Libertarianism is not anarchy, although some libertarians may advocate the idea of no government, I don't think that would be commonly regarded as a more "pure" libertarianism. In practice, the ideal of freedom of thought and speech requires constitutionally limited government. The government going private would more commonly be termed fascism.
that guy you quote, who was afraid all the time, i suppose, he was a criminal.
A dangerous criminal no doubt. Probably had an unapproved opinion. Possibly even a religion.
only thing the soviet citizens back then were afraid of were american nukes.
Except the people being tortured in communist prisons for their religious or political views of course. Or those at risk of such abuse. Don't pretend it didn't happen, it's too late for that.
I understand where you are coming from but I have thought about this a lot - on paper it seems like a 'libertarian' society is best - until you live in such a country and see the results. If people are too poor to pull themselves out of it (by getting re-educated, by being able to afford to look presentable etc) or too sick to work and hence too poor to get better, nobody benefits.
It's an interesting problem. There is a command in old testament law that every so often (50 years, the Jubilee?) land was to be returned to the inheritors if it had been sold. I'm not sure it was ever followed and I don't want to get into a discussion of the flaws or otherwise of any religion, just I have thought that in the age it was written, if it had been followed it was a pretty good buffer against generational poverty. I've spent quite some time pondering the idea and considering what would be a modern day equivalent. I regard socialism, which is basically supposed to be compulsory generosity, as fundamentally self-contradictory and a violation of human rights. I would not be opposed to any "socialist" program if it was voluntary. I might even participate myself.
As to the preventing generational poverty, education is a key thing, and is why I support generating an abundant public domain by the shortening of copyright terms and possibly withdrawal from any international copyright treaties, returning to a system where each country enforced its own copyrights only (still thinking about that one, it has pros and cons, but it is notable that the US thrived with this system and eventually became a net exporter instead of importer of copyrighted works, so while people may object to countries using those works for free, we could presume they will follow the same path and eventually produce more than they consume.)
It is also one reason why I support OSS, because it lowers the barrier to entry into productive work.
I am still working on ideas for we could ensure people have the ability to provide shelter and food for themselves. The sick/disabled are IMO in a different category than people who are capable (given opportunity) of looking after themselves. I would consider an expanded army reserve, non compulsory, definitely no compulsory overseas service, as an alternative to unemployment benefits. I object to handouts to capable people and I object to work for the dole programs that still require job seeking as I regard the work done to be sufficient to justify payment.
These points are part of a larger system that would take at least a couple of generations to implement because it would take such a radical overhaul of our society, but they are compatible with many core values this country was founded on.
Australians all let us rejoice Community For we are young and free New country setting its own traditions, liberty We've golden soil and wealth for toil, Free enterprise. Capitalist opportunity for everybody, not the few Our home is girt by sea: A filler line? Reference to defense? Our land abounds in nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare, Appreciation of nature. Environmental protection was not then a known issue, but is well within the scope of our culture In history's page let every stage
Advance Australia fair,
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia fair.
Beneath our radiant Southern Cross,
We'll toil with hearts and hands, Work To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands,
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share, Access to land ownership. This is important, but diminishing in our country. With courage let us all combine
To advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia fair. All in all, a very instructive song about what values our country should maintain. Australia today is largely a mockery of this.
As I understand it, women were basically chattel in ancient greece, so gay marriage in that circumstance would probably represented a significant loss of rights for one of the men (assuming male homosexuals rather than lesbians).
Your post makes it perfectly clear that you people are striving to deny equal rights to members of society that are different, out of principle.
I refer you to my other post in this thread http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1021887&cid=25682023 which I wrote about 2.5 hours before yours:
Personally, I'm not against gay marriage as such, I'm against government interference in private relationships. I wouldn't have marriage controlled or determined by the state at all. In that case, people who wanted to enter into a contract regarding shared property rights, sexual exclusivity etc could do so. If they want to call that marriage, they could do so. If someone else doesn't want to acknowledge that, they don't have to, not being a party to the contract.
