I trust the government more than I trust the web site that brought us "Leave Britney alone!"
Do you also believe there should be American troops in Iraq? I guess the real problem with the article is its tone rather than any real substance. If you actually click on the first link, it's more like "omg people are contradicting the government, therefore they must be spreading misinformation." This is the same kind of irrational, blind trust that allows elected rulers to literally get away with murder while in office. While it's true that lots of worthless crap gets posted on YouTube, that doesn't mean there aren't serious questions raised that should be addressed. But here we see people automatically dismissing that, by invoking references to Britney. How nice.
This isn't what politicians are saying! this is what scientists and health professionals are saying.
Yeah I know, my point is that it is politicians selecting what medical information (and what health professionals) they think is best. How do we know that the stuff didn't end up in their recommendations just because the so-called health professional was the politicians nephew, or some such crap like that?
Do you really think there's any benefit for a government to spread inaccurate health information and endanger the money making and thusly tax paying potential of it's people?
Haha good point. But if it was just tax money that politicians were concerned about, they would stop killing and jailing their own citizens, and allow people to engage in any profitable behavior that could be taxed (like selling drugs). So no, I don't entirely trust everything that ends up in their recommendations any more than I trust everything that ends up on YouTube.
Of those videos, a staggering 45 per cent contained messages that contradict the 2006 Canadian Immunization Guide
The main link seems to be a little scarce as to exactly what information is contradicting. And it would be helpful if the article itself didn't require JAMA authentication. Not to defend any videos or misinformation, but please excuse me for being a bit skeptical of what the government thinks about medical advice... Does anyone honestly believe that politicians know what is best for our health? Or that they care one whit about what is in our best interest?
I don't doubt the law is well-meaning. But, we all know where good intentions get us. I predict it will stop kiddie porn about as well as the drug war stops drugs. And it is 100% certain that laws like this lead to enormous side costs, while doing nothing to stop the action itself.
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs
Uh, speak for yourself. I just switched to the 18 cent per minute plan on Virgin Mobile. Personally, I was tired of having to pay $50 a month to AT&T when I only ever used 100 minutes a month at the most. (And half of that time talking to the parents). I'm not exactly poor... I have a decent paying IT job like the rest of us here. This new plan will probably cost me no more than $10/month.
There are plenty of ways for me to communicate with friends and family nowadays without being a wireless company's sucker.
Just saw the OLPC founder being interviewed on the news last night. It seems he's been trying to sell them to governments all along. I'd like to see him take a principled stance against doing this, but of course that will never happen. It almost seems like he is more concerned about the success of his charity product than actually seeing them get into the hands of kids. Why else would he be so angry at Intel for producing the Classmate PC? Surely there is a large enough market for low-end, affordable laptops... the whole thing puts a bad taste in my mouth.
The scientists are more useful elsewhere AND less of our tax money is spent on NASA/JPL.
I couldn't agree more - the more scientists who leave NASA, the better. Hopefully they will eventually all leave and NASA will disband completely. Nothing but a sinkhole for taxpayer money in my book.
About three months ago, I had a "discussion" with someone who claimed that piracy would be the end of the music industry and that no one would want to play music anymore.
I couldn't agree more. People who think music would end without copyright are sadly mistaken at best, probably clueless at worst. There will always be people who play music. Back before the RIAA people used to have friends over and play music for each other in their parlor. And thanks for the link, I am a huge blues fan so I might take a look later.
'We have consistently urged parents to pay attention to the ESRB rating system. We must ensure that parents can rely on the consistency and accuracy of those ratings.'
Translation: "We think parents are too stupid and ignorant to be able to decide these things by themselves, so we will dictate which morals you must follow in raising your children. Aren't you fools so lucky that you have us competent government officials to watch over your kids for you?"
The best signal is sitting on the sidewalk with your laptop... with the homeless people.
Seeing that just gave me an idea... something like "one laptop per homeless person"... I could see a great market for selling cheap laptops to them in the near future. All thanks to city-wide wifi!
My first cell phone was made by them. I got it free with a contract, and it practically fell apart before the term was even over. Not even embedded Linux could convince me to get another product from them...
I'm not so naive as to think that everything will be hunky dory for everyone at all times under anarcho-capitalism. However, I do think it would be easier for the poor to lift themselves out of poverty. Our brand of democracy actually makes the poor worse off, because they can't hardly do any business without being regulated, and that's after the Fed's inflation squeezes the value of what little money they do have in the first place. My guess is that people would rely much more on their family, as they used to do before the state started trying to take care of everyone.
No, I don't think it will get rid of all the poor people. But neither does democracy. In fact I would say the number of poor people in democracy is on the rise. And private property is still the most justified way of dealing with the scarcity that exists in the world.
The chances of someone being able to cause damage on a large scale are much smaller than under a state. Once the state gets done aggregating everyone's money, what's to stop them from nuking the environment? Nothing. Even the most expensive company in the united states isn't worth a fraction of what the government rakes in. And chances are that without state regulation, companies wouldn't be able to get near that big anyway - the infrastructure just wouldn't be there to support it.
Furthermore, under free markets the consumer is king. Every dollar they spend affects things that much more. I would say money would give the poor more of a voice in the economy than their federal representatives, who have to represent thousands of people.
My whole point is that Democracy doesn't work in the first place. At least, not in the way most people claim. My stance isn't harmful. The people who continue voting scum into office are the ones who are harming me. Even if I do cast a vote, the odds that it will prevent a scumbag from being elected are zero.
