Under natural law, you typically only own that which is limited, in such a way you can control its use exclusively. But what about ideas? They aren't limited resources, anyone can create their own instance of an idea, an invention, a writing... http://mises.org/daily/5108/Ideas-Free-and-Unfree-A-Book-Commentary
Trying to outsmart the market-clearing mechanism in the free market usually never ends well. The only time there's _ever_ a shortage is when the good in question is being rationed or otherwise isn't being sold at a high enough price.
Authoring the program is simply a fact that you wrote some specific configuration of characters. That in no way implies you own all the instances of that program, one instance of that configuration of data being on MY hard drive on MY computer. I own all the data, I get to modify it in any way I like. Property rights can only exist to define power over something where power is mutually exclusive, because goods are scarce. Data isn't scarce, power over data isn't mutually exclusive. What are you doing to do, send in the thought police?
The point is (or at least the point I would make) is because of that, the GPL is just an egregious abuse of power as any other copyright license. The notion that some third party could come in and tell ME how and when and under what terms to redistribute MY property is absolutely nonsensical, and the very opposite of "freedom", that is what I would call "arbitrary power".
Uh, of course deflation is good, if the credit markets know about it (otherwise then, yes, deflation causes defaults). I mean really, HELLO THERE, EARTH TO PARENT, the GP just laid out all the points on why inflation is bad. Are you gonna take issue with any of them or not? Name just one country that was wiped out by deflation -- It doesn't happen, it can't happen, unless you actually physically steal the currency to deflate it. Inflation on the other hand is cheap, easy, and ACTUALLY DOES WIPE OUT COUNTRIES - Weimar Germany, Japan, Zimbabwe.
You can't show a stereoscopic 3D movie at 48fps (with current tech, at least), stereoscopic uses a 24 frames per second per eye, projected at 24fps and stored in the 48fps storage format (alternating left eye then right eye). If you want to project the movie digitally at 48fps you must not use stereoscopic 3D or the 4k resolution (4k is just more than twice HD, and most digital movies). Projecting at 48fps would mean storing 96 frames per second, such a change would mean tens of thousands of theaters wouldn't be able to show the movie. Also the sourced article http://www.totalfilm.com/news/peter-jackson-is-shooting-the-hobbit-at-48-frames-per-second mentions almost nothing about "3D".
Gold has never collapsed on itself like fiat monies. Yes gold is somewhat inflationary, but it actually requires effort to mine new gold, and it's impossible to have hyperinflation even if a government wanted that, short of ending such a standard. Gold has actually lasted hundreds to thousands of years. What fiat money system has ever lasted more than fifty?
Gold isn't superior because it's just gold, you could substitute any system whose credit markets can't be manipulated by banking cartels (which is exactly what the Federal Reserve was setup to do prior to the Great Depression, and numerous banking laws, bankers, and central banks before that).
If you cared to overlay that with recession bars, guess what periods the tax revenue is the lowest! Even as a percentage of GDP, due to the disproportionation of unemployment and income tax revenue to spending, how people save money, and fall into debt before and pay it off during recessions.
Break down that word first. an-archy. Anarchy is lack of arbitrary rule. As it applies to software, no one can "own" the code itself (since code isn't a scarce resource like economic goods are, at best you can only own instances of code, like the hard drive), there are only authors. But nothing implies that the authors have any right to tell another person owning a separate instance of code how they are allowed to distribute copies - that would be arbitrary rule, a non-owner (even if author) forcing the owner of property how they are allowed to act within their own person.
While this is on the right track it's misleading... Freedom is the ability to not be artificially constrained. If you are talking about mutually restraining our ability to limit each other's freedom then yes, the choice to do so isn't legitimate, but such a limitation isn't a restriction of freedom. If "freedom" is really impossible why do we have the word? Clearly you're not using the common definition of freedom, and you need to differentiate freedom from liberty.