So it would appear
My opinion? Maybe it's not the government's place to define or grant the status of "marriage" at all.
that we are actually in quite close agreement on this issue. Except for your judgement of me, which was unwarranted IMO since I specifically stated that I had not given my opinion on those issues. My point was against the use of the word "homophobic" to describe anyone who doesn't support the agenda of gay lobby groups. The word implies a medical diagnoses and I regard it as fundamentally dishonest. Another poster prefers the term "ignorant bigot" which, because it expresses an opinion rather than a diagnoses, I do not have the same objection to.
The poster you're responded it to worded it poorly, but the basic point stands: people are against gay marriage not because they "hate gays" but for real reasons that have nothing to do with blind hatred.
You only think I worded it poorly because you've mistaken it as a post opposing gay marriage. It isn't, it is a post against the use of the word "homophobic" and is expressed quite adequately.
Re:African Americans are overwhelmingly homophobic
on
Obama Launches Change.gov
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"Homophobic" is newspeak. Does it ever occur to you that people who oppose adoption by gays, for example, may do so on the basis of principles they hold and not irrational fear?
Does it ever occur to you that some people's principles are what cause/create irrational fear? Or that people's irrational fears morph their principles?
Yes, it does occur to me and it does happen. That doesn't negate my point that not necessarily everyone who disagrees with a homosexual lobby group can be accurately called homophobic even if they are wrong, yet they are routinely labelled as such.
Personally, I'm not against gay marriage as such, I'm against government interference in private relationships. I wouldn't have marriage controlled or determined by the state at all. In that case, people who wanted to enter into a contract regarding shared property rights, sexual exclusivity etc could do so. If they want to call that marriage, they could do so. If someone else doesn't want to acknowledge that, they don't have to, not being a party to the contract.
Note that I've been given a troll mod for making a case for reasoned argument rather than politically correct labelling of people. It demonstrates my point nicely.
Re:African Americans are overwhelmingly homophobic
on
Obama Launches Change.gov
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"Homophobic" is newspeak. Does it ever occur to you that people who oppose adoption by gays, for example, may do so on the basis of principles they hold and not irrational fear?
I think of ancient Greece, which can hardly be considered a culture that discriminated against homosexuality, yet I know of no movement for gay marriage in ancient Greece. "Marriage" is a word that has meaning in our culture for a long time, having "gay marriage" is not giving equal rights, it is a radical redefining something that is considered one of the basic building blocks of society.
Everyone who opposes anything like this is labelled "homophobic" though. It's an attempt to eliminate discussion. "Islamaphobic" works the same way. Perhaps you would disagree with my position on adoption or gay marriage (neither of which I have given here because it isn't my point), but do you think it is possible that gay lobby groups could have a bad idea and that opposition to that idea could potentially be "sensible" rather than "homophobic".
Only a minimum of regulation is needed - like preventing theft and fraud - just enough to make it more profitable to please the customer than to not please him.
The Russians had decades of excessive government control to create the conditions of the nineties. Under that regulation, pretty much every business was illegal, in the nineties those illegal businesses came to the forefront.
No matter how bad it was, this is the essence of a quote (as accurate as I can remember) from a man that lived under both systems: With the criminal gangs, we were afraid every time we went outside. Under the communists, we were afraid all the time.
Using Russia in the 90's as an example of libertarianism is climbing a fair way up to the peak of the heights of stupidity. Or perhaps just more socialists propaganda blaming the opposition for the results of their own failures.
However you cannot have (a good) society without some social security - you need something to catch people when there is a downturn in the economy or if they are between jobs for a while.
Thereby demonstrating not the truth of your assertion but your agreement with socialism, in particular with the belief of Rudd's that you claim causes you to dislike him, that "the public needs to be 'protected' by a parental like government".
I think you are being somewhat paranoid there - the point of family assistance is to encourage people to have more children - that a side effect occurs or not is something I think government is ignorant of.
