Go to a tea party rally. Notice that many speakers will get booed. I was floored by this when I attended one. The ones that were cheered were the ones calling for true conservatism. The ones booed were all calling for neoconservative policies. Far more than I can say for either a Republican rally or a Democratic rally (I have attended both on my way to finding libertarianism).
It's not wise to call a group of people "stupid" simply because they are not organized. These people are not stupid, though many are misguided. They are slowly waking up to the fact that centralization of power hurts EVERYONE, except for those in charge.
Anonymous does not have a single opinion, and often takes both sides of any argument. Yes, if you have ever interacted with anyone who didn't know you, then you were Anonymous. This does not make you a hacker, or an activist, or a troll, or ascribe to you any other characteristic.
But hey, feel free not to think, as you seem to want to cling to your ignorance so much. If you don't want to learn anything, or even discuss the topic at hand, then this is the wrong place for you.
Not really. The Tea Party is more like an offshoot of the Republican party that is full of people who are pissed off at the leadership for abandoning conservatism in favor of "neo-conservatism", which is more like the bastard child of modern liberalism and the Sith than conservatism.
Of course, the Sith are all about corruption, and they are doing their damnedest to corrupt the Tea Party. It may or may not work.
Simply look to anyone who claims to be a leader of the Tea Party and you will find their influence. Happily, the "leadership" does not seem to have that much sway with the membership.
This is said as a libertarian who tried to reconcile with the Republican party of Texas, and failed.
By that line of logic, that means there is no group called anonymous.
That is fair enough. There really isn't any point to trying to take down "Anonymous" because everyone is a member. Think about the ending sequence to V for Vendetta. That is really what anonymous is. It is fitting that they chose that mask as their symbol.
Seems pretty obvious to me that these services should be paid for by insurance. Firefighting insurance becomes like liability insurance. A libertarian would argue that you don't have to carry such insurance, but if you don't, then you are liable for any damage caused by a fire that spreads from your property. The insurance rate would be significantly less (and response times and success rates better) than the taxes you are paying now for fire protection due to efficiencies created by competition. Also, since the cost for fires are no longer absorbed by society, people are more likely to build fireproof homes to get lower rates.
The fact that people can't see any alternative to government services is simply astonishing to me.
Well, that's great, but this development means that the network doesn't just fail if those big nodes just disappear. The network will self adjust such that it takes full advantage of the resources it has access to. It isn't about empowering the people nor is it about isolating big companies. It is about ensuring that the network continues to function in the face of any type of attack, including those coming from governments or big corporations.
Hitler was NOT a supporter of business! He was a supporter of party members who owned businesses! Don't believe me? Find me one Jewish owned company in Germany that survived WWII.
I hate Glen Beck with a fury that goes beyond the bounds of the Universe. Don't think for a second that I have watched more than ten minutes of his drivel in my life. The man is a betrayer through and through.
Appropriating the work of some to the benefit of others is socialism, and that is exactly what you described. Sorry if you can't wrap your mind around that. Understand that socialism is not "left", and fascism is not "right", but rather both are for extreme control of the public in both personal and economic affairs. The left wishes for control of economic affairs while generally leaving private citizens to do as they wish in their private lives, while the right generally wants to control the private lives of citizens while leaving them free to carry out their business as they see fit. Libertarians Want freedom for individuals in both arenas.
Socialism is not the opposite of fascism, rather they are simply different flavors of totalitarianism, with the opposite being libertarianism.
You think they would steal from their big supporters? Corporations run by Nazi party leaders and major Nazi supporters weren't expropriated, but many, many, MANY others were. This especially happened to the Jewish owned companies, and any other group that was not politically favored.
Indeed it was, but that doesn't mean that they weren't socialist. Socialism simply means the state owns property, as was very much the case with the National Socialists. If you weren't a member of the party, you were very liable to have your business seized. Party membership had other "perks", like use of Jewish/"undesirable" slaves, Seats on government councils, etc. Today we have much the same, absent the race based slavery. At best, we have prisoners to be slaves. Of course, we have found a much easier way to enslave much larger portions of society--money printing.