Free market is a bad example, by definition there is no force in a free market, or at least all use of force is punished in a system with rule of law. For instance there's nothing inherently wrong against insider trading (except the fact that some people couldn't stand it if someone used information available to them to make a better decision!). This is distinct from coercion -- Violent force, theft and fraud (which is really just a specific type of theft), which by definition does not exist in a free market.
What we need is a liberal software license - think "liberal" as in "liberty". The BSD gets close, maybe http://unlicense.org/ though it's unclear if people could re-copyright the software after modifying it (since it's a public domain notice and not a license as such).
Except (A) there have not yet been any injured parties who have actually claimed they've been defrauded, indeed the selling point is that it's not legal tender, and (B) Even if someone did mistake it for genuine US currency, the silver is worth quite a bit more than the face value of US coin.
I don't even listen to Sean Hannity. Even if he did say that, does that make it wrong? Again, ad-hominem attack. I've made my citations, you now bear the burden of proving that my citations aren't meaningful. Since when were facts "propaganda"? Propaganda is witty one-liners, emotional imagery, and typically government-sponsored. Facts are the fact that Obama wrote in his books about "racial justice" and "social justice" calling Rev. Jeremiah Wright a highly influential person in his life, that we have Pelosi's own words on what she think's religion's role in government is, and that apparently when Mitt Romney is a Mormon it's the worst thing in the world, but when Harry Reid is a Mormon we can gloss over it?!?
Why am I even arguing this, IT WAS JUST A COUNTER-EXAMPLE, I have plenty of real reasons to argue why the stimulus is hurting the economy, why regulation on companies is harmful, I don't need to resort to ad-hominem attacks to determine those policies that they support are bad. My original point is IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT AT LEAST BE CONSISTENT. I thought there were smarter people on Slashdot, Indeed.
It's not my fault they're the most well known individuals. Harry Reid is Mormon (because apparently that's a bad thing?), Obama practices Black liberation theology, and according to Nancy Pelosi we should be forming more coalitions between government and churches, her favorite word is "The Word", and "you all know the gospel reference" of that.
An ad-hominem attack, you fail philosophy forever. Make a logical argument, please.
Or if you're convinced that it is logical, dare I point you to what Obama, Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, and various Obama administration officials think about their religions (all of whom are also ACTUALLY IN OFFICE WITH POWER).
What has the world come to? Government simply does not and cannot create (net) jobs. They can tax money from one group of people and use that to hire government employees, but that doesn't create jobs, that just creates government jobs. You can vote to not destroy jobs i.e. not tax and regulate companies out of existence. So I'll be taking your "DONE JACK SHIT" as a compliment, thank you very much.
As for "make rich people richer", since when was wealth and profit a bad thing? The economy isn't a zero sum game you know, one person's gain is not another's loss.
There is no such thing as "money already taxed". Taxes are on events, not on dollars or on pounds
Events can happen multiple times to the same object (Surprise!) When someone says "money already taxed" i.e. "money taxed multiple times" it is a body of money that would otherwise be untaxed (bigger in amount), several times over.
To put it another way:
Money is taxed (1) when it is paid in the form of salary or sales (a sales tax or income tax - the only difference is if you include the tax as part of the price or tally it separately) then (2) the same money -- what economists would call the savings -- is taxed again by the estate tax. Count it yourself, the government takes in revenue not once but twice before that savings is ever spent. You may not like it but those are the definitions, so stop arguing against a by definition argument.
There is nothing "counter-factual" about "money already taxed" and perhaps you should learn what an "opportunity cost" is before you try and declare otherwise.
The original clip did not contain the context, which they acknowledge: "The original clip also did not include their subsequent statements that Olbermann was not responsible for the shooting. Media Matters regrets the error."
That is an error, but is not quoting out of context, and does not in any way affect the substance of the reportage.
