Hey hey now! We Libertarians may be weird, but not that kind of weird. I'm pretty sure Mike Masnick identifies as libertarian- or at least libertarian leaning.
Those nutjobs don't represent anything remotely Rand-ian...
I understand what you are aiming at, but you have a misplaced trust and faith in government. The government is made up of people and therefore cannot be apolitical, bias cannot be eliminated. Can you imagine how many political "friends" would be positioned to get elected?
And corporations are going to advocate for the candidate that best represents their interest. Businesses aren't just limited to campaign contributions, they can advocate based on issues in uncoordinated efforts.
How about we break down the duopoly power, get rid of all the laws that favor the status-quo two party system. Try out alternative voting systems like ranked choice to encourage more parties. Change legislative rules so that representatives can collaborate on issues rather than party lines.
We all tend to agree that the government is corrupt and does a shitty job with every task they take on (Think IRS, DMV, TSA...) It doesn't make sense to give them something else to screw up. Hell, we should all be happy if at least 1/2 the states take election security seriously and sure up their systems.
This is another one of the dumbest arguments against generally open borders, saying those of us that favor it must allow immigrants to live in our houses. Immigrants crossing US borders are not forcing themselves into private homes. Public land and infrastructure are public- you don't own it anymore than I do. And once someone pays for gas or transportation- they are contributing to the tax fund used to build and maintain roads, and have the same rights to use as everyone else. In fact, every cent they spend in the US contributes to taxes in some manner. Unless someone is a known committer of violence or fraud, I see no reason to block their entry. Citizenship- voting rights- should continue to require significantly more. But to coming here to build a better life- whether running from violence or lack of opportunity to avoid starvation- should be simple and not drive people to avoid a lawful process.
What resources are being overloaded- aside from bureaucratic mess that is our immigration system?
Our nation now has more jobs than available workers.
We have an aging population without a sufficient replacement workforce to support their social security, or work in nursing homes or assist independent living.
The construction industry needs affordable labor to build affordable housing- especially with the tariffs driving up supply costs.
Schools- or rather the district bureaucrats- need to be forced to show accountability for how the ridiculous amount of money they get is being spent- because it's improving education. Immigrants would also provide additional tax base necessary to fund the pension and healthcare bills of retiring workers.
Immigrants are mostly younger, more healthy, and use less healthcare than US citizens. More healthy people spreads the risk and lowers health insurance prices. And again, we need more people to fill the low skill/low pay positions that support direct care like CNAs.
I agree that cameras should always be running, but we should have technology to log the activities to match recording. For instance, an app on the officer's phone or computer, the officer could select a restroom mode, which would kick the camera back on automatically if the officer "forgets" after 5 minutes or so (and could be extended for another 5 minutes if it is a number 2) Whenever an officer is interviewing victims, witnesses, suspects- any member of the public- the officer would use this same app to note the person they are speaking with, and indicate "sensitive" status if necessary. I'm not a UI designer- but I think everyone gets the general idea. But no doubt cops and their unions are interested in such a logical "solution"....
I'm not a hard line 'all regulation is bad' kind of libertarian. But the only sort of regulation that I can think of that promotes competition is prohibiting price fixing- but I would assume you can list a few others to support you point.
Markets don't need government to step in and set the rules so that businesses will serve the public- the public are customers and the customer is always right, right? Businesses must satisfy the customer and their evolving demands better than the competition or go out of business. Unhappy consumers will seek out new solutions and providers.
I'm not even talking regulatory capture- there are innocuous reasons that result in regulation which ultimately serve to limit how business is done, who can do business and putting up financial barriers to participate. Look into "occupational licensing", the Institute for Justice. Consider the emerging cannabis industry, every government is issuing a limited number of licenses to do business in their state; even though they have no idea how many businesses will satisfy the market demand- could be more, could be less, could be a huge difference either way depending on the quality and innovation (or lack of) of those businesses lucky enough or connected enough to get a license. And if doing business is dependent on having a license, and not meeting genuine market demand, what incentive is there to serve consumer over the government?