I'm afraid that Free Market Capitalism has never once in history created the situation you describe. If a company finds a way to cut costs, but leaves prices high, they are guaranteed to lose in the end under free market capitalism, as some of their employees will see what is happening, and leave to start their own company using the same high efficiency process, and cut into said big corporations market share. If they don't lower their prices, they will go out of business.
Of course, what really happens is that those big corporations capture the government, and get regulations put in place that they, as an already existing, already big corporation, can afford to pay, but that new guys can't afford, such that they can cement themselves in place. They then get idiots like you to run around screaming for more regulation and cite the big corporations as reason, when those very regulations are what created the situation in the first place. All the while, the economic bloodletters have drained the nation of its vitality, and continue to do so, until they become a zombie nation, like Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea, held aloft on little more than sentiment of the poor (our leaders love us!), and force of arms.
The funny thing is that under a free market, corporations wouldn't even exist, as the corporate shield that makes them possible is an artificial imposition of the government. There is no method by which private individuals can own a company that commits crimes and not share some of the liability, except with a corporation, where the government says they can't.
Yes, with the vast tax revenues that were generated as a result of the tech bubble. Good job there, Clinton. At least he didn't spend it, like so many other politicians would have (though he certainly did his share of spending). Problem is, the tech bubble burst, and all that tax revenue disappeared. If Clinton had had a third term, the budget situation would have been just as bad as it was under Bush. He would have tried the Keynesian solution to any recession, just like Bush did, and just like Obama is doing, and spent like a drunken sailor. Clinton's "debt elimination initiative" would have only worked had the tech bubble continued in perpetuity, something that is as impossible as keeping the tide from coming in by decree.
This is not an endorsement of Bush, who I think should have left office at the end of a rope as a traitor who killed thousands of American soldiers and millions of innocent foreigners based on lies so he could fulfill his policy goal of "gettin' that guy that tried to kill his daddy".
You do realize that what you have described is the opposite of a free market, right?
I swear, 99% of arguments against free markets are really arguments against fascism (a form of socialism, where profit is appropriated by corporations rather than ruling party members), which is the OPPOSITE of a free market. It's like saying how terrible a color white is because it is so dark and nasty, and it absorbs all the light. When anyone points out that they are describing the color "black" then they say, oh, well, there is no such thing as white anyways, so we should start off with a baseline grey, which apparently won't change color and turn black like white does, except that in reality, it is closer to black, so it will get that way much faster.
If you want white, pick white, and keep it as clean as you can. Just because you can never get it perfectly clean doesn't mean that the concept or idea of the color is any less valid. It is the same way with the free market. Sure, it is never going to be absolutely free, but it is far better than ANY other system, which is by definition NOT free. Understand that free markets are not just about removing regulations, they are about removing SUBSIDIES as well. Those evil banks that everyone loves to hate so much are totally dependent on subsidies at this point. A free market will wash them all down the toilet, with the fittest honest bank now able to step up and place the highest bid on thier capital, and expand. If they become corrupted, then they will fall, and others will step up to take their place. This is the way it was in the US right up through 1913, and that principle took us from desolate backwater devoid of rich resources other than lumber and fish to industrial superpower. Any nation which followed any other path wound up like any of the South American or African nations.
The lawyers who brought this suit should be disbarred, and they should be fined to fully compensate the court and the defendant for their time, AND for his emotional distress. This is a fucking outrage.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you missed the news where the whole United States and Russia are also having exceptionally cold winters.
I give the vast majority of climate scientists about the same amount of credit I give the vast majority of phrenologists.
Open up the original data, and disclose all methodology, otherwise you aren't scientists, but priests.
Eh, I say just go after them with a nice pair of scissors.
Go to a tea party rally. Notice that many speakers will get booed. I was floored by this when I attended one. The ones that were cheered were the ones calling for true conservatism. The ones booed were all calling for neoconservative policies. Far more than I can say for either a Republican rally or a Democratic rally (I have attended both on my way to finding libertarianism).
It's not wise to call a group of people "stupid" simply because they are not organized. These people are not stupid, though many are misguided. They are slowly waking up to the fact that centralization of power hurts EVERYONE, except for those in charge.
