-snip- I think it would be FUNNIER THAN EVER if we just talked about ALTERNATE TIMELINES! Ha HAAAAA!
Imagine the fun! We could ponder things like:
- Ron Howard, First Man on Moon? - What if Flubber REALLY EXISTED? - Canada? Gateway to Gehenna? - What if money was edible? - What if DeForrest Kelley were still alive? - What if Hitler's first name was Stanley? - What if Mike Nesmith's mother DIDN'T invent Liquid Paper? - What would have happened if the world blew up in Ought Nine? - Book learnin': What if it were outlawed? - What is SLIDERS were just a made-up show on television?
"You find my an economist who deals with this issue explicitly."
Start here: http://www.cato.org/ then wander here: http://www.mises.org/ and be sure to visit here: http://www.free-market.net/directorybytopic/regula tion/ [yes, those are right out of my bookmarks]
Your post reminds me of Orwell's line, "As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."
time/place/manner restrictions are acceptable, though various tests must be met depending on the nature of the speech involved. [The standard model escapes me at the moment, something to do with the *level* of government interest: pressing, compelling, that sort of thing.]
And, as we all know, the constitution means what the courts say it means.
I just wanted to cite the techlaw piece. And now, with thoughts of you, I'm going to race around my chair while flapping my arms and making clucking sounds.
Robert Bork formerly practiced antitrust law, taught antitrust law at Yale Law School for nearly twenty years, and wrote what is perhaps the most influential book on antitrust law in recent decades. (The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself, New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1978.)
-snip-
I think it would be FUNNIER THAN EVER if we just talked about ALTERNATE
TIMELINES! Ha HAAAAA!
Imagine the fun! We could ponder things like:
- Ron Howard, First Man on Moon?
- What if Flubber REALLY EXISTED?
- Canada? Gateway to Gehenna?
- What if money was edible?
- What if DeForrest Kelley were still alive?
- What if Hitler's first name was Stanley?
- What if Mike Nesmith's mother DIDN'T invent Liquid Paper?
- What would have happened if the world blew up in Ought Nine?
- Book learnin': What if it were outlawed?
- What is SLIDERS were just a made-up show on television?
-/snip-
It would be interesting to plot the rate of duplicate posting against the net worth of the/. founders, the share price of VA Linux, &c. I'm curious if we'd see any kind of correlation.
Actually, a good case can be made that the possession of nuclear weapons by BOTH sides is a stabilizing factor. Problems would arise if only ONE side had nukes.
1) I am always amused by the sight of libertarians, anarchists, and other self-proclaimed anti-statists falling over themselves to pronounce judgement upon the latest individual picked up by law-enforcement and charged with whatever crime 20/20 is currently describing as an epidemic sweeping the nation. I would never posit a monolithic/. ideology, to be sure, but many of the discussions hereabouts do touch upon issues such as the appropriate role of the state in the lives of its citizens, and how little the state can be trusted in just about any circumstance [examples available upon request if needed]. Given the regularity of such exchange, I hope one can understand my bemusement when I encounter so many posters so quick to accept the state's narrative describing the facts of the situation. Perhaps the fellow is guilty; perhaps he isn't. But the only evidence we've seen so far isn't even evidence; it consists of press releases written by know-nothing hacks [and I use it in the most derogatory sense of the word] regurgitating law enforcement issued screeds designed to cast the involved agencies in the best possible light in expectation of the next fiscal year. Yes, yes, I know, the sexual abuse of children is an awful thing. And, yes, I agree, that there should be laws against it. But the severity of such charges--and the ease with which representatives of the state have so often deployed such charges in the past--lead me to greet incidents such as this with some skepticism. But, of course, I can perfectly understand why a predominantly white, predominantly educated, audience of bourgeois males would be quick to jump to another conclusion.
2) Also amusing are the posts which offhandedly take prison rape and violence as a fact of life. Some of these posts even give the appearance of suggesting that such violence is an acceptable form of penal control and punishment. Recently there was a scholarly work [and I apologize for allowing the citation to slip from memory at this moment, but I'm sure Lexis could remember for you] which set about exploring the role of prison rape within the American penal system. Not surprisingly, the authors concluded that the process was, at the least, implicitly endorsed by the state, if not subject to consideration as an explicit technique used to intimidate individuals into toeing the line. What troubles me most about the posters' acceptance of prison rape and violence as acceptable techniques of penal control is the unstated premise: that the victims deserve it, because their presence in the penal system establishes their criminal guilt. Such an assumption is laughably ridiculous to anyone familiar with the mechanism that is American justice in this day and age... or, for that matter, to anyone with any acquaintances involved in big city, state, or federal law enforcement.
Enough for now. Next time I'll explain why I find anti-statist libertarians who support the death penalty so pathetic.
-ioscream@endofhistory.com
"A 1994 survey, conducted by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect and costing taxpayers some $750,000 over five years, examined over 12,000 accusations of ritual abuse, finding no physical evidence to back up any of them." Remember the late '80s? Remember the individuals put away for life because 5 year old children testified they had been carried on flying broomsticks to far-away sites where they were forced to take part in dark rituals? They went to prison labelled predators of the worst type: persons who hurt children.
Slashdot Mirror
Usenet:
-snip-
I think it would be FUNNIER THAN EVER if we just talked about ALTERNATE
TIMELINES! Ha HAAAAA!
Imagine the fun! We could ponder things like:
- Ron Howard, First Man on Moon?