And as far as devolving into monopolies, can you name any monopolies that didn't get that way with the help of the government? (Companies like Google and Facebook are not monopolies- they have competitors and alternatives and are subject to crashing with an innovative disruption)
No offense but you are am example of the electorate's limited understanding of economics. And I really do not mean to insult you. I live in the same world with shady businesses doing bad things and handing out golden parachutes to CEOs. It seems like common sense that the people should use the power of government to stop these greedy bastards from taking advantage of people. Unfortunately, the government is the tool businesses use to cement their position and slap down competitors.
Elected officials have more to gain by garnering favor of a businesses than they do by ensuring a level playing field for all. Politicians do this by setting regulations recommended by the incumbent business, making it more expensive to enter and participate in the market, limiting whom and how many businesses are allowed to participate.
This is restriction on freedom, not a promotion of freedom.
Regulations are the precise reason there is little to no competition in the cable industry- each state has a licensing scheme that only allows one or two cable providers per region instead of letting any provider that could get customers and was willing to invest the costs be allowed lay cable line.
Larger forms of infrastructure, like electricity and water lines, sewers, roads and bridges require significant investment up front and are logistically nearly impossible to have competing structures. These sorts of things are natural monopolies and need regulation. Telecoms and cable might have blossomed on their own, but they were never given the chance; they are cost prohibitive markets to enter even without government interference and need NN rules.
Inability to follow "Simple instructions"? Or inability to tolerate any further oppression by the state? Or unwilling to compromise her personal integrity to protect corrupt authoritarians? Sure, there are a bunch of shitty companies that don't want troublemaker capable of independent thought as an employee. But there are plenty of careers in which her strength and bravery bring exponential value to her intelligence. Like journalism and civil rights law. As much as I hate to make the reference to nazis, it sounds like you think those guys were just following orders...
I'm a libertarian- your dem bashing doesn't apply to me. FCC enforced net neutrality is the most sensible and reasonable solution to the problem as it currently exists.
You are a troll. You think that because your party- or guy- is in power that you can pitch ignorant arguments and automatically win. Why should anyone listen to your argument that government regulations are not always or even often beneficial to the public when you insinuate they are stupid losers?
Your comments about monopolies are incoherent. You mention private enterprise building roads, but then say private business should never own a public good. You say natural monopolies should never exist, indicating you have no idea what "natural" means. You are against any kind of monopoly, saying they should't be allowed, as though you think the government that you were just ripping into others for using, must step in to prevent (and even though a monopoly cannot exist without the government's support)
Regardless of this nonsense, the simple fact is that we cannot go back in time and prevent the the telecom industry from becoming what it is. We can't go back and change the federal law that allowed the cable companies to become entrenched in local governments. Net neutrality fixes the problem as it is currently manifested. The FCC should continue in it's role and enforce NN until the next innovative disruption. As much as I would prefer an accountable legislator making these rules, I think they have demonstrated that they don't understand even the most basic concepts of technology, thinking series of tubes, a neighborhood bridge, "Obamacare for the Internet" and the recent hearing with Facebook CEO.
"trained over the 50 years that regulation always hurts the free market..." This is a an accurate principle of basic economics and business. No one is "trained" to believe this; the average voter has a limited, at best, understanding of basic economics. The electorate is actually hostile towards free markets (as well as private freedoms. Everybody wants rules, necessary or not; Ds and Rs just have different rule making priorities) Where the electorate is being fooled is the declaration that internet service is even a remotely a free market industry. It's not, hasn't been since the days of Prodigy and AOL. And back then, who was lobbying for regulations of this new industry? The incumbent phone service providers AT&T and Verizon, who ultimately took over as the service provider to the consumer. Corporations don't lobby for free markets, that would require them to compete with each other based on their actual merits.
Re: When I was in Australia, I paid their tax. With American bills!
