady stream of people who have accumulated more and more power, thus creating the potential for catastrophic abuse. e.g. arbitrary detention and assassination of U.S. citizens.
I can see both sides of this, but I think Dr. Paul is right.
The argument is not about the free market price, it's about who actually owns the property to begin with.
Does Ron Paul own his name? Put yourself in his position. Suppose someone registered $YourName.com, generated some traffic and built a mailing list. Was it their own innovation and hard work that generated the value, or were they merely capitalizing on your fame as a Congressman, author and presidential candidate?
If they had done this with their own domain name, then yes, it would be a marketable asset. IMO, 99% of whatever value they created was because they used Ron Paul's property.
Note, I am VERY disappointed that he would take this to the UN.
"...anybody who wants to see anything different has got to tell me how we de-centralize."
It's starting, and slowly gaining momentum. Support any efforts in your state or local government to re-assert sovereignty. CO and WA are actively defying federal drug laws. Twenty six states sued to block Obamacare and many governors are actively resisting its implementation. Several states have passed resolutions asserting that the NDAA won't be enforced in their states. With all of the anti-gun hysteria, we're seeing states and even county LEOs claiming that they will stop any new gun control laws being forced on their citizens. Something really interesting is that several county LEOs are claiming that they will actively thwart federal LEOs from enforcing the laws in their jurisdictions.
Maybe if we could elect some courageous state AGs, they could prosecute these banking slime on charges of fraud, forgery, perjury, etc.
I like the idea of state banks. Until fractional reserve banking is banned, I think that's the best way to restore the money power to the people.
F*** the federal government's "oversight" role. They have the FDIC, OTS, OCC, SEC, FBI, CFTC, etc. etc. and they not only failed to stop the Wall St. fraud factory and thwarted any investigation and prosecution, they actively conspired to facilitate and cover up the frauds. There is little hope of positive change at the federal level.
That's definitely the trend. The "where you've been" thing is a little creepy.
I resisted joining FB for a long time. The ironic thing is that I'm a civil liberties activist, and FB just became too bloody useful for organizing people and scheduling events. Like you said, if you don't use it, you're definitely "out of the loop" on a lot of things. It's a conundrum. I don't like it, but you have to figure that anyone interested can already intercept your e-mail and phone calls, know about every hotel, airline or rental car agency you've used, track any online(or other CC/DC) purchases you've made, etc. Unless you want to give up all of those things too, I think you're already compromised.
My rationale for using FB is that my political views and activities are already so widely known that anyone attempting to profile me must have had a complete dossier long before I joined. I'm involved in nothing illegal, so I'll be OK until the government begins its violent crackdown on peaceful political activists.
----------- ...
"But what about the Rule of Law?"
While the Rule of Law is an amazing and desirable standard to live by, it unfortunately won't shield you from someone shooting at you or detonating an explosive device next to you.
Collateral Damage
------------
Rather ironic comment considering that the government is claiming the power to shoot you or detonate an explosive device next to you. There is nothing limiting them from exercising this power on U.S. soil either. They claim the whole world is the battlefield.
Replace "terrorist" in your comments with "some person that a government official accuses of terrorism."
All of the sheeple who justify this insanity are operating under the presumption that the accused "terrorist" is actually guilty. If you are ever accused of any crime, you'll appreciate the fact that a basic tenet of our legal system is presumption of innocence.
I'd rather live in a dangerous world than subject myself to completely arbitrary government power for the false promise of safety. One of the major advances in Western democracy was eliminating the power of a king to imprison or kill the individual serf based on a royal whim.
What happens when a bureaucrat points a finger at YOU and says "terrorist!" ? What will you do? Deny it? Sure, but they claim the power to kill you without even telling you that you've been accused, let alone provide evidence or give you the right to defend yourself.
When will the federal government learn?
> They don't have any power that's not explicitly granted to them by The Constitution.
> The USA and federal government were created by states voluntarily ratifying The Constitution and joining in a union with other states.
> The federal government has no legal authority to use military force against a state wishing to voluntarily withdraw from the union.
Many states are getting very tired of relentless federal government abuses like the drug war, NDAA, anti-gun legislation, etc. What's Big Brother going to do when 30 or 40 states decide they've had enough of this BS? Deploy nukes?
I'm overjoyed that we're finally seeing some push-back from local, county and state governments to stop the rampant abuses of power by the federal government.
CO, CA and WA telling the feds to F*** off on marijuana. Arizona actually enforcing immigration law. Virginia passing an anti-NDAA resolution. Country sheriffs saying "No" to proposed anti-gun policies. Now, people standing up to this ridiculous drone policy. Good for them.
State, local and country governments (at least in my locale) are fairly responsive to the people. Federal government is owned by the banking cartel and other elite special interests.
I don't care if it's healthcare, global warming, campaign finance reform or anything else. This government in Washington DC should not be allowed to seize any more wealth or power.
The so-called "authorities" often refuse to release the information required to ascertain the "facts". This is an open invitation to rampant speculation concerning the missing facts and what the authorities have to hide.
I've long since stopped discussing the 9-11 "conspiracy theories" but one undeniable "truth" is that the greatest crime ever perpetrated on U.S. soil was followed up by one of the most lame and superficial investigations imaginable. There are many legitimate questions that the government never answered. That's an open invitation for rampant speculations and all sorts of theories.