I would assert that it is not the place of the government to determine the correct number of children for people to have, this again springs from an assumption that you cannot determine such a thing for yourself and need "mother country" to decide for you. For many people though, the FTB is less than their total tax burden, making it pointless from a financial point of view to take the tax in the first place unless there is a social control agenda. Mind you, you admitted it is all about social control anyway, you just have a different perspective on what that agenda is.
Why should people who don't have children yet pay more tax? That is exactly their best time to be accumulating assets and savings for the time when they do have children. Why should they be paying for the children of others?
Galileo was later able to disprove the biblical, earth-centric idea (thus giving weight to heliocentrism)
I've read the bible from Genesis to Revelation, I never saw anything that required the earth be the centre of the universe. Taking into consideration that you probably erroneously call the visible light effects of the earth's rotation "sunrise" and "sunset", and allowing the same degree of "poetic license" for the bible as you do for yourself, could you point out the relevant passages?
Just in case you missed it, there are plenty of things in the bible that flat out contradict science, such as the loaves and fishes vs the law of conservation of mass, without making stuff up. We talk daily as if the earth is at the centre of everything, because we live on it. If you take an ultra literal interpretation of anyone's words you can screw stuff up.
I don't like Rudd because, with this censorship stunt, and that phoney outrage over the art exhibition featuring children - he has shown himself to be a person who believes that the public needs to be 'protected' by a parental like government.
That's been the labor party's platform since it was formed hasn't it? Isn't that what social security etc, the whole kit and kaboodle of socialism is about? Why are you surprised?
I think that is a antithesis to the direction western society has been going for the last two centuries, and a view incompatible with democracy.
It is incompatible with liberty. As long as you have a majority of people who see themselves as needing the governments help, it is entirely compatible with democracy. That, IMO, is the purpose of family assistance payments, to condition as many people as possible to see themselves as needing a handout. And yes, I am aware that our "conservative" government promotes this as well, I'm not an apologist for them either.
I think he'd be very disappointed. He wanted men to be judged on the content of their character. Obama's pro-abortion stance would almost certainly have MLK judge him as a deficient character, as would his association with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers.
Once he pulled you up on your attitude instead of being embarrassed at not having just looked it up himself, you should have realised the futility of this.
While I appreciate the information you provided & thank you for it, please bear in mind that not all of us have read the GPL from start to finish, or have a copy on hand to cut and paste from. The condescension is not strictly necessary.
The condescension was not strictly necessary, but not completely unwarranted either. This is not the Ubuntu mailing list, there to gently guide to towards understanding. There would be many here who think that if you're going to discuss the GPL, it isn't too much to expect you to read it first. If you don't, it is not up to us to make sure you feel good about that.
Another example of how the fight against privacy has little to do with terrorism. Perversion is of greater concern to the Right Wing than fighting violent crime.
In Australia, it's our left wing government that is attempting to introduce censorship of the internet.
During one heated argument, they said they would call the police. I said, tell you what, let me do it.
I knew a guy who pretended to call child services, claiming he couldn't handle his kids and asking for them to be taken away because they were too much trouble. They begged him to let them stay. No more threats of calling the government after that.
I'm amazed that somehow it's OK to react with physical violence when someone says something you don't like. Free speech and all that. How that shit has become to universally tolerated is beyond me.
At the time free speech was adopted in law, many people still thought it acceptable to fight someone to the death for insulting their honor. It was on the way out but had not been eliminated at that time. It has not become universally tolerated, "superior force rules" was universal for most of history, it is the rule of law that is in the process of becoming universally accepted. Slowly, and impeded by bad laws, lack of understanding and numerous other things.
The idea of free speech was that you could advocate political change without being punished by the government, not that you could go around insulting people with impunity. In the US, even the constitution has a process by which it can be changed, therefore you can advocate the complete replacement of the whole system of government by peaceful means and never run afoul of any government authority. People even regularly proclaim the right to bear arms is to enable your protection against the government and seem to stay free. Despite the imperfections of the US, you still have the right to free speech to a degree not enjoyed in any other country at any other time. I doubt that will ever mean that you can deliberately insult people on a regular basis without risk of physical violence. I'm not advocating it, that's just reality.