Libertarian does not need scare or sarcasm quotation marks, though we won't feel any less legitimate in our beliefs if you must refer to us in this manner. And 'freetards'? What kind of person thinks a strong belief in freedom equates stupidity? Didn't you read the post about the police blowing into breathalyzers and getting paid a taxpayer funded salary? And that kind of waste isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to millions (or was it billions) that the Pentagon can't account for (yes I know I'm including government waste from two different countries, I'm just more familiar with the US fraud) What percentage of tax dollars do you think the government spends appropriately and wisely? Do you really think the government will spend the money from taxing Amazon (or in any crazy tariff protectionist scheme that are becoming so popular) will be used in any manner that benefits the average citizen, or even the needy?
Certainly there are filthy rich shareholders who wouldn't feel much pain if more money made it downstream in the company, and the fact that they are filthy rich brings out some jealousy that makes me feel they are undeserving. BUT, if it wasn't for the shareholders taking the risk to invest their money, the business wouldn't have reached success or even necessarily exist. And many, many shareholders are not the mega rich, they are the average person with a 401K or other modest investment account; no reason to hate on them for trying to grow their savings for retirement. The disgusting rich shareholders are better insulated from risk and invest in start-ups and finance the next big advancement. And as much as we like to paint them as greedy Scrooges, these people pour tons of money into charitable and philanthropic causes.
And if you really want to go after the filthy undeserving rich, this is the wrong kind of tax. This kind of tax will be paid for by the consumers, one way or another. You want a tax on investment/ non-wage income. We freetards understand economics better than the Sheriff of Nottingham it seems....
Refu gees go through a long and complicated process before they can come here. They await approval in places that are in active war, or destroyed by a natural disaster, or while running from a government or group that intends to kill them. Asylum seekers, like the journalist in this article, are the people who show up at the border under similar conditions as refugees. And you think the DMV is a pain in the ass bureaucratic nightmare... Imagine the DMV and IRS were brother and sister and they had a baby, that would be court system for asylum seekers. It doesn't matter if you have a legitimate cause for asylum and follow all of the instructions to the letter, you are at the mercy of this system. The journalist like hundreds of thousands of others, never got a court notice and was summarily ordered to leave. If you were in his shoes, would you chance getting arrested and deported to ask the broken system to give you the day in court that you should have gotten in the first place? It's really NOT THAT SIMPLE.
You're right, those two sentences are contradictory, but I think you understand what I'm getting at. In general, people are good, whether it's due to biological drive that is behind our species' social nature and ultimately a force for survival, or is due to how we are raised and the society we live in. And I would argue the affirmative that a police state and police that violate rights are causes of violence. I agree that access to comprehensive healthcare is part of the solution, but I think we need far less of education "systems", and instead educational opportunities that are not controlled by the state. Systems are one size fits all and humans have complex and varied needs. Perhaps if parents and children mapped out their own educational plans, we would see a reduction in bullying, depression, suicide, along with fewer teens unprepared for life beyond school. And there would be less of a need to develop emotional release activities if we repeal victimless laws that tear families apart, along with zoning and occupational licensing laws that only reinforce poverty and racial segregation. People who have economic opportunity are empowered to find happiness and meaning in their life along with the mobility that keeps them from feeling like a caged animal. These libertarian ideals all require that we learn to trust our fellow citizens, and relinquish much of the control we have given the government over us (for a false sense of security). I do however, temper my libertarian beliefs with an understanding that changes must be incremental and respect the present circumstances- as in I favor net neutrality because even if every single crony law was removed, the cronies already dominate the market and it would take significant investment and time for new players to have a chance to impact the market)
The idea that there might be more violent crime if it weren't for the near police state we live in might be obvious or commonly believed, but it's a flawed and mistaken belief. People don't choose not to rape and murder and assault others because they could get caught and go to prison; they don't commit violence because they are innately good people, with no desire to hurt others. Police presence deters things like speeding, dealing drugs/ contraband, or wearing a hoodie or sagging pants, things that ordinary, non-violent people do. Someone who wishes to harm others either doesn't care (hasn't considered) the repercussions, like going to prison, or thinks they can get away with the crime without getting caught. Killers gonna kill, the police only give them second thought about the how and when to kill, not whether or not to kill. Supporting liberty should be the easy choice, but we have to stop falling for the police scare tactics.
