"Remember that every act of government ultimately reduces to an act of violence against person and property. When you see the word regulation, think of cops with clubs and tasers. Think of fines, courtrooms, jails. These are the essential means by which government operates to control society."
I prefer consensual relationships and voluntary exchange.
As I prefer consensual relationships and voluntary exchange (as opposed to the State's monopoly on force/aggression/violence), I emplore you to not use the all encompassing "our" when referring to the people that claim ownership over others (see organized theft/"taxation") and call themselves "government"...in this case, the Attorney Genital.
Complex social issues cannot be solved through State force/violence (or threat thereof), it only makes the issues worse in the long run.
They argue that online retailers, which in some cases aren't stolen from through force (or threat thereof) at checkout, enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over big box stores that do submit to said theft/coercion. Like a good and obedient slave, instead of speaking out against the immorality of State theft/coercion, the individuals who run the big box stores are advocating for the State to engage in the same theft/coercion against the individuals running online retail business's that the big box stores are subject to.
If the individuals who run the big box stores truly wanted "fair competition", they would speak out against all forms of theft and allow individuals to engage in consensual voluntary exchange.
Reading the government response to the memes immediately brought to mind the dialogue from the absurd final battle in the video game 'Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance" and the following animated .gif/meme referencing it:
The politician has no incentive to be informed as he receives his paycheck through state force/aggression (or threat thereof).
Until we're interacting with individuals on a consensual basis and through voluntary exchange, we will continue to see the ignorance and absurdity that results from state aggression expand like highly aggressive cancer.
Howver, this is most certainly not the result of "capitalism" (defined as an economic system based on the respect for self-ownership derived property rights and voluntary exchange, in a market free from government force/aggression).
In a voluntary market, prices are made up of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of voluntary exchanges occuring constantly. Thus providing an immense amount of knowledge that no one person, or bureaucrat, could ever know. As soon as State force enters the equation (i.e.,"regulation"), said knowledge is corrupted and perverts natural market incentives.
The current healthcare prices are forced by government through Medicare, keeping said prices insulated from natural voluntary market forces. They have no incentive to lower prices and compete since the Medicare prices are back by State aggression/violence (or threat thereof).
I highly recommend the two following articles to gain further understanding into why the healthcare industry is the way it is (one article touches on the history, the other on why prices are so high).
The core issue is State force/intervention. Complex social issues cannot be solved through aggression/violence (or threat thereof), it always only makes matters worse in the long run.
I agree with Anonymous Coward. Unless these drones are being fully funded through private/voluntary means (without any government intervention/force involved), then I am wary of what may result from their implementation. If anything, it'd be a form of acclimation to the use of drones in the sky always watching.
On a side note, if we truly wants to help preserve endangered species, we should be advocating for individual property rights (rather than government regulation/legislation).
A big part of why some animals become endangered, especially with many types of fish populations being depleted, is due to what is termed the "tragedy of the commons".
The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will lower the yield a shared limited resource, even to the point of ultimately depleting it, even when it is clear that it is not in everyone's short or long term interest for this to happen.
I disagree with this statement as no fraud has taken place.
An individual does not own their reputation or name. I highly recommend reading Murray Rothbard's overview of defamation explaining this (I would hope Ron Paul would read or re-read this as well, especially since Rothbard was an intellectual mentor to Ron Paul).
As for your statement:
"Libertarianism is not the same as anarchy."
You are correct. Libertarianism is the acceptance and adherence to the non-aggression principle as well as respect for self-ownership derived property rights. While anarchy is "no rulers".
Sure, Ron Paul may "have every right to use the existing legal mechanisms to pursue his case". However, doing so is completely antithetical to the principles he has advocated for over 30+ years.
There is nothing wrong in selling merchandise to help promote Ron Paul/the "rEVOLution"/ideas of liberty. It's a way to use merchandise to spread support via word of mouth. Even if their intent was to solely profit by selling the merchandise, it is a perfect example of voluntary exchange (which, at least in the past, Ron Paul has been a strong advocate of). If people are voluntarily purchasing the merchandise resulting in a profit for the domain name holders, then they are clearly meeting a market need.
However, in this case it appears that Ron Paul & company is saying to hell with the non-aggression principle and instead has decided to employ State force/aggression in an attempt to take the justly acquired property of the RonPaul.com domain name holders.
Video games are not violent. They are inanimate objects.
Instead of repeating the false rhetoric of "violent video games", I believe it would be more helpful, to those who are against censorship of video games, to use the following rhetoric:
"Fantasy Violence in Video Games"
or
"Video Games that portray fantasy violence"
...etc.