... I can't think off-hand of a good example of a federal parliamentary libertarian.
That's what I thought. Remember I was responding to rtb61's assertion that the Liberals were "a fairly even mix between the US libertarian party and the Democrats"
Of those I know who joined the Liberal Party in the last year, there has been a large proportion of libertarians
Having seen Ron Paul's strategy of packing the Republican party with as many libertarians as possible, it has seemed to me a good idea. I've considered joining the Libs or Nats for this same reason.
No, that's not even close to what I'm saying. Let me say it another way since you seem to be having difficulty.
âoeIt's entirely possible the move to FOSS (in this instance) was a bad decision for one or more technical and/or financial reasons, but if you put out a glowing report then nobody knows otherwise. Problem solved.â
Oh, you're just being offtopic then. I was answering the OP who was wondering if they would stick to in, they have. Whether that is a good or bad idea is irrelevant to the point answered, which is whether they stuck with it or not. I tend to expect a logical flow of conversation, that's why I didn't understand you.
Yes, because governments never make bad decisions, then hide them with false data/reports.
So are you saying they didn't really start migrating in 2001 or that they aren't really still using F/OSS now? Or did you just want to say something and couldn't come up with anything sensible?
From TFA: The Foreign Ministry in 2001 began migrating its back-end IT systems to Open Source in order to provide all embassies and consulates with Internet access and email. "Our strategy was to use as far as possible Open Standards and Open Source. Reduction of costs was the main reason for this decision." Upon completion of this project, the ministry decided in 2004 to also migrate the desktops.
It's 2008, 7 years since they started the migration, I think they're sticking to it.
Slashdot Mirror
russia of the nineties was the perfect example of pure libertarianism - even the government went private.
I don't know where you get your idea of libertarianism. I suggest you have a look here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=libertarianism
Libertarianism is not anarchy, although some libertarians may advocate the idea of no government, I don't think that would be commonly regarded as a more "pure" libertarianism. In practice, the ideal of freedom of thought and speech requires constitutionally limited government. The government going private would more commonly be termed fascism.
that guy you quote, who was afraid all the time, i suppose, he was a criminal.
A dangerous criminal no doubt. Probably had an unapproved opinion. Possibly even a religion.
only thing the soviet citizens back then were afraid of were american nukes.
Except the people being tortured in communist prisons for their religious or political views of course. Or those at risk of such abuse. Don't pretend it didn't happen, it's too late for that.
I understand where you are coming from but I have thought about this a lot - on paper it seems like a 'libertarian' society is best - until you live in such a country and see the results. If people are too poor to pull themselves out of it (by getting re-educated, by being able to afford to look presentable etc) or too sick to work and hence too poor to get better, nobody benefits.
It's an interesting problem. There is a command in old testament law that every so often (50 years, the Jubilee?) land was to be returned to the inheritors if it had been sold. I'm not sure it was ever followed and I don't want to get into a discussion of the flaws or otherwise of any religion, just I have thought that in the age it was written, if it had been followed it was a pretty good buffer against generational poverty. I've spent quite some time pondering the idea and considering what would be a modern day equivalent. I regard socialism, which is basically supposed to be compulsory generosity, as fundamentally self-contradictory and a violation of human rights. I would not be opposed to any "socialist" program if it was voluntary. I might even participate myself.
As to the preventing generational poverty, education is a key thing, and is why I support generating an abundant public domain by the shortening of copyright terms and possibly withdrawal from any international copyright treaties, returning to a system where each country enforced its own copyrights only (still thinking about that one, it has pros and cons, but it is notable that the US thrived with this system and eventually became a net exporter instead of importer of copyrighted works, so while people may object to countries using those works for free, we could presume they will follow the same path and eventually produce more than they consume.)
It is also one reason why I support OSS, because it lowers the barrier to entry into productive work.