- What if Flubber REALLY EXISTED?
- Canada? Gateway to Gehenna?
- What if money was edible?
- What if DeForrest Kelley were still alive?
- What if Hitler's first name was Stanley?
- What if Mike Nesmith's mother DIDN'T invent Liquid Paper?
- What would have happened if the world blew up in Ought Nine?
- Book learnin': What if it were outlawed?
- What is SLIDERS were just a made-up show on television?
"You find my an economist who deals with this issue explicitly."
a tion/
Start here: http://www.cato.org/
then wander here: http://www.mises.org/
and be sure to visit here: http://www.free-market.net/directorybytopic/regul
[yes, those are right out of my bookmarks]
Your post reminds me of Orwell's line, "As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents."
"The UN has mentioned that idealy 80% of the world's population would be killed.. "
Umm... citation?
time/place/manner restrictions are acceptable, though various tests must be met depending on the nature of the speech involved. [The standard model escapes me at the moment, something to do with the *level* of government interest: pressing, compelling, that sort of thing.]
And, as we all know, the constitution means what the courts say it means.
Cluck, cluck, cluck cluck cluck!
Most honored, &c.,
I am *so* loving this exchange!
Cluck, cluck, cluck cluck cluck!
Yours in Christ,
[...]
I just wanted to cite the techlaw piece. And now, with thoughts of you, I'm going to race around my chair while flapping my arms and making clucking sounds.
Cluck, cluck, cluck cluck cluck!
from: http://www.techlawjournal.com/atr/80421bork.htm
Robert Bork formerly practiced antitrust law, taught antitrust law at Yale Law School for nearly twenty years, and wrote what is perhaps the most influential book on antitrust law in recent decades. (The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself, New York, Basic Books, Inc., 1978.)
check out: Sovlit
-snip-
I think it would be FUNNIER THAN EVER if we just talked about ALTERNATE
TIMELINES! Ha HAAAAA!
Imagine the fun! We could ponder things like:
- Ron Howard, First Man on Moon?
- What if Flubber REALLY EXISTED?
- Canada? Gateway to Gehenna?
- What if money was edible?
- What if DeForrest Kelley were still alive?
- What if Hitler's first name was Stanley?
- What if Mike Nesmith's mother DIDN'T invent Liquid Paper?
- What would have happened if the world blew up in Ought Nine?
- Book learnin': What if it were outlawed?
- What is SLIDERS were just a made-up show on television?
-/snip-
I'm in love with Slavoj Zizek,
www.endofhistory.com
Actually, a good case can be made that the possession of nuclear weapons by BOTH sides is a stabilizing factor. Problems would arise if only ONE side had nukes.
1) I am always amused by the sight of libertarians, anarchists, and other self-proclaimed anti-statists falling over themselves to pronounce judgement upon the latest individual picked up by law-enforcement and charged with whatever crime 20/20 is currently describing as an epidemic sweeping the nation. I would never posit a monolithic /. ideology, to be sure, but many of the discussions hereabouts do touch upon issues such as the appropriate role of the state in the lives of its citizens, and how little the state can be trusted in just about any circumstance [examples available upon request if needed]. Given the regularity of such exchange, I hope one can understand my bemusement when I encounter so many posters so quick to accept the state's narrative describing the facts of the situation. Perhaps the fellow is guilty; perhaps he isn't. But the only evidence we've seen so far isn't even evidence; it consists of press releases written by know-nothing hacks [and I use it in the most derogatory sense of the word] regurgitating law enforcement issued screeds designed to cast the involved agencies in the best possible light in expectation of the next fiscal year. Yes, yes, I know, the sexual abuse of children is an awful thing. And, yes, I agree, that there should be laws against it. But the severity of such charges--and the ease with which representatives of the state have so often deployed such charges in the past--lead me to greet incidents such as this with some skepticism. But, of course, I can perfectly understand why a predominantly white, predominantly educated, audience of bourgeois males would be quick to jump to another conclusion.
2) Also amusing are the posts which offhandedly take prison rape and violence as a fact of life. Some of these posts even give the appearance of suggesting that such violence is an acceptable form of penal control and punishment. Recently there was a scholarly work [and I apologize for allowing the citation to slip from memory at this moment, but I'm sure Lexis could remember for you] which set about exploring the role of prison rape within the American penal system. Not surprisingly, the authors concluded that the process was, at the least, implicitly endorsed by the state, if not subject to consideration as an explicit technique used to intimidate individuals into toeing the line. What troubles me most about the posters' acceptance of prison rape and violence as acceptable techniques of penal control is the unstated premise: that the victims deserve it, because their presence in the penal system establishes their criminal guilt. Such an assumption is laughably ridiculous to anyone familiar with the mechanism that is American justice in this day and age... or, for that matter, to anyone with any acquaintances involved in big city, state, or federal law enforcement.
Enough for now. Next time I'll explain why I find anti-statist libertarians who support the death penalty so pathetic.
-ioscream@endofhistory.com
"A 1994 survey, conducted by the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect and costing taxpayers some $750,000 over five years, examined over 12,000 accusations of ritual abuse, finding no physical evidence to back up any of them." Remember the late '80s? Remember the individuals put away for life because 5 year old children testified they had been carried on flying broomsticks to far-away sites where they were forced to take part in dark rituals? They went to prison labelled predators of the worst type: persons who hurt children.