I agree that the court made the wrong decision for the reasons in the article. But, if a troll claiming to be a "constituent" chooses to harass a government official, with false or crazy accusations. Or inundates the feed with nonsense and spam like content, is there a way to moderate such a problem person? I don't want the government to be able to suppress criticism, but there should be a reasonable way to deal with people who want to disrupt actual engagement. Maybe Twitter should consider something like Techdirt, where problematic comments can be flagged and collapse out of general view, but not erased. Or experiment with different ideas, so long as people can allow for Twitter to make mistakes as part of the improvement process.
Re: If you do not help get rid of bad cops you are a bad cop....
I was thinking the same thing about requiring cops to carry individual liability insurance! Insurance companies wouldn't insure, or would charge a fortune to cover cops with any kind of training deficiency. Because how often do we hear how officers need de-escalation training, or how to deal with those with mental illness? And insurance companies would share information on officers in order to determine their premiums or if they are worth the risk to insure. Qualified immunity for cops would be over. I really do love the idea, but I think the reality is that police and other public sector unions have too much power and the local laws giving them that power need to change. And if the police unions got disbanded (which they should, because the origination of police was to crack down on workers and unionization efforts and the police never actually suffered any sort of abuses or ill treatment from their private or government employers) then it may not be necessary to mandate insurance because bad cops would get fired and be accountable for their actions.
Do you really trust any government, anywhere, to act in "good faith", and in good faith, execute a truly benevolent, apolitical, nuanced enforcement against "fake news", which said government possesses the unique omnipotence necessary to filter out only real fake news, leaving only fact or clearly identified (for the reader) sarcasm or humor and/or fiction? Personally, expecting any government to act in good faith, without any prejudice or ulterior motive whatsoever, is, in the kindest term I can think of, naive. Expecting government to be capable at such a task, when we still have "birthers" holding office, makes me think you need adult supervision when using scissors. Look, I don't think government always intends, or even causes harm with every regulation. But good intentions often come with unintended consequences, perfect example is SESTA/FOSTA. And while some legislators think they are protecting people, with laws for their "own good", they end up taking away choices that citizens are best able to make for themselves (if a payday loan will keep your car on the road so you don't lose your job, shouldn't you be the one the one making that choice?) And once a law is on the books, getting rid of it nearly impossible. There is mitigation to dangers of fake news, access to other information and news sources. The freedom to read a variety of sources and perspectives, to determine for one's self the facts. People do not need the government to tell them what is real and what is fake. You should read or re-read 1984 is you really don't understand how dangerous this is.
On the post: Before You Talk About How Easy Content Moderation Is, You Should Listen To This
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those nutjobs don't represent anything remotely Rand-ian...
On the post: NY Times, Winner Of A Key 1st Amendment Case, Suddenly Seems Upset That 1st Amendment Protects Conservatives Too
Re: Re: Corporate Rights...
I understand what you are aiming at, but you have a misplaced trust and faith in government. The government is made up of people and therefore cannot be apolitical, bias cannot be eliminated. Can you imagine how many political "friends" would be positioned to get elected?
And corporations are going to advocate for the candidate that best represents their interest. Businesses aren't just limited to campaign contributions, they can advocate based on issues in uncoordinated efforts.
How about we break down the duopoly power, get rid of all the laws that favor the status-quo two party system. Try out alternative voting systems like ranked choice to encourage more parties. Change legislative rules so that representatives can collaborate on issues rather than party lines.
We all tend to agree that the government is corrupt and does a shitty job with every task they take on (Think IRS, DMV, TSA...) It doesn't make sense to give them something else to screw up. Hell, we should all be happy if at least 1/2 the states take election security seriously and sure up their systems.
On the post: ICE Rigged Its Vetting Tool To Make Sure It Can Always Keep Immigrants Locked Up
Re: Re: Re:
Immigrants crossing US borders are not forcing themselves into private homes. Public land and infrastructure are public- you don't own it anymore than I do. And once someone pays for gas or transportation- they are contributing to the tax fund used to build and maintain roads, and have the same rights to use as everyone else. In fact, every cent they spend in the US contributes to taxes in some manner.