I am still working on ideas for we could ensure people have the ability to provide shelter and food for themselves. The sick/disabled are IMO in a different category than people who are capable (given opportunity) of looking after themselves. I would consider an expanded army reserve, non compulsory, definitely no compulsory overseas service, as an alternative to unemployment benefits. I object to handouts to capable people and I object to work for the dole programs that still require job seeking as I regard the work done to be sufficient to justify payment.
These points are part of a larger system that would take at least a couple of generations to implement because it would take such a radical overhaul of our society, but they are compatible with many core values this country was founded on.
Australians all let us rejoice
Community
For we are young and free
New country setting its own traditions, liberty
We've golden soil and wealth for toil,
Free enterprise. Capitalist opportunity for everybody, not the few
Our home is girt by sea:
A filler line? Reference to defense?
Our land abounds in nature's gifts
Of beauty rich and rare,
Appreciation of nature. Environmental protection was not then a known issue, but is well within the scope of our culture
In history's page let every stage
Advance Australia fair,
In joyful strains then let us sing
Advance Australia fair.
Beneath our radiant Southern Cross,
We'll toil with hearts and hands,
Work
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands,
For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share,
Access to land ownership. This is important, but diminishing in our country.
With courage let us all combine
To advance Australia fair.
In joyful strains then let us sing,
Advance Australia fair.
All in all, a very instructive song about what values our country should maintain. Australia today is largely a mockery of this.
Anyway, I still disagree about the Greeks ;-)
As I understand it, women were basically chattel in ancient greece, so gay marriage in that circumstance would probably represented a significant loss of rights for one of the men (assuming male homosexuals rather than lesbians).
Your post makes it perfectly clear that you people are striving to deny equal rights to members of society that are different, out of principle.
I refer you to my other post in this thread http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1021887&cid=25682023 which I wrote about 2.5 hours before yours:
Personally, I'm not against gay marriage as such, I'm against government interference in private relationships. I wouldn't have marriage controlled or determined by the state at all. In that case, people who wanted to enter into a contract regarding shared property rights, sexual exclusivity etc could do so. If they want to call that marriage, they could do so. If someone else doesn't want to acknowledge that, they don't have to, not being a party to the contract.
So it would appear
My opinion? Maybe it's not the government's place to define or grant the status of "marriage" at all.
that we are actually in quite close agreement on this issue. Except for your judgement of me, which was unwarranted IMO since I specifically stated that I had not given my opinion on those issues. My point was against the use of the word "homophobic" to describe anyone who doesn't support the agenda of gay lobby groups. The word implies a medical diagnoses and I regard it as fundamentally dishonest. Another poster prefers the term "ignorant bigot" which, because it expresses an opinion rather than a diagnoses, I do not have the same objection to.
The poster you're responded it to worded it poorly, but the basic point stands: people are against gay marriage not because they "hate gays" but for real reasons that have nothing to do with blind hatred.
You only think I worded it poorly because you've mistaken it as a post opposing gay marriage. It isn't, it is a post against the use of the word "homophobic" and is expressed quite adequately.
Yes, it does occur to me and it does happen. That doesn't negate my point that not necessarily everyone who disagrees with a homosexual lobby group can be accurately called homophobic even if they are wrong, yet they are routinely labelled as such.
Personally, I'm not against gay marriage as such, I'm against government interference in private relationships. I wouldn't have marriage controlled or determined by the state at all. In that case, people who wanted to enter into a contract regarding shared property rights, sexual exclusivity etc could do so. If they want to call that marriage, they could do so. If someone else doesn't want to acknowledge that, they don't have to, not being a party to the contract.
Note that I've been given a troll mod for making a case for reasoned argument rather than politically correct labelling of people. It demonstrates my point nicely.
"Homophobic" is newspeak. Does it ever occur to you that people who oppose adoption by gays, for example, may do so on the basis of principles they hold and not irrational fear?
I think of ancient Greece, which can hardly be considered a culture that discriminated against homosexuality, yet I know of no movement for gay marriage in ancient Greece. "Marriage" is a word that has meaning in our culture for a long time, having "gay marriage" is not giving equal rights, it is a radical redefining something that is considered one of the basic building blocks of society.