Again over the Muslim thing, the fact of the matter is they want to shine him as both hateful of Islam (I bet it's because he denounces stoning of homosexuals, oh the horror), and tolerant of it. Based on MMfA you would never guess that he often has invited Muslim guests to talk about dangerous sects of Islam, such as the "twelvers" that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes in (that we need to create a bloodbath and absolute chaos on Earth, not a commonly held belief but a ). This is the straw-man arguments and out-of-context material I refer to.
As I've said when it's convenient for them they simply don't refute the evidence, they just post it and assume no one would check their facts, like the fact that "Early 20th century progressives" Beck blames "American progressives" for the Holocaust, eugenicsis in fact correct. Even more amusing is if he admits that's not a commonly held belief by mainstream America (which of course, they leave out), why would they still care to post the quote, unless it's to misconstrue his beliefs to push such people as "extreme"? And similarly, Beck calls Charles Darwin "the father of modern day racism", where they are misconstruing a second long statement without respect to the context.
There is no empirical or logical evidence that one person has created a gold bubble, i.e. an unsustainable rise in prices, nor does the author even attempt to offer any. The value of the dollar has fallen massively, so of course it's dollar-price would increase. By extension Beck and company is responsible for the fall of the US dollar, right? What about an "Oil bubble?" No, of course not. If there's a rise in prices it means many individuals had to increase the relative value they place on Gold as compared to the currency they normally hold. Since when did we demonize any person who actually puts their money where their mouth is? Beck canceled a multi-million dollar contract with GM over the bailout, but if I understand correctly, since Goldline is a sponsor he's never going to cancel them... wait what I'm not following that argument? The one possibly good argument I've heard is Goldine charges about 20% over the melt value for what turns out to be their antique gold coins. Wow, I wonder how much I can get if I melt down an original Apple for it's metals, etc. From the article, let's also demonize any person who points out gold and silver are the only constituti
You're just taking apart my arguments but it fails to demonstrate that MMfA is justified in making them. You can't find any articles that have no explanations or refutations attached to them? Have you read any of the articles? Here's another one without any explanation whatsoever attached to it: Beck: "You're About To See This President Start Embracing The Uprisings In This Country".
Still no examples provided.
How many more do you want?!?
And both these are different from attacks on credibility, a perfectly legitimate form of rhetoric where one argues "Beck was wrong about X and Y and Z and P and D and Q, and therefore we ought not to accept that A is true based on his testimony." MM is attacking Beck's credibility, and this is valid.
So because someone reverses their position, very openly, they are no longer correct? Media Matters has tried to pin Glenn when criticizing the Bush and Obama stimulus and bailouts, for once merely implying TARP was good because "it would land the plane in a forest instead of the side of a mountain" even though three days after that statement he very openly and critically opposed it saying it was corrupting and would actually be harmful (A corrective recession is the best cure, etc) - you can Google this for yourself at your own convenience. What about everything they were correct on, since the economy is a fairly objective example, Glenn called the housing bubble and the current gold prices, saying get out of the stock market, attributing it to destruction of the rule of law because of unpredictable changes in regulations, by both Bush and Obama.
Take a more obscure form of taking things out of context and guilt by association: Former Bush Official: Beck Criticism "Absurd" is nonsense because Glenn was one of the Bush administration's harshest critics, over foreign policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy, the PATRIOT act, they can't seem to grasp the fact that he doesn't care about party affiliation.
For the sake of time I'm not compiling every single error they have ever made, I'm recalling off of memory. Perhaps you want to cite primary sources and specific examples in your own refutations like I at least attempted to do. Unless you're going to follow your own standards I'm done.
We don't need the same amount nor should we. If we are free to make our own decisions we must be free to have unequal outcomes. Ignore the money, it's only a medium of exchange, people who are providing valuable goods to society get more goods in exchange, that's just common sense. The people who use their resources wisely will end up with more of them, and get more chances to use scarce resources to profit, while people who sustain losses will naturally fail and be prevented from destroying wealth in the future.
That's no reason not to go on the public record, and I wouldn't talk down to people like that. But certainly, people don't want to believe the ship is sinking let's continue on and save those who will listen.