Using false rhetoric such as "violent video games" only helps the authoritarians in spreading their collectivistic nanny state propaganda.
With the type of logic displayed by the government in this case, in the near future could we see single mothers going after condom manufacturers for child support?
Maybe the government should go after printer ink manufacturers in libel/defamation lawsuits.
This is the result of the so called "justice system" being a government monopoly funded through theft. Any "service" that, through aggression/violence or threat thereof, gets paid no matter the results while holding a monopoly...is going to be a dismal "service".
Jeremiah Perkins owns his brain which could be viewed as a "device" which through its memory could be used to infringe copyrights after release.
It seems as though the only thing the courts could possibly do to enforce this requirement is to lobotomize Jeremiah Perkins.
In all seriousness though, until we have competing arbitration organizations instead of the State's monopoly on all conflict resolution (in which the State's decision power extends even to matters regarding itself), we will continue to see the tyranny march to it's logical violent totalitarian end.
Government "regulation" is just an opinion with a gun
To quote Jeffrey Tucker of LFB.org:
"Remember that every act of government ultimately reduces to an act of violence against person and property. When you see the word regulation, think of cops with clubs and tasers. Think of fines, courtrooms, jails. These are the essential means by which government operates to control society."
I prefer consensual relationships and voluntary exchange.
"Our" Attorney Genital?
As I prefer consensual relationships and voluntary exchange (as opposed to the State's monopoly on force/aggression/violence), I emplore you to not use the all encompassing "our" when referring to the people that claim ownership over others (see organized theft/"taxation") and call themselves "government"...in this case, the Attorney Genital.
Complex social issues cannot be solved through State force/violence (or threat thereof), it only makes the issues worse in the long run.
*Correction*
"Guilty Until Proven Innocent" is the price we pay for Tyranny.
Reality Reminder...
"Taxation" is a fancy euphemism for theft.
Wearing fancy outfits, having fancy badges, and calling one's self the "government" does not make one's act of theft moral and good.
The initiation of force (or threat thereof in the case of "taxation") is immoral. Plain and simple.
I prefer consensual relationships and voluntary exchange.
Try voluntaryism instead.
Better Idea....
Abolish patent law, copyright law, and trademark law.
These types of laws are antithetical to real self-ownership derived property rights.
For further understanding do a search for "stephan kinsella against intellectual property".
I prefer consensual relationships and voluntary exchange.
I didn't sign...
Mike, when it comes to statements such as this:
"the free trade agreement we signed with South Korea half a decade ago"
...it's best to state "the US government", or something to that effect, instead of using the all encompassing "we".
I didn't sign it. You didn't sign it. The individuals that call themselves "government" and claim a monopoly on force signed it.
I prefer consensual relationships and voluntary exchange.
Obedient Big Box Stores
They argue that online retailers, which in some cases aren't stolen from through force (or threat thereof) at checkout, enjoy an unfair competitive advantage over big box stores that do submit to said theft/coercion. Like a good and obedient slave, instead of speaking out against the immorality of State theft/coercion, the individuals who run the big box stores are advocating for the State to engage in the same theft/coercion against the individuals running online retail business's that the big box stores are subject to.
If the individuals who run the big box stores truly wanted "fair competition", they would speak out against all forms of theft and allow individuals to engage in consensual voluntary exchange.
THE MEMES!
Reading the government response to the memes immediately brought to mind the dialogue from the absurd final battle in the video game 'Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance" and the following animated .gif/meme referencing it:
THE MEMES!
No incentive....
The politician has no incentive to be informed as he receives his paycheck through state force/aggression (or threat thereof).
Until we're interacting with individuals on a consensual basis and through voluntary exchange, we will continue to see the ignorance and absurdity that results from state aggression expand like highly aggressive cancer.
Re: It's what you get when *CRONY*-capitalists control a market...
"Crony-capitalism", sure.
Howver, this is most certainly not the result of "capitalism" (defined as an economic system based on the respect for self-ownership derived property rights and voluntary exchange, in a market free from government force/aggression).
In a voluntary market, prices are made up of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of voluntary exchanges occuring constantly. Thus providing an immense amount of knowledge that no one person, or bureaucrat, could ever know. As soon as State force enters the equation (i.e.,"regulation"), said knowledge is corrupted and perverts natural market incentives.
The current healthcare prices are forced by government through Medicare, keeping said prices insulated from natural voluntary market forces. They have no incentive to lower prices and compete since the Medicare prices are back by State aggression/violence (or threat thereof).
