On Fri, 2004-09-03 at 12:50, Levi Bard wrote:
> Right, so if I vote for Shemp and everyone else votes for Curly,
> thereby electing him, how have other people not made my choice for me?
It's not about candidates. It's about a candidate that lets _you_
choose how to live your life. Right now, most people seem to be ready
and willing to pick candidates that are out to choose your life for you.
The size of government and freedom are mutually exclusive. The more
agencies, the more they will choose for you. It's a dead simple logic
that some people can't seem to understand, and make it complex.
> Or if senators are lobbied by big corporations to raise my taxes and
> lower theirs, in what way have I chosen to raise my own taxes?
By that very statement you have told me that you ignore the fact that
_all_ major Democratic and Republican candidate I have seen are about
"big business" and "special interest." You should read the NAFTA
agreement that Clinton and Gore drew up -- damn that one was golden.
It's _not_ free trade, that was just the title.
And that's just one example.
This happens over and over and over again. "Big corporations," "big
business," etc... The only major difference I see between Democrats and
Republicans is that the Republicans do it for _all_ companeis, whereas
Democrats do it for select "partners." In any case, far too many people
are "above the law" -- starting with politicians first and foremost.
> Be sure to ask them about Bush's Vietnam record too.
Bush isn't out touting his the same way. I don't like Bush, so don't
even think I'm bashing Kerry because I like Bush. I bash Kerry because
of what other Vietnam Vets are saying. And I am _not_ voting Bush.
With Bush, you know he had a "fun time" in the guard. He doesn't deny
it. With Kerry, people made sure they were _not_ around him if they
could help it. Because he was blowing shit up, trying to get himself
injured. And the 3 purple heart rule is total BS.
> This is just arrogant - other people aren't intelligent enough to ask
> cops and vets about relevant issues?
Most don't. That's the problem. Outlawing guns sounds ludicrious to
most cops I've spoken to.
> So socialism precludes any level of thinking?
Typically. First off, various socialist organizations around the world
have some interesting funding going on right now. I consider it
undermining our national security, _regardless_ of who you agree with.
People need to look deep and realize _who_ is behind some of the
movements they are involved with. The key is they need to be _by_
Americans _for_ Americans.
Socialism in itself requires people to give up their rights and
freedoms. Right now many people want a "safety net." Unfortunately,
that only means more agencies, which means more government employees.
Government agencies by their very nature are breeding grounds of
perpetual inefficiency, as there is no capitalistic balance.
On the other side, privatization doesn't work either. Republicans talk
about privitization, but that just means you replace the government
agnecy with a facist economic model where you give guaranteed funds to a
commercial entity. It's very efficient for the first 20 years or so,
but then it becomes just as bad.
The workaround is not to take the money in the first place. That is
_true_ privitization.
Our healthcare system is a failure of the facist model built upon
employer-based extortion for many. In the movie John Q, the problem was
_not_ the "big hospital," but the fact that his employer was allowed to
_change_ his coverage without his involvement. That was the problem.
Employer-based extortion. I know so many people who won't leave their
jobs because of the health coverage issue.
Our government needs to stop penalizing those of us who purchase our own
healthcare 100% and post-tax. I pay less for my 100% post-tax PPO that
_is_ a "group plan" (I can _not_ be dropped from) than most
people+employer pay for their HMO, with the pre-tax benefit, even those
that are not really "group plans." And I get far better coverage
overall. Not because I'm "rich," but because I _refuse_ to deal with
the clear issue of exortion and control of my healthcare.
Doing away with the penalties would remove issues such as pre-existing
conditions, CORBA and other so-called "workarounds" that only exist
_because_ of the employer-extortion setup. In fact, I would outlaw
anyone from being able to get healthcare from their employer. You need
to breed competition, not penalize it. Non-profit coverage groups would
bloom literally overnight. Until then, you have the _rare_ professional
associations that offer it -- only for select professions.
Instead, people believe the pancea is socializing medicine. Because
only the rich can afford healthcare. No, take away the facist
regulation and employer-extortion setup, and you'll see many more
non-profit groups offering extremely affordable healthcare like mine
does.
> One might define a community as a group of individuals that share an
> important characteristic, such as a group of basic rights.
That's because _individuals_ choose to be part of a community. That's
very, very different. Communities _only_ work when people _choose_ to
join them. And the people are given those rights _individually_.
When communities are forced upon people, then they fail utterly. That's
why small, volunteer communities work very well. The Linux community is
a great collection. But if you see government mandates and forced use
of Linux, you'll quickly see what I'm taking about.
Labor unions are a great study of this. They were a united front
against massive human abuses by corporations. It was the community at
its finest, a balance in a capitalist society.
Unfortunately, once labor unions started getting "community rights" in
the government, the balance was broken. It was no longer about serving
the individual rights, but a system of control.
Regulation often fails. We all know Microsoft has broken contract law,
ethics and endless other issues. But the DOJ v. Microsoft lawsuit
wasn't about the little guy. It was about a senator from Utah who was
serving the wishes of a competitor, along with others, and it turned
into a ruling that only benefited competitors -- not the community.
The community of _individuals_ is what is golden. The GPL itself is the
foremost representative of individual rights and choice -- fully aligned
with and for individual copyright. There is _nothing_ stopping a
copyright holder from dual-licensing their GPL software as non-GPL. And
there is no such thing as a "GPL violation" -- because if someone does
not follow the terms of a GPL package, and have not negotiated another
license, then they are using someone's copyright without a license.
Communities only work when they are about and based 100% on individual
rights.
-- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@ieee.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Communities don't have rights. Only individuals in the community have rights. ... That idea of community rights is firmly rooted in the 'Communist Manifesto.'" -- Michael Badnarik
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:55:42 EDT