Coercion by definition is theft (including fraud) or violence or the viable threat of it. A big company refusing to voluntarily agree to extend a contract, or deciding to switch suppliers for an input good isn't coercion, that's raw buying power, and we all have it.
I'm against any intervention that distorts price signals, including variations in the buying power of the dollar, and price fixing of interest rates, which is simply the rent collected from money, that is to say, fixing price of time (and as economics teaches, price fixing causes shortages or surpluses, so doing this to the price of time can only cause such shortages over time, which is to mean a financial bubble).
The likely answer would be yes, but do keep in mind that deregulation is not the same thing as removal of the rule of law. We need rule of law, not arbitrary regulation: http://mises.org/daily/4100
Last I checked it was big governments that hated the Internet and wanted to regulate and censor it, and it was conservatives and classical liberals that thought the Internet was the greatest institution to have ever existed because of its liberty and freedom. (And please don't mistake the Bush administration for a Constitution-loving classical liberal administration.)
Just don't confuse a capital-R Republican for a capital-L Libertarian (the parties) for the lower-c conservative or lower-l libertarian/classical liberal (the ideologies).
Slashdot Mirror
Under natural law, you typically only own that which is limited, in such a way you can control its use exclusively. But what about ideas? They aren't limited resources, anyone can create their own instance of an idea, an invention, a writing... http://mises.org/daily/5108/Ideas-Free-and-Unfree-A-Book-Commentary
Says what contract?
Trying to outsmart the market-clearing mechanism in the free market usually never ends well. The only time there's _ever_ a shortage is when the good in question is being rationed or otherwise isn't being sold at a high enough price.
Authoring the program is simply a fact that you wrote some specific configuration of characters. That in no way implies you own all the instances of that program, one instance of that configuration of data being on MY hard drive on MY computer. I own all the data, I get to modify it in any way I like. Property rights can only exist to define power over something where power is mutually exclusive, because goods are scarce. Data isn't scarce, power over data isn't mutually exclusive. What are you doing to do, send in the thought police?
The point is (or at least the point I would make) is because of that, the GPL is just an egregious abuse of power as any other copyright license. The notion that some third party could come in and tell ME how and when and under what terms to redistribute MY property is absolutely nonsensical, and the very opposite of "freedom", that is what I would call "arbitrary power".
Uh, of course deflation is good, if the credit markets know about it (otherwise then, yes, deflation causes defaults). I mean really, HELLO THERE, EARTH TO PARENT, the GP just laid out all the points on why inflation is bad. Are you gonna take issue with any of them or not? Name just one country that was wiped out by deflation -- It doesn't happen, it can't happen, unless you actually physically steal the currency to deflate it. Inflation on the other hand is cheap, easy, and ACTUALLY DOES WIPE OUT COUNTRIES - Weimar Germany, Japan, Zimbabwe.
Positive right is one way to put it, but it should really be called an entitlement, it's something that you are owed from someone else somehow.
You can't show a stereoscopic 3D movie at 48fps (with current tech, at least), stereoscopic uses a 24 frames per second per eye, projected at 24fps and stored in the 48fps storage format (alternating left eye then right eye). If you want to project the movie digitally at 48fps you must not use stereoscopic 3D or the 4k resolution (4k is just more than twice HD, and most digital movies). Projecting at 48fps would mean storing 96 frames per second, such a change would mean tens of thousands of theaters wouldn't be able to show the movie. Also the sourced article http://www.totalfilm.com/news/peter-jackson-is-shooting-the-hobbit-at-48-frames-per-second mentions almost nothing about "3D".
Gold has never collapsed on itself like fiat monies. Yes gold is somewhat inflationary, but it actually requires effort to mine new gold, and it's impossible to have hyperinflation even if a government wanted that, short of ending such a standard. Gold has actually lasted hundreds to thousands of years. What fiat money system has ever lasted more than fifty?