Unless someone is a known committer of violence or fraud, I see no reason to block their entry. Citizenship- voting rights- should continue to require significantly more. But to coming here to build a better life- whether running from violence or lack of opportunity to avoid starvation- should be simple and not drive people to avoid a lawful process.
On the post: ICE Rigged Its Vetting Tool To Make Sure It Can Always Keep Immigrants Locked Up
Re: Re: Re: Re:-
On the post: ICE Rigged Its Vetting Tool To Make Sure It Can Always Keep Immigrants Locked Up
Re: Re: Re:-
Our nation now has more jobs than available workers.
We have an aging population without a sufficient replacement workforce to support their social security, or work in nursing homes or assist independent living.
The construction industry needs affordable labor to build affordable housing- especially with the tariffs driving up supply costs.
Schools- or rather the district bureaucrats- need to be forced to show accountability for how the ridiculous amount of money they get is being spent- because it's improving education. Immigrants would also provide additional tax base necessary to fund the pension and healthcare bills of retiring workers.
Immigrants are mostly younger, more healthy, and use less healthcare than US citizens. More healthy people spreads the risk and lowers health insurance prices. And again, we need more people to fill the low skill/low pay positions that support direct care like CNAs.
On the post: Another Police Accountability Miracle: Five Officers, Zero Body Cam Footage, One Dead Body
Re: Re: Re: Re: No camera footage, no pay.
Whenever an officer is interviewing victims, witnesses, suspects- any member of the public- the officer would use this same app to note the person they are speaking with, and indicate "sensitive" status if necessary.
I'm not a UI designer- but I think everyone gets the general idea. But no doubt cops and their unions are interested in such a logical "solution"....
On the post: What Ajit Pai Should Have Said About Killing Net Neutrality... And Why It Still Would Have Been Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Markets don't need government to step in and set the rules so that businesses will serve the public- the public are customers and the customer is always right, right? Businesses must satisfy the customer and their evolving demands better than the competition or go out of business. Unhappy consumers will seek out new solutions and providers.
I'm not even talking regulatory capture- there are innocuous reasons that result in regulation which ultimately serve to limit how business is done, who can do business and putting up financial barriers to participate. Look into "occupational licensing", the Institute for Justice. Consider the emerging cannabis industry, every government is issuing a limited number of licenses to do business in their state; even though they have no idea how many businesses will satisfy the market demand- could be more, could be less, could be a huge difference either way depending on the quality and innovation (or lack of) of those businesses lucky enough or connected enough to get a license. And if doing business is dependent on having a license, and not meeting genuine market demand, what incentive is there to serve consumer over the government?
And as far as devolving into monopolies, can you name any monopolies that didn't get that way with the help of the government? (Companies like Google and Facebook are not monopolies- they have competitors and alternatives and are subject to crashing with an innovative disruption)
On the post: What Ajit Pai Should Have Said About Killing Net Neutrality... And Why It Still Would Have Been Wrong
Re: Re: Re:
Elected officials have more to gain by garnering favor of a businesses than they do by ensuring a level playing field for all. Politicians do this by setting regulations recommended by the incumbent business, making it more expensive to enter and participate in the market, limiting whom and how many businesses are allowed to participate.
This is restriction on freedom, not a promotion of freedom.
Regulations are the precise reason there is little to no competition in the cable industry- each state has a licensing scheme that only allows one or two cable providers per region instead of letting any provider that could get customers and was willing to invest the costs be allowed lay cable line.
Larger forms of infrastructure, like electricity and water lines, sewers, roads and bridges require significant investment up front and are logistically nearly impossible to have competing structures. These sorts of things are natural monopolies and need regulation. Telecoms and cable might have blossomed on their own, but they were never given the chance; they are cost prohibitive markets to enter even without government interference and need NN rules.
On the post: High School Student's Speech About Campus Sexual Assault Gets Widespread Attention After School Cuts Her Mic
Re: Re:
Sure, there are a bunch of shitty companies that don't want troublemaker capable of independent thought as an employee. But there are plenty of careers in which her strength and bravery bring exponential value to her intelligence. Like journalism and civil rights law.