How many people do you think they can pack into jails before the cost causes their society to collapse? Another million? Two? Ten?
You can't throw everyone in jail. That is the power of Anonymous.
Anonymous does not have a single opinion, and often takes both sides of any argument. Yes, if you have ever interacted with anyone who didn't know you, then you were Anonymous. This does not make you a hacker, or an activist, or a troll, or ascribe to you any other characteristic.
But hey, feel free not to think, as you seem to want to cling to your ignorance so much. If you don't want to learn anything, or even discuss the topic at hand, then this is the wrong place for you.
Not really. The Tea Party is more like an offshoot of the Republican party that is full of people who are pissed off at the leadership for abandoning conservatism in favor of "neo-conservatism", which is more like the bastard child of modern liberalism and the Sith than conservatism.
Of course, the Sith are all about corruption, and they are doing their damnedest to corrupt the Tea Party. It may or may not work.
Simply look to anyone who claims to be a leader of the Tea Party and you will find their influence. Happily, the "leadership" does not seem to have that much sway with the membership.
This is said as a libertarian who tried to reconcile with the Republican party of Texas, and failed.
Your anger makes it clear that Anonymous was correct about you.
Honestly, threatening to beat some one up over the internet? What are you, 15?
By that line of logic, that means there is no group called anonymous.
That is fair enough. There really isn't any point to trying to take down "Anonymous" because everyone is a member. Think about the ending sequence to V for Vendetta. That is really what anonymous is. It is fitting that they chose that mask as their symbol.
Mod parent up. Anonymous will be the ones to make the spark that lights the fire of liberty, a fire long absent from this land.
One "hacker" down, 4,999,999 to go!
Yes, and you could fly using a stream of water in Super Mario Sunshine.
Video games are not necessarily realistic.
How about "bill my insurance company"?
Seems pretty obvious to me that these services should be paid for by insurance. Firefighting insurance becomes like liability insurance. A libertarian would argue that you don't have to carry such insurance, but if you don't, then you are liable for any damage caused by a fire that spreads from your property. The insurance rate would be significantly less (and response times and success rates better) than the taxes you are paying now for fire protection due to efficiencies created by competition. Also, since the cost for fires are no longer absorbed by society, people are more likely to build fireproof homes to get lower rates.
The fact that people can't see any alternative to government services is simply astonishing to me.
There is a big difference here, guys. Not all Christians are creationists.
And before you flame/mod me into oblivion, I am an atheist.
Well, that's great, but this development means that the network doesn't just fail if those big nodes just disappear. The network will self adjust such that it takes full advantage of the resources it has access to. It isn't about empowering the people nor is it about isolating big companies. It is about ensuring that the network continues to function in the face of any type of attack, including those coming from governments or big corporations.
Hitler was NOT a supporter of business! He was a supporter of party members who owned businesses! Don't believe me? Find me one Jewish owned company in Germany that survived WWII.
And yes, I have read Marx. He was sadly mistaken in his divvying up of people into two classes. A blog posting I read a while back covers this concept quite well: http://fofoa.blogspot.com/2010/07/debtors-and-savers.html
I hate Glen Beck with a fury that goes beyond the bounds of the Universe. Don't think for a second that I have watched more than ten minutes of his drivel in my life. The man is a betrayer through and through.
Appropriating the work of some to the benefit of others is socialism, and that is exactly what you described. Sorry if you can't wrap your mind around that. Understand that socialism is not "left", and fascism is not "right", but rather both are for extreme control of the public in both personal and economic affairs. The left wishes for control of economic affairs while generally leaving private citizens to do as they wish in their private lives, while the right generally wants to control the private lives of citizens while leaving them free to carry out their business as they see fit. Libertarians Want freedom for individuals in both arenas.
Socialism is not the opposite of fascism, rather they are simply different flavors of totalitarianism, with the opposite being libertarianism.
You think they would steal from their big supporters? Corporations run by Nazi party leaders and major Nazi supporters weren't expropriated, but many, many, MANY others were. This especially happened to the Jewish owned companies, and any other group that was not politically favored.