Gold isn't superior because it's just gold, you could substitute any system whose credit markets can't be manipulated by banking cartels (which is exactly what the Federal Reserve was setup to do prior to the Great Depression, and numerous banking laws, bankers, and central banks before that).
If you cared to overlay that with recession bars, guess what periods the tax revenue is the lowest! Even as a percentage of GDP, due to the disproportionation of unemployment and income tax revenue to spending, how people save money, and fall into debt before and pay it off during recessions.
Break down that word first. an-archy. Anarchy is lack of arbitrary rule. As it applies to software, no one can "own" the code itself (since code isn't a scarce resource like economic goods are, at best you can only own instances of code, like the hard drive), there are only authors. But nothing implies that the authors have any right to tell another person owning a separate instance of code how they are allowed to distribute copies - that would be arbitrary rule, a non-owner (even if author) forcing the owner of property how they are allowed to act within their own person.
While this is on the right track it's misleading... Freedom is the ability to not be artificially constrained. If you are talking about mutually restraining our ability to limit each other's freedom then yes, the choice to do so isn't legitimate, but such a limitation isn't a restriction of freedom. If "freedom" is really impossible why do we have the word? Clearly you're not using the common definition of freedom, and you need to differentiate freedom from liberty.
Free market is a bad example, by definition there is no force in a free market, or at least all use of force is punished in a system with rule of law. For instance there's nothing inherently wrong against insider trading (except the fact that some people couldn't stand it if someone used information available to them to make a better decision!). This is distinct from coercion -- Violent force, theft and fraud (which is really just a specific type of theft), which by definition does not exist in a free market.
What we need is a liberal software license - think "liberal" as in "liberty". The BSD gets close, maybe http://unlicense.org/ though it's unclear if people could re-copyright the software after modifying it (since it's a public domain notice and not a license as such).
Except (A) there have not yet been any injured parties who have actually claimed they've been defrauded, indeed the selling point is that it's not legal tender, and (B) Even if someone did mistake it for genuine US currency, the silver is worth quite a bit more than the face value of US coin.
I don't even listen to Sean Hannity. Even if he did say that, does that make it wrong? Again, ad-hominem attack. I've made my citations, you now bear the burden of proving that my citations aren't meaningful. Since when were facts "propaganda"? Propaganda is witty one-liners, emotional imagery, and typically government-sponsored. Facts are the fact that Obama wrote in his books about "racial justice" and "social justice" calling Rev. Jeremiah Wright a highly influential person in his life, that we have Pelosi's own words on what she think's religion's role in government is, and that apparently when Mitt Romney is a Mormon it's the worst thing in the world, but when Harry Reid is a Mormon we can gloss over it?!?
Why am I even arguing this, IT WAS JUST A COUNTER-EXAMPLE, I have plenty of real reasons to argue why the stimulus is hurting the economy, why regulation on companies is harmful, I don't need to resort to ad-hominem attacks to determine those policies that they support are bad. My original point is IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT AT LEAST BE CONSISTENT. I thought there were smarter people on Slashdot, Indeed.
It's not my fault they're the most well known individuals. Harry Reid is Mormon (because apparently that's a bad thing?), Obama practices Black liberation theology, and according to Nancy Pelosi we should be forming more coalitions between government and churches, her favorite word is "The Word", and "you all know the gospel reference" of that.
An ad-hominem attack, you fail philosophy forever. Make a logical argument, please.
Or if you're convinced that it is logical, dare I point you to what Obama, Nanci Pelosi, Harry Reid, and various Obama administration officials think about their religions (all of whom are also ACTUALLY IN OFFICE WITH POWER).
What has the world come to? Government simply does not and cannot create (net) jobs. They can tax money from one group of people and use that to hire government employees, but that doesn't create jobs, that just creates government jobs. You can vote to not destroy jobs i.e. not tax and regulate companies out of existence. So I'll be taking your "DONE JACK SHIT" as a compliment, thank you very much.