I highly recommend the two following articles to gain further understanding into why the healthcare industry is the way it is (one article touches on the history, the other on why prices are so high).
"The Medical Marketplace, Free and Unfree" by Andrew Foy, MD
"100 Years of Medical Robbery" by Dale Steinreich
The core issue is State force/intervention. Complex social issues cannot be solved through aggression/violence (or threat thereof), it always only makes matters worse in the long run.
Re:
I agree with Anonymous Coward. Unless these drones are being fully funded through private/voluntary means (without any government intervention/force involved), then I am wary of what may result from their implementation. If anything, it'd be a form of acclimation to the use of drones in the sky always watching.
On a side note, if we truly wants to help preserve endangered species, we should be advocating for individual property rights (rather than government regulation/legislation).
A big part of why some animals become endangered, especially with many types of fish populations being depleted, is due to what is termed the "tragedy of the commons".
The tragedy of the commons is a dilemma arising from the situation in which multiple individuals, acting independently, and solely and rationally consulting their own self-interest, will lower the yield a shared limited resource, even to the point of ultimately depleting it, even when it is clear that it is not in everyone's short or long term interest for this to happen.
For further explanation on this topic, I highly recommend Robert P. Murphy's article "Save the Bluefin Tuna through Property Rights".
True Reason for CISPA?
To give the people calling themselves "government" more power and control.
It's as simple as that.
Re: Re: Re: I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
"It would be better to pursue a claim of fraud."
I disagree with this statement as no fraud has taken place.
An individual does not own their reputation or name. I highly recommend reading Murray Rothbard's overview of defamation explaining this (I would hope Ron Paul would read or re-read this as well, especially since Rothbard was an intellectual mentor to Ron Paul).
As for your statement:
"Libertarianism is not the same as anarchy."
You are correct. Libertarianism is the acceptance and adherence to the non-aggression principle as well as respect for self-ownership derived property rights. While anarchy is "no rulers".
Sure, Ron Paul may "have every right to use the existing legal mechanisms to pursue his case". However, doing so is completely antithetical to the principles he has advocated for over 30+ years.
Re: I think you're misinterpreting what's going on
There is nothing wrong in selling merchandise to help promote Ron Paul/the "rEVOLution"/ideas of liberty. It's a way to use merchandise to spread support via word of mouth. Even if their intent was to solely profit by selling the merchandise, it is a perfect example of voluntary exchange (which, at least in the past, Ron Paul has been a strong advocate of). If people are voluntarily purchasing the merchandise resulting in a profit for the domain name holders, then they are clearly meeting a market need.
However, in this case it appears that Ron Paul & company is saying to hell with the non-aggression principle and instead has decided to employ State force/aggression in an attempt to take the justly acquired property of the RonPaul.com domain name holders.
Shame on Ron Paul.
Regulation
The power to regulate is the power to grant favors.
Video Games are Not Violent...
Video games are not violent. They are inanimate objects.
Instead of repeating the false rhetoric of "violent video games", I believe it would be more helpful, to those who are against censorship of video games, to use the following rhetoric:
"Fantasy Violence in Video Games"
or
"Video Games that portray fantasy violence"
...etc.
Using false rhetoric such as "violent video games" only helps the authoritarians in spreading their collectivistic nanny state propaganda.
Who Knows....
With the type of logic displayed by the government in this case, in the near future could we see single mothers going after condom manufacturers for child support?
Maybe the government should go after printer ink manufacturers in libel/defamation lawsuits.
This is the result of the so called "justice system" being a government monopoly funded through theft. Any "service" that, through aggression/violence or threat thereof, gets paid no matter the results while holding a monopoly...is going to be a dismal "service".
Try consensual relationships & voluntary exchange instead.
Price
"The ultimate source of the determination of prices is the value judgments of the consumers."
~Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
CIA doesn't spy on US Citizens?
Hahahhahahhahhhahhahhahha....
...wait, are they actually being serious?
I guess the CIA is assuming that most people don't read books or have even the slightest knowledge of history.
If one wants to learn about the origins of the CIA and really bust some myths, a good place to start is "The Old Boys" by Burton Hersh.
Lobotomy?
Jeremiah Perkins owns his brain which could be viewed as a "device" which through its memory could be used to infringe copyrights after release.
It seems as though the only thing the courts could possibly do to enforce this requirement is to lobotomize Jeremiah Perkins.
In all seriousness though, until we have competing arbitration organizations instead of the State's monopoly on all conflict resolution (in which the State's decision power extends even to matters regarding itself), we will continue to see the tyranny march to it's logical violent totalitarian end.