Right now, I think the most important thing for libertarians is to get out the message. That is the only reason I contributed to Ron Paul. Since I am an anarchist, voting is just about the lowest item on my priority list. I try to stay way from as many government institutions as possible. Just stepping in places like the DMV gives chills down my spine. Voting isn't much different. Once we can convince enough people that government force is unjustified, voting won't matter much anyway.
I will more than likely abstain from voting because I think it is a waste of time. Does that mean I don't have a voice? No, because I contribute money to places that echo my views, like Mises.org and LewRockwell. And despite my non voting stance, I even contributed money to Ron Paul's campaign, only because he's got it closer than anyone else who's running. My money, though it's not much, will do more than my voting ever will.
That's only part of the problem. My main issue is that no matter who you vote for, they get to spend your tax dollars however they want, with no real consequences other than getting voted out of office. And make any law they desire (along with the others in office), even if you disagree with it. That is not freedom. I suppose the only thing that would get me to vote is to have an option for "none of the above". And if enough people choose this option, that office is eliminated. I would simply choose that option every time. And the pretty high amount corruption and death in the wake of United States democracy would seem to indicate that we're not much better than those totalitarian regimes, and it's getting worse every day.
And I consider any attempts to reform democracy to be a complete waste of time, as democracy is as immoral as any other form of forced government. As far as moving to a socialist country, gee thanks for the permission but I'm already living in one.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno, 10 years in prison for $80k doesn't seem like such a great deal to me...
Thanks for the link... very interesting article.
I don't doubt the law is well-meaning. But, we all know where good intentions get us. I predict it will stop kiddie porn about as well as the drug war stops drugs. And it is 100% certain that laws like this lead to enormous side costs, while doing nothing to stop the action itself. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs
The problem is that crap like this just doesn't work. Period. And good luck enforcing it.
Uh, speak for yourself. I just switched to the 18 cent per minute plan on Virgin Mobile. Personally, I was tired of having to pay $50 a month to AT&T when I only ever used 100 minutes a month at the most. (And half of that time talking to the parents). I'm not exactly poor... I have a decent paying IT job like the rest of us here. This new plan will probably cost me no more than $10/month.
There are plenty of ways for me to communicate with friends and family nowadays without being a wireless company's sucker.
Just saw the OLPC founder being interviewed on the news last night. It seems he's been trying to sell them to governments all along. I'd like to see him take a principled stance against doing this, but of course that will never happen. It almost seems like he is more concerned about the success of his charity product than actually seeing them get into the hands of kids. Why else would he be so angry at Intel for producing the Classmate PC? Surely there is a large enough market for low-end, affordable laptops... the whole thing puts a bad taste in my mouth.
My first cell phone was made by them. I got it free with a contract, and it practically fell apart before the term was even over. Not even embedded Linux could convince me to get another product from them...
I'm not so naive as to think that everything will be hunky dory for everyone at all times under anarcho-capitalism. However, I do think it would be easier for the poor to lift themselves out of poverty. Our brand of democracy actually makes the poor worse off, because they can't hardly do any business without being regulated, and that's after the Fed's inflation squeezes the value of what little money they do have in the first place. My guess is that people would rely much more on their family, as they used to do before the state started trying to take care of everyone.
No, I don't think it will get rid of all the poor people. But neither does democracy. In fact I would say the number of poor people in democracy is on the rise. And private property is still the most justified way of dealing with the scarcity that exists in the world.
The chances of someone being able to cause damage on a large scale are much smaller than under a state. Once the state gets done aggregating everyone's money, what's to stop them from nuking the environment? Nothing. Even the most expensive company in the united states isn't worth a fraction of what the government rakes in. And chances are that without state regulation, companies wouldn't be able to get near that big anyway - the infrastructure just wouldn't be there to support it.
Furthermore, under free markets the consumer is king. Every dollar they spend affects things that much more. I would say money would give the poor more of a voice in the economy than their federal representatives, who have to represent thousands of people.
http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/faq.html
My whole point is that Democracy doesn't work in the first place. At least, not in the way most people claim. My stance isn't harmful. The people who continue voting scum into office are the ones who are harming me. Even if I do cast a vote, the odds that it will prevent a scumbag from being elected are zero.
Right now, I think the most important thing for libertarians is to get out the message. That is the only reason I contributed to Ron Paul. Since I am an anarchist, voting is just about the lowest item on my priority list. I try to stay way from as many government institutions as possible. Just stepping in places like the DMV gives chills down my spine. Voting isn't much different. Once we can convince enough people that government force is unjustified, voting won't matter much anyway.
I'd have to disagree with gold ol Winston. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho_capitalism
I will more than likely abstain from voting because I think it is a waste of time. Does that mean I don't have a voice? No, because I contribute money to places that echo my views, like Mises.org and LewRockwell. And despite my non voting stance, I even contributed money to Ron Paul's campaign, only because he's got it closer than anyone else who's running. My money, though it's not much, will do more than my voting ever will.
That's only part of the problem. My main issue is that no matter who you vote for, they get to spend your tax dollars however they want, with no real consequences other than getting voted out of office. And make any law they desire (along with the others in office), even if you disagree with it. That is not freedom. I suppose the only thing that would get me to vote is to have an option for "none of the above". And if enough people choose this option, that office is eliminated. I would simply choose that option every time. And the pretty high amount corruption and death in the wake of United States democracy would seem to indicate that we're not much better than those totalitarian regimes, and it's getting worse every day.
And I consider any attempts to reform democracy to be a complete waste of time, as democracy is as immoral as any other form of forced government. As far as moving to a socialist country, gee thanks for the permission but I'm already living in one.