As much as I hate to make the reference to nazis, it sounds like you think those guys were just following orders...
On the post: What Ajit Pai Should Have Said About Killing Net Neutrality... And Why It Still Would Have Been Wrong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are a troll. You think that because your party- or guy- is in power that you can pitch ignorant arguments and automatically win. Why should anyone listen to your argument that government regulations are not always or even often beneficial to the public when you insinuate they are stupid losers?
Your comments about monopolies are incoherent. You mention private enterprise building roads, but then say private business should never own a public good. You say natural monopolies should never exist, indicating you have no idea what "natural" means. You are against any kind of monopoly, saying they should't be allowed, as though you think the government that you were just ripping into others for using, must step in to prevent (and even though a monopoly cannot exist without the government's support)
Regardless of this nonsense, the simple fact is that we cannot go back in time and prevent the the telecom industry from becoming what it is. We can't go back and change the federal law that allowed the cable companies to become entrenched in local governments. Net neutrality fixes the problem as it is currently manifested. The FCC should continue in it's role and enforce NN until the next innovative disruption. As much as I would prefer an accountable legislator making these rules, I think they have demonstrated that they don't understand even the most basic concepts of technology, thinking series of tubes, a neighborhood bridge, "Obamacare for the Internet" and the recent hearing with Facebook CEO.
On the post: What Ajit Pai Should Have Said About Killing Net Neutrality... And Why It Still Would Have Been Wrong
Re:
This is a an accurate principle of basic economics and business. No one is "trained" to believe this; the average voter has a limited, at best, understanding of basic economics. The electorate is actually hostile towards free markets (as well as private freedoms. Everybody wants rules, necessary or not; Ds and Rs just have different rule making priorities)
Where the electorate is being fooled is the declaration that internet service is even a remotely a free market industry. It's not, hasn't been since the days of Prodigy and AOL. And back then, who was lobbying for regulations of this new industry? The incumbent phone service providers AT&T and Verizon, who ultimately took over as the service provider to the consumer.
Corporations don't lobby for free markets, that would require them to compete with each other based on their actual merits.
On the post: Amazon Disconnects From Australia After Government Hits It With 10% Tax On All Imported Items
Re: When I was in Australia, I paid their tax. With American bills!
Certainly there are filthy rich shareholders who wouldn't feel much pain if more money made it downstream in the company, and the fact that they are filthy rich brings out some jealousy that makes me feel they are undeserving. BUT, if it wasn't for the shareholders taking the risk to invest their money, the business wouldn't have reached success or even necessarily exist. And many, many shareholders are not the mega rich, they are the average person with a 401K or other modest investment account; no reason to hate on them for trying to grow their savings for retirement. The disgusting rich shareholders are better insulated from risk and invest in start-ups and finance the next big advancement. And as much as we like to paint them as greedy Scrooges, these people pour tons of money into charitable and philanthropic causes.
And if you really want to go after the filthy undeserving rich, this is the wrong kind of tax. This kind of tax will be paid for by the consumers, one way or another. You want a tax on investment/ non-wage income. We freetards understand economics better than the Sheriff of Nottingham it seems....
On the post: Congresswoman Says School Shootings Are Caused By Porn, Mental Illness, Single Parents... But Mostly Porn
Re: Re:
On the post: ICE Trying To Deport Journalist For Reporting On Abusive ICE Behavior
Re: Let me Understand...
Clearly you didn't bother to read any of the "nonsense" in the article.
Your just another badgelicker, intent on twisting the story to justify bad officer behavior
On the post: ICE Trying To Deport Journalist For Reporting On Abusive ICE Behavior
Re: Re:
Refu gees go through a long and complicated process before they can come here. They await approval in places that are in active war, or destroyed by a natural disaster, or while running from a government or group that intends to kill them.
Asylum seekers, like the journalist in this article, are the people who show up at the border under similar conditions as refugees. And you think the DMV is a pain in the ass bureaucratic nightmare... Imagine the DMV and IRS were brother and sister and they had a baby, that would be court system for asylum seekers. It doesn't matter if you have a legitimate cause for asylum and follow all of the instructions to the letter, you are at the mercy of this system. The journalist like hundreds of thousands of others, never got a court notice and was summarily ordered to leave. If you were in his shoes, would you chance getting arrested and deported to ask the broken system to give you the day in court that you should have gotten in the first place?