As for "make rich people richer", since when was wealth and profit a bad thing? The economy isn't a zero sum game you know, one person's gain is not another's loss.
There is no such thing as "money already taxed". Taxes are on events, not on dollars or on pounds
Events can happen multiple times to the same object (Surprise!) When someone says "money already taxed" i.e. "money taxed multiple times" it is a body of money that would otherwise be untaxed (bigger in amount), several times over.
To put it another way:
Money is taxed (1) when it is paid in the form of salary or sales (a sales tax or income tax - the only difference is if you include the tax as part of the price or tally it separately) then (2) the same money -- what economists would call the savings -- is taxed again by the estate tax. Count it yourself, the government takes in revenue not once but twice before that savings is ever spent. You may not like it but those are the definitions, so stop arguing against a by definition argument.
There is nothing "counter-factual" about "money already taxed" and perhaps you should learn what an "opportunity cost" is before you try and declare otherwise.
The original clip did not contain the context, which they acknowledge: "The original clip also did not include their subsequent statements that Olbermann was not responsible for the shooting. Media Matters regrets the error."
That is an error, but is not quoting out of context, and does not in any way affect the substance of the reportage.
So when MMfA makes a mistake, it's an "error" but when Glenn Beck makes a mistake, he's propagating lies, is that it? I'm perfectly fine with people making errors, I'm not fine with people who expect others to be perfect when they have clearly demonstrated over and over again people, including themselves, aren't. I'm not fine with an organization that jumps on errors just to misconstrue the argument, while themselves making the same exact errors. MMfA refuses to see that and instead will spin stories whichever way they have to: What other reason would they have for the massive attack over a spelling mistake: Beck's "questions" about Obama spell "OLIGARH" [sic] Beck says his "OLIGARH" misspelling proves "you can't spell 'oligarch' without the czars'" Olbermann on Beck: "'Oligarhy'? Did Obama steal the letter 'C'? "
Again over the Muslim thing, the fact of the matter is they want to shine him as both hateful of Islam (I bet it's because he denounces stoning of homosexuals, oh the horror), and tolerant of it. Based on MMfA you would never guess that he often has invited Muslim guests to talk about dangerous sects of Islam, such as the "twelvers" that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes in (that we need to create a bloodbath and absolute chaos on Earth, not a commonly held belief but a ). This is the straw-man arguments and out-of-context material I refer to.
As I've said when it's convenient for them they simply don't refute the evidence, they just post it and assume no one would check their facts, like the fact that "Early 20th century progressives" Beck blames "American progressives" for the Holocaust, eugenics is in fact correct. Even more amusing is if he admits that's not a commonly held belief by mainstream America (which of course, they leave out), why would they still care to post the quote, unless it's to misconstrue his beliefs to push such people as "extreme"? And similarly, Beck calls Charles Darwin "the father of modern day racism", where they are misconstruing a second long statement without respect to the context.
There is no empirical or logical evidence that one person has created a gold bubble, i.e. an unsustainable rise in prices, nor does the author even attempt to offer any. The value of the dollar has fallen massively, so of course it's dollar-price would increase. By extension Beck and company is responsible for the fall of the US dollar, right? What about an "Oil bubble?" No, of course not. If there's a rise in prices it means many individuals had to increase the relative value they place on Gold as compared to the currency they normally hold. Since when did we demonize any person who actually puts their money where their mouth is? Beck canceled a multi-million dollar contract with GM over the bailout, but if I understand correctly, since Goldline is a sponsor he's never going to cancel them... wait what I'm not following that argument? The one possibly good argument I've heard is Goldine charges about 20% over the melt value for what turns out to be their antique gold coins. Wow, I wonder how much I can get if I melt down an original Apple for it's metals, etc. From the article, let's also demonize any person who points out gold and silver are the only constituti
You're just taking apart my arguments but it fails to demonstrate that MMfA is justified in making them. You can't find any articles that have no explanations or refutations attached to them? Have you read any of the articles? Here's another one without any explanation whatsoever attached to it: Beck: "You're About To See This President Start Embracing The Uprisings In This Country".