Everyone who opposes anything like this is labelled "homophobic" though. It's an attempt to eliminate discussion. "Islamaphobic" works the same way. Perhaps you would disagree with my position on adoption or gay marriage (neither of which I have given here because it isn't my point), but do you think it is possible that gay lobby groups could have a bad idea and that opposition to that idea could potentially be "sensible" rather than "homophobic".
Only a minimum of regulation is needed - like preventing theft and fraud - just enough to make it more profitable to please the customer than to not please him.
The Russians had decades of excessive government control to create the conditions of the nineties. Under that regulation, pretty much every business was illegal, in the nineties those illegal businesses came to the forefront.
No matter how bad it was, this is the essence of a quote (as accurate as I can remember) from a man that lived under both systems: With the criminal gangs, we were afraid every time we went outside. Under the communists, we were afraid all the time.
Using Russia in the 90's as an example of libertarianism is climbing a fair way up to the peak of the heights of stupidity. Or perhaps just more socialists propaganda blaming the opposition for the results of their own failures.
However you cannot have (a good) society without some social security - you need something to catch people when there is a downturn in the economy or if they are between jobs for a while.
Thereby demonstrating not the truth of your assertion but your agreement with socialism, in particular with the belief of Rudd's that you claim causes you to dislike him, that "the public needs to be 'protected' by a parental like government".
I think you are being somewhat paranoid there - the point of family assistance is to encourage people to have more children - that a side effect occurs or not is something I think government is ignorant of.
I would assert that it is not the place of the government to determine the correct number of children for people to have, this again springs from an assumption that you cannot determine such a thing for yourself and need "mother country" to decide for you. For many people though, the FTB is less than their total tax burden, making it pointless from a financial point of view to take the tax in the first place unless there is a social control agenda. Mind you, you admitted it is all about social control anyway, you just have a different perspective on what that agenda is.
Why should people who don't have children yet pay more tax? That is exactly their best time to be accumulating assets and savings for the time when they do have children. Why should they be paying for the children of others?
Galileo was later able to disprove the biblical, earth-centric idea (thus giving weight to heliocentrism)
I've read the bible from Genesis to Revelation, I never saw anything that required the earth be the centre of the universe. Taking into consideration that you probably erroneously call the visible light effects of the earth's rotation "sunrise" and "sunset", and allowing the same degree of "poetic license" for the bible as you do for yourself, could you point out the relevant passages?
Just in case you missed it, there are plenty of things in the bible that flat out contradict science, such as the loaves and fishes vs the law of conservation of mass, without making stuff up. We talk daily as if the earth is at the centre of everything, because we live on it. If you take an ultra literal interpretation of anyone's words you can screw stuff up.
Q: do you know the time?
A: Yes.
I don't like Rudd because, with this censorship stunt, and that phoney outrage over the art exhibition featuring children - he has shown himself to be a person who believes that the public needs to be 'protected' by a parental like government.
That's been the labor party's platform since it was formed hasn't it? Isn't that what social security etc, the whole kit and kaboodle of socialism is about? Why are you surprised?
I think that is a antithesis to the direction western society has been going for the last two centuries, and a view incompatible with democracy.
It is incompatible with liberty. As long as you have a majority of people who see themselves as needing the governments help, it is entirely compatible with democracy. That, IMO, is the purpose of family assistance payments, to condition as many people as possible to see themselves as needing a handout. And yes, I am aware that our "conservative" government promotes this as well, I'm not an apologist for them either.
If MLK was alive what do you think he would say?
I think he'd be very disappointed. He wanted men to be judged on the content of their character. Obama's pro-abortion stance would almost certainly have MLK judge him as a deficient character, as would his association with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers.
This is being introduced by the Labor government, they are Australia's socialists, not conservatives.
I'm no fan of our "conservative" parties either, but how on earth do the conservatives keep copping the blame for the actions of the lefties?