You feel free to die then.
If enough people take your route, the path to becoming an immortal god-emperor remains open to those of us with the desire for such a path.
Indeed it was, but that doesn't mean that they weren't socialist. Socialism simply means the state owns property, as was very much the case with the National Socialists. If you weren't a member of the party, you were very liable to have your business seized. Party membership had other "perks", like use of Jewish/"undesirable" slaves, Seats on government councils, etc. Today we have much the same, absent the race based slavery. At best, we have prisoners to be slaves. Of course, we have found a much easier way to enslave much larger portions of society--money printing.
I guess you never heard of the National Socialist party. Did you think they just threw the socialist part in there to sound cool?
I'm afraid that Free Market Capitalism has never once in history created the situation you describe. If a company finds a way to cut costs, but leaves prices high, they are guaranteed to lose in the end under free market capitalism, as some of their employees will see what is happening, and leave to start their own company using the same high efficiency process, and cut into said big corporations market share. If they don't lower their prices, they will go out of business.
Of course, what really happens is that those big corporations capture the government, and get regulations put in place that they, as an already existing, already big corporation, can afford to pay, but that new guys can't afford, such that they can cement themselves in place. They then get idiots like you to run around screaming for more regulation and cite the big corporations as reason, when those very regulations are what created the situation in the first place. All the while, the economic bloodletters have drained the nation of its vitality, and continue to do so, until they become a zombie nation, like Cuba, Venezuela, or North Korea, held aloft on little more than sentiment of the poor (our leaders love us!), and force of arms.
The funny thing is that under a free market, corporations wouldn't even exist, as the corporate shield that makes them possible is an artificial imposition of the government. There is no method by which private individuals can own a company that commits crimes and not share some of the liability, except with a corporation, where the government says they can't.
Yes, with the vast tax revenues that were generated as a result of the tech bubble. Good job there, Clinton. At least he didn't spend it, like so many other politicians would have (though he certainly did his share of spending). Problem is, the tech bubble burst, and all that tax revenue disappeared. If Clinton had had a third term, the budget situation would have been just as bad as it was under Bush. He would have tried the Keynesian solution to any recession, just like Bush did, and just like Obama is doing, and spent like a drunken sailor. Clinton's "debt elimination initiative" would have only worked had the tech bubble continued in perpetuity, something that is as impossible as keeping the tide from coming in by decree.
This is not an endorsement of Bush, who I think should have left office at the end of a rope as a traitor who killed thousands of American soldiers and millions of innocent foreigners based on lies so he could fulfill his policy goal of "gettin' that guy that tried to kill his daddy".
You do realize that what you have described is the opposite of a free market, right?
I swear, 99% of arguments against free markets are really arguments against fascism (a form of socialism, where profit is appropriated by corporations rather than ruling party members), which is the OPPOSITE of a free market. It's like saying how terrible a color white is because it is so dark and nasty, and it absorbs all the light. When anyone points out that they are describing the color "black" then they say, oh, well, there is no such thing as white anyways, so we should start off with a baseline grey, which apparently won't change color and turn black like white does, except that in reality, it is closer to black, so it will get that way much faster.
If you want white, pick white, and keep it as clean as you can. Just because you can never get it perfectly clean doesn't mean that the concept or idea of the color is any less valid. It is the same way with the free market. Sure, it is never going to be absolutely free, but it is far better than ANY other system, which is by definition NOT free. Understand that free markets are not just about removing regulations, they are about removing SUBSIDIES as well. Those evil banks that everyone loves to hate so much are totally dependent on subsidies at this point. A free market will wash them all down the toilet, with the fittest honest bank now able to step up and place the highest bid on thier capital, and expand. If they become corrupted, then they will fall, and others will step up to take their place. This is the way it was in the US right up through 1913, and that principle took us from desolate backwater devoid of rich resources other than lumber and fish to industrial superpower. Any nation which followed any other path wound up like any of the South American or African nations.
The lawyers who brought this suit should be disbarred, and they should be fined to fully compensate the court and the defendant for their time, AND for his emotional distress. This is a fucking outrage.