Still no examples provided.
How many more do you want?!?
And both these are different from attacks on credibility, a perfectly legitimate form of rhetoric where one argues "Beck was wrong about X and Y and Z and P and D and Q, and therefore we ought not to accept that A is true based on his testimony." MM is attacking Beck's credibility, and this is valid.
So because someone reverses their position, very openly, they are no longer correct? Media Matters has tried to pin Glenn when criticizing the Bush and Obama stimulus and bailouts, for once merely implying TARP was good because "it would land the plane in a forest instead of the side of a mountain" even though three days after that statement he very openly and critically opposed it saying it was corrupting and would actually be harmful (A corrective recession is the best cure, etc) - you can Google this for yourself at your own convenience. What about everything they were correct on, since the economy is a fairly objective example, Glenn called the housing bubble and the current gold prices, saying get out of the stock market, attributing it to destruction of the rule of law because of unpredictable changes in regulations, by both Bush and Obama.
Here's another great one from their front page: Beck Follows Goldberg In Cropping Quote About Mussolini, Misattributes It To NY Times yet Media Matters can't seem to cite their own sources correctly, misattributing Neil Cavuto's hour long program to Glenn Beck: Cavuto: "Cut" Blumenthal "a break," he "stumbled," attacks are "nonsense"
Take a more obscure form of taking things out of context and guilt by association: Former Bush Official: Beck Criticism "Absurd" is nonsense because Glenn was one of the Bush administration's harshest critics, over foreign policy, monetary policy, fiscal policy, the PATRIOT act, they can't seem to grasp the fact that he doesn't care about party affiliation.
Perhaps you want to explain away the "Olbermann killed people" quote: Media Matters Gives Glenn Beck’s Co-Hosts The Shirley Sherrod Edited Audio Treatment
For the sake of time I'm not compiling every single error they have ever made, I'm recalling off of memory. Perhaps you want to cite primary sources and specific examples in your own refutations like I at least attempted to do. Unless you're going to follow your own standards I'm done.
We don't need the same amount nor should we. If we are free to make our own decisions we must be free to have unequal outcomes. Ignore the money, it's only a medium of exchange, people who are providing valuable goods to society get more goods in exchange, that's just common sense. The people who use their resources wisely will end up with more of them, and get more chances to use scarce resources to profit, while people who sustain losses will naturally fail and be prevented from destroying wealth in the future.
That's no reason not to go on the public record, and I wouldn't talk down to people like that. But certainly, people don't want to believe the ship is sinking let's continue on and save those who will listen.
Coercion by definition is theft (including fraud) or violence or the viable threat of it. A big company refusing to voluntarily agree to extend a contract, or deciding to switch suppliers for an input good isn't coercion, that's raw buying power, and we all have it.
I'm against any intervention that distorts price signals, including variations in the buying power of the dollar, and price fixing of interest rates, which is simply the rent collected from money, that is to say, fixing price of time (and as economics teaches, price fixing causes shortages or surpluses, so doing this to the price of time can only cause such shortages over time, which is to mean a financial bubble).
The likely answer would be yes, but do keep in mind that deregulation is not the same thing as removal of the rule of law. We need rule of law, not arbitrary regulation: http://mises.org/daily/4100
Last I checked it was big governments that hated the Internet and wanted to regulate and censor it, and it was conservatives and classical liberals that thought the Internet was the greatest institution to have ever existed because of its liberty and freedom. (And please don't mistake the Bush administration for a Constitution-loving classical liberal administration.)
Just don't confuse a capital-R Republican for a capital-L Libertarian (the parties) for the lower-c conservative or lower-l libertarian/classical liberal (the ideologies).
If a television station logo insulting for spinning (somehow) I think there are way bigger problems at hand.
Please, please do not confuse "journalism" for "commentary", both of which are "news".