I'm trying to give you some advice here.
Once he pulled you up on your attitude instead of being embarrassed at not having just looked it up himself, you should have realised the futility of this.
While I appreciate the information you provided & thank you for it, please bear in mind that not all of us have read the GPL from start to finish, or have a copy on hand to cut and paste from. The condescension is not strictly necessary.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=GPL
First result: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
The condescension was not strictly necessary, but not completely unwarranted either. This is not the Ubuntu mailing list, there to gently guide to towards understanding. There would be many here who think that if you're going to discuss the GPL, it isn't too much to expect you to read it first. If you don't, it is not up to us to make sure you feel good about that.
Another example of how the fight against privacy has little to do with terrorism. Perversion is of greater concern to the Right Wing than fighting violent crime.
In Australia, it's our left wing government that is attempting to introduce censorship of the internet.
Last time I checked, porn was not illegal.
In Australia lots of it is. Any depiction of an sexual act. Photos of nudity are mostly legal.
Yes. That's a lot of people.
During one heated argument, they said they would call the police. I said, tell you what, let me do it.
I knew a guy who pretended to call child services, claiming he couldn't handle his kids and asking for them to be taken away because they were too much trouble. They begged him to let them stay. No more threats of calling the government after that.
But, where does that leave us when the parental discipline is called child abuse?
Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box.
Relevant boxes to that situation in bold.
I'm amazed that somehow it's OK to react with physical violence when someone says something you don't like. Free speech and all that. How that shit has become to universally tolerated is beyond me.
At the time free speech was adopted in law, many people still thought it acceptable to fight someone to the death for insulting their honor. It was on the way out but had not been eliminated at that time. It has not become universally tolerated, "superior force rules" was universal for most of history, it is the rule of law that is in the process of becoming universally accepted. Slowly, and impeded by bad laws, lack of understanding and numerous other things.
The idea of free speech was that you could advocate political change without being punished by the government, not that you could go around insulting people with impunity. In the US, even the constitution has a process by which it can be changed, therefore you can advocate the complete replacement of the whole system of government by peaceful means and never run afoul of any government authority. People even regularly proclaim the right to bear arms is to enable your protection against the government and seem to stay free. Despite the imperfections of the US, you still have the right to free speech to a degree not enjoyed in any other country at any other time. I doubt that will ever mean that you can deliberately insult people on a regular basis without risk of physical violence. I'm not advocating it, that's just reality.
... I can't think off-hand of a good example of a federal parliamentary libertarian.
That's what I thought. Remember I was responding to rtb61's assertion that the Liberals were "a fairly even mix between the US libertarian party and the Democrats"
Of those I know who joined the Liberal Party in the last year, there has been a large proportion of libertarians
Having seen Ron Paul's strategy of packing the Republican party with as many libertarians as possible, it has seemed to me a good idea. I've considered joining the Libs or Nats for this same reason.
No, that's not even close to what I'm saying. Let me say it another way since you seem to be having difficulty.
âoeIt's entirely possible the move to FOSS (in this instance) was a bad decision for one or more technical and/or financial reasons, but if you put out a glowing report then nobody knows otherwise. Problem solved.â
Oh, you're just being offtopic then. I was answering the OP who was wondering if they would stick to in, they have. Whether that is a good or bad idea is irrelevant to the point answered, which is whether they stuck with it or not. I tend to expect a logical flow of conversation, that's why I didn't understand you.
Yes, because governments never make bad decisions, then hide them with false data/reports.
So are you saying they didn't really start migrating in 2001 or that they aren't really still using F/OSS now? Or did you just want to say something and couldn't come up with anything sensible?
From TFA: The Foreign Ministry in 2001 began migrating its back-end IT systems to Open Source in order to provide all embassies and consulates with Internet access and email. "Our strategy was to use as far as possible Open Standards and Open Source. Reduction of costs was the main reason for this decision." Upon completion of this project, the ministry decided in 2004 to also migrate the desktops.
It's 2008, 7 years since they started the migration, I think they're sticking to it.