It's really NOT THAT SIMPLE.
On the post: The Attorney General Thinks Police Having To Follow The Constitution Leads To Violent Crime Increases
Re: Re: Re: You can't handle the truth.
And I would argue the affirmative that a police state and police that violate rights are causes of violence. I agree that access to comprehensive healthcare is part of the solution, but I think we need far less of education "systems", and instead educational opportunities that are not controlled by the state. Systems are one size fits all and humans have complex and varied needs. Perhaps if parents and children mapped out their own educational plans, we would see a reduction in bullying, depression, suicide, along with fewer teens unprepared for life beyond school. And there would be less of a need to develop emotional release activities if we repeal victimless laws that tear families apart, along with zoning and occupational licensing laws that only reinforce poverty and racial segregation. People who have economic opportunity are empowered to find happiness and meaning in their life along with the mobility that keeps them from feeling like a caged animal.
These libertarian ideals all require that we learn to trust our fellow citizens, and relinquish much of the control we have given the government over us (for a false sense of security). I do however, temper my libertarian beliefs with an understanding that changes must be incremental and respect the present circumstances- as in I favor net neutrality because even if every single crony law was removed, the cronies already dominate the market and it would take significant investment and time for new players to have a chance to impact the market)
On the post: The Attorney General Thinks Police Having To Follow The Constitution Leads To Violent Crime Increases
Re: You can't handle the truth.
Someone who wishes to harm others either doesn't care (hasn't considered) the repercussions, like going to prison, or thinks they can get away with the crime without getting caught. Killers gonna kill, the police only give them second thought about the how and when to kill, not whether or not to kill.
Supporting liberty should be the easy choice, but we have to stop falling for the police scare tactics.
On the post: Court Says Kentucky Governor Free To Block Critics Using Official Social Media Accounts
Is there a way to balance?
But, if a troll claiming to be a "constituent" chooses to harass a government official, with false or crazy accusations. Or inundates the feed with nonsense and spam like content, is there a way to moderate such a problem person? I don't want the government to be able to suppress criticism, but there should be a reasonable way to deal with people who want to disrupt actual engagement. Maybe Twitter should consider something like Techdirt, where problematic comments can be flagged and collapse out of general view, but not erased. Or experiment with different ideas, so long as people can allow for Twitter to make mistakes as part of the improvement process.
On the post: Recordings Capture Cops Discussing Department's Most Rotten Apple
Re: If you do not help get rid of bad cops you are a bad cop....
I really do love the idea, but I think the reality is that police and other public sector unions have too much power and the local laws giving them that power need to change. And if the police unions got disbanded (which they should, because the origination of police was to crack down on workers and unionization efforts and the police never actually suffered any sort of abuses or ill treatment from their private or government employers) then it may not be necessary to mandate insurance because bad cops would get fired and be accountable for their actions.
On the post: More Governments Granting Themselves Extra Censorship Powers With 'Fake News' Laws
Re: Re: Re:
Personally, expecting any government to act in good faith, without any prejudice or ulterior motive whatsoever, is, in the kindest term I can think of, naive. Expecting government to be capable at such a task, when we still have "birthers" holding office, makes me think you need adult supervision when using scissors.
Look, I don't think government always intends, or even causes harm with every regulation. But good intentions often come with unintended consequences, perfect example is SESTA/FOSTA. And while some legislators think they are protecting people, with laws for their "own good", they end up taking away choices that citizens are best able to make for themselves (if a payday loan will keep your car on the road so you don't lose your job, shouldn't you be the one the one making that choice?) And once a law is on the books, getting rid of it nearly impossible.
There is mitigation to dangers of fake news, access to other information and news sources. The freedom to read a variety of sources and perspectives, to determine for one's self the facts. People do not need the government to tell them what is real and what is fake. You should read or re-read 1984 is you really don't understand how dangerous